Science relies on computer modelling – so what happens when it goes wrong?

April 1, 2016 by Jeremy Gibbons, The Conversation
Modelling three bodies interacting with each other is harder than it may seem. Credit: Kevin Gill/Flickr, CC BY-SA

From the transforming discovery of penicillin to the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, science progressed with mind-boggling speed even before there were computers. Much of this is down to the robustness of the scientific method: scientific results are validated by being replicated and extended by other scientists.

But the way we do is changing – we now rely increasingly on complex computer models to understand nature. And it turns out that these models can be nearly impossible to reproduce – meaning an important touchstone of science is being challenged. So what are the real-world repercussions of this change and what can we do about it?

Pre- – known as "natural philosophy" – was empirical. Empirical science uses past observations to make predictions about the future, which may then be tested. Tycho Brahe, a 16th-century Danish astronomer, managed to make accurate and comprehensive observations of the heavens in this way.

Modern science, however, is theoretical. Theoretical science also makes predictions, but it derives them from mathematical models rather than from prior observations. Think of Isaac Newton's laws of motion, such as the inverse square law of gravitation.

For example, there is an equation describing the orbit of the Earth around the sun. This equation can be used to build a computer model into which you can just plug certain variables and see how the solution changes. You could just plug in a future date and read off the position of the Earth at that date. You could also use the same program to model other planetary systems – it's all based on the same mathematics. All you have to do is plug in different masses and various other properties of the bodies involved.

Drawing of Tycho Brahe’s observatory in Denmark. Credit: Willem Blaeu/wikimedia

Such mathematical equations are great when they are available – but often they are not. For example, we know that there is no simple equation that solves the so-called "three-body problem", which describes three bodies orbiting around and influencing each other by gravitational forces – like the moon, Earth and sun.

Much of current science deals with even more complicated systems, and similarly lacks exact solutions. Such models have to be "computational" – describing how a system changes from one instant to the next. But there is no way to determine the exact state at some time in the future other than by "simulating" its evolution in this way. Weather forecasting is a familiar example; until the advent of computers in the 1950s, it was impossible to predict future weather faster than it actually happened.

Current science typically consists of devising a mathematical model that describes a complicated system, then turning this into a computational simulation, and running the simulation to make predictions in order to validate the model.

When modelling fails

Modelling is used across scientific fields – ranging from astrophysics and climate prediction to bioinformatics and economics. But there is increasing debate about the fact that this science is difficult to validate through reproduction.

The Mars Climate Orbiter got lost in space and ended up disintegrating in Mars' atmosphere. Credit: NASA

It turns out that simply describing experimental methods in words is not enough. That's partly because natural languages such as English are simply too vague for describing computations precisely. There is, after all, a reason why programmers use programming languages. One of the biggest challenges in software development is in converting vague requirements into precise specifications of behaviour.

Humans – even scientists – are after all fallible. Transforming any information into a program almost invariably introduces bugs along the way. For example, many scientists depend on data exploration tools such as spreadsheets, which are designed for ease of use and not for robustness. It is very easy simply to sum up the wrong range of cells in a spreadsheet, without getting any warnings. This was one of the methodological flaws in a paper that the US Republican Party used to base their pro-austerity policies on.

Similarly a recent study on the 15,770 spreadsheets that were made public during the investigation into the US corporation Enron showed that 24% of the spreadsheets containing at least one formula had obvious bugs, such as adding up blank cells.

In the natural sciences, the Mars Climate Observer, a space probe launched in 1998 to study the climate on Mars, was lost a year later because one part of the control software mistakenly used imperial instead of metric units. Another study of nine independent implementations of the same geoscience experiment – using the same dataset, algorithms, and programming language – showed very little agreement in the results obtained.

What's more, even if the reader of a research paper can successfully interpret the writer's precise meaning, and then faultlessly translate it into a program, there are still pitfalls in executing it. One particularly tricky class of problems arises from how computers handle numbers: although they can manipulate integers such as 42 and -17 with perfect accuracy, standard techniques for manipulating real numbers such π≈3.14 and √2≈1.414 permit only approximate accuracy. These approximations mean that apparently equivalent ways of computing the same value can yield different results.

So, what can be done? If even expert software developers cannot reliably produce correct software, what hope is there for amateur programmers like scientists?

One line of work is to produce tools for designing "domain-specific" programming languages, each tailored to a particular class of problem, such as the behaviour of agents in economic markets or the diffusion of drugs across cells. These aim to make it much easier for specialists to describe computations directly in familiar terms, rather than having to encode them indirectly in a general-purpose programming language.

A second approach seeks to design more expressive but still user friendly "type systems" for programs. These would make it easier to catch "silly" errors, such as blank cells in spreadsheets, or mixing up values in different units. It cannot rule out all logic errors though. A third line is to develop usable libraries of code for exact arithmetic, avoiding the problems of approximation.

There is every chance these approaches can help fix the problem going forward, or at least eliminate some of the risk. After all, the world needs science and scientists need computers – that's not likely to change anytime soon.

Explore further: Scientists prove reliability of quantum simulations for materials design

Related Stories

Biophysicists take small step in quest for 'robot scientist'

August 25, 2015

Biophysicists have taken another small step forward in the quest for an automated method to infer models describing a system's dynamics - a so-called robot scientist. Nature Communications published the finding - a practical ...

Powerful new software plug-in detects bugs in spreadsheets

October 24, 2014

An effective new data-debugging software tool dubbed "CheckCell" was released to the public this week in a presentation by University of Massachusetts Amherst computer science doctoral student Daniel Barowy. He spoke at the ...

A mathematical advance in describing waves

February 24, 2016

One of the great joys in mathematics is the ability to use it to describe phenomena seen in the physical world, says University at Buffalo mathematician Gino Biondini.

Recommended for you

After a reset, Сuriosity is operating normally

February 23, 2019

NASA's Curiosity rover is busy making new discoveries on Mars. The rover has been climbing Mount Sharp since 2014 and recently reached a clay region that may offer new clues about the ancient Martian environment's potential ...

Study: With Twitter, race of the messenger matters

February 23, 2019

When NFL player Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice, the ensuing debate took traditional and social media by storm. University of Kansas researchers have ...

Researchers engineer a tougher fiber

February 22, 2019

North Carolina State University researchers have developed a fiber that combines the elasticity of rubber with the strength of a metal, resulting in a tougher material that could be incorporated into soft robotics, packaging ...

329 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (18) Apr 01, 2016
Modern science, however, is theoretical. Theoretical science also makes predictions, but it derives them from mathematical models rather than from prior observations.

Huh? What does the author think these matehmatical models are based on? Guess what: They are based on prior observations.

Computer modeling has no more or no less danger of getting it wrong then just modelling stuff in your head or on paper. The advantages are that the model can be more complex (i.e. no longer feasibly done in teh mind or on paper) and hence it is sometimes harder to figure out where it went wrong. But that's a quantitative problem not a qualitative (i.e. NOT a problem of empirical vs. 'theoretical' sciences)

(As a side note: yes you can plug in a date to teh orbit formula - but you will get a wrong answer for that, too...because nature does not have nicely isolated systems. So no advantage there)

Then the author lists a number of issues NONE of which were simulation issues. What gives?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 01, 2016
Computer modeling has no more or no less danger of getting it wrong then just modelling stuff in your head or on paper


Sure, like Zwicky when coming up with his zany theories about Envelopes of Dark Matter surrounding Spiral Galaxies as a counter opposing gravitational force that keeps the radial arms of Spirals from crashing into the central hub of such galaxies. Decades later the researchers are remain reduced to concocting air brushed touchup pictorial models in hopes to convince a gullible public that 80% of the mass of the Universe is "missing".

What is missing in so many "models" is common sense. Most people would not look in a mirror & imagine what they see has a "missing" component that is greataer than 5 times what they actually see.

physman
4.6 / 5 (14) Apr 01, 2016
@Benni that would be because 80% of Human Beings' matter is not missing, 80% of matter in the Universe is... On a LOCAL scale effects from Dark Matter are negligible: it is most certainly present but far too dilute to affect something as massive as the Sun for example. However, on a GALACTIC scale, this dilute effect adds up by summing across the whole galaxy: this produces the OBSERVED movement of galaxies that you mention. Think big Benni.
Eikka
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2016

Huh? What does the author think these matehmatical models are based on? Guess what: They are based on prior observations.


Not necessarily. There's nothing in science that says you have to base your theory on empiricism.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 01, 2016
There's nothing in science that says you have to base your theory on empiricism.

Science is the search for knowledge. Acquisition of knowledge can only come from gathering information. You cannot create information out of thin air.

For example: math does not create information but merely tools for the manipulation of information. So by the word definition of science mathematics actually isn't a science. If one redefines science as a search for *insight* then math is a science, because it can make relationships clear that weren't before.

But back to the point: the algorithms underlying computer models (especially the finite element/difference modles alluded to in the article) are certainly based on observations.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2016
@Benni that would be because 80% of Human Beings' matter is not missing, 80% of matter in the Universe is... On a LOCAL scale effects from Dark Matter are negligible: it is most certainly present but far too dilute to affect something as massive as the Sun for example. However, on a GALACTIC scale, this dilute effect adds up by summing across the whole galaxy: this produces the OBSERVED movement of galaxies that you mention. Think big Benni.

Any other branch of science ( or society for that matter) would view the necessity of inventing 80% more magical fairy dust to explain away discrepancies as an abject failure. Astrophysics resort to this M.O. on a regular basis, it's what they rely heavily upon.
physman
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2016
@cantdrive85 Well that's just how science works: it's a constant work in progress.

This strongly reminds me of when Pauli first hypothesised the neutrino in 1930. We knew that conservation of energy and momentum seemed to hold true everywhere, but there was an apparent violation in the process of beta decay. Did we throw out the theory? No, we suggested alternative explanations! We postulated the existence of another particle, the neutrino, as the culprit for the missing momentum and energy. Others claimed that energy/momentum were not conserved. Both theories were equally viable given the evidence. So the scientific community designed experiments based on these hypotheses and we discovered the neutrino 26 years later!

One way or another the same will happen here, either dark matter will be found or another theory with testable predictions will be shown more accurate. Time will tell.
lshakhmundes
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2016
I expected to see clarifications for the readers who were curious enough to read through this article. I think, you dear Jeremy Gibbons, need some clarifications.

"we now rely increasingly on complex computer models to understand nature. And it turns out that these models can be nearly impossible to reproduce"

Unless a model is proprietary, or secret for any other reason, to reproduce it requires only to have the model's equations.

"Pre-modern science – known as "natural philosophy" – was empirical. Empirical science uses past observations to make predictions about the future, which may then be tested."

"Modern science, however, is theoretical. Theoretical science also makes predictions, but it derives them from mathematical models rather than from prior observations."

Modern science is both, theoretical (in constructing models) and empirical (in evaluating model's parameters with the use of actual data).
lshakhmundes
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 01, 2016
"Such mathematical equations are great when they are available – but often they are not. For example, we know that there is no simple equation that solves the so-called "three-body problem", which describes three bodies orbiting around and influencing each other by gravitational forces – like the moon, Earth and sun."

Indeed, the planetary equations are not simple. They, however, allow amazingly accurate calculations of trajectories. Without these, all the modern space programs would be impossible. How come such an accuracy is possible? Because the celestial bodies in our travels' vicinity obey strictly the laws of the Newton mechanics.
lshakhmundes
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 01, 2016
"Modelling is used across scientific fields – ranging from astrophysics and climate prediction to bioinformatics and economics. But there is increasing debate about the fact that this science is difficult to validate through reproduction."

Some dynamic processes, such as studied by economics and meteorology, are bloody complex. When it turns out that a model produces unsatisfactory results, you continue the study and make improvements to the model. If the results continue to be questionable, the decision makers using the model have got to learn to live with this. If one recognises these difficulties, he or she will understand the predicament, for instance, of the Federal Reserve in making its interest rate decisions.

Regards,
Lev Shakhmundes abetterorganization.net
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2016
This PO article is below any standard of publication on a science website.

What makes it even more disappointing is that it's written by the -- Professor of Computing, University of Oxford http://theconvers...s-244175
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 01, 2016
@lshakhmundes
Unless a model is proprietary, or secret for any other reason, to reproduce it requires only to have the model's equations.
And more and more commonly, the source code for the models is made available too. For example, you can look up the source code for the most well-known oceanic and atmospheric models on NASA's and HADCRUT's web sites.

"Pre-modern science – known as "natural philosophy" – was empirical. Empirical science uses past observations to make predictions about the future, which may then be tested."

"Modern science, however, is theoretical. Theoretical science also makes predictions, but it derives them from mathematical models rather than from prior observations."

Modern science is both, theoretical (in constructing models) and empirical (in evaluating model's parameters with the use of actual data).
Correct. And the outputs of the programs are empirically checked, as well- we put in what we think and check if we get out what we see.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) Apr 01, 2016
Indeed, the planetary equations are not simple. They, however, allow amazingly accurate calculations of trajectories. Without these, all the modern space programs would be impossible. How come such an accuracy is possible? Because the celestial bodies in our travels' vicinity obey strictly the laws of the Newton mechanics.
Well, actually they obey GRT, but your point remains valid. It's important to realize that there are no exact solutions to the many-body problem, but the numerical solutions (which are necessarily approximate) give results that are incredibly accurate, even over millions of years. That's how we know about the Milankovic Cycles, for example.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 01, 2016
Hi physman, Benni. :)

Be careful not to fall into the trap of simplistic self-contradicting 'explanations' from 'Dark Matter 'experts/authority' which are not as consistent as they seem.

CONSIDER: Proportionally, the 'cumulative' DM effect over the solar system planets SHOULD be observable IF claimed 'cumulative' DM Galaxy scale effects were true.

So, to be impartial/fair to Benni, his skepticism is based on claims for alleged 'exotic' Dark Matter affecting Gravitational profiles at greater scales.

I myself have long pointed out that previous Gravitational profile assumptions/expectations re Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curve observations are obviously flawed. Hence the 'need' for 'exotic' Dark Matter is misleading/unnecessary.

And the REST of the REAL Gravitational effects/behavior 'anomalies' is now increasingly explained by previously 'dark' additional 'ordinary' matter quantities being discovered by new telescopes.

Rotation Curve hypotheses need correcting. Cheers. :)
humy
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2016

Huh? What does the author think these matehmatical models are based on? Guess what: They are based on prior observations.


Not necessarily. There's nothing in science that says you have to base your theory on empiricism.

That applies to the science of pure mathematics but the rest of science requires observation.
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016


What is missing in so many "models" is common sense. Most people would not look in a mirror & imagine what they see has a "missing" component that is greataer than 5 times what they actually see.


Benni

No, that is not what dark matter theory either says nor implies nor is that the 'logic' behind dark matter theory. You clearly have no understanding of the science. You are talking total nonsense.
Its premise isn't even about what matter is 'missing'.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2016

Benni

The premises of dark matter theory is not that there must be something 'missing' (as you implied ) but is nothing more than observation of how the galaxies move plus our current understanding of how gravity works.
Neither that observation or that understanding of how gravity works is based on or includes dark matter theory thus it is not based on circular argument.
The inference from those two premises is perfectly sound and the conclusion is that there exists a lot of matter there that we cannot see (dark matter by definition ) .
Thus dark matter theory, whether true or false, is a perfectly valid and reasonable scientific theory.
The only way dark matter theory could be wrong is either something is wrong with our observations of how the galaxies move so that they are not moving the way they appear to be or there is something wrong with our current understanding of how gravity works so it is more complex than the way we understand it. So which is it and exactly how so?
humy
5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
@humy
Your efforts are wasted. Several have gone before you,
but Benni is only here to annoy people.

Yes, but there may be some other readers here but who don't know much about science that might actually take what he says seriously as a result so I put the record straight to make sure they don't.
+ I find debunking nonsense with logic mildly amusing; a favorite pastime of mine.
humy
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2016
I have noticed that what the title of this article "Science relies on computer modelling ...." asserts is very inaccurate and far too simplistic; which sciences and bits of science? and how so?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2016
Science rely on 100% confirmed facts, obtained by direct observations and experiments.
Meta physics rely on shamanic guesing and computer models based to bold speculative wishfull thinking theories and divination.

What can understand people for the physcal world in which they are living without the help of the Creator? Fundamental knowedge for this physical world is kaput thanks to the secular politicaly correct mind set accepted under presure in the post scientific communities.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 02, 2016
Benni The premises of dark matter theory is not that there must be something 'missing' (as you implied but is nothing more than observation of how the galaxies move plus our current understanding of how gravity works.


The only way dark matter theory could be wrong is either something is wrong with our observations of how the galaxies move so that they are not moving the way they appear to be


What are you talking about: "how galaxies move"? Zwicky specified in all his dissertations this applied only to the Radial Arms of Spiral galaxies which constitute only 1/3 the mass of the Universe. Yet pop-sci neophyte Astrophysicists have managed to convolute their Missing Mass theory into making the gullible believe 80-95% of the Universe constitutes Missing Mass.

Never confuse OBSERVATION with actual MEASUREMENT. Zwicky OBSERVED from redshift data that the radial arms of Spirals move at 100-300 km/sec versus 2 km/s for outer orbital stars of Ellipticals.


jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (11) Apr 02, 2016
Of course, your model could be as good as you can make it; but if it doesn't match observation, then it is wrong. See Peratt's galaxy model, for instance.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
The purpose of digital simulations is the trial to be cheched virtualy highly speculative theories, that can not be checked by direct observations or experiments and are build on the sand base of bold wishfull hypothesis that have no confirmation in physical world and are accepted by consensus only in the name of emotional comfort of community.
The true science is 100 % confirmed facts. Otherwise is meta physics - the modern word of shamanism.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
If the mathematical aparatus of digitally cheked theories or some of their aspects is based on wrong inadequate to physical world concept, the result of such kind of numerical experimens is wrong and useless.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
See Peratt's galaxy model, for instance.

Let's do.
http://www.plasma...ormation
As you can see, that is a fairly accurate representation of spiral galaxies. And 80% more magic fairy dust is not required to be invented to explain observation. And if you actually read the article and supporting papers you will see the numerous other characteristics of the simulation which agrees with observation.
Now compare the accuracy of the above models to that of the standard model; https://en.wikipe...volution
In that article you will read;
"this theory is quite simple yet no longer widely accepted because observations."
"More recent theories include the clustering of dark matter halos"
Fairy dust!
"Astronomers do not know...In fact, theories of disk galaxy formation are not successful"
"The Lambda-CDM model of galaxy formation underestimates the number of thin disk galaxies"
Basically, complete failure. Yet the acolytes remain...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2016
Computer modeling makes jet aircraft. Specifically, computers are used to simulate the airflow over the wings and fuselage, and through the engines.

They seem to work pretty well.

Computer modeling makes electronics, like cell phones. Specifically, computers are used to simulate the operation of the electronic components and circuits and look for circumstances where they might overheat.

They also seem to work pretty well.

There are many products on the market that have been designed and modeled by computers, and they all seem to work pretty well.

Computer modeling *works*. It's just that simple. Whining about it won't change it.
eachus
2.4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2016
Da Schneib said: Correct. And the outputs of the programs are empirically checked, as well- we put in what we think and check if we get out what we see.

Forty years ago (and yes I am old enough to remember) there was a rule of thumb about simulations. It took three times as long to produce a robust model as a simple model. (A robust model is one that is instrumented, and where you have checked that small variations in inputs don't produce wild swings in output.) It takes three times that to validate the model, resulting in 12 times the effort to produce a robust validated model. Guess how many papers deal with models which may or may not be robust, and are certainly not validated.

Even worse, from a "publish or perish" perspective, those who do the grunt work of producing useful models may have their names, at best, buried in the source code. Oh, and the improvements in software development and in simulation tools, hasn't touched the validation process.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
...the outputs of the programs are empirically checked, as well- we put in what we think and check if we get out what we see.
Forty years ago (and yes I am old enough to remember) there was a rule of thumb about simulations. It took three times as long to produce a robust model as a simple model. (A robust model is one that is instrumented, and where you have checked that small variations in inputs don't produce wild swings in output.)
And forty years ago we didn't have simulation code libraries. You had to check these things because you were coding from scratch.

You might want to check this out: https://en.wikipe...ibraries

We're not coding from scratch any more. There's a lot of code out there you don't have to re-invent, the way you had to 40 years ago. And there's a lot more that's not in that article; those are only the ones mentioned on Wikipedia plus a few more that are well-known.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
[contd]
The state of the art has advanced a very great deal over the last forty years. This is unsurprising considering that the Cray-1 of that time ran at a processor clock speed of 86MHz. Today we run desktop processors at 3GHz; that's 35 times faster. Memory access on the Cray-1 required 50ns; today's memory timings are on the close order of 10ns, five times faster.

We've learned a lot in 40 years.

It takes three times that to validate the model, resulting in 12 times the effort to produce a robust validated model. Guess how many papers deal with models which may or may not be robust, and are certainly not validated.
This is a completely different usage of modelling. What we are talking about here is not modeling of (for example) airflow over aircraft wings; we're talking about using numerical simulations to see if we can reproduce observed processes. This is conceptually no different from the process Einstein went through in developing GRT.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
[contd]
The only difference is instead of doing it on paper, today we do it on computers. And we don't have to code up a routine for solving PDEs like we did 40 years ago; we choose a well-known library and use its functions. And we do it (if we're sane) in a programming environment that does automatic error-checking. As a result of these advances we don't even make simple models any more; all models are robust. To top it all off we now have software QA, which exercises the software on problems with known solutions to make sure that it gives accurate results.

Your objections based on the computer science of 40 years ago are invalidated by the relentless march of technology, which you appear to want to ignore for some reason.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
[contd]
Even worse, from a "publish or perish" perspective, those who do the grunt work of producing useful models may have their names, at best, buried in the source code.
I'd like to see some examples of that. I'll also point out that it is common practice to acknowledge this work in the, you know, acknowledgements section of the paper. Just sayin'.

Oh, and the improvements in software development and in simulation tools, hasn't touched the validation process.
Actually, it has. The number of problems with well-known solutions these days means that finding a suitable test problem, or even many such test problems, for performing QA on the code isn't generally very difficult for problems in well-researched areas of science. And QA methods that analyze the flow through the program and use that information to ensure that all pathways are tested didn't exist 40 years ago either.

It doesn't sound like you've had much to do with software engineering recently.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
Here is an old paper (circa 2005, a decade old) on the testing and validation done on the RAGE hydrocode, which is numerical simulation code for radiative transfer in a hydrodynamic environment, for use in asteroid impact modeling: https://ia800502....1821.pdf

Before a hydrocode is used to investigate a question of scientific interest, it should be tested against analogous laboratory experiments and problems with analytical solutions. The Radiation Adaptive Grid Eulerian (RAGE) hydrocode, developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has been subjected to many tests during its development. We extend and review this work, emphasizing tests relevant to impact cratering into volatile-rich targets.


RAGE has been used in areas as diverse as analysis of impact tests, failure modes of structural components, and crack propagation in solids.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
@eachus Last but not least: The very fact that you did all that validation and verification is what all of this is built on. Are you seriously contending that we should just throw all that work you did out and do it all over every time we want to simulate anything?

Silliness.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
Hi humy. :) Good to see a reasoning unbiased mind at work. Kudos. :)

In your comments to Benni...
Benni...Thus dark matter theory, whether true or false, is a perfectly valid and reasonable scientific theory.
I suspect you meant to say "hypothesis" not "theory"; since 'exotic' DM is still a conjecture not yet confirmed empirically to the status of a 'theory'.

And...
The only way dark matter theory could be wrong is either something is wrong with our observations of how the galaxies move so that they are not moving the way they appear to be or there is something wrong with our current understanding of how gravity works so it is more complex than the way we understand it. So which is it and exactly how so?
I have for decades now, here and elsewhere pointed out the problem lay in extrapolating a 'clean' solar system model to spiral galaxy situation; which led to the incorrect "expectations' for what galactic rotation curves should be like....[continued next post]
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
[continued from previous post]

The solar system gravitational orbital/speed profiles involve planetary movements OUTSIDE the central gravitating mass which effectively is a 'point mass' distribution with exterior bodies/orbits as observed. The application of this SAME model to the spiral galaxy "DISC distributed mass" is what is the problem, because the bodies/orbits in a spiral galaxy are EFFECTIVELY WITHIN the gravitating mass distribution which is NOT a 'point mass' like central gravitating mass concentration like the SUN is in our SS.

CONSIDER: the gravitational acceleration VECTORS affecting our planets are ALL predominantly radially 'down' to the sun's surface and it's point like mass effect at such distances. HOWEVER, the gravitational VECTORS on STARS in Milky Way DISC also involve MANY OFF-RADIAL directions.

Imagine spherical mass. Gravitational acceleration increases going UP from center to surface....THEN deceases again the higher 'exterior' altitude.

[cont]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
[again cont from previous]

UNLIKE what happens within the DISC mass of our galaxy!

Visualize our galaxy's current mass reformed into a SPHERICAL distribution....THE STARS 'orbiting' WITHIN this spherical mass!

The SLOWEST stars would be near CENTER of this disc because the gravitational acceleration would be LEAST there!

And as we go from center to SURFACE of that galactic 'spherical mass', gravitational acceleration would increase to MAXIMAL THERE (just as within the sun spherical mass); so stars would have to move FASTER and FASTER compared to stars closer in.

Now reform that galaxy mass 'sphere' into a PERFECTLY UNIFORMLY FLAT DISC.

What SHOULD we expect the rotation curve to look like?

Well, stars closer to center SHOULD MOVE SLOWER THAN stars at EDGE of the disc!

In REALITY, there is central galactic BULGE in our galaxy; so the R.C. 'profile' from center to edge would be modified accordingly....and produce EXACTLY what is seen!

No 'exotic' DM needed. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2016
So, humy, Da Schneib, etc, there you have the answer to your question. The problem was applying 'off the shelf' modeling and conclusions to situations which bear NO RELATION logically/physicall to the situation which the 'off the shelf' model was derived from!

In short, the extrapolations/expectations from the solar system to spiral galaxy Rotation Curves were INVALID. So the observations were misinterpreted as being somehow 'anomalous' according the GR theory.

BUT GR THEORY was CORRECT. It was the misleading 'assumptions/extrapolations' resulting/necessitated by the INVALID application of INVALID MODEL to galaxy situation which was INCORRECT.

It was this INITIAL/CONTINUING ERROR which 'necessitated' 5x MORE matter in order to 'explain' incorrectly applied model 'conclusions' and make it 'fit' observed gravitational/orbital behaviour!

See? No 'exotic' DM needed at all, IF CORRECT MODELING of GR was applied to spiral galaxy, as I just outlined).

Can't stay. Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
RealityChoke doesn't "believe in" GRT, @Phys1.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
RealityChoke doesn't "believe in" GRT, @Phys1.
Haven't you learned to read/think before you kneejerk from personal/uninformed stance? Here, it's in my last post above; read it:
BUT GR THEORY was CORRECT. It was the misleading 'assumptions/extrapolations' resulting/necessitated by the INVALID application of INVALID MODEL to galaxy situation which was INCORRECT.


As you now can see, your comment was INCORRECT. I already said that GR WAS CORRECT. Please read the whole series of related posts re the problem being with the misapplication/use of wrong modeling, rather than the GR theory itself.

So, I just laid out the problem and why/how it came about; and why 'need' for exotic DM was an incorrect conclusion/interpretation based on expectations which were based on the INCORRECT model used for galaxy. Raed it and then think about it and then understand it properly or ask questions if you don't.

I use CORRECT KNOWN PHYSICS and GR THEORY. Read it. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
'exotic' DM is still a conjecture not yet confirmed empirically to the status of a 'theory'.
Who of any scientific authority says so ?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please show where 'exotic' DM is treated by mainstream astrophysicists/theorists as having a 'confirmed theory' status. You wont be able to. The exotic DM is still conjecture based on interpretations of observations. No actual confirmation of the existence of such 'exotic' DM has been produced. The conjecture is still at the stage of trying to settle what type of 'exotic' DM it may be. And even those efforts have been frustrated. So no confirmation status to 'theory level' has been produced for 'exotic' DM. If you know of any, please link them here. I would be very interested to scrutinize same for actual confirmation as opposed to yet more conjecture 'believed' as 'fact' by some not so objective in their reading/thinking. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
It was the misleading 'assumptions/extrapolations' resulting/necessitated by the INVALID application of INVALID MODEL
The INVALID MODEL is GRT. Your own words.

You're lying again, RealityChoke.

And this is why I mostly ignore you. Lying is all you've got when you're pwnt. And you don't have sufficient sense of self-worth not to lie when everyone can see you and everyone knows and your own words prove it.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
It was the misleading 'assumptions/extrapolations' resulting/necessitated by the INVALID application of INVALID MODEL
The INVALID MODEL is GRT. Your own words.

You're lying again, RealityChoke.

And this is why I mostly ignore you. Lying is all you've got when you're pwnt.
You're at your old tricks again, not reading properly or kneejerking, and then proceeding to accuse others of 'lying' when you are the one in error. Remember what happened the last time you accused me of 'lying' (re plasmoids in sun) and you eventually admitted you were in error to accuse me of 'lying' because there were plasmoids in sun (according to mainstream physics)? Learn from that lesson and don't try it again here. :)

I said GR was CORRECT. Also, Solar system GR model was CORRECT. What was INCORRECT was the naive application of that CORRECT GR Solar System MODEL to spiral galaxy situation. Understand?

So, please decist from 'lying' accusations. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
You said GRT is an INVALID MODEL.

I'm sorry you wish you hadn't said it.

I'm sorry you're so stupid you think you can pretend you didn't say it (IOW lie) when everyone can read it right there.

Period.

Now get over it.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
What was INCORRECT was the naive application of that CORRECT GR Solar System MODEL to spiral galaxy situation. Understand?
But claiming GRT is correct in the Solar System but not in the galaxy is inconsistent. Hipparcos determined the proper motions of 118,000 stars, and they all confirmed GRT. Tycho-2, based upon Hipparcos data, cataloged 2.5 million. They all obey GRT.

There's simply too much data any more. Your "EU of the gaps" has failed because there aren't any more gaps for it to live in. GRT is accurate to as far as we can see and over the largest distance scales, and the fact you don't know that LIGO shows that simply means you don't understand enough physics to see why confirming GRT in the strong limit of black hole ringdown shows it must be so.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Da Scneib. :)
You said GRT is an INVALID MODEL.

I'm sorry you wish you hadn't said it.

I'm sorry you're so stupid you think you can pretend you didn't say it (IOW lie) when everyone can read it right there.

Period.

Now get over it.
Do you allow for context before concluding what you thought you 'read'?

The galaxy model was INCORRECT model to use because it was based on the CORRECT model ONLY for Solar System modeling of CORRECT GR.

You need to distinguish the GENERIC THEORY of GR as THE MODEL of GRAVITY PER SE, from the APPLICATION of that model in varying circumstances/configurations which may produce DIFFERENT outcomes because of the variables involved....such as the mass-distribution and gravitational profile in the differing solar system and spiral galaxy situation which requires DIFFERENT modeling of the GR VECTORS which may be different in the different cases.

I explained in context. Read it properly. If you don't understand, ask questions. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
It was in context. You're lying again, RealityChoke.

There isn't any "galaxy model." We can see galaxies, and we can tell we're inside one. I can show you galaxies in my back yard.

GRT is a universal law and we've checked it both on Earth in the laboratory and in the universe around us. Hipparcos is sufficient to prove that, and now that you've got nowhere to hide you'll lie again.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 02, 2016
I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here, RealityChoke. You know the data is out there; you know we have found gravity waves (which you claimed would never be found); you know that GRT is a universal theory and that it's been confirmed in the strong limit.

You also know you're lying; you say two inconsistent things, and when I point it out you claim I left out some unspecified "context." Even though anyone with a brain can see you're lying, you still keep lying. Why do you bother? Why not just stick to reality and stop with all the weird pseudoscience?
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Reading confirmation bias/'beliefs' in authority which has not yet been confirmed to be correct, is not doing science properly. The 'discovery' of gravity waves is not yet confirmed; merely an 'observation' has been 'claimed' which has yet to be scrutinized properly and to discount all the other possible factors which may have 'produced' the 'signal' (which was actually an artifact of much assumption and signal processing techniques etc etc which may not be as robust or valid as the 'confidence level' claimed implies).

So WAIT until more and better/alternative 'observation/confirmation' comes, before believing it is 'fact' (recall the bicep2 flaws/claims).

Anyhow: The GR is correct 'generically'. BUT applying SAME GR principles in DIFFERING mass-distribution cases produces DIFFERING 'profiles'. Which is what happened early on when Gal Rotation Curves etc first 'interpreted' using solar system derived 'modeling' OF 'generic' GR. THAT is the point/problem. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
There isn't any bias. There isn't any context but what I quoted that you said. There isn't any authority but your own words. There is observation: of your own words. There isn't any waiting; we've got enough data to show that your fantasies are impossible. There aren't any other factors.

Just stop lying, dude. It's not gonna work.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
There isn't any bias. There isn't any context but what I quoted that you said. There isn't any authority but your own words. There is observation: of your own words. There isn't any waiting; we've got enough data to show that your fantasies are impossible. There aren't any other factors. Just stop lying, dude.
You sound like a politician, not a scientist. Ignore what I said at your own risk. I have been proven correct more than you/many other supposed 'experts' and 'science defenders' posting here, remember? If I have been correct and you/other incorrect before now, then it is ME defending science properly, not those who pretend to do so while playing politics and being obtuse and prejudiced from their own uninformed base because they won't read properly IN CONTEXT or just ignore the salient points which challenge their own belief in their own inerrancy.

Your 'lying' accusations tactic is 'old' and childish. And you were wrong before, ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
And now with the ad hominem attacks:

You sound like a politician, not a scientist.


This conversation is over. I come and poke you every so often to see if you've changed, and you never do.

RealityChoke to the end.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
And now with the ad hominem attacks:
You sound like a politician, not a scientist.
This conversation is over. I come and poke you every so often to see if you've changed, and you never do. RealityChoke to the end.
That was not ad hominem, that was observation of how you come across: insulting and being so 'certain' while you do so. Exactly what politicians do, not scientists.

And look to your own behavior/ad hominem laden pasts before accusing others, ok?

And how is your 'poking' going? Is it as much 'fun' as the time you 'poked' me in that old thread over plasmoids in sun? Did the 'poking' stop being 'fun' when you had to finally admit I was correct, you incorrect? Or is that conveniently forgotten and hence not learned from? Which would explain why you are doing this 'poking' here with the same inevitable result. Will you ever learn not to be so 'certain' and 'insulting' while 'poking' people who are correct while you incorrect? Learn. :)
humy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016

The only way dark matter theory could be wrong is either something is wrong with our observations of how the galaxies move so that they are not moving the way they appear to be


What are you talking about: "how galaxies move"?


Benni

How they must move by rotation for them to sustainably be the shape they are.
You are obviously completely ignorant of galaxy rotation curve the observation of which is WHERE DARK MATTER THEORY COMES FROM :

https://en.wikipe...on_curve

"... orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's centre.
...
they do not match ... the law of gravity. A solution to this conundrum is ... dark matter ..."

Are you not done yet embarrassing yourself with you display of ignorance of the science you talk about?
humy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
Hi humy. ...

I suspect you meant to say "hypothesis" not "theory";

RealityCheck

I am not sure if I am just pedantically nitpicking here but, as I understand it, If there is evidence for a hypothesis, it is a 'theory'.

https://carm.org/...s-theory
"...A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ..."

Now, admittedly, in this case, the observation came BEFORE the hypothesis, not after, so there was no DELIBERATE testing of the hypothesis, just the observations. BUT, nevertheless, I think we could still now argue (as I personally implicitly did ) that we have a hypothesis that there is a lot of invisible matter (dark matter) then merely point out we already have the observation to give it credence short of proving it (galaxy rotation curve observations ) thus say it is a theory.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
@RC
But I give you that without a clue what dark matter really is, it is a model rather than a theory.
Technically a model that reproduces observed results accurately *is* a theory. One observes effects, makes a hypothesis (the model) that reproduces them, derives other results that were not originally part of the hypothesis that are then confirmed, and searches for any phenomena that the model predicts that do not happen or any phenomena within the model's competence that happen that the model does not predict, and then one has a theory.

The theory of dark matter answers all of these requirements. It is not necessary that we know what dark matter *is*; it is only necessary that we be able to model it sufficiently to check the model against the observed phenomena. What the current theory is not is a *complete* theory of dark matter.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
It is important to remember that Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation made no statement about what gravity *is*, only about what it *does*. In the man's own words:

"Hypotheses non fingo." "I feign no hypotheses."

And that's from the Principia. And I defy anyone to try to show that Universal Gravitation as defined in that work is not a theory.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
Hi humy. ...

I suspect you meant to say "hypothesis" not "theory";

RealityCheck

I am not sure if I am just pedantically nitpicking here but, as I understand it, If there is evidence for a hypothesis, it is a 'theory'.

https://carm.org/...s-theory
"...A theory is the result of testing a hypothesis and developing an explanation that is assumed to be true about something. ..."
Technically that's not all that is required. Once a hypothesis has reproduced the phenomenon it was developed to explain, it must also be checked for consistency three ways:
1) It must not predict anything else that does not happen,
2) It must predict at least one thing that does happen that was not part of the original observations, and
3) It must predict all things that happen that are within its scope.
1 and 3 are subject to future observations, but if a reasonable check for 1 and 3 turns up no discrepancies, then it is accepted.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
Now, admittedly, in this case, the observation came BEFORE the hypothesis, not after, so there was no DELIBERATE testing of the hypothesis, just the observations. BUT, nevertheless, I think we could still now argue (as I personally implicitly did ) that we have a hypothesis that there is a lot of invisible matter (dark matter) then merely point out we already have the observation to give it credence short of proving it (galaxy rotation curve observations) thus say it is a theory.
It's been tested. It does not predict anything we don't see happening, and it predicts something that was not part of the original hypothesis (confirmed, filaments). Furthermore, it also predicts that there should be concentrations of dark matter outside galaxies that could influence their motion (confirmed, the Bullet Cluster).
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
OK, RC, since Phys1 claims you don't lie, here's a test:
Is it as much 'fun' as the time you 'poked' me in that old thread over plasmoids in sun? Did the 'poking' stop being 'fun' when you had to finally admit I was correct, you incorrect?
Link it.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Let's first be clear: I'm NOT a EU adherent. I'm atheist scientist. I commented strictly impartially, base on known science, on a discussion between cantdrive85-Da Schneib. So all comments/stances from me in the following linked discussion should be read in that context. Ok? Good.
OK, RC, since Phys1 claims you don't lie, here's a test:
Is it as much 'fun' as the time you 'poked' me in that old thread over plasmoids in sun? Did the 'poking' stop being 'fun' when you had to finally admit I was correct, you incorrect?
Link it.
The thread was:

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

See my last post addressed to Da Schneib on Oct 10 2014 in response to Da Schneib's response to cd a few posts back on same date:
Your source relies on reconnection, cd85.
...
However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.
...
See? I don't lie. You WERE brave enough to admit error, mate! And I use :) sincerely! :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
How can the application of GR ,...to spiral galaxy rotation be naive..?
That's subtle point. It's correct GR principles. No problem. It's correct modeling of the Solar System planetary orbits/rotation curve. No problem.

The problem arises when that Solar System model rotation curve/planetary orbits is translated to galaxy context.

I explained the difference/problem in posts to humy yesterday. Essentially:

- GR SS model involves orbitals OUTSIDE the dominant mass distribution (sun) as center;

- whereas in spiral galaxy, mass distributed in a disc, and stars ORBIT WITHIN that mass distribution!

See?

The whole gravitational force/orbital profiles observed for galaxy will be same as for ss WHEN 'apples and apples' compared; ie: EXTERNAL ORBITS.

See?

GR is correct.

SS model, using GR, is correct.

BUT THAT SS model applies ONLY to ORBITS/BODIES EXTERNAL to sun-surface/galaxy-disc-edge, NOT WITHIN sun/disc!

Subtle point. :)
humy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2016

Technically that's not all that is required. Once a hypothesis has reproduced the phenomenon it was developed to explain, it must also be checked for consistency three ways:
1) It must not predict anything else that does not happen,
2) It must predict at least one thing that does happen that was not part of the original observations, and
3) It must predict all things that happen that are within its scope.
1 and 3 are subject to future observations, but if a reasonable check for 1 and 3 turns up no discrepancies, then it is accepted.


RealityCheck

I agree with 1) but why is 2 ) above required? what difference does it make to the probability of the hypothesis whether the evidence in the form of the observation was made before or after the hypothesis was made and, if no difference, why then make that arbitrary distinction to define whether it is a theory?
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016

BUT THAT SS model applies ONLY to ORBITS/BODIES EXTERNAL to sun-surface/galaxy-disc-edge, NOT WITHIN sun/disc!

Subtle point. :)

That is incorrect. The law of gravity holds everywhere.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Phys1/my2cts. :)
BUT THAT SS model applies ONLY to ORBITS/BODIES EXTERNAL to sun-surface/galaxy-disc-edge, NOT WITHIN sun/disc!

Subtle point. :)
That is incorrect. The law of gravity holds everywhere.
You missed the contextual clarification that it is the ROTATION CURVE of the solar system I spoke of. The GR applies as you say. No problem.

It's the 'comparison' of ROTATION CURVES which is the crucial aspect of the overall GR modeling when it comes to understanding what went wrong; ie: INITIAL 'naive' expectations for gal rotation curves for INTERNAL-to-disc-mass stellar orbits to be similar to rotation curves of solar system EXTERNAL-to-sun-mass planetary orbits!

When the gal rotation curves based on observations of stellar orbits WITHIN the disc mass INSTEAD of ORBITS OUTSIDE are interpreted correctly using GR FOR that particular component of the scenario, then there is NO 'anomaly' because these orbits WILL be like that according TO GR. No DM needed. :)
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
You miss the point. In the calculation of the galactic rotation curves all known mass is taken into account correctly.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
OK, RC, since we're playing history here, remember this thread: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

You slandered scientists without providing evidence, and when challenged by Captain Stumpy you called him a troll.

We still have never seen your "1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw." Not once.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Phys1/my2cts. :)
You miss the point. In the calculation of the galactic rotation curves all known mass is taken into account correctly.
My point was the 'expectation' (based on solar system orbital/curve profile) is what was incorrect, not the calculations/observations of actual galactic stellar orbital profile/curve.

The calculations were done and STILL the 'expectation' was NOT matched by the OBSERVED stellar speeds rotation curve profile for the galaxy! That was my point.

The GR based calculations were CORRECT. The EXPECTATION was INCORRECT, because these were based on Solar System EXTERNAL orbits, not INTERNAL orbits within sun mass (like INTERNAL galaxy mass distribution orbits by stars INSIDE that disc-mass).

You're now getting close to getting the subtle point why it all went wrong:

- the calculations were correct according to GR....BUT the expectation that observed gal Rotation Curve
'should be similar' to solar system Rotation Curve was incorrect. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
OK, now let's take this claim apart:
How can the application of GR ,...to spiral galaxy rotation be naive..?
That's subtle point. It's correct GR principles. No problem. It's correct modeling of the Solar System planetary orbits/rotation curve. No problem.

The problem arises when that Solar System model rotation curve/planetary orbits is translated to galaxy context.

I explained the difference/problem in posts to humy yesterday. Essentially:

- GR SS model involves orbitals OUTSIDE the dominant mass distribution (sun) as center;

- whereas in spiral galaxy, mass distributed in a disc, and stars ORBIT WITHIN that mass distribution!
You've forgotten something important. It's a rotation *curve* and the reason it's a curve is because the amount of mass pulling stars in the disk inward is partly counterbalanced by mass outside of them pulling them out.

You're claiming GRT doesn't apply to stars in the disk. This is silliness.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016

1) It must not predict anything else that does not happen,
2) It must predict at least one thing that does happen that was not part of the original observations, and
3) It must predict all things that happen that are within its scope.

...
I agree with 1) but why is 2 ) above required? what difference does it make to the probability of the hypothesis whether the evidence in the form of the observation was made before or after the hypothesis was made and, if no difference, why then make that arbitrary distinction to define whether it is a theory?
You mistook the poster; that was me. 2 is required in order to show the hypothesis applies to more than just the problem it was proposed in order to solve. Otherwise the hypothesis would be vulnerable to a charge of circular reasoning.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
OK, RC, since we're playing history here, remember this thread: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

You slandered scientists without providing evidence, and when challenged by Captain Stumpy you called him a troll.

We still have never seen your "1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw." Not once.
I proved I didn't lie, by providing the link you asked for as a final proof of my veracity which you asked for to settle that matter. Now you want to extend the timewasting requests to another issue which also proved me/my caution correct? I have no time to waste, mate. I'm too busy to rehash all that again. If you still haven't twigged that I knew of those flaws and that I only had time to caution for the record at that time, then I am not going to waste any more time making up for your lack of contextual reading then/since on that issue. That bicep2 team have learned. So should we all.

continued
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
ROTATION CURVE of the solar system
The Solar System doesn't have a rotation curve. At least not as they mean the term when they refer to the disk of a galaxy. That's because there isn't any appreciable mass outside a planet to influence its rotation.

It's the 'comparison' of ROTATION CURVES which is the crucial aspect of the overall GR modeling when it comes to understanding what went wrong; ie: INITIAL 'naive' expectations for gal rotation curves for INTERNAL-to-disc-mass stellar orbits to be similar to rotation curves of solar system EXTERNAL-to-sun-mass planetary orbits!
This is meaningless since solar systems don't have rotation curves in this sense. Expected galaxy rotation curves in the absence of dark matter therefore cannot be similar to non-existent solar system rotation curves.

You have a major logical problem there, RC.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
continued from above: @Da Schneib. :)

Have you read my above exchange with humy &Phys1/my2cts re the galaxy rotation curve 'expectation' (which was based on solar system rotation curve) being what threw the theorists off when the gal rotation curve was observed and the calculations according to GR made which agreed with the observed rotation curve but NOT with the 'expected' rotation curve based on solar system rotation curve (as explained, they were different for a reason, even as the GR was correct and calculations correct)?

It was that misstep, of assuming/expecting a similarity and then finding a difference, that caused the theorists to conclude/claim unnecessary postulations/speculations re 'exotic' DM etc.

If you don't understand the subtle point I keep explaining, you should ask questions so I can now where the misunderstanding may lay. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
You slandered scientists without providing evidence, and when challenged by Captain Stumpy you called him a troll.

We still have never seen your "1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw." Not once.
I proved I didn't lie, by providing the link you asked for as a final proof of my veracity which you asked for to settle that matter.
What link was that? Stumpy never saw it and neither did I. You also never provided your "1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw." Not once.

The only error BICEP2 made was in not allowing for enough B-mode polarization from galactic dust in the Milky Way. I see one error, not four.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
I proved I didn't lie, by providing the link you asked for as a final proof of my veracity which you asked for to settle that matter.
What link was that? No NO. That link was the one I provided a few posts ago for the 'plasmoids in sun' thread discussion where you admitted to being wrong and I correct re plasmoids in sun. You asked me for that link in a post about six hours ago above.

The bicep2 issue and my knowing/warning re flaws is a dead issue now. See my 'continued' post to you just above.

PS: I categorized the flaws at the time. Go read my relevant post; you will see that they failed in scientific rigor, scientific signal processing techniques/applicability, and failure to allow for the rest of the 'stuff' attenuating the signal in DEEP SPACE and not just in our galaxy; and also the systemic assumptions used to design/conduct the 'exercise' which effectively built in confirmation bias/models.

Let's move on with these new discussions. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Have you read my above exchange with humy &Phys1/my2cts re the galaxy rotation curve 'expectation' (which was based on solar system rotation curve)
Yes, and proved your assertion is logically inconsistent because it assumes a non-existent phenomenon: a solar system rotation curve.

There isn't any solar system rotation curve. Not as it's meant in galactic dynamics.

The expected rotation curve is based on the observed mass distribution of the galaxy measured by the light distribution, not on solar system dynamics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
I proved I didn't lie, by providing the link you asked for as a final proof of my veracity which you asked for to settle that matter.
What link was that?
No NO. That link was the one I provided a few posts ago for the 'plasmoids in sun' thread discussion where you admitted to being wrong and I correct re plasmoids in sun. You asked me for that link in a post about six hours ago above.
Yes, and I said since we're talking about history, what about you slandering those scientists and then not providing any supporting evidence for your claim of "1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw." Not once.

Because that's evidence of lying, you see.

And I haven't mentioned your supposed Theory of Everything. Have you stopped claiming that yet?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Not to mention you also haven't owned up to claiming that solar systems have rotation curves when they don't, and to claiming that GRT (or for that matter Newtonian gravity; see the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipe...rofiles) is somehow wrong when dealing with galaxies.

Not to mention claiming you didn't lie when you said that GRT is correct in one sentence and then said it's incorrect in the very next.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib.:)
Have you read my above exchange with humy &Phys1/my2cts re the galaxy rotation curve 'expectation' (which was based on solar system rotation curve)
Yes, and proved your assertion is logically inconsistent because it assumes a non-existent phenomenon: a solar system rotation curve.

There isn't any solar system rotation curve. Not as it's meant in galactic dynamics.

The expected rotation curve is based on the observed mass distribution of the galaxy measured by the light distribution, not on solar system dynamics.
Where do you get these misapprehensions?

Of course there is a Rotation Curve for Solar system planetary motions/speeds. That is the curve which shows decreasing speed 'curve' in the relevant graphing plotting-line of said planetary motions/speeds.

The galaxy rotation curve was later found to NOT 'curve' anywhere near as much (actually remained quite 'flat') when graphing/plotting observed galaxy's stellar motions/speeds.

Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Of course there is a Rotation Curve for Solar system planetary motions/speeds.
Not in the sense there is in a galaxy; there would need to be a billion planets.

Because the solar system is so sparse, there isn't any significant source of gravity outside a given planet. The other planets are so small and far away that they can't create a rotation curve; all there is is Kepler's laws of orbital dynamics.

The galaxy rotation curve was later found to NOT 'curve' anywhere near as much (actually remained quite 'flat') when graphing/plotting observed galaxy's stellar motions/speeds.
Yes, indicating that the mass we see in such a galaxy cannot be all the mass there is in it, and in fact isn't even the majority of it. Otherwise the rotation curve would fall off as we observed closer to the edge.

Here we go again.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Of course there is a Rotation Curve for Solar system planetary motions/speeds.
Not in the sense there is in a galaxy; there would need to be a billion planets.

Because the solar system is so sparse, there isn't any significant source of gravity outside a given planet. The other planets are so small and far away that they can't create a rotation curve; all there is is Kepler's laws of orbital dynamics.
Are you kidding? The whole concept of a rotation curve originated by observations of our ss planetary orbital speeds....which matched the GR/Nwtonian calculations for such a planetary ensemble/behavior according to the inverse square law of EXTERNAL DISTANCE orbits away from CENTER BODY surface (sun).

Galaxy mass disc has stars orbiting WITHIN disc.....so 'naive' inverse square law scenario/model did not apply....because the gravitational strength/necessary speed profile was NOT as for solar system orbits EXTERNAL to sun's mass distribution. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
PS:
Yes, indicating that the mass we see in such a galaxy cannot be all the mass there is in it, and in fact isn't even the majority of it.
The mass quantification is another question altogether (for which NORMAL previously 'dark' matter is being increasingly found which explains some of the lesser motional 'discrepancies').

As for the overall rotation curve profile according to GR, which you seem to misunderstand in this statement:

...rotation curve would fall off as we observed closer to the edge.
Are you aware of the Shell Theorem as applied to the sun's gravitational potential/acceleration 'profile' as we move from center to surface and beyond to external orbits space? The gravitational acceleration/potential is effectively 'balanced' to 'zero' at CENTER of sun! That INCREASES as we go up radial towards surface, and reaches MAXIMAL effect there. THEREAFTER, as we move to higher 'altitudes' ABOVE surface, it DECREASES per inverse square.

Subtle/Crucial. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Are you kidding? The whole concept of a rotation curve originated by observations of our ss planetary orbital speeds...
No, it didn't. Galaxies are inherently different from solar systems because there is considerable mass *outside* the orbits of stars within the body of the disk, in the form of other stars and clouds of dust and gas. This simple and obvious fact makes galactic dynamics very dissimilar from solar system dynamics. And that's completely aside from dark matter.

Galaxy mass disc has stars orbiting WITHIN disc.....so 'naive' inverse square law scenario/model did not apply....because the gravitational strength/necessary speed profile was NOT as for solar system orbits EXTERNAL to sun's mass distribution
Those orbits are calculated using gravity physics, and gravity physics is the same both inside and outside solar systems. You are claiming GRT is wrong, which is what you lied about above in this thread.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
The mass quantification is another question altogether (for which NORMAL previously 'dark' matter is being increasingly found which explains some of the lesser motional 'discrepancies').
This doesn't explain the Bullet Cluster. Entire galaxies are moving and being distorted in ways that cannot be explained by the visible matter.

As for the overall rotation curve profile according to GR, which you seem to misunderstand in this statement:

...rotation curve would fall off as we observed closer to the edge.
Are you aware of the Shell Theorem as applied to the sun's gravitational potential/acceleration 'profile' as we move from center to surface and beyond to external orbits space?
Obviously, since I invoked a version of it to explain how galactic rotation dynamics is essentially different from solar system dynamics because of the shell of stars outside the orbits of stars in the disk. Apparently you didn't notice.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
PPS: Likewise, in galaxy disc mass, the gravitational potential/acceleration effect is lowest at center of BH feature. Then it increases as we go towards BH horizon....but, unlike in solar system/sun case, it does NOT STOP INCREASING there as it would at sun's surface!...because galactic mass distribution continues well beyond BH horizon, and as we go along the plane along disc mass, the gravitational potential/acceleration effect STILL INCREASING...until reaches MAXIMAL at 'surface' of mass distribution, ie, EFFECTIVE DISC MASS EDGE. Only THEN does it fall away per inverse square (as in solar system higher 'altitudes' above sun surface) because bodies orbting far from the disc edge are like a planet orbiting a sun...except that galactic mass is not treated as 'point like' in effect/calculations as in the sun case for planetary orbit calculations.

If we REVERSED modeling/comparing process, from galaxy to solar system. it would be ss 'curve' which wouldn't 'match'. See? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
The gravitational acceleration/potential is effectively 'balanced' to 'zero' at CENTER of sun!
Ummm, yes, that's true of all bodies- including galaxies. Of course, that center is usually within a black hole, but the principle is correct nonetheless.

That INCREASES as we go up radial towards surface, and reaches MAXIMAL effect there.
Yes, because the amount of mass between us and the center increases, and the amount of mass above us counterbalancing it decreases. This is obvious.

THEREAFTER, as we move to higher 'altitudes' ABOVE surface, it DECREASES per inverse square.
This also is correct; as the gravity flux is distributed across a sphere of increasing radius, the amount of flux per unit square area on the surface of the sphere decreases. That's because gravity is a conservative force, like EM.

Subtle/Crucial.
Handwaving obfuscation.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
None of your points explain
a) how GRT (or for that matter Newtonian TUG) is wrong,
b) what the correct theory is, or
c) why GRT/TUG should apply over a limited scope (solar systems) and not over a large scope (galaxies).

There's no there there.

Not only that but you can't explain the anomalous gravitation in the Bullet Cluster. Dark matter does that quite nicely. So there are two problems it solves. And there's more, too, but I'll keep things simple for you since you seem to have trouble figuring out how this works.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
PPS: Yes, the mass distribution in galactic disc not like a sun mass distribution. The disc 'space' is filled with much mass in various forms, so the 'average effect' over long times/paths is what counts. :)

We are only just beginning to realize how full and complex the galactic context is when it comes to rotation curve expectations/calculations.

That is why the earlier 'naive' expectations and calculations were not borne out by the observations made for galactic rotation curve which applies in reality, and which naturally differs from sol system curve because of the main aspect I point to regarding the INTERNAL-to-mass ORBITS vs the EXTERNAL-to-mass ORBITS in both cases. When all these 'adjustments/allowances are included in the expectations/assumptions etc, the observations will match GR very well.

So NO 'exotic' DM 'needed' because no 'anomaly' after all. And recent increasing 'findings' of 'additional' ORDINARY (previously 'dark) matter explains the rest. Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
Likewise, in galaxy disc mass, the gravitational potential/acceleration effect is lowest at center of BH feature. Then it increases as we go towards BH horizon....but, unlike in solar system/sun case, it does NOT STOP INCREASING there as it would at sun's surface!...because galactic mass distribution continues well beyond BH horizon, and as we go along the plane along disc mass, the gravitational potential/acceleration effect STILL INCREASING...until reaches MAXIMAL at 'surface' of mass distribution, ie, EFFECTIVE DISC MASS EDGE.
All of this is correct. But it has nothing to do with why the stars *outside the visible disk* don't fall off in acceleration. And that's where the real anomaly is. Check the first picture in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipe...on_curve

Only THEN does it fall away per inverse square
No, it doesn't, and that's the problem that dark matter solves.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
because bodies orbting far from the disc edge are like a planet orbiting a sun...except that galactic mass is not treated as 'point like' in effect/calculations as in the sun case for planetary orbit calculations.
Except that they aren't like a planet orbiting a sun; their orbital velocities don't fall off. That's the entire point.

There are only two choices to explain this:
1) Dark matter, or
2) GRT is wrong.

If we REVERSED modeling/comparing process, from galaxy to solar system. it would be ss 'curve' which wouldn't 'match'.
I have no idea what you think this proves. Of course they wouldn't match; there isn't enough dark matter in the solar system to modify its orbital dynamics. It doesn't have a high enough density. That doesn't mean it can't have a high enough density at galactic scales to explain galactic dynamics.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
None of your points explain
a) how GRT (or for that matter Newtonian TUG) is wrong,
Be clear: The GRT is NOT wrong. I keep confirming that it's correct. I made clear that what was WRONG was the modeling/assumptions 'naive' TRANSFERENCE (from solar system EXTERNAL-to-sun-mass ORBITS "Rotation Curve" profile to Spiral Galaxy INTERNAL-to-Dic-mass ORBITS "RotationCurve" profile). Please discern the point made re what was 'wrong'.

b) what the correct theory is, or
c) why GRT/TUG should apply over a limited scope (solar systems) and not over a large scope (galaxies).
I never said it didn't apply as such, only that it wasn't applied allowing for 'apples with apples' REGIONS of ORBITS 'curves' comparisons (ie, internal-to-internal orbit regions, not external-to-internal). Ok?

And correct theory is ALREADY THERE in GR. The point is that I KNOW IT IS; while mainstream still floundering due to 'exotic' DM 'furfy' due to initial misstep, as explained. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
PPS: Yes, the mass distribution in galactic disc not like a sun mass distribution. The disc 'space' is filled with much mass in various forms, so the 'average effect' over long times/paths is what counts.
More handwaving obfuscation. This average effect is well-known, is quantified by Newton's and Einstein's gravity physics theories, and can be calculated using Kepler's formulae. You have no point here but to introduce unnecessary complexity to the conversation.

We are only just beginning to realize how full and complex the galactic context is when it comes to rotation curve expectations/calculations.
No, we've realized it since 1933, and we have an explanation, dark matter. More obfuscation and an attempt to create gaps into which you can insert arguments. There are no gaps.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
That is why the earlier 'naive' expectations and calculations were not borne out by the observations made for galactic rotation curve which applies in reality, and which naturally differs from sol system curve because of the main aspect I point to regarding the INTERNAL-to-mass ORBITS vs the EXTERNAL-to-mass ORBITS in both cases. When all these 'adjustments/allowances are included in the expectations/assumptions etc, the observations will match GR very well.
What amazes me is that you think Fritz Zwicky couldn't get this right in 1933 when Newton got it right in 1687, in the Shell Theorem. I have no idea how you think any competent astrophysicist could make a mistake like this in the first place, not to mention no one spotting it for the last 80 years or so. Your arrogance and disdain for people who are obviously a lot smarter than you is appalling.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
Be clear: The GRT is NOT wrong.
If it doesn't explain the rotation curves of galaxies, either it is wrong or there is dark matter. Since you deny dark matter, you deny GRT. QED.

I made clear that what was WRONG was the modeling/assumptions 'naive' TRANSFERENCE (from solar system EXTERNAL-to-sun-mass ORBITS "Rotation Curve" profile to Spiral Galaxy INTERNAL-to-Dic-mass ORBITS "RotationCurve" profile). Please discern the point made re what was 'wrong'.
This makes no sense. The expected rotation curves are calculated using GRT (and originally using TUG) and take the Shell Theorem (which has been around for over three hundred years) into account; your claim that tens of thousands of experienced astrophysicists over a period of 80 years haven't noticed that they need to take the Shell Theorem into account when calculating expected rotation curves is silliness.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Likewise, in galaxy disc mass, the gravitational potential/acceleration effect is lowest at center of BH feature. Then it increases as we go towards BH horizon....but, unlike in solar system/sun case, it does NOT STOP INCREASING there as it would at sun's surface!...because galactic mass distribution continues well beyond BH horizon, and as we go along the plane along disc mass, the gravitational potential/acceleration effect STILL INCREASING...until MAXIMAL at 'surface' of mass distribution, ie, EFFECTIVE DISC MASS EDGE.
All of this is correct. But it has nothing to do with why the stars *outside the visible disk* don't fall off in acceleration. And that's where the real anomaly is. Check the first picture in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipe...on_curve
That picture doesn't show what you claim. Only rotation curve/rationale per se. NO mention of bodies orbiting far from disc edge etc.

GR correct. No DM needed. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
I never said it didn't apply as such, only that it wasn't applied allowing for 'apples with apples' REGIONS of ORBITS 'curves' comparisons (ie, internal-to-internal orbit regions, not external-to-internal).
It is risible to suggest that everyone for 80 years has ignored the Shell Theorem and its application to galactic dynamics. It's ridiculous. It's silliness.

It's disrespectful to science and scientists, overweeningly arrogant, and insulting to four generations of astrophysicists.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
[contd]

What amazes me is that you think Fritz Zwicky couldn't get this right in 1933 when Newton got it right in 1687, in the Shell Theorem. I have no idea how you think any competent astrophysicist could make a mistake like this in the first place, not to mention no one spotting it for the last 80 years or so.
You make an assumption there that is misunderstanding what I am trying to explain to you. Let's start here: The shell theorem is correct. Applying the shell system to planetary system like our own is NOT appropriate....since ONLY the sun itself represents sufficient mass/density/distribution consistency to make the 'shell' theorem application valid. The planets are too separated/sparse in time/space/mass to be effectively a massive 'sphere' like sun. Hence the only direct comparison using Shell Theorem is between ss SUN mass and spiral galaxy DISC...not 'outer orbits away from mass edge/surface.

Herd mentality has led groups astray before! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
That picture doesn't show what you claim.
Now you're just lying. Look at the yellow/blue curve.

Only rotation curve/rationale per se. NO mention of bodies orbiting far from disc edge etc.
False. Look at just the yellow part of the curve, then compare it with the dotted curve below. It keeps going up when the visible mass distribution is dropping; that alone is proof.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
[contd]
I never said it didn't apply as such, only that it wasn't applied allowing for 'apples with apples' REGIONS of ORBITS 'curves' comparisons (ie, internal-to-internal orbit regions, not external-to-internal).
It is risible to suggest that everyone for 80 years has ignored the Shell Theorem and its application to galactic dynamics. It's ridiculous. It's silliness.

It's disrespectful...arrogant,...
I already outlined what/where the initial misstep lay that caused the theorists to go off on a 'exotic' DM tangent because of misapplied assumptions/expectations using apples with oranges' REGIONS data for their comparison of Rotation Curves between outside sun mass distribution and inside galaxy mass distribution effects due to GR.

Please try to see the crucial point which makes moot any 'need' for 'exotic' DM.

Merely 'believing' mainstream MUST have been 'right', as reason for assuming me 'wrong', is placing 'reputation' before science. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
You make an assumption there that is misunderstanding what I am trying to explain to you. Let's start here: The shell theorem is correct. Applying the shell system to planetary system like our own is NOT appropriate....
I'm not the one applying it to our solar system, you are:
Are you aware of the Shell Theorem as applied to the sun's gravitational potential/acceleration 'profile' as we move from center to surface and beyond to external orbits space?
Lying again, right out in public like no one will notice.

Meanwhile, the dotted curve in the picture I referenced from Wikipedia shows that, in fact, the expected light curve *does* include the basic principle of the shell theorem, otherwise it would not go up at all, it would fall off the farther you got from the center just like planetary orbits do. Note, it's not the actual shell theorem; that requires a spherical shell. This is what one might call the "ring theorem."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
I already outlined what/where the initial misstep lay that caused the theorists to go off on a 'exotic' DM tangent because of misapplied assumptions/expectations using apples with oranges' REGIONS data for their comparison of Rotation Curves between outside sun mass distribution and inside galaxy mass distribution effects due to GR.
And I already showed why that supposed misstep can't ever have happened, and if it did any of ten thousand astrophysicists would have caught it.

Please try to see the crucial point which makes moot any 'need' for 'exotic' DM.
There isn't any crucial point, just a lot of arrogant claims that you've spotted a flaw ten thousand astrophysicists never saw for eighty years.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
Merely 'believing' mainstream MUST have been 'right', as reason for assuming me 'wrong', is placing 'reputation' before science.
I find this personally insulting.

I am not "merely 'believing'" anything. I am presenting evidence, whereas you just keep saying the same thing over and over without supporting it, and ignoring the import of the evidence laid before you.

Look at the dotted curve in the picture I indicated. Note that it does not go down from the center, as the velocity curve of a solar system does. It starts to go down near the visible edge of the galaxy pictured. This alone is enough to show that your arrogant and insulting (to all astrophysicists who've worked in the past 80 years) assumption of a "misstep" is false.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Now you're just lying. Look at the yellow/blue curve. ..... Look at just the yellow part of the curve, then compare it with the dotted curve below. It keeps going up when the visible mass distribution is dropping; that alone is proof.
You seem to be misreading what that represents. The two curves compare what was expected from visible disc to what was observed from specific starlight wavelengths coming from within that same disc. BOTH lines cover the disc radial from center to 50 Thousand lightyears. It is the DISCREPANCY between the two lines which THEN led to the postulation of 'exotic' DM 'Halo' around the galaxy, in order TO 'explain' that discrepancy between the two lines. NEITHER 'line' involved any DATA for bodies/matter outside the 50 Thousand light years disc 'edge'.

See? No 'lying' involved. Please resist temptation to kneejerk to accusations of 'lying'. It pays to wait till END of a clarified point/discussion before accusing (or not). :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
@Phys1, *now* do you see why I say this guy lies and insults?

"Merely 'believing'" my left nut. Not only is that a lie about me, and not only is it an insult, but it's dumb because I've been presenting evidence in every post and this individual has not. He just keeps saying the same thing over and over and over like it means something, and when I prove it doesn't he lies about me-- obviously lies, given the evidence I've presented, both documentary and logical-- and insults me.

Meanwhile, 80 years of astrophysicists were incompetent and didn't know the shell theorem. More insults, more arrogance, more lying. And stupid lying at that; there aren't any astrophysicists who don't know the shell theorem. It's Physics 101.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Now you're just lying. Look at the yellow/blue curve. ..... Look at just the yellow part of the curve, then compare it with the dotted curve below. It keeps going up when the visible mass distribution is dropping; that alone is proof.
You seem to be misreading what that represents. The two curves compare what was expected from visible disc to what was observed from specific starlight wavelengths coming from within that same disc. BOTH lines cover the disc radial from center to 50 Thousand lightyears. It is the DISCREPANCY between the two lines which THEN led to the postulation of 'exotic' DM 'Halo' around the galaxy, in order TO 'explain' that discrepancy between the two lines. NEITHER 'line' involved any DATA for bodies/matter outside the 50 Thousand light years disc 'edge'.
The yellow observed curve is already discrepant at 15,000 ly; vastly so, it's going up when the expected dotted curve is going down.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
See? No 'lying' involved. Please resist temptation to kneejerk to accusations of 'lying'. It pays to wait till END of a clarified point/discussion before accusing (or not). :)
Ummmm, when someone claims I "merely 'believe'" something, they're lying. Period.

Not only that but when someone attempts to obfuscate by ignoring clear and compelling evidence (yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down), that also is lying.

Then there's pretending that four generations of astrophysicists didn't know the shell theorem when it's Physics 101 and accusing them of groupthink, which is also lying.

Please stop lying. Please stop insulting. Please start actually looking at evidence and presenting evidence of your own instead of mindlessly repeating the same thing over and over and over like it will mean any more just because you keep saying it.

Thanks in advance.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
[contd]
Merely 'believing' mainstream MUST have been 'right', as reason for assuming me 'wrong', is placing 'reputation' before science.
I find this personally insulting.

I am not "merely 'believing'" anything. I am presenting evidence, whereas you just keep saying the same thing over and over without supporting it, and ignoring the import of the evidence laid before you.
Calm down, mate. You are too emotional and 'certain' of your own stance and are being blind to new perspective which I just explained. I haven't ignored anything you said. But you ignore what evidence I point to. How is your doing that, being objective? Remember people here 'believed' those bicep2 team claims because of mainstream group 'reputation'. Ok? Take it easy and slow your kneejerking and re-read everything I said and what that picture you referenced actually shows....speaking of which, I will answer your further misunderstandings re that in following continuation...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Since you seem to think it works so well, I will repeat:

Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down. That's what Fritz Zwicky saw. Everybody else who looked at the evidence saw that too. Nobody made any mistakes by forgetting the shell theorem.

Either GRT is wrong, or there is dark matter. Simple as that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Calm down, mate.
I'm calm, thanks. I'm enjoying myself. Watching you self-destruct is awesome.

You are too emotional and 'certain' of your own stance and are being blind to new perspective which I just explained.
Now I'm "emotional" and "blind." You're using insults again, mate.

I haven't ignored anything you said.
Yellow curve up, dotted curve down, and dotted curve proves you're lying about the astrophysicists ignoring the shell theorem. Yes, you have ignored all of what I said.

But you ignore what evidence I point to.
You haven't pointed to any evidence. All you've done is make up a wacky and insulting story about how 80 years of astrophysicists ignored Physics 101, and been proven wrong by the dotted curve.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
And firing for effect, I will repeat yet again: yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

[contd]
Remember people here 'believed' those bicep2 team claims because of mainstream group 'reputation'.
No, they accepted those claims based upon pretty good evidence that the B-mode polarization couldn't be coming from galactic dust. This was proven wrong when a more extensive examination of the galactic dust was made by a later experiment; according to the best data they had at the time, they were right.

And you slandered them.

Take it easy and slow your kneejerking and re-read everything I said and what that picture you referenced actually shows.
It shows the yellow curve going up while the dotted curve is going down. When will you admit that?

Not to mention, the fact that the dotted curve *ever* goes up is enough to prove that astrophysicists studying galactic light curves weren't using solar system models of dynamics, because the speed goes down only.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
And another round: yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

And another: dotted curve goes up, which it would never do if astrophysicists were using solar system dynamics.

And another: "Merely 'believing'", "emotional," and "blind."
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2016
PS for Da Schneib.
Look at the dotted curve in the picture I indicated. Note that it does not go down from the center, as the velocity curve of a solar system does. It starts to go down near the visible edge...
Again, you are too 'emotional' when reading, so you misread it. The lower line is 'expectation' according to 'distance' based on solar system 'curve' for increasing distances from sun.....BUT in galaxy disc, expectations there allows for Galactic NUCLEUS feature (a COMPACT CLUSTER of many stars with a supermassive BH at its center).

The 'profile' is slightly different from clean 'inverse square' gravitational effects across THAT DYNAMIC region ONLY.

From THERE it shows the expected decreasing effect according to inverse square (but BE AWARE, that line is ONLY the 'expectation' line, NOT the ACTUAL MEASURED 'line using specific starlight wavelengths!).

NB: that expectation 'line' starts 'downward' ONLY at 10 Thousand lightyears from center, NOT near 'edge'. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
Look at the dotted curve in the picture I indicated. Note that it does not go down from the center, as the velocity curve of a solar system does. It starts to go down near the visible edge...
Again, you are too 'emotional' when reading, so you misread it.
Dude, it's just a curve, not something to get emotional over. And you're insulting me again.

The lower line is 'expectation' according to 'distance' based on solar system 'curve' for increasing distances from sun
No, it's not. If the dynamics were like the solar system the curve would only go down. Just like the speeds of the planets go down and down and down as they get further and further from the Sun.

The 'profile' is slightly different from clean 'inverse square' gravitational effects across THAT DYNAMIC region ONLY.
It goes up until it gets to 10,000 light years, which is about 2/3 of the way to the visible edge, where the stars start to thin out.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
And there is no sign of a direct inverse square law. It's not even close; if it were inverse square law it would always go down, never up.

that expectation 'line' starts 'downward' ONLY at 10 Thousand lightyears from center, NOT near 'edge'.
It's 2/3 of the way to the visible edge, and *at* the edge of the compact spiral structure; what's beyond it is wispy and vague. And anybody who looks at the picture can see it.

Meanwhile, the fact it *ever* goes up shows that your insulting slander of 80 years worth of astrophysicists is just plain flat wrong, period, no questions, no doubts, no horse droppings.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.
You have the 'makings' for the answer, but you keep making it back-to-front! Please stop being so 'certain' and 'dismissive' and actually READ and properly understand the IMPORT of what you are seeing in the picture and in my explanations. Only then will you have a chance to see what I am trying to convey. For example, you just stated the essential curve differences, thus:
yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down
The IMPORT of that is that is THE discrepancy between the 'expectation' according to lower line and the actual measured observation line above it. And as I already explained, the region involving the GALACTIC NUCLEUS is COMPLEX distribution from central BH to SPHERICAL COMPACT STAR CLUSTER surrounding it NOT as a disc but a spherical' cluster. Ok? And THEN there is a 'gap' between the outer regions OF that nucleus region cluster and the first INNER RING. It's complicated there. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
Moving right along and repeating the same thing over and over like you do,

Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

Dotted curve goes up, which it would never do if astrophysicists were using solar system dynamics.

"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," and "blind." And you've repeated "emotional" again.

One has to suspect that these insults are actually how you are feeling about yourself, particularly the "emotional" part since you keep repeating it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2016
You have the 'makings' for the answer, but you keep making it back-to-front!
There isn't any way to make it back-to-front. There's the prediction, the dotted curve. It isn't a naive curve like a solar system, because a naive curve like for a solar system goes down all the way, never up. The measured light curve, the yellow curve, diverges from it at 10,000 light years, where the dotted curve starts down and the yellow curve keeps going up.

It's just that simple. There isn't any way to get it "back-to-front."

Please stop being so 'certain' and 'dismissive' and actually READ and properly understand the IMPORT of what you are seeing in the picture and in my explanations.
Your explanations are all wrong, because they deny those curves and their obvious import. Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down; dotted curve goes up and then down, not down all the way.

Simple as that.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
[contd]
And there is no sign of a direct inverse square law. It's not even close; if it were inverse square law it would always go down, never up.
Please see above post; I explained the complexity across the galactic nucleus region towards the inner disc rings. Thanks.

It's 2/3 of the way to the visible edge, and *at* the edge of the compact spiral structure; what's beyond it is wispy and vague.
No mate. That downwards trend of 'expectation' line starts at 10 Thousand lightyears...which is ONE FIFTH distance from center to 'visible edge'.

NB: Recent observations have EXTENDED galaxy's material 'span'.

Meanwhile, the fact it *ever* goes up shows that your insulting slander of 80 years worth of astrophysicists is just plain flat wrong, period, no questions, no doubts, no horse droppings.
Again, please see necessary clarification for complex galactic nucleus-to-inner-rings mass gravity accelerations/profiles, explained previous post. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
For example, you just stated the essential curve differences, thus:
yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down
The IMPORT of that is that is THE discrepancy between the 'expectation' according to lower line and the actual measured observation line above it.
Yes, that's correct, and the meaning of that discrepancy is either that GRT is wrong, or that there is mass that we cannot see i.e. dark matter. The dotted line is the GRT prediction. Your rejection of dark matter means that you assert GRT is wrong. QED.

And as I already explained, the region involving the GALACTIC NUCLEUS is COMPLEX distribution from central BH to SPHERICAL COMPACT STAR CLUSTER surrounding it NOT as a disc but a spherical' cluster.
Totally against the observed facts. We can see lots of spiral galaxies at all angles to us and none of them are spherical. That's a different kind of galaxy. We can see M33 is not that kind, but a spiral, and you can see it in that picture.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
More handwaving and obfuscation; you're denying a spiral galaxy is a spiral galaxy, in order to try to make some claim.

And THEN there is a 'gap' between the outer regions OF that nucleus region cluster and the first INNER RING. It's complicated there.
What "inner ring?" What "gap?" Let's have a really high-resolution look at M33: http://apod.nasa....r-LL.jpg

I see no "gap" and I see no "inner ring." Maybe you should get your eyes checked, or get a better monitor. Or maybe you should stop making up lies that are so easily checked.

Meanwhile, let's review:
Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

Dotted curve goes up, which it would never do if astrophysicists were using solar system dynamics.

"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," and "blind." And you've repeated "emotional" again.

"Ring" and "Gap."

"Spherical" spiral galaxies.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
[contd]
And there is no sign of a direct inverse square law. It's not even close; if it were inverse square law it would always go down, never up.
Please see above post; I explained the complexity across the galactic nucleus region towards the inner disc rings. Thanks.
No, you made up more BS about "rings" and "gaps" and I owned you with a high resolution picture of M33. You tried to obfuscate again and got caught again.

It's 2/3 of the way to the visible edge, and *at* the edge of the compact spiral structure; what's beyond it is wispy and vague.
No mate. That downwards trend of 'expectation' line starts at 10 Thousand lightyears...which is ONE FIFTH distance from center to 'visible edge'.
I'm looking at that picture and there's nothing of the galaxy visible beyond 15,000 light years from the center. Just a bunch of foreground stars in our own galaxy.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
You have the 'makings' for the answer, but you keep making it back-to-front!
There isn't any way to make it back-to-front. There's the prediction, the dotted curve. It isn't a naive curve like a solar system, because a naive curve like for a solar system goes down all the way, never up. The measured light curve, the yellow curve, diverges from it at 10,000 light years, where the dotted curve starts down and the yellow curve keeps going up...
You still missing the crucially important point I keep making clearly, ie:

The Keplerian (as in our solar systrm's planetary motions/speeds plot) rotation curve does NOT start INSIDE the GALAXY, but ONLY starts once we go BEYOND the EDGE of the disc mass (just as it starts in our solar system once we go ABOVE and AWAY from sun's SURFACE).

See?

Crucial point: Your referenced galaxy's lines are NOT of Keplerian ('external' inverse square) orbits; ONLY of GALACTIC nucleus-to-disc-edge INTERNAL NON-Kepleriang orbits! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
Note as well that the distance to the 15,000 light year point on the distance scale is about equal to the distance to the left edge of the picture. That's because it shows the whole visible part of the galaxy, center to edge. You've been caught by Wikipedia, which gives the size of the entire galaxy including the dark matter, but does not give the size of the visible disk.

please see necessary clarification for complex galactic nucleus-to-inner-rings
There aren't any "inner rings." See high-resolution photograph above.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
You still missing the crucially important point I keep making clearly, ie:

The Keplerian (as in our solar systrm's planetary motions/speeds plot)
Stop right there. Kepler's laws apply to all bodies in orbital motion, and have been confirmed for black holes, neutron stars, Saturn's rings, many solar systems, clouds of gas and dust, and many other objects. This is more handwaving and obfuscation.

rotation curve
The rotation curve is not "Keplerian." It's galactic. The dynamics that predict it are Keplerian. More obfuscation, trying to pretend rotation curves were invented 300 years ago.

does NOT start INSIDE the GALAXY, but ONLY starts once we go BEYOND the EDGE of the disc mass (just as it starts in our solar system once we go ABOVE and AWAY from sun's SURFACE).
A galaxy has no surface. It's not a solid object. In fact it's more empty space than anything else. It's just a bunch of stars and clouds of dust and gas that has clumped together.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
[contd]
Crucial point: Your referenced galaxy's lines are NOT of Keplerian ('external' inverse square) orbits; ONLY of GALACTIC nucleus-to-disc-edge INTERNAL NON-Kepleriang orbits!
All orbits are Keplerian, and all gravity is inverse-square. Just like all space is space, all matter is matter, and all electricity is electricity.

More handwaving and obfuscation.

The list is getting longer:

Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

Dotted curve goes up, which it would never do if astrophysicists were using solar system dynamics.

"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," and "blind." And you've repeated "emotional" again.

"Ring" and "Gap."

"Spherical" spiral galaxies.

"Non-Keplerian" orbits.

Non-inverse square gravity.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
please see necessary clarification for complex galactic nucleus-to-inner-rings
There aren't any "inner rings."
Settled spiral galaxies (which are the best subjects for such rotation curve observations/comparisons) have a central SPHERICAL bulge where supermassive BH and its coterie of closely orbiting/captured' stars forming a 'compact star cluster' there. Thence the stellar population settles into a planar-disc configuration and the nearest orbitals of that disc configuration follows the 'inner ring' or ORBITALS which the stars and material in the 'spiral arms' move through those orbital path 'rings' as those 'arms' rotate with galaxy overall. Recent discoveries found LOT of ORDINARY matter, previously 'dark', occupying space within and between those 'spiral arms' of visible stars/gas/plasma. Hence the 'profile' is like a classic sci-fi 'flying saucer' with the 'flat' disc section much more extended. I'm not 'lying' to you. Look it up. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Crucial point: Your referenced galaxy's lines are NOT of Keplerian ('external' inverse square) orbits; ONLY of GALACTIC nucleus-to-disc-edge INTERNAL NON-Keplerian orbits!
All orbits are Keplerian, and all gravity is inverse-square.
What are you claiming that NOn-Keplerian systems of orbits don't exist? Have you read anything correctly? Inside the sun the 'orbitals' would be NON-Keplerian speed profile from center to surface. From surface to further space altitude, the orbits would have Keplerian speed/profile.

Hence WHY different rotation curves for solar system/spiral galaxy. Latter OBSERVED 'different'; hence WHY 'exotic' DM furfy arose when theorists saw their 'expectations' (the lower line in your reference) DIDN"T MATCH the solar system Keplerian 'expectation' line which they brought to the 'comparison'. :)

Only once they realize they were 'comparing/expecting' INCORRECTLY, will they get it that GR CORRECT. NO 'exotic' DM 'needed'.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
Settled spiral galaxies (which are the best subjects for such rotation curve observations/comparisons) have a central SPHERICAL bulge where supermassive BH and its coterie of closely orbiting/captured' stars forming a 'compact star cluster' there.
There is no visible "gap" or "rings" in the extremely high-resolution picture I posted.

M33 doesn't have a supermassive black hole at its center; it only has a 3,000 solar mass black hole.

I can post lots more pictures of spiral galaxies with no "rings" or "gaps."

The central bulge of a spiral galaxy is not spherical. It is an ellipsoid, blending in with the spiral arms. The equator of the bulge is pulled out by its rotation.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Thence the stellar population settles into a planar-disc configuration
This has nothing to do with the central bulge. Spiral galaxies are disks because they rotate and the rotation pulls their mass out into a disk.

and the nearest orbitals of that disc configuration follows the 'inner ring' or ORBITALS
Spiral galaxies (or galaxies of any kind) do not have orbitals. Atoms have orbitals. "Orbitals" are permitted orbits separated from one another by gaps where electrons are not permitted to orbit; there are no gaps in a galaxy where stars are not permitted to orbit.

which the stars and material in the 'spiral arms' move through those orbital path 'rings' as those 'arms' rotate with galaxy overall.
"Rings" don't exist in spiral galaxies, and have nothing to do with spiral arms.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Recent discoveries found LOT of ORDINARY matter, previously 'dark', occupying space within and between those 'spiral arms' of visible stars/gas/plasma. Hence the 'profile' is like a classic sci-fi 'flying saucer' with the 'flat' disc section much more extended. I'm not 'lying' to you. Look it up.
Link it. I can state without hesitation that such studies haven't found enough mass to significantly affect dark matter estimates, which are at least five times the visible matter in most galaxies. Don't link horsepucky; scientific peer reviewed literature only.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
Now, let's see what the latest is:

Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

Dotted curve goes up, which it would never do if astrophysicists were using solar system dynamics.

"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," and "blind." And you've repeated "emotional" again.

"Ring" and "Gap."

"Spherical" spiral galaxies.

"Non-Keplerian" orbits.

Non-inverse square gravity.

M33 "super-massive" black hole.

"Spherical" central bulges in spiral galaxies.

Spiral galaxies are flat because they have central bulges.

Galactic "orbitals."

Spiral arms are "rings."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
What are you claiming that NOn-Keplerian systems of orbits don't exist?
There aren't any "Keplerian systems of orbits." Kepler's laws are THE laws of orbital mechanics. If an object in space is orbiting, it's subject to Kepler's laws. It's like talking about non-atomic molecules, or non-water-containing humans.

Inside the sun the 'orbitals' would be NON-Keplerian speed profile from center to surface. From surface to further space altitude, the orbits would have Keplerian speed/profile.
Orbits aren't orbitals.

Things can't orbit inside the Sun; there's too much drag. Not to mention it's so hot that no solid object can exist there; only plasma.

More handwaving and obfuscation.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

It is become apparent that you are not going to change your mind no matter what is explained to you that challemges what you already have in mind as being right' and me being 'wrong'. Just because you don't get the points I am trying to explain to you, you default to the same 'certainty' and dismissive attitude which leads you to make the same mistaken accusations of 'lying' or 'just wrong wrong wrong' which you made in that plasmoids in sun discussion in which you finally had to admit you were the one wrong. You accused me of 'lying' etc etc then. I was proven correct. Now you are employing the same 'bad habits', which is not science discourse, but belief/insult based ego-tripping based on your 'certainty' that I could not be the one who is right. BUT you NOW know I CAN be right, since those plasmoids in sun/bicep2 instances. My friendly advise you: 'lose' that 'certainty' and that unwavering assumption that mainstream is 'always right'. Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Hence WHY different rotation curves for solar system/spiral galaxy.
No, it's for two reasons:
1. Galaxies are not solid objects.
2. Galaxies contain dark matter (unless GRT is wrong, which I do not believe).

Latter OBSERVED 'different'; hence WHY 'exotic' DM furfy arose when theorists saw their 'expectations' (the lower line in your reference) DIDN"T MATCH the solar system Keplerian 'expectation' line which they brought to the 'comparison'.
DM is not necessarily exotic; we don't know what it is. We just know what it does. And we know that because the rotation curves don't match our well-informed, carefully calculated expectations based on the observed visible matter in the galaxies.

It's not because four generations of astrophysicists screwed up Physics 101 and forgot the shell theorem.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
It is become apparent that you are not going to change your mind no matter what is explained to you that challemges what you already have in mind as being right' and me being 'wrong'.
No, I'm not going to change my mind based on the evidence you have presented. I've found something wrong with just about everything you've said. You appear to have built a mythology about how science works that you are unwilling, for whatever reason, to abandon, and you are willing to say anything to support it. That's not conducive to convincing anyone of anything.

Just because you don't get the points I am trying to explain to you, you default to the same 'certainty' and dismissive attitude which leads you to make the same mistaken accusations of 'lying' or 'just wrong wrong wrong'
This is another lie. I have presented evidence to support my every assertion, and evidence to refute every incorrect assertion of yours.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Where you were correct, I have said so; where you were incorrect, I have said that as well. It's not my fault you said far more that was incorrect than was correct, nor that you believe you are smarter than four generations of astrophysicists, nor that you believe that galaxies have orbitals, that there are "non-Keplerian orbits," that there are "rings" and "gaps" in pictures that don't show rings or gaps, or that you don't understand gravity physics.

Get over it.

which you made in that plasmoids in sun discussion
I admitted I was incorrect about a minor point, on my own recognizance since no one pointed out evidence to show I was incorrect, I found it in my own research. You have been trying to make hay out of that ever since; but you know? I don't really care. I showed my integrity, and you've been showing your lack of it ever since.

It was entirely predictable you'd bring this up again. And I repeat: how about you on the BICEP2 thread?

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Again, get over it.

You accused me of 'lying' etc etc then. I was proven correct.
So? Not only were you lying about five other things on that thread, but I've now got a list of outright lies, misrepresentations, and insults you've posted on this thread as well. With evidence to back every single one up, in your own words. And I'll be posting the latest version right after I'm done responding to your latest blivet.

Again, get over it.

Now you are employing the same 'bad habits', which is not science discourse, but belief/insult based ego-tripping based on your 'certainty' that I could not be the one who is right. BUT you NOW know I CAN be right, since those plasmoids in sun/bicep2 instances.
I always knew it, and I've pointed out several times you were right in this thread too. That doesn't mean you're always right, nor even that you're mostly right. And it's not a "bad habit" to point out when someone's statements aren't correct.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Oh, and "ego-tripping" is another insult, and so is "bad habits." I'll be adding them to the list.

My friendly advise you: 'lose' that 'certainty' and that unwavering assumption that mainstream is 'always right'.
This is another insult, a repeat with different words of "blind" and "merely 'believing.'"

My advice to you is to stop posing. Stop insulting people you disagree with. Stop making up weird wacky theories about how four generations of astrophysicists made a mistake a first-year college student would spot. Stop trying to logic-chop and insult people in order to "win."

And most of all, get over yourself.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
And today's final list:

Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.

Dotted curve goes up, which it would never do if astrophysicists were using solar system dynamics.

"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," "blind," "ego-tripping," "don't get it," and "bad habits." And you've repeated "emotional" and "blind" and "merely 'believing'" again.

"Ring" and "Gap."

"Spherical" spiral galaxies.

"Non-Keplerian" orbits.

Non-inverse square gravity.

M33 "super-massive" black hole.

"Spherical" central bulges in spiral galaxies.

Spiral galaxies are flat because they have central bulges.

Galactic "orbitals."

Spiral arms are "rings."

I never say you're right.

Just because you're right once you're always right.

Quite a list.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib.
I admitted I was incorrect about a minor point, on my own recognizance since no one pointed out evidence to show I was incorrect, I found it in my own research.
Mate, IIRC, it was cantdrive who posted a mainstream reference link also acknowledging plasmoids in sun. So your 'research' was not needing more than just clicking on that link from cantdrive. And if I was correct and you wrong then, how come I am the one who has shown no integrity ever since? I was correct since then too; and the trolls/believers wrong. MY integrity is intact. Look to your own.

... you'd bring this up again. And I repeat: how about you on the BICEP2 thread?
I explained that is long dead issue, I was correct; the trolls/believers wrong then too. No more need be rehashed of that issue and waste valuable time/energy.

The only reason I made allusion to those instances of me being correct/you incorrect was in self-defense against YOUR 'lying', 'wrong' accusations. OK? :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :) Caught this just as I was about to go.
Hence WHY different rotation curves for solar system/spiral galaxy.
No, it's for two reasons: 1. Galaxies are not solid objects. 2. Galaxies contain dark matter (unless GRT is wrong, which I do not believe).
No, the 'solid object' rotation curve is STRAIGHT LINE at approximately 45 degree angle in the graph. So that is a red herring. Please don't do that. And your claim galaxies contain DM is based on that very rotation curve difference I just explained as to why we DON'T 'need' DM! See circuitous argument you just made?
DM is not necessarily exotic; we don't know what it is.
Exactly! I have been pointing out to Phys1 etc that plenty of previously 'dark' ORDINARY matter being discovered, which explains 'some' of 'unexpected' motions. But 'exotic' DM is THE 'mainstream' claim.

PS: It wouldn't be the first time mainstream 'theorists' led astray by silly mistake/flawed assumptions/interpretations etc. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
Mate, IIRC, it was cantdrive who posted a mainstream reference link also acknowledging plasmoids in sun. So your 'research' was not needing more than just clicking on that link from cantdrive.
Actually, I'm not sure, but the point remains that when I saw evidence I was wrong I admitted it. Which you have never done.

And if I was correct and you wrong then, how come I am the one who has shown no integrity ever since?
Because you keep bringing it up and you keep pretending it means you're never wrong.

I was correct since then too; and the trolls/believers wrong.
See? Here you are doing exactly what I said: claiming since you were right once you're always right and always have been right. Right there in your own words.

MY integrity is intact.
No, it's not. And I just proved it. See above.

Look to your own.
Mine's fine; I admit it when I'm wrong.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
... you'd bring this up again. And I repeat: how about you on the BICEP2 thread?
I explained that is long dead issue, I was correct; the trolls/believers wrong then too. No more need be rehashed of that issue and waste valuable time/energy.
No, you were wrong, both to impugn the integrity of the BICEP2 scientists, and to claim you had found four errors in their paper when there was only one, a claim you have never backed up with evidence.

The only reason I made allusion to those instances of me being correct/you incorrect was in self-defense against YOUR 'lying', 'wrong' accusations.
No, the only reason you made allusion to those instances was to claim you're always right because I was wrong once.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :) Caught this just as I was about to go.
Hence WHY different rotation curves for solar system/spiral galaxy.
No, it's for two reasons: 1. Galaxies are not solid objects. 2. Galaxies contain dark matter (unless GRT is wrong, which I do not believe).
No, the 'solid object' rotation curve is STRAIGHT LINE at approximately 45 degree angle in the graph. So that is a red herring.
You missed the point. Go read the whole post.

And your claim galaxies contain DM is based on that very rotation curve difference I just explained as to why we DON'T 'need' DM!
But your claim is that the rotation curve expected is the same as the drop off of speed of orbiting planets is obviously wrong given that the real expected curve increases, then drops off. If it were the same as planets in a solar system, then it would decrease all the way. That would be the expectation curve if your claim were correct.

Dotted line goes up. Remember?

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
DM is not necessarily exotic; we don't know what it is.
Exactly! I have been pointing out to Phys1 etc that plenty of previously 'dark' ORDINARY matter being discovered, which explains 'some' of 'unexpected' motions.
Not enough, by many orders of magnitude, to explain the rotation curves. "Orders of magnitude" is pretty badly wrong.

But 'exotic' DM is THE 'mainstream' claim.
There isn't any mainstream claim as to what dark matter is. There are a lot of hypotheses by mainstream scientists, but none of them have panned out when we looked, so far. A claim, in science, is a paper in which a theory is substantiated, and no theory of the composition of dark matter has yet made that grade. You're lying again. The mainstream claim is that dark matter exists, nothing more.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Mate, IIRC, it was cantdrive who posted a mainstream reference link also acknowledging plasmoids in sun. So your 'research' was not needing more than just clicking on that link from cantdrive.
Actually, I'm not sure, but the point remains that when I saw evidence I was wrong I admitted it. Which you have never done.
Does it ever occur to you that I have been correct since then also; and that the 'evidence' offered to me was no more than more mainstream 'authority' based belief/speculation/hypothesis and claims based on self-serving/circuitous/flawed etc orthodoxy Which was at issue in the discussions where I am increasingly correct?

See? Here you are doing exactly what I said: claiming since you were right once you're always right and always have been right.
No, I've proved correct more than once. I continue to be correct; because I follow the science instead of the reputation/orthodoxy which may be incorrect, as now. Try doing same. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
Does it ever occur to you that I have been correct since then also;
Yes; you've been correct a few times in this thread.

and that the 'evidence' offered to me was no more than more mainstream 'authority' based belief/speculation/hypothesis and claims based on self-serving/circuitous/flawed etc orthodoxy Which was at issue in the discussions where I am increasingly correct?
You're not correct in this discussion; see The List. You'd better get used to seeing it; you're going to see a lot of it from now on. I've saved a copy on my laptop just for you.

Furthermore, I didn't offer anything authority based; I showed you hard evidence that what you claimed was wrong. The most obvious example is your claim that astrophysicists were using orbital mechanics similar to that used for a solar system in describing a galaxy; the proof is, the expected rotation curve goes up.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
See? Here you are doing exactly what I said: claiming since you were right once you're always right and always have been right
No, I've proved correct more than once.
Yes, a few times in this thread. That doesn't change the fact that you're mostly wrong.

I continue to be correct; because I follow the science instead of the reputation/orthodoxy which may be incorrect, as now.
The expected rotation curve in the picture I posted isn't based on reputation. It's based on calculation using the appropriate gravity physics. You're lying again. More meat for The List. Thanks.

Try doing same.
I do every time I post here.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
But your claim is that the rotation curve expected is the same as the drop off of speed of orbiting planets is obviously wrong given that the real expected curve increases, then drops off. If it were the same as planets in a solar system, then it would decrease all the way. That would be the expectation curve if your claim were correct.

Dotted line goes up. Remember?
No no no. Haven't you understood anything? That galaxy expectations line was allowing for galaxy bulge/disc complex parameters/effects. Beyond the nucleus region, their expectation was "Keplerian", as indicated by the 'expected' downward trend at 10 Thousand lightyears from center.

The OTHER line was ACTUAL specific wavelength measurement for orbital velocities in that same disc; actual observed behavior.

What I am saying is that 'observed' is CORRECT according to GR when applied to NON-Keplerian orbits WITHIN disc mass region.

See what I am saying?

DM 'type/claims' moot now. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
Dotted line goes up. Remember?
No no no.
Yes yes yes. From the center to 10kly it goes up. If the astrophysicists had used a solar system model it could only go down.

That galaxy expectations line was allowing for galaxy bulge/disc complex parameters/effects.
Correct.

Beyond the nucleus region, their expectation was "Keplerian", as indicated by the 'expected' downward trend at 10 Thousand lightyears from center.
The nucleus isn't 10kly wide. It's about 2kly wide at most; more like a bit over 1.

The OTHER line was ACTUAL specific wavelength measurement for orbital velocities in that same disc; actual observed behavior.
Orbital velocities aren't rotational velocities. They're measured in angle per unit time. The measurement for either orbital or rotational velocities isn't done by wavelength, it's done by spectroscopy and Doppler shift. You are correct that the yellow curve is the rotation curve.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
PS: @ Da Schneib: Your 'list' and insults and 'certainty' while dismissing and missing important crucial points is not what science discussion is about. Don't fall into those bad habits again. You know what happened to you/others who did that last time. Just be reasonable and allow that I might be right and you/others wrong. It's happened before and it will happen again, as now. Rethink it all through carefully. If you can't see what I have explained, then have you considered the possibility that maybe it's your problem not mine? I am correct based on the science correctly applied. What others have done which involves incorrect application of the correct science is their problem, not mine. Let the chips fall where they may according to the facts as explained. Ignore and dismiss and insult with your 'certainty' and 'authority' appeals at your own risk. I have tried. Very busy elsewhere. Have no more time for this one. Good luck, Da Schneib. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
What I am saying is that 'observed' is CORRECT according to GR when applied to NON-Keplerian orbits WITHIN disc mass region.
This is wrong. The observed curve is the observed curve; it has nothing to do with GRT, Keplerian dynamics, or whether it's within the disk or not. I don't even know what "disc mass region" means. It appears to be semantically equivalent to wavelength measurements of orbital velocities. Another tidbit for The List.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
Your 'list' and insults and 'certainty' while dismissing and missing important crucial points is not what science discussion is about.
What science discussion is about is the facts, wherever they lead, not about insulting four generations of scientists whose shoes you are not fit to polish, not about making up wacky stuff like galactic orbitals, not about claiming you're never wrong, and not about claiming everything science has done up until now is "orthodoxy" and supported by reputation rather than data.

Just be reasonable and allow that I might be right
Only until you start insulting working scientists, making up pseudoscientific babble like "non-Keplerian orbits" and "disc mass regions," and insulting those who disagree with you by calling them "blind," "emotional," and accusing them of "ego-tripping."

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
If you can't see what I have explained
I see it clearly. It's pseudoscience. I've proven that. The List, remember?

have you considered the possibility that maybe it's your problem not mine?
Not since you started insulting working scientists. That's a sure sign as far as I'm concerned, and you've proven over and over that it's a correct sign about you.

I am correct based on the science correctly applied.
Except for that, you know, evidence thing.

Have no more time for this one.
You've claimed that several times now and not stayed gone.

Looks like you lied about that, too. Hope you're not lying this time. Kinda doubt it.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
What I am saying is that 'observed' is CORRECT according to GR when applied to NON-Keplerian orbits WITHIN disc mass region.
This is wrong. The observed curve is the observed curve; it has nothing to do with GRT, Keplerian dynamics, or whether it's within the disk or not. I don't even know what "disc mass region" means. It appears to be semantically equivalent to wavelength measurements of orbital velocities. Another tidbit for The List.
Why do you keep missing the point? I said that the rotation curve 'line' based on observation/measurement IS CORRECT using GR as per GRT but applied TO the disc mass distribution situation. Got that? Hence NO NEED for great DM mass to explain observed rotation curve. Got that?

Exotic DM hypotheses unnecesary once THAT point is understood. No need to invoke exotic DM at all; because it's correct AS IT IS without needing DM additions. GR works just fine. GRT applied CORRECTLY to disc shows curve IS OK as is. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
The List:
Yellow curve going up, dotted curve going down.
Dotted curve goes up.
"Merely 'believing'", "emotional," "blind," "ego-tripping," "don't get it," and "bad habits."
"Ring" and "Gap."
"Spherical" spiral galaxies.
"Non-Keplerian" orbits.
Non-inverse square gravity.
M33 "super-massive" black hole.
"Spherical" central bulges in spiral galaxies.
Spiral galaxies are flat because they have central bulges.
Galactic "orbitals."
Spiral arms are "rings."
I never say you're right.
Just because you're right once you're always right.
Dotted curve doesn't go up.
Nucleus of M33 is 10kly wide.
Orbital velocity is the same as rotational velocity.
Orbital velocity and rotational velocity can be measured by "wavelengths."
The observed rotational velocity curve of a galaxy is calculated.
"disc mass region"
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
I said that the rotation curve 'line' based on observation/measurement IS CORRECT using GR
But it doesn't use GRT. The observed curve is the observed curve. No calculation is needed, only observation. Got that?

Hence NO NEED for great DM mass to explain observed rotation curve.
This is wrong. The discrepancy between the observed curve and the expected curve based on the visible mass distribution requires explanation, and there are only two explanations possible:
1. GRT is wrong.
2. There is dark matter.
Got that?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Not since you started insulting working scientists.
How am I 'insulting working scientists' while I follow the scientific method and the evidence/logic according to known science in order to challenge/scrutinize and correct their assumptions/exercises/procedures/claims which have on occasions proven to BE flawed, as I observed/explained before and now? You should eschew the 'personal/people' angle when doing science; else you will be vulnerable to undue influence by 'reputation' and 'source authority' etc instead of being influenced by the scientifically evidenced facts and logics applied correctly.

Be a true scientist. Not a personality dependent believer/promulgator even when the claims are being challenged FAIRLY not 'insultingly'.

Scientific Method DEMANDS TRUE scrutiny/challenges of possibly flawed claims from mainstream groups as well as non-mainstream.

I have been doing what scientific method demands of me. What have you been doing? Bye. :)
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
How am I 'insulting working scientists' while I follow the scientific method and the evidence/logic according to known science in order to challenge/scrutinize and correct their assumptions/exercises/procedures/claims which have on occasions proven to BE flawed, as I observed/explained before and now?
By claiming they forgot Physics 101, specifically the implications of the shell theorem. For four generations. And that's only the ones you're insulting now; you also insulted the BICEP2 scientists by claiming they'd made four errors when they only made one, and by claiming they were getting by with shoddy work because they have good reputations and they were just depending on that instead of doing the work properly.

You should eschew the 'personal/people' angle when doing science
I'm not the one insulting working scientists without evidence, and insulting people on science forums because they disagree with me.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
else you will be vulnerable to undue influence by 'reputation' and 'source authority' etc instead of being influenced by the scientifically evidenced facts and logics applied correctly.
Considering I'm the one presenting all the evidence I'm not just real worried about that, sport.

Be a true scientist.
I'm not a scientist, true or otherwise.

Not a personality dependent believer/promulgator even when the claims are being challenged FAIRLY not 'insultingly'.
This is looking more and more like projection. People like you do that to confuse the opposition by accusing them of what you yourself are doing. It won't work on me. You should stop trying to use it.

I have presented the evidence; you choose to ignore it. That is not fair. You are the one using the insults, and The List documents those insults. You've insulted me again by implying that I pay any attention at all to reputations and that I believe instead of checking.

[contd]
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :) This will have to be my last post for today.

The discrepancy between the observed curve and the expected curve based on the visible mass distribution requires explanation, and there are only two explanations possible:
1. GRT is wrong.
2. There is dark matter.
Got that?
You left out the bleeding obvious THIRD option which I have been patiently pointing out and explaining to you for how long now?

That third option: that GRT is CORRECT....BUT the comparison/expectation of curves was NOT done 'apples with apples'; they were applying that CORRECT GRT in NON-Equivalent comparison regions, as I explained (ie, Keplerian compared with NON-Keplerian region of 'orbit' types/speeds profile).

If you can 'get' that, then you'll 'get' all I have been explaining to you.

Good luck and goodnight, mate.

PS: Please try to take time out to re-read it all; and please stop making 'lists'/assertions based on your own misunderstandings of what I said. Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
[contd]
Scientific Method DEMANDS TRUE scrutiny/challenges of possibly flawed claims from mainstream groups as well as non-mainstream.
Then why don't you give it a try? Because you're not paying any attention to legitimate evidence based scrutiny of YOUR claims.

I have been doing what scientific method demands of me.
No, sorry, you have absolutely not done anything even remotely like that.

What have you been doing?
Challenging pseudoscience. Specifically, YOUR pseudoscientific claims.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
You left out the bleeding obvious THIRD option which I have been patiently pointing out and explaining to you for how long now?

That third option: that GRT is CORRECT....BUT the comparison/expectation of curves was NOT done 'apples with apples'; they were applying that CORRECT GRT in NON-Equivalent comparison regions, as I explained (ie, Keplerian compared with NON-Keplerian region of 'orbit' types/speeds profile).
"Non-Keplerian orbits" is pseudoscience. Got that?

please stop making 'lists'/assertions based on your own misunderstandings of what I said.
There isn't any misunderstanding. I understand you right up to the tippy top of your pointy little head.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2016
I am contemplating whether I can squeeze another couple items into The List:

Da Schneib is a scientist.
Insulting scientists is part of the scientific method.

It's going to get to two posts pretty quick. Those two will put it over the top. I think I'll wait for a few more to make it worth posting the second page.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2016
Hi Da Schneib, your now defaulting to personal/troll tactics instead of sticking to science? Not your best look, mate. Reconsider before going down that slippery slope to irrelevance and malice. Stick to fair objective polite science discourse. Leave the silly/nasty stuff to others who have no scruples about such things and make themselves irrelevant thereby. Good luck in your choice of path from here on in, mate. G'night. :)

PS: Do some research into the graphing/labeling of orbital plotting types. You might learn about Keplerian and NON-Keplerian orbital system/graphing etc 'curves' and labels, Cheers, :)
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2016
Acquisition of knowledge can only come from gathering information. You cannot create information out of thin air.


You're talking about testing of theories, not the formulation of theories and models.

the algorithms underlying computer models (especially the finite element/difference modles alluded to in the article) are certainly based on observations.


Again missing the point: the models come from someone's intuition and guesswork about what might be happening, which is then translated to simulations, which are then tested against empirical data.

Even when you have empirical data to start with, such as timing the drop of an apple, the mathematical function you use to describe the event - your theory of gravity in this case - does not arise from the data you have, because there are infinitely many functions that could fit that particular event. You need other means to choose.

If the theory/model itself arose empirically, we would not need to test it.
Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2016
The point of science - and particularily the philosophy of science - then is to derive means to whittle the field of possibilities down to the most plausible answers - yet no answer is definite, and should not be thought of as "empirically proven fact" - only more or less plausible, and this is an important distinction.

Many people are just victims of the television version of science where some Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku, or Brian Cox talk authoritatively about the latest theories almost as if they were gospel, and simply lampshade the whole thing by occasionally admitting that they're not exactly sure about some minor detail.

But the idea that "science is empirically proven facts" was exactly the problem we had back in the late 1800's when everyone thought that science was "done", and only had some minor details left to figure out. Then it turns out that Newton was wrong, the aether didn't exist, and everything fell to pieces.
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2016
The most annoying thing is that because science IS actually guesswork and intuition, because there ARE infinitely many theories that fit any particular set of empirical observations - many of which would be rightfully or wrongfully considered ridiculous - there is no hard and fast rule or a way to distinguish non-science from science. There is actually no definition that would once and for all draw the line in the sand.

https://en.wikipe..._problem

In other words, science isn't "complete". Science itself however doesn't need to be complete, because it's just as happy to study itself. Science is just people trying to figure out how to know things, and as such it needs to doubt and question even itself.

Who needs science to be complete are people with an interest in authority: using science as a position of authority, or presenting science as a position of authority in order to argue against it. Those are the real cranks.
Eikka
4 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2016
The point of all this is, that "Empirical Science" is content in merely describing the event - such as how apples fall or cannonballs roll down wooden slopes - those are discoverable facts that result in equations that more or less accurately describe what is happening.

"Theoretical Science" makes a fundamental leap in trying to explain why the apples fall, beyond that which is directly observable, and in doing so it can get marvelously misguided - yet able to produce the same limited set of data which corresponds to the previous empirical observation.

Where empirical science says "Two bodies of mass attract in inverse proportion to the square of their distances", theoretical science adds "because space is curved in four dimensions", and you can't pull that out of any empirical data. You can never prove it right, you can only prove that it works.

Thats why mixing up the two and claiming theoretical science is proven fact in the same sense is really dangerous.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
Careful Eikka in mentioning philosophy of science here, as there are many that post here that are just naive enough not to understand the relavence of epistemological considerations to knowledge and thus delimiting valid scientific claims.

Eikka
5 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2016
That's why saying things like;

"the algorithms underlying computer models (especially the finite element/difference modles alluded to in the article) are certainly based on observations."


Is fundamentally incorrect. The FEM programs are based on theoretical assumptions about the underlying causes of things that are simplified to produce the computational models about observable events, and that is the only empiricism involved: they're tested against known cases and verified to produce correct results.

And then they are applied on unkown cases which are not observed - such as the future behaviour of some system - and simply assumed to produce results that correspond to reality.

Very frequently they do not, because the underlying model and theoretical assumption is subtly wrong. Take for example metal fatigue: there's still huge uncertainties in predicting when a piece of steel is going to snap because the material models are lacking.
Eikka
not rated yet Apr 04, 2016
Hence why there exists offical engineering standards that specify e.g. you have to over-engineer a hoist for 5x the critical load if there's going to be people standing underneath it.

It's not because of health and safety gone mad, but because we genuinely don't know whether it would be safe to use a smaller margin, because running the structure through a FEMM analysis does not actually give you entirely reliable answers, and destructive testing of every new structure would mean you have to build them twice.

thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2016
Eikka said:
Hence why there exists offical engineering standards that specify e.g. you have to over-engineer a hoist for 5x the critical load if there's going to be people standing underneath it.

It's not because of health and safety gone mad, but because we genuinely don't know whether it would be safe to use a smaller margin, because running the structure through a FEMM analysis does not actually give you entirely reliable answers, and destructive testing of every new structure would mean you have to build them twice.



Good point and let me add a bit. The answers are reliable if the structure is "perfectly defined." For instance, if you knew you were going to have exactly the same system each time the results would be good. However, there may be a bad weld in the structure, or a counterfeit bolt, or a flaw in a piece of steel. Since we cannot know those aspects we have to build as though they are present. That means overbuilding.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2016
A quick note: there are, actually, non-Keplerian orbits.

The problem with using them to describe the motion of stars in a galaxy is, non-Keplerian orbits are powered orbits; that is, the star would need to have boosters strapped onto it.

Snicker.
my2cts
3.4 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2016
@Da Scheib
What about this one?
http://earthsky.o...ond-moon
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
No, that's still Keplerian; the orbital dynamics are weird, but entirely driven by gravity acting on a fixed mass. In order for a natural body to have a non-Keplerian orbit without boosters, it has to have internal fluid structure that's of low enough viscosity so mass can "slosh around" inside it under the influence of the gravity field it's orbiting in. This "sloshing" causes it to wobble in its orbit as the fluid moves around. Stars in a galactic gravity field aren't placed under sufficient tidal stress for this to contribute a measurable amount of non-Keplerian action, as evidenced by our Sun in the Milky Way's gravity field; if the Sun could "slosh" like this it would affect the ephemerides of all the planets; and there's no argument that the planets would be affected identically, because they cannot have the same internal viscosity as the Sun.

So there's a nice detailed explanation.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
[contd]
Worth mentioning that some of the icy moons of Jupiter (Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto) have internal "oceans" that are capable of "sloshing" like this, and therefore exhibit minor non-Keplerian perturbations in their orbits.

http://www.aanda....-10.html

Good question!
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
...there are, actually, non-Keplerian orbits.

...the star would need to have boosters...
Heartening to see you took my advice and researched non-Keplerian Orbits. See? I wasn't "lying" or "ignorant" after all. :)

Re your 'rider':
...the star would need to have boosters strapped onto it
CONSIDER: Keplerian models/label historically DERIVED/APPLIED from/to 'clean system' orbits OUTSIDE an overwhelmingly DOMINANT central mass (like in our SS).

The 'system' WITHIN sun mass ITSELF, and WITHIN the galaxy disc mass ITSELF, is NOT 'clean'....because OUTER 'shells' of gravitating matter proportionally and PERSISTENTLY COUNTER the DOWNWARDS gravitational acceleration at a galaxy star's respective in-mass radial position.

Hence in-disc stars ARE effectively persistently 'boosted' into non-Keplerian paths/speeds; while stars beyond disc edge would not.

See now, why 'apples with apples' comparison is CRUCIAL to avoid the subtle error I pointed to? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
...there are, actually, non-Keplerian orbits.

...the star would need to have boosters...
Heartening to see you took my advice and researched non-Keplerian Orbits. See? I wasn't "lying" or "ignorant" after all. :)
You're seriously suggesting that stars have boosters attached to them? How are non-Keplerian orbits relevant to galaxy dynamics? This is more pseudoscience.

CONSIDER: Keplerian models/label historically DERIVED/APPLIED from/to 'clean system' orbits OUTSIDE an overwhelmingly DOMINANT central mass (like in our SS).
No, you're not getting it.

They apply to space ships.

Which have boosters.

Stars don't have boosters.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

Get it now?

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2016
[contd]
The 'system' WITHIN sun mass ITSELF, and WITHIN the galaxy disc mass ITSELF, is NOT 'clean'....
You can't compare those. The Sun is a star. A galaxy is a galaxy. Galaxies don't have much in the way of viscosity to them; the stars don't directly interact with each other much. They're too far apart. In the Sun, on the other hand, and pretty much all stars, the ions and electrons are pretty close together, so they're constantly directly interacting. Solar dynamics has little to do with galactic dynamics, as a result of this enormous difference.

because OUTER 'shells' of gravitating matter proportionally and PERSISTENTLY COUNTER the DOWNWARDS gravitational acceleration at a galaxy star's respective in-mass radial position.
Galaxies don't have shells.

They're not solid objects.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed.

Get it now?

I'm gonna get half my second page of The List just from this post, looks like.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
[contd]
Hence in-disc stars ARE effectively persistently 'boosted' into non-Keplerian paths/speeds; while stars beyond disc edge would not.
No, they aren't. Virtually all their motions are definable using Keplerian dynamics. There aren't any boosters on them, and there aren't any "shells." Galaxies are made of widely scattered stars, not of colliding ions.

Non-Keplerian means that it's not a gravity interaction, there's some other force at work, and there isn't any other force at work in a galaxy. We know there's none in ours that affects our Sun; if there were, we'd be able to tell from the variation of the ephemerides. There's no gap there any more. Our technology closed it.

We've already been over this. There's nothing here for you.

The Sun is not a galaxy.

The Solar System is not a galaxy.

But the same single force makes them move they way they do: gravity. Period.

Get it now?

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2016
[contd]
See now, why 'apples with apples' comparison is CRUCIAL to avoid the subtle error I pointed to? :)
Yes.

I see the Sun is not a galaxy.

I see the Solar System is not a galaxy.

I see that non-Keplerian orbits happen because of a force other than gravity.

I see there is no force but gravity acting on the Sun and Solar System.

I see galaxies don't have shells.

I see galaxies aren't solid objects.

I see lots of comparisons by you that are apples-to-oranges.

I see you projecting again.

Get it now?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2016
Get it now?
@Da Schneib
no she doesn't get it... it is a severe D-K along with other "issues"

that is why you never see her admit when she makes a mistake, which is often

want to know more about her problems?
read the homepage she published that Ira found!
http://earthlingclub.com/

it is telling
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

So, you found out I wasn't lying that non-Keplerian orbits were real thing. You were so certain of your 'knowledge' and that I was 'ignorant' and 'lying' to you.

Now you found out it was you that was ignorant and making false accusations about me.

But what do you do, NOW, again?

You make assertions based on your 'certianty' that you know what you are talking about and I don't.

Do you ever learn? How many times do I have to prove you wrong before you learn the lesson of humility/respect?

Now:

When density/stregth of the material/gravitation rise to critical levels in a matter distribution, then 'shell theorem' begins to apply to some degree.

It applies to sun interior 'orbits' (it's not electromagnetic cohesion forces we are discussing, only GRAVITATIONAL effects along INTERNAL radial).

Spiral Galaxy DISC may be two-thirds or more of galaxy mass; hence sufficiently dense/massive aggregation to involve shell theorem effects to some degree. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2016
Great stuff, Cappy.

Sorry, RC, that was your day. I got no time for that stuff. Maybe I'll bother to check you out again in six months or a year.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2016
Great stuff, Cappy
@Schneibster
yeah... but i can't take the credit for that comedy of errors... that is all on rc

what is astounding to me is the above
you say
Non-Keplerian means that it's not a gravity interaction, there's some other force at work, and there isn't any other force at work in a galaxy. We know there's none in ours that affects our Sun; if there were, we'd be able to tell from the variation of the ephemerides. There's no gap there any more. Our technology closed it
so what is the retort of the deranged?
you found out I wasn't lying that non-Keplerian orbits were real thing
wow...
just wow

it's almost like watching Donald Duck play Hannibal Lecter and bar-b-que his neighborhood school children while promising you a great dinner...

so, what do we learn?

if you can't win an argument with logic and evidence, go straight to delusional misrepresentation and blatant obfuscation and then build a strawman based upon it and Gish Gallop!!
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

Did you learn that Keplerian orbits describe those orbiots of sparsely distributed planets/bodies in our Solar System which are overwhelmingly influenced by the central gravitating body mass (Sun)?

And that all other orbits are NON-Keplerian IRRESPECTIVE of the cause/force involved which makes them differ from the Keplerian, including the higher 'shells' of material above INTERNAL orbits WITHIN the main gravitating mass distribution (such as in-Sun OR Galactic in-Disc)?

If you learned at least that, then you have again benefited from my patient explanation based on known science applied correctly. It will help expedite your future learning, and make it a less traumatic process for all involved, if in future you drop that 'ceratinty' while being actually ignorant/misunderstanding of the known science being explained.

PS: I see CapS is bringing personal malice/ignorance & denials of reality in order to egg you on. It hinders your objectivity. Ignore it. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Everyone, please set aside for the moment any prejudicial 'certainty of inerrancy' re human individuals/groups, of whatever 'profession'.

Now consider those theorists in the 1960s and since; who were 'expecting' to see that galactic rotation curve would/should be at least 'roughly similar' to the Keplerian Rotation Curve derived from OUR solar system planetary orbitals observations.

Then consider their reaction when the galactic rotation curve indicated NON-Keplerian stellar orbits in the visible disc:

They were 'surprised'; and immediately postulated DM to try to explain mismatch to expectations.

IF they HAD considered the rotation curve for objects/stars well BEYOND the disc edge it WOULD have matched roughly Keplerian orbits.

So, IN-DISC orbits are CORRECT according to GR! So they SHOUD NOT match naive 'Keplerian' expectations!

So 'GR anomaly' DOESN'T EXIST because IN-DiSC region IS NON-Keplerian as I point out. All explained. No DM required. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2016
RC's SOP is to find some reference to a piece of physics whose name appears to support his weird ToE that he won't tell anyone about, ignore all the problems that piece of physics would introduce that don't fit this mystical theory, and then beat up on anybody who disagrees with him by endlessly repeating the name of said piece of physics while ignoring what it actually signifies.

For example, non-Keplerian orbits.

For example, galactic "orbitals."

For example, galactic "shells."

And that's just in this thread, and is by no means a complete list even here.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
RC's SOP is to find some reference to a piece of physics whose name appears to support his weird ToE that he won't tell anyone about, ignore all the problems that piece of physics would introduce that don't fit this mystical theory, and then beat up on anybody who disagrees with him by endlessly repeating the name of said piece of physics while ignoring what it actually signifies.

For example, non-Keplerian orbits.
What are you on about, mate? I just pointed out a valid aspect based on known science which makes the DM requirement unnecessary. But do you learn and realize what I have pointed out is true according to GR and known science? NO. You resort to personal irrelevant prejudicial tactics as a diversion from the point made which you cannot refute because the point is based on correct GR correctly applied. The Keplerian 'expectation' and NON-Keplerian 'reality' in-disc is FACT. I have NO 'mystical theory'.

Read my last post to Phys1. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2016
RC's SOP is to find some reference to a piece of physics whose name appears to support his weird ToE that he won't tell anyone about, ignore all the problems that piece of physics would introduce that don't fit this mystical theory, and then beat up on anybody who disagrees with him by endlessly repeating the name of said piece of physics while ignoring what it actually signifies.

For example, non-Keplerian orbits.

For example, galactic "orbitals."

For example, galactic "shells."

And that's just in this thread, and is by no means a complete list even here.


You should see some of his stuffs he writes for Earthling Club House. Hooyeei, when I first saw that I thought he was on the drugs.

http://earthlingclub.com/
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2016
Yeah, I saw that; someone else linked it.

I got to

Scalar Direction self-differentiates into infinitesimally thin, infinitely long, duality filaments of Directional Impetus (Energy)
and stopped polluting my mind with negative information.

I did scan some of the headers; I particularly enjoyed "Repulsive Gravitation." Snicker, that's a pretty good one, if it has babies are they repulsive too?

It's like some sort of parody of science.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Phys1, :)
...please set aside for the moment any prejudicial 'certainty of inerrancy'...
Setting aside a split femtosecond is enough to conclude...
Mate, if you had set aside a lot more than a femtosecond to read what you were typing there, you would have realized that your glib reply is a very informative "Freudian Slip". It tells that you are not prepared to take any significant time to reconsider before kneejerking from ingrained prejudice and belief in the inerrancy of mainstream individuals/groups theorizing/claims.

You/others like you, criticizing others for being anti-science, have not learned from your own mistakes and the mistakes of mainstream professionals.

Your above retort demonstrates all too clearly that your 'certainty' is unshakeable and ingrained; to the point that you become just as 'anti-science' as many you criticize!

Can't you see that yet; despite my havproved Da Schneib/others 'defending mainstream' WRONG more than once?

cont
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
cont from above @ Phys1. :)
...you are wrong and the astronomers are right.
Your biases, in favor of those whom you approve of and trust no matter what, makes you non-objective. IF you had been objective you would have spotted the flaw in your stance/their claims.

Consider (for longer than a femtosecond)...

1) ASSUMPTIVE ERRORS: IF the astronomers were 'right' back in the 60s, they would NOT have EXPECTED to see a Keplerian-like Rotation Curve (based on Solar System planetary orbits) in the IN-DISC REGION of a Spiral galaxy!

2) INTERPRETATIONAL ERRORS: IF they had realized that the Galaxy IN-DISC REGION Rptation Curve WAS in accordance with GR applied in NON-KELPERIAN DOMAIN of IN-DISC ORBITALS, then they would NOT have had to POSTULATE 'exotic' DM!

3) SELF-CORRECTING FAILURES: They STILL haven't 'twigged' to INITIAL error; and STILL postulate 'exotic' DM to 'explain' NON-KEPLERIAN REGION Rotation Curve ALREADY explicable by GR WITHOUT 'exotic' DM!

See it now? :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
...It would be more interesting if you could produce a paper...
That's it? That's all you have to say after correct science/logic is made clear as day to you?

Here; READ:
1) ASSUMPTIVE ERRORS: IF the astronomers were 'right' back in the 60s, they would NOT have EXPECTED to see a Keplerian-like Rotation Curve (based on Solar System planetary orbits) in the IN-DISC REGION of a Spiral galaxy!

2) INTERPRETATIONAL ERRORS: IF they had realized that the Galaxy IN-DISC REGION Rptation Curve WAS in accordance with GR applied in NON-KELPERIAN DOMAIN of IN-DISC ORBITALS, then they would NOT have had to POSTULATE 'exotic' DM!

3) SELF-CORRECTING FAILURES: They STILL haven't 'twigged' to INITIAL error; and STILL postulate 'exotic' DM to 'explain' NON-KEPLERIAN REGION Rotation Curve ALREADY explicable by GR WITHOUT 'exotic' DM!
Is that more interesting and believable ONLY if you see it in a 'Paper'? How shallow/herd-mentality-led!

Think for yourself, mate. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2016
It would be more interesting if you could produce a paper with the incredibly stupid error that you pretend astronomers make.
All that will be explained complete in his book about toes. For right now he has to keep it secret because the humans and scientists can't be trusted to not steal his ideas. But don't fret much because you won't have to wait too long, he is putting the finishing touches on him and it will be done soon this year.

He promised us he would have it finished last but he to put it aside so he could take the Really-Cavalry to the international climatic conference to save the world. Did you hear about that in the news?

This could give you credibility but after another fraction of a yoctosecond's thought I give you no chance.
That's a safe bet Cher, he's been promising this book about toes to everybody for 10 or 9 years now. I think I might be the last person in the world that is still expecting it to get here soon.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@DaSchneib. You should see some of his stuffs he writes
You should see what mainstream theorists have written over the years, like: String Theory,/Brane theory; Many worlds/Universes theory; Holographic Universe theory; Big Bang theory; "Spooky-action-at-a-distance" theory; Wormhole/Whiteholes; Time travel theory; Inflation/Expanding Space theory; Dark Exotic Matter "WIMPS/MACHOS etc"; and of course the one currently under discussion: EXPECTING Keplerian Rotation Curves in IN-DISC NON-Keplerian situation!
Hooyeei, when I first saw that I thought he was on the drugs.
Seeing that most of the above mainstream 'stuff' had its genesis in the 60s, its a good bet that 'drugs and drink' had a LOT to do with where 'mainstream' went wrong. Compared to above, my 'stuff' is correct/scientific/logical as lucid and sober objective thought and observation can make it.
@Phys1. he has to keep it secret
Secret? I just laid out the science/logic for all to read! :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira,


And hi for you too Really-Skippy. How you are? I am good and fit.

I just laid out the science/logic for all to read! :)


I know that and saw that. You been laying that out for 10 or 9 years and haven't gotten any takers yet. Why that is? I would think after all the millions of laying out you done here and everywhere that you would have been able to get just one person to wise up.

Anyhoo, I am fond of you and enjoy your stuffs. Not very much to learn from it that is very useful, but it is big fun.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Hi Ira
And hi for you too Really-Skippy. How you are? I am good and fit.
Good to hear. I'm well as can be expected, thanks mate.
I just laid out the science/logic for all to read! :)
I know that and saw that.
But did you understand any of the correct known science/logic explained for you/others to consider soberly, calmly and objectively? Or is 'understanding' not your 'thing'?
You been laying that out for 10 or 9 years and haven't gotten any takers yet.....I would think after all the millions of laying out you done here and everywhere that you would have been able to get just one person to wise up.
That's what Einstein/pioneers face; sometimes for decades. But true scientists patient, thorough; not driven by what prejudicial folk say/do.
I am fond of you and enjoy your stuffs. Not very much to learn from it that is very useful, but it is big fun.
Having 'fun' seems your 'thing'. Would you have had 'fun' with Einstein too? :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Hi again for you too Cher. One hi a day is plenty.

But did you understand any of the correct known science/logic explained for you/others to consider soberly, calmly and objectively? Or is 'understanding' not your 'thing'?
Non Cher, I do not understand a lot of your stuffs. But that is okayeei with me, it seems I am in good company on that.

That's what Einstein/pioneers face; sometimes for decades.
So you are going to be another Einstein-Skippy? Well just between you and me, I wish you would hurry it up a little, I want to be around to claim I knew you when. (And Einstein-Skippy did all his good stuffs while he was in his 20's and 30's.)

Having 'fun' seems your 'thing'.
Better than having no fun.

Would you have had 'fun' with Einstein too? :)
Why I would not? He probably had a sense of humor him.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

I address posts to help keep conversations straight as to who is responding to whom. And "Hi" seems more human than "@".
Non Cher, I do not understand a lot of your stuffs. But that is okayeei with me, it seems I am in good company on that
Which "good company" would that be; your peers in 'fun', or your peers in 'understanding'?
That's what Einstein/pioneers face; sometimes for decades.
So you are going to be another Einstein-Skippy? Well just between you and me, I wish you would hurry it up a little, I want to be around to claim I knew you when.
And Einstein-Skippy did all his good stuffs while he was in his 20's and 30's.
I have been doing good stuff since age 9; in many areas; but 'Publish or Perish' is not my 'thing'.
Better than having no fun.
Better to understand.
..'fun' with Einstein..
Why I would not? He probably had a sense of humor him.
He wasn't 'amused' by detractors bot-voting' him '1', either, mate! :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2016
I address posts to help keep conversations straight as to who is responding to whom.
When you got the quotes blocked off there isn't much straightening to do, eh?

Which "good company" would that be; your peers in 'fun', or your peers in 'understanding'?
Now that you mention that, both it seems, at least here on the phyorg.

I have been doing good stuff since age 9; in many areas;
That must be why you are the household name all over the interweb.

'Publish or Perish' is not my 'thing'.
Seems to me like you are aiming to perish before you can publish.

He wasn't 'amused' by detractors bot-voting' him '1', either, mate! :)
How you know that? I bet he had a better sense of humor than you seem to do. But the bot-voting thing is your fault. It was you that gave to me the idea. But it probably is one of those things you call moot because I would probably give to him fives like I do all the smart Skippys.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2016
Einstein got acceptance of GRT quite quickly because he was able to predict gravitational bending of the light of a star. He proposed it in 1915, and after Eddington observed the light of a star near the Sun during a total eclipse in 1919 it was generally accepted.

Sources:
https://en.wikipe...lativity shows the 1915 development of the Einstein Equations.
https://en.wikipe...lativity shows the 1919 confirmation by Eddington.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2016
Oh and regarding Einstein's sense of humor, he was known for it. A good example is his comment after the EPR experiment about "spooky action at a distance," as well as his joke about the Moon not being there if no one was looking at it. Another is the fairly well-known picture of him sticking out his tongue.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

In long threads with many cross-discussions, unaddressed post/quote-blocks are confusing to casual readers.
Which "good company" would that be; your peers in 'fun', or your peers in 'understanding'?
..both it seems, at least here on the phyorg.
But you just admitted above that you don't understand the science posted. So either you are delusional to claim you are peer of the 'understanding' group; or you are insulting that group as them being peers to your self-admitted 'non-understanding' status.
I've been doing good stuff since age 9; in many areas
That must be why you are the household name all over the interweb
Since when does fame/profit etc come before objective science for its own sake? Only 'Publish or Perish' types submit to such objective-science-compromising selfish imperatives.
He wasn't 'amused'... :)
How you know that?
Read letters/history: General sense of humor ok; reaction to ignorant detractors 'not amused'. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2016
your peers in 'fun', or your peers in 'understanding'?
..both it seems, at least here on the phyorg.
But you just admitted above that you don't understand the science posted.
I did not admit that, I admitted that your stuffs sound like gobbledygook to me.

So either you are delusional to claim you are peer of the 'understanding' group;
It's non delusion Cher, I am in the group that does not understand you. Never pretended to be in any other group.

or you are insulting that group as them being peers to your self-admitted 'non-understanding' status.
Now you are the one being delusional, there is no "understanding Really-Skippy group". How I can insult something that only exists in your mind?

And just between you and me, I don't want to be in the peers of the "understanding Really-Skippy group".The group that understands you (if you can find a group such as that) is the group of peoples with the mental conditions.
compose
Apr 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2016
Logic , mate ;-)
Good luck with *that*. :P
compose
Apr 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2016
Einstein got acceptance of GRT quite quickly because he was able to predict gravitational bending of the light of a star. He proposed it in 1915, and after Eddington observed the light of a star near the Sun during a total eclipse in 1919 it was generally accepted.


@Shneib-Skippy. Einstein-Skippy and Eddington-Skippy lucked out on that because of the start WW I.

A friend of Einstein's named Finlay-Freundlich-Skippy was going to do the eclipse experiment in 1914. But on their way to the Crimea, the war broke out and the Russians interred Finlay-Freundlich-Skippy's team before they could do the eclipse pictures.

Eddington-Skippy lucked out because he was able to get famous doing the experiment.

Einstein-Skippy lucked out because he had not tweeked out his equations good. If they did the experiment with the 1914 version of the equations, Newton-Skippy would have won the contest.

How's that for history Really-Skippy? That's even better than the microwave story, eh?
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2016
Science relies on computer modelling – so what happens when it goes wrong?
A global warming hysteria?

There is unequivocal observational evidence for global warming
so your hysteria is due to ignorance not modelling.


Especially since the models are making some good predictions. And considering that most of the big models agree. And they have years and years and even more years worth of hard data to stick in them.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
I did not admit that, I admitted that your stuffs sound like gobbledygook to me.
The 'stuff' I posted to Phys1, Da Scneib, re Rotation Curves, Keplerian Orbits and Errors by cosmologists, is actually correct GR Theory/logics appropriately applied to appropriate domain of applicability. You have long admitted you don't understand science and 'leave it to the 'science -skippies' you prefer here (who can fall for even the most obviously flawed 'mainstream' stuffs, remember?).

It's non delusion Cher, I am in the group that does not understand you. Never pretended to be in any other group.
That makes you a non-understanding group. Period. Because I post and argue known science correctly applied; while you/they fall for 'preferred source' crap.

...the "understanding Really-Skippy group".....of peoples with the mental conditions.
Now we see whence your malice/stupidity: your failure to consider that you may be the one(s) with the (ahem) "conditions".
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2016
... Einstein-Skippy lucked out because he had not tweeked out his equations good. If they did the experiment with the 1914 version of the equations, Newton-Skippy would have won the contest.
That's a pretty cool story, Ira! Didn't know that one.

You're correct about tweaking the equations; the original version in October 1915 (which is what a 1914 experiment would have used in calculating the expected curvature of a light path near the Sun) failed to include the Ricci tensor term, and this was not corrected until the next month. And even that version from November 1915 was later updated to include the cosmological term. Fortunately the cosmological term was not important in calculating light deflection due to the Sun's mass.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2016
The 'stuff' I posted to Phys1, Da Scneib, re Rotation Curves, Keplerian Orbits and Errors by cosmologists, is actually correct GR Theory/logics appropriately applied to appropriate domain of applicability.
You are the only one saying that. Nobody else understands you, so that is group I am in.

(who can fall for even the most obviously flawed 'mainstream' stuffs, remember?).
You keep asking everybody to remember something that only happened in your own head.

That makes you a non-understanding group..
Gee-wiz Cher. I said I am in the group that doesn't understand you. It's a really huge group, so it doesn't bother me to be in it. The only peoples not in that group is you.

Now we see whence your malice/stupidity: your failure to consider that you may be the one(s) with the (ahem) "conditions".
I am what I am and I am glad I am not you.
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
@Ira
"@Shneib-Skippy. Einstein-Skippy and Eddington-Skippy lucked out on that because of the start WW I. ..."
Damn, thanks man, love hearing about stuff like that, got a link? (feeling lazy :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2016
You're correct about tweaking the equations; the original version in October 1915 (which is what a 1914 experiment would have used in calculating the expected curvature of a light path near the Sun) failed to include the Ricci tensor term, and this was not corrected until the next month. And even that version from November 1915 was later updated to include the cosmological term. Fortunately the cosmological term was not important in calculating light deflection due to the Sun's mass.


Even when I have trouble with the science, I love reading about the peoples who did the science, what they were like, what made them tick and why they think they know what they know. Especially the Skippys at the Cavendish Laboratory 1870 through the WWII. My favorite is Rutherford, from 1905 onwards he trained almost two dozens Nobel Prize winners. All the big names in nuclear, particle, and quantum physics.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)

I have been patient and courteous, forgiving your taunts, feints, tactics from ignorance, while teaching you known-science/logics-based explanations.

Yet you add even further insult to injury by taking this cheap shot, riding on the back of Phys1's own glib shot:
Logic , mate ;-)
Good luck with *that*. :P
Have you no objectivity/honor at all? Whence your anti-science behavior/ethos? Oh, yes, I found your problem, as described in your own words in a previous reply to me:[q[
Be a true scientist.
I'm not a scientist, true or otherwise. That obviously explains your 'certainty' and diversionary, strawmen, insulting tactics when you are so self-convinced you are right and I wrong.

How many times now have you eventually had to to admit to being in the wrong; every time without any apology for accusing me of lying/ignorance etc etc? How long can you carry on your admitted "non-scientist" behavior before realizing you are wrong again now? :(
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2016
@Ira
"@Shneib-Skippy. Einstein-Skippy and Eddington-Skippy lucked out on that because of the start WW I. ..."
Damn, thanks man, love hearing about stuff like that, got a link? (feeling lazy :)


I read about it in a book called "The Day With No Yesterday". It's about Einstein, Lamaitre, Friedmann, Schwartzchild, Robertson and Walker and some others I forget now.,,,, it's even got Eddington and Hubble in him. The book is about the early development of the so-called Big Bang Theory back around 1900 through about 1940 or so.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. It's also in another book I have called "The Scientists" that is a long history of modern science from before Galileo to the end of the 20th Century.

You can search the interweb for Finlay-Freundlich-Skippy, that was the name of Einstein's partner in the 1914 thing, and it probably has him in there. It will work better without the Skippy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2016
The 'stuff' I posted to Phys1, Da Scneib, re Rotation Curves, Keplerian Orbits and Errors by cosmologists, is actually correct GR Theory/logics appropriately applied to appropriate domain of applicability.
You are the only one saying that. Nobody else understands you, so that is group I am in.
Is he still on that after being gigged so hard on non-Keplerian orbits? This fool believes in the p'tit rockets on all the stars in all the galaxies, him!

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. If I was him I'd never mention non-Keplerian orbits again as long as I lived, but I guess he's immune to embarrassment.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2016
You know, Ira, I may have to read those two books; both sound fascinating, and Rutherford is someone I have always admired since I first heard about him. While we're talking about him, we should also note that he's the only Nobel laureate to be born on the South Island of New Zealand: he won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for proving that radioactivity transmutes one element into another, and for discovering the difference between alpha and beta radiation. They call him "the father of nuclear physics." And for more reason than one!
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
The 'stuff' I posted to Phys1, Da Scneib, re Rotation Curves, Keplerian Orbits and Errors by cosmologists, is actually correct GR Theory/logics appropriately applied to appropriate domain of applicability
You are the only one saying that. Nobody else understands you, so that is group I am in
The GR science/logic correctly applied to correct domain was presented for you/others to understand or not. As before now, I'm correct based on known science/logics; you ignore at your own cost.
...who can fall for even the most obviously flawed 'mainstream' stuffs, remember?
You keep asking everybody to remember something that only happened in your own head
Your 'preferred' science-skippy's fell over themselves to be 'first to believe' that bicep2 crap. Forget?
I am what I am and I am glad I am not you
There's your problem, right there, mate! You're a 'fun' loving, bot-voting, personality obsessed, self-admitted non-understander of the science. :(
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Is he still on that after being gigged so hard on non-Keplerian orbits? This fool believes in the p'tit rockets on all the stars in all the galaxies, him! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. If I was him I'd never mention non-Keplerian orbits again as long as I lived, but I guess he's immune to embarrassment.
Why keep doing this to yourself? Those childish strawmen, misrepresentations of what I actually said, are not doing your credibility any good at all. Maybe you don't care because, as you admit, are "not a scientist of any kind, true or not". But have some consideration for your intellect and humanity if not your scientific potential. You tried all these same tactics in that thread where you had to eventually admit error and I correct re plasmoids in sun etc. If you have any sense of honor, objectivity, or even just common sense, you'll drop this childish and anti-science and insulting way of interacting with those proven know more/better than you. :(
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2016
The GR science/logic correctly applied to correct domain was presented for you/others to understand or not.
So? I said that I don't understand you. Nobody else does either. You are in a group of one there Cher.

As before now, I'm correct based on known science/logics; you ignore at your own cost.
You keep saying you are correct. And it is not costing me anything.

Your 'preferred' science-skippy's fell over themselves to be 'first to believe' that bicep2 crap. Forget?
How could I forget, you littered up the place with thousands of postums and not one time answered anybody who asked you "What you find error?"

I am what I am and I am glad I am not you
There's your problem, right there, mate!
Seems to be more of a problem for you than me.

You're a 'fun' loving, bot-voting, personality obsessed, self-admitted non-understander of the science
If it makes you feel good, okayeei. So what?

)"( and a (") for good measure.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2016
Looks like this particular RealityCheck is an overdraft.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
GR science/logic correctly applied to correct domain was presented for you/others to understand or not...
So? I said that I don't understand you.
The correct science/logics spoke for itself as presented. Forget me/personalities; just try to understand the correct science/logics posted.
As before now, I'm correct based on known science/logics; you ignore at your own cost.
You keep saying you are correct.
I've been proven correct; not just me 'saying'. You forget?
Your 'preferred' science-skippy's fell over themselves to be 'first to believe' that bicep2 crap. Forget?
How could I forget..
Your previous comment made sense ONLY if you HAD forgotten. Glad I could remind you. Don't 'conveniently forget' again.
You're a 'fun' loving, bot-voting, personality obsessed, self-admitted non-understander of the science
If it makes you feel good, okayeei. So what?
Not so much "So what?", as self-confirming your irrelevance. QED. :(
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Looks like this particular RealityCheck is an overdraft.
And that just about covers and betrays all too well what you are really here for, mate. How old did you say you were? Only a child could be so childishly insensible to the serious (perhaps even irrecoverable) damage he is doing to his own credibility here/elsewhere, at all levels. What a waste of your otherwise perfectly good intellect/character/humanity. That is the scourge of the modern world, even in the sciences, where personality and publish or perish and win/profit at all costs seems to be the new 'ethos' being inculcated into the newer generations of young minds/scientists. Pity. :(
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2016
I read about it in a book called "The Day With No Yesterday"..."The Scientists"
@Ira
hey, thanks for those book titles. i will be ordering them!
...[snicker]
I think i know what happened to the rc-skippy!

he got drowned by the horse manure in his own ToE and then got caught in the Scalar Direction self-differentiate of infinitesimally thin, infinitely long, duality filaments & Directional Impetus of Repulsive Gravitation!
[snicker]

.

.

.

Looks like this particular RealityCheck is an overdraft
@Da Schneib
one that bounced long ago
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Next funny nickname: "RepulsivityCheck"

Sorry, just had to
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Your post is addressed to the wrong person.
Oops! Sorry 'bout that, mate. I meant to address that to Da Schneib. I must have mistyped your in by mistake after I had earlier connected your two names in a post to Da Schneib chiding him for trollingly riding on the back of one of your comments to me in order to take his childish cheap shot at me. My apologies for the mistyped address, Phys1. I'll correct my saved record of it and repost it (please see next) with the correct addressing name, just to make sure everyone can see it was not you I meant to address there. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Is he still on that after being gigged so hard on non-Keplerian orbits? This fool believes in the p'tit rockets on all the stars in all the galaxies, him! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. If I was him I'd never mention non-Keplerian orbits again as long as I lived, but I guess he's immune to embarrassment
Why keep doing this to yourself? Those childish strawmen, misrepresentations of what I actually said, are not doing your credibility any good at all. Maybe you don't care because, as you admit, are "not a scientist of any kind, true or not". But have some consideration for your intellect and humanity if not your scientific potential. You tried all these same tactics in that thread where you had to eventually admit error and I correct re plasmoids in sun etc. If you have any sense of honor, objectivity, or even just common sense, you'll drop this childish and anti-science and insulting way of interacting with those proven know more/better than you.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am just fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.

'll correct my saved record of it and repost it here with the correct addressing name, just to make sure everyone can see it


Non need for that Cher. We saw him yesterday. And between me and you, it won't much to look at.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Next funny nickname: "RepulsivityCheck"

Sorry, just had to
How about you try and "just have to" do science discourse in polite, respectful, objective, and less 'certain' and more 'learning', attitude, mate? And once in a while, try apologizing to any whom you have called 'liar', 'ignorant' and insulted despite you being the one in error on the known science/ logics? And again, just how old are you? I don't ply games with your username; or bot-rate you '1'; or lie to you or misrepresent what you are saying. How about growing up; your posting/participating here at PO has been long enough by now for that, hasn't it? Do it soon, mate; so we can ALL enjoy the discovery and conversations here better; hopefully learning new things in science along the way. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. How you are today Cher? I am just fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.
'll correct my saved record of it and repost it here with the correct addressing name, just to make sure everyone can see it
Non need for that Cher. We saw him yesterday. And between me and you, it won't much to look at.
It was so readers can see the MISTYPED name CORRECTION, and correct any misimpression of Phys1 which may have resulted from my earlier mistype mistake. The rest was just context of the relevant post. Save your 'sarcasm and wit' mate, you haven't much to spare of the latter and no amount of the former saves you from the irrelevance you self-confirmed in your earlier attempt at witty retort in denial of your longstanding admissions regarding your non-understanding of the science posted. Time to change your "schtik", mate; your present long-belabored one is showing signs of overuse and abuse.

PS: Any more barge groundings? All ok? :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2016
Save your 'sarcasm and wit' mate, you haven't much to spare of the latter
I got plenty Cher, for you and everybody. It comes with the "Double Your Money Back Garrantee" too.

and no amount of the former saves you from the irrelevance you self-confirmed in your earlier attempt at witty retort in denial of your longstanding admissions
There you go lying again Really-Skippy. I never denied my longstanding admissions or my shortstanding admissions either.

regarding your non-understanding of the science posted.
I will give the choice Cher. You are lying again or you are really stupid when it comes to reading easy stuffs. It was regarding my "non-understanding" of you.

PS: Any more barge groundings? All ok? :)
I got a brand new 9000hp boat to work on last month. First run was two weeks ago. We have to be extra careful with her because she is brand new. But to answer your question, non, I have not had any barge grounding for a very long time.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira.

Your attempt at witty retorts fail due to you being trapped into admitting your non-understanding of science posted. The sarcasm you tried on me was an obvious attempt at pretending that your non-understanding is an excuse for your 'fun' games here against those that do understand the science posted. Instead of trying to learn, you continue your self-confirmed irrelevance by trying on the "Schtik" that you admitting non-understanding then excuses you from the scientific/human responsibilities which any intellect has by virtue of the fact they can think and choose learning and respect instead of being a pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop for the rest of their born days. Time to choose to think and not be a pain-in-the-ass on a science discussion site, Ira. Try it, you might like it. And you never know, you might even have 'fun' of a higher qualitative and more satisfying sort.

Good to hear barges ok. Even nicer if you could score a brand new 9000hp 'Schtik'. Take care. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira.
How you are again too Cher? I am still good, thanks for asking.

Your attempt at witty retorts fail due to you being trapped into admitting your non-understanding of science posted.
If you repeat a lie a thousand times, it is still a lie Cher. I admit I don't understand you and your "science". Like nobody else does either.

The sarcasm you tried on me was an obvious attempt at pretending that your non-understanding
I am not pretending. 99.99999 % of the stuffs you put up is gobbledygook, to me and everybody else. You are the only person in the world who understands you.

Time to choose to think , Blah, Blah and some Really-Skippy Blah.
I think I better choose being me not you. You got too many peoples mad with you all the time.

Good to hear barges ok. Even nicer if you could score a brand new 9000hp 'Schtik'.
She is not a Ship, she is the towboat.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2016
Ira you got rc to drop that condescending insipid retardicon of his. Good job.

Oh I see he had to put it at the end there.

Nature of neurotic compulsion I guess.

Hey - just watched that old movie 'Southern Comfort'. Pretty dumb. Rc would like it I bet.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2016
barges ok
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
you do know there is a difference between a barge, a ship, a tug & a towboat, right?
Time to ... not be a pain-in-the-ass on a science discussion site
funny, i was going to post the exact same thing to you!

here is the thing: just because you think you know science doesn't mean you do know it, as blatantly demonstrated by your earthling club and your "books"

that alone demonstrates an epic failure to comprehend not only the basics of the scientific method but also demonstrates physics and general knowledge failure too

it is pseudoscience in it's truest form!
it is gobbledygoop with tech-y science-y words thrown together in a non-experimental based promotion of delusional belief that has no predictability, reliability, repeatability or validity

that isn't a ToE anymore than your distal convoluted tubule (DCT) is a Tarsal bone
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
I admit I don't understand you and your "science". Like nobody else does either.
It's no "my" science, it is "the" known science of GR correctly applied to different orbital domains of in-disc NON-Keplerian orbots and beyond-disc-edge Keplerian orbits.

I posted that known science/correct application of GR to Da Schneib; pointing out where theorists made the silly initial expectations/interpretations mistake which led to unnecessary/mistaken 'exotic' DM postulations.

And Da Schneib cannot have failed to understand it (even if you have, as admitted), because the known science, and correct GR application consequences, were spelled out for him.

Da Schneib's/others' problem (as with many mainstream defenders/believers who are NOT scientists themselves) is DENIAL; because they can't bring themselves to consider the awful possibility that mainstream 'herd' can make silly mistakes.

Schtick (Schtik/Shtick/Schtik). Not "Ship". Are you dyslexic, Ira? Hope not. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi CapS. Read the recent repartee between me and Ira. The word was not "Ship". Ira inadvertently (if dyslexic) or intentionally (if having more "fun"). The word was "Schtik (or Schtick etc). It was a humorous reference to his "act" or "gimmick" performance/persona which is getting stale after so long. Chill, mate. :)

PS: Do YOU understand the known science and correct application of GR to the in-disc NON-Keplerian regime orbits which make the observed Rotation Curves actually CORRECT if the expectation is actually based on the correct GR expectations FOR NON-Keplerian instead of the Keplerian expectations which the theorists were laboring under since the 60s? If you don't understand it, then just read it again; and ask questions. I laid out the essential points to Da Schneib (you'll see where if you read back up a few to where I made them clear for all to read. Good luck. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2016
Schtick (Schtik/Shtick/Schtik). Not "Ship".
Okayeei, if you say so. It is a silly thing to throw in when we were talking about things that float don't you think? I was about to think you were using the bad language on me, but then thought you just MISTYPED something again without the CORRECTION that everybody didn't see.

Are you dyslexic, Ira? Hope not. :)
Non not me, I was raised the Catholic but gave up on that 25 or more years ago. What about you?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Schtick (Schtik/Shtick/Schtik). Not "Ship".
Okayeei, if you say so. It is a silly thing to throw in when we were talking about things that float don't you think? I was about to think you were using the bad language on me, but then thought you just MISTYPED something again without the CORRECTION that everybody didn't see.
Glad to see you finally see also that CONTEXT does play a great part in how one 'reads' other people's words/points. Perhaps you could tell Da Schneib about your discovery about reading/context being important pre-requisites to avoid hasty accusations of 'lying' or 'ignorance' and such like mis-reading/misunderstanding based unfairness! But do it gently, we don't want to set him to start accusing you of being 'too correct', do we?

Friendly suggestion to change your "schtick" still stands; as your old one sounding dated, tired and really really 'out of it' (reality context wise).

What about you?
Atheist since age 9
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Last hi you get from me today Cher. How you are again? I am still good me.

Perhaps you could tell Da Schneib about,,, Blah, Blah, and some more Really-Skippy Blahs,
Why you don't tell him your self?

But do it gently, we don't want to set him to start accusing you of being 'too correct', do we?
Don't matter to me what he accuses me of.

Friendly suggestion to change your "schstick" still stands; as your old one sounding dated, tired and really really 'out of it' (reality context wise).
Whatever you mean by that, I got the suggestion now, and I think I will just ignore it. So far your advice and suggesting has not been worth very much.

What about you?
Atheist since age 9. :)
Well good for you Skippy. Now unless you got some more Really-Skippy Blahing to share, I am going to watch one of my Leverage videos.

((;:;((("" (That's me making one of those funny face good-byes for you.)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Why you don't tell him your self?
I already tried to get him to pay closer attention to reading and context, more than once now, but to little avail. That's why he kept making hasty accusations against me despite him being in error and me being correct on the GR and Galaxy Rotation, Keplerian and non-Keplerian regime orbits, and the initial error of expectation/interpretation by 60s theorists who postulated, and still do, that 'exotic' DM is needed' to 'make GR work' etc. I explained the correct science/logics to him in support, but again, to no avail against denial based on whatever drives him.
Don't matter to me what he accuses me of.
Ok. :)
suggestion to change your "schstick" still stands...
Whatever you mean by that, I got the suggestion now, and I think I will just ignore it. People's attitudes and Audience's tastes evolve. Your old "schtick" now 'stale and boring' (even more boring than me, and THAT's something!). Ignore at own risk. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2016
ERRATA: Correcting format of last item in my previous post responding to Ira:

Whatever you mean by that, I got the suggestion now, and I think I will just ignore it.
People's attitudes and Audience's tastes evolve. Your old "schtick" now 'stale and boring' (even more boring than me, and THAT's something!). Ignore at own risk. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2016
Read the recent repartee... The word was not "Ship"
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
if you will take special pains to re-read what i quoted, i was not mentioning ship, moron
i quoted "barge" for a reason

i can't speak for Ira, but we used to "ground" the barges all the time when locking, especially when our tow was longer than the lock

so go sit on a "Schtik (or Schtick etc)" and ground that
Do YOU understand
i understand your page is full of bullsh*t and it makes actual physicists laugh at how stupid you are... the astrophysicists ignore you as an idiot

1- if ya aint even gonna read and try to comprehend what is being written, why do you continue to bother posting?

2- just because you can make up words that sound good and science-y to you doesn't mean they're science... especially when you use real words improperly or when you can't substantiate your claims

that is called SPAM and Pseudoscience
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
"i understand your page is full of bullsh*t and it makes actual physicists laugh at how stupid you are... the astrophysicists ignore you as an idiot"
-------------------------------------------

Trumpy, why are you so abusive and offensive? Did your mommy do bad things to you?

You are not the cop here, and provide no proof for yourself. So, please stop your personal attacks. It only reveals your real character.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2016
Did your mommy do bad things to you?
@liar-kam
why are you so abusive and offensive?
please stop your personal attacks, sniping and character assassination.

It only reveals your real character.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
No, my real character was revealed in those performance reports from the service.

Did you serve anywhere? Where? Doing what?

Prove it.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2016
my real character was revealed in those performance reports from the service
@liar-kam
LMFAO
so... a known inflated yearly feedback of your ability to follow orders while not killing your teammates somehow demonstrates your true character decades after the fact?

does that mean you will stop lying about proven science?
Did you serve anywhere?
is it relevant to computer modelling or general science?
no?
so why is that important?
Where?
is it relevant to computer modelling or general science?
no?
so why is that important?
Doing what?
is it relevant to computer modelling or general science?
no?
so why is that important?
Prove it
why?
is it relevant to computer modelling or general science?
no?
so why is that important to you?

i am not the one making argument from authority like you are

if you can't provide evidence for the argument, it is not argument from science, it is argument from belief

gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
I did all that Grumpy, but you are still hiding who you are, too SCARED to let us know or to face the consequences of your big mouth.

My assertions regarding experience were proven, to your great dismay, and now you are angry. I understand. The time I went through Arkansas from Texarkana to Tennessee, going through Tyson chicken plants looking at energy efficiency, I talked to lots of you folk.

All were nice folk. But I would advise against taking any technical advice from those poor folk. Your attempt to join the rest of us buy using Wiki is admirable, I guess. But you do not understand how it all fits together, and it makes you irritable and offensive.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
No, my real character was revealed in those performance reports from the service
Your real character is revealed by insisting that your service experience means that the lies you post are true.

You're the kind of guy who goes out and gets an honorary MS degree and then lies about it being in environmental mgt.

And then inadvertently sends info to people here proving that you lied.

Youre not only a liar, you're an incompetent one. And you can't stop lying because you're a psychopath.

"A woman with a staggering record of fraud, deceit, lies, and broken promises concluded a letter to the parole board with, "I've let a lot of people down… One is only as good as her reputation and name. My word is as good as gold.""
http://www.cassio...path.htm

-SHE'S a psychopath. You act just LIKE her. Ergo you must be a psychopath as well.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2016
@ glam-Skippy. So now you was also the Senior Inspector of Chicken Plants? Cher, you got to quit, you are not very good at this and your own worst enemy when it comes to interweb "debating" of the "technical issues" and "science".

Chicken Plant inspector. Skippy is there any one single thing you have NOT done? Hooyeei I am laughing hard over that one.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
I did all that
@Liar-kam
no, you didn't: see this thread: http://phys.org/n...ess.html

you are still hiding who you are, too SCARED
yeah, that's why i sent you my home address, moron!
LOL
(BTW- this isn't relevant, you know)
My assertions regarding experience were proven
1- http://phys.org/n...age.html

proved you lied
2- your argument from authority is still irrelevant as it has been repeatedly debunked with factual information (see links)
I talked to lots of you folk
no, you didn't
you talked to local residents maybe
All were nice folk. But I would advise against taking any technical advice from those poor folk
so now you've graduated to prejudice?
you mean, because they're poor, they can't be intelligent?
WOW
just WOW

oh... and you hijacked another thread with OT bullsh*t so you can try to justify your argument from D-K authority because you can't link evidence
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
@liar-kam cont'd
The time I went through Arkansas from Texarkana to Tennessee, going through Tyson chicken plants looking at energy efficiency
so now you're an expert in chicken engineering too?

ROTFLMFAO

PS - please make a special note to review 5 U.S.C. § 552a and https://www.justi...-edition

pay special attention to permissions
because you apparently don't know WTF you're talking about WRT private information, as noted in previous conversations regarding your admission and acceptance of publication of said information
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
Hi CapS. :)
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
if you will take special pains to re-read what i quoted, i was not mentioning ship, moron
i quoted "barge" for a reason
WTF, mate! If you had read Ira properly, he misread "Schtik" for Ship". Then YOU went 'off reality' again and posted:
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
you do know there is a difference between a barge, a ship, a tug & a towboat, right?
See where you sarcastically included "ship" in your misunderstanding based rant?
we used to "ground" the barges all the time when locking
No. It was a specific reference between me and Ira; a while back he told of a barge 'grounding incident' and I asked then if he/everybody was ok.

PS: Seriously, CapS, what's wrong with you? I've been going out of my way to avoid interacting with you since I let you have the last word in those other threads regarding the issues between us. But NOW you make ANOTHER unprovoked ill founded attack! Chill out! :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2016
Back to on-topic and on-science discussion.

I posted the following points for objective consideration by anyone understanding the GR/science/logics involved.

1) ASSUMPTIVE ERRORS: IF the astronomers were 'right' back in the 60s, they would NOT have EXPECTED to see a Keplerian-like Rotation Curve (based on Solar System planetary orbits) in the IN-DISC REGION of a Spiral galaxy!

2) INTERPRETATIONAL ERRORS: IF they had realized that the Galaxy IN-DISC REGION Rptation Curve WAS in accordance with GR applied in NON-KELPERIAN DOMAIN of IN-DISC ORBITALS, then they would NOT have had to POSTULATE 'exotic' DM!

3) SELF-CORRECTING FAILURES: They STILL haven't 'twigged' to INITIAL error; and STILL postulate 'exotic' DM to 'explain' NON-KEPLERIAN REGION Rotation Curve ALREADY explicable by GR WITHOUT 'exotic' DM!

Is that more interesting and believable ONLY if you see it in a 'Paper'?

Everyone understand the subtleties involved? Any on-science comments? :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
No. It was a specific reference between me and Ira; a while back he told of a barge 'grounding incident' and I asked then if he/everybody was ok.


For somebody who is trying to tell peoples to read more critically and keep up the context and do better diligence you sure don't read very good Skippy. It was not a 'grounding incident', or anything like it. I didn't even use the word 'grounding' in the postum I made.

It was back when the Mississippi with the whole Mid West was having too much rain for days and more days. Some propane tanks was floating in the river and we got a couple of them hung up in the tow. I said we needed a change of underpants before the got the tow stopped and the tanks secured. A 1500 pound tank of propane make a really big boom if it got knocked around the right. All told, the Coast Guard ended up rounding up about 15 or 14 of those things and nobody knows where the heck they come from.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
Any on-science comments? :)


Yeah Cher, I got the comment. Captain-Skippy seems to know more about river tows than you too. Yeah, they sometimes ground barges or tows while they break the tow to fit through the locks. But we don't do that on my boat, we are what you call the line-haul boat that just goes up and down the Middle and the Lower Mississippi, like from Missouri to Louisiana and back and forth.

Now why you don't put your silly looking pointy cap back on and go play in the Earthman Club House?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
For somebody who is trying to tell peoples to read more critically and keep up the context and do better diligence you sure don't read very good Skippy. It was not a 'grounding incident', or anything like it. I didn't even use the word 'grounding' in the postum I made. It was back when the Mississippi with the whole Mid West was having too much rain for days and more days. Some propane tanks was floating in the river and we got a couple of them hung up in the tow. I said we needed a change of underpants before the got the tow stopped and the tanks secured. A 1500 pound tank of propane make a really big boom if it got knocked around the right. All told, the Coast Guard ended up rounding up about 15 or 14 of those things and nobody knows where the heck they come from.
It was some time ago, not 'yesterday'. My memory probably conflating two incidents. I recall once you saying you were scraping along the bottom, or something like. An even earlier incident? :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Any on-science comments? :)


Yeah Cher, I got the comment. Captain-Skippy seems to know more about river tows than you too. Yeah, they sometimes ground barges or tows while they break the tow to fit through the locks. But we don't do that on my boat, we are what you call the line-haul boat that just goes up and down the Middle and the Lower Mississippi, like from Missouri to Louisiana and back and forth.
I wasn't arguing with CapS about what through-lock procedures/groundings; that was his intrusion into the exchange/item between me and you which I alluded to in conversation with you on that specific (correct or not) recollection. I only mentioned a specific recollection about an 'incident' not 'procedure'. Anyhow, it's interesting to know that your tow setup is different from those requiring grounding for getting though locks which CapS mentioned. Stay safe. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
It was some time ago, not 'yesterday'. My memory probably conflating two incidents. I recall once you saying you were scraping along the bottom, or something like.
You got conflated by something because I never said nothing about scraping along the bottom either.

An even earlier incident? :)
I just told you non, what you can't remember something for half a minute? Is that another of conflating things? No wonder you have so much trouble with everybody here. You are conflated with simple stuff and want to blame everybody else for it.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Take it easy there, Podna-Skippy! Faulty memory of long past posts is a human possibility, even for me! No need to get all sniffy and ballistic on me. If I recalled incorrectly, whether an earlier one or that one you alluded to, that's that. Thanks for the correction. :)

Anyhow, whatever it was or wasn't, my reference to a grounding was all between me and you in my above post earlier, it had nothing to do with procedural groundings as CapS and you now mentioned. Thanks for that info. Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2016
Anyhow, it's interesting to know that your tow setup is different from those requiring grounding for getting though locks which CapS mentioned
Kind of slow on the uptake, eh Cher? I work a long-haul towboat on the Mississippi. We use the same tow setup as everybody else, it is regulated by the Coast Guard. We don't have locks to go through so we don't have to break up the tow. I have not worked on that kind of boat for years and years. We push the 6 by 7 tows, that's six barges wide by 7 barges long.

Do you get it now?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Anyhow, it's interesting to know that your tow setup is different from those requiring grounding for getting though locks which CapS mentioned
Kind of slow on the uptake, eh Cher? I work a long-haul towboat on the Mississippi. We use the same tow setup as everybody else, it is regulated by the Coast Guard. We don't have locks to go through so we don't have to break up the tow. I have not worked on that kind of boat for years and years. We push the 6 by 7 tows, that's six barges wide by 7 barges long.

Do you get it now?
Ah, I get it now. You don't have to break the tow because you have no locks to navigate like CapS's tows did when he worked on them. Gotcha! Thanks for the patient correction/clarification about that, Podna-Skippy! Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2016
he misread "Schtik" for Ship"
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
and it is not relevant to my post because i quoted you, not Ira... or didn't you get that? Dolt
See ...included "ship" in your misunderstanding
exactly what did i misunderstand?
nothing
what did you misunderstand?
every part of my post... but that isn't surprising, because of your inability to grasp simple little things like "english"
I only mentioned a specific recollection about an 'incident'
i noticed you tend to misconstrue a lot of things from the past, from cavalry comments to more... perhaps this is due to your literacy problems?

Seriously, pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck, what's wrong with you?

when are you going to learn how to read and post references or links to validate your claims?

NOW you make ANOTHER unprovoked ill founded attack because you're too stupid to read a post and comprehend what is written! Chill out!

mIn
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2016
@RepulsivityCheck cont'd
Faulty memory of long past posts is a human possibility...No need to get all sniffy and ballistic on me
wrong
this is actually the biggest problem you have... because (and listen, because this is important) you can Google text, names, and other relevant topical information and get results that you can then narrow to get specific information from the internet

this is called research - and it works not only for actually finding source material that supports a claim in science, but it also works for finding comments here on PO
case in point - your cavalry comment
type in "cavalry coming to rescue realitycheck Phys.org" and in .67 seconds you get the first link: http://phys.org/n...ant.html

the MAR 7 comment of mine has the link which is 2nd on my list: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

get it yet?

learn to research and validate claims
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2016
we are what you call the line-haul boat that just goes up and down the Middle and the Lower Mississippi
@Ira
Snazzy! i worked the Ohio on the Warren W. Hines #0651210 running chemicals to the great lakes... came as far south as Memphis once, but usually stayed on the Ohio because we were an expedite boat at the time for ACBL
http://www.towboa...php?mnu=

only had to break tow once to lock (1200ft locks on the Ohio - we were usually under, but once time we picked up some extra that put us at 1350 or so... can't remember the details and my log is buried in the attic)

our 1st mate was a Cherokee who lived in Baton Rouge because his wife lived in OK next to his family
LOL
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

What are you on about? You quoted me after reading my correction of Ira's misreading "Schtik" for "Ship". Your eagerness to make a personal irrelevant unprovoked attack on me was what led you into quoting me....and failing to realize that your subsequent rationalization of your attacking post is based on YOUR own failure to read the exchange where the "Ship" motif arose from Ira, not me. But you just HAD to make this sarcastic remark...
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
you do know there is a difference between a barge, a ship, a tug & a towboat, right?
...where it was YOU that harped on the "ship" mention, not realizing it was Ira's misreading that introduced "ship" to the exchange; and that my knowing the difference between ship and barge etc was never in question (but you just had to say something sarcastic anyway)!

As for carrying out a full scale search for that 'recall item', it was not material, only incidental; not warranted. Chill. :)
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
" i worked the Ohio on the Warren W. Hines #0651210 running chemicals to the great lakes.."
-----------------------------------------
Prove it.

You insist on proof from everybody else.

Now, YOU prove it. I proved who I am, now it is your turn, mister Big Mouth.

I want to see proof of your bragging, or I might call you a LIAR, like you do to others.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
Oh, now Sgt Grumpy says he is a boat captain! I thought you rode on Big Red Trucks, but now you tell us you are a Boat Master?

Which one is the lie?

How do you like it, Toots?

We want to see proof, the same as you demand from others.

Unless you are too SCARED to justify your pathetic self, . . . .
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
It must be a real irony for those who think they oppose oil and gas ruining their area, when they drive around in 9,000 hp boats, sucking up oil, making the Koch Brothers richer and more powerful and able to ruin more land.

But I am sure it is not a stinking, polluting Diesel, . . . right?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2016
What are you on about?
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
man... you really have serious literacy problems, don't you?
is english not your first language?

.

.

Prove it
@liar-kam
why? is it relevant to the topic?
no - it was conversation between friends (Ira & myself)
LOL
says he is a boat captain
well at least now you've proven you can't read at all and make sh*t up! LOL
didn't say that anywhere at all... i would ask you to quote it, but that isn't the way for trolling idiotic liars like yourself
LOL
Which one is the lie?
the one where you are posting, because i never claimed to be either a boat captain or a "boat master" LMFAO
How do you like it, Toots?
i think you're hilarious because you are so focused on asking me to prove who i am that you can't comprehend WTF is going on

oh... and i don't scream liar at you
i *proved* you were a liar, multiple times, especially WRT THz and Nukes

big difference
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2016
@glam-Skippy. How you are Cher? Still feeling grumpy like the elderly with nothing to do do? Anyhoo, I am fine and dandy except for this thing you write about me. It cuts me to the core and it is so logical and deep I don't know what to do except fess up.

It must be a real irony for those who think they oppose oil and gas ruining their area, when they drive around in 9,000 hp boats, sucking up oil,
That is unfortunate Cher, and it's only temporary on my part, but it's out of my hands. But as bad as it is, it really is the most energy efficient means of transporting the loads we carry. Better than trains, trucks and pipelines even. What else you know of that can push 10 full acres of fully loaded barges?

But I am sure it is not a stinking, polluting Diesel, . . . right?
Right you are Cher. It's embarrassing for me but I am in the process of changing that. There are not many windmill or solar pane powered boats, so I am waiting in line for a position to open.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
Then, change jobs, like I did.

Do not be scared to change. I spent my life doing it, and you can too, with some nerve and work. This is not snark, I mean it. You are in one o the industries not now amenable to direct change.

But you will probably get biofuels instead, since the horsepower of boats is too high for pure electrics, and Eikka has yet to design a coal-powered or nuke generator for you.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2016
This is not snark, I mean it. You are in one o the industries not now amenable to direct change.


I am also in the "industry" that is the most efficient, cleanest and safest at doing what we do. It's going to get done, and I already work at the best way of doing it. It's a big complicated modern world Cher. A lot more complicated than your new-agey slogans take into account.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
" A lot more complicated than your new-agey slogans take into account."
-----------------------------

Yeah, it's a big mystery to you folk on the river.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2016
" A lot more complicated than your new-agey slogans take into account."
-----------------------------

Yeah, it's a big mystery to you folk on the river.


You are the one mystified by the big picture, big world, and everyday realities. The only mystery to us on the river is how you think there is any reality in your silly broad brush black-white slogans. Is this really the best way you can find to spend your twilight years? Dreamy sloganeering?
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
Twilight years? My dad is still alive, so I can't die yet.

And I already saw that big interesting world, in war, in peace, in many industries, in many professional incarnations. If you ever get the experience I have you will understand.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2016
And I already saw that big interesting world, in war, in peace, in many industries, in many professional incarnations.


And yet with all that worldly experience you still never learned the contradictions, hypocrisy, illogical, and nonsensical blurts that your silly postums have in them. The quality of your blurts and blahs is what give the lie to your "experiences".

If you ever get the experience I have you will understand.
I am really hoping for not getting the experience you have if it will make me as goofy as your are.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
" it will make me as goofy as your are."
-------------------------------------------------
As goofy as I'm are?

Do you folk wonder why you are the laughing stock of America?

Meanwhile, we are waiting for the PROOF of Sgt Grumpy's claims.

He insists on others providing proof, and now it is his turn!
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
" i worked the Ohio on the Warren W. Hines #0651210 running chemicals to the great lakes..":
----------------------------------------

Prove it. You demand proof from everybody else, now man up and provide it.

You call everyone else a LIAR, so now it is up to you to prove you are not one.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
CapS.
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck
man... you really have serious literacy problems,
is english not your first language?
Compare our posts. I point out where it's you that made personal unprovoked sarcastic attack on me based on your own failure to check and see that it was Ira who introduced "ship" motif, not me.

And your mode of addressing your posts in such childish (for your age and supposed wisdom, experience) manner totally undermines whatever claims to sanity/wisdom you may once have had.

In fact, it is disturbing, in so many psychological dimensions, that you have access to firearms.

If your family is privy to your behavior here, I strongly suggest they do an INTERVENTION SOON, before your condition progresses to final tragic stage for yourself, them and anyone who happens to be within firing range when you finally 'lose it' (not that far off it seems).

The signs are all there: your posts addressing; malicious/unprovoked 'ego blasts' etc. :(
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
CapS.
Prove it
@liar-kam
why? is it relevant to the topic?
no - it was conversation between friends (Ira & myself) Incredible lack or self-awareness, CapS. How can you function at all with such insensibility and denial propensity at every turn in your 'version' of reality?

You just addressed your post with "liar-kam", for fwck's sake!

And your RECORDED constant stream of off-topic, irrelevant, personal attack intrusions, into otherwise on-topic conversations, has become infamous and without equal on this internet discussion site! So you pretending it's gkam at fault in that, is just too indicative of the deep and powerful undercurrent of denial and hypocrisy which runs in your character. Correct it before it's too late, CapS.

And for a maniacally driven pest like you've become on the internet, it is more than a bit hypocritical that you won't provide gkam what you demanded of him/others, namely: *proof* of who you are, your qualifications/experience, etc. :(
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
CapS.
Prove it
@liar-kam
why? is it relevant to the topic?
no - it was conversation between friends (Ira & myself)
Incredible lack or self-awareness, CapS. How can you function at all with such insensibility and denial propensity at every turn in your 'version' of reality?

You just addressed your post with "liar-kam", for fwck's sake!

And your RECORDED constant stream of off-topic, irrelevant, personal attack intrusions, into otherwise on-topic conversations, has become infamous and without equal on this internet discussion site! So you pretending it's gkam at fault in that, is just too indicative of the deep and powerful undercurrent of denial and hypocrisy which runs in your character. Correct it before it's too late, CapS.

And for a maniacally driven pest like you've become on the internet, it is more than a bit hypocritical that you won't provide gkam what you demanded of him/others, namely: *proof* of who you are, your qualifications/experience, etc.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
ERRATA: Reposted above re-formatted version of my last post to correct initial posting formatting error. Thanks. :)
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2016
Trumpy is coming apart. You can see it in his refusal to provide proof of his ridiculous statements, in his immediate resort to aggression, to his use of nasty language.

We want he proof of your assertions, Trumpy. It is YOUR turn to fess up.

You insisted the rest of us do it, and now it is YOUR TURN.

Prove it or go away for good.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2016
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck the insipid retard
I point out where
WOW
three posts of blatant stupidity based upon your inability to comprehend basic english...
just like in this thread: http://phys.org/n...ina.html

imagine that
TL;DR
full of BS anyway
LMFAO

.

.

.

You can see it in his refusal to provide proof of his ridiculous statements
@liar-beni-kam
yeah... that's why all those links above prove you are a chronic liar
actually, that goes for you and your girlfriend repulsivitycheck

too bad ya can't actually read the links, liar-kam
you might have learned something about how science works

... you know, based on evidence, like i linked

... not based on argument from authority while blatantly being wrong about the science like you are doing

you should go away for good since everyone knows you're a liar now

bye liar-kam!
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2016
Poor CapS. Pity.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2016
Sgt Trumpy is too SCARED to prove he was on a boat. But the Big Boat and the Big Red Truck is exactly the kind of story a kid would spin, isn't it?

Let's make Trumpy prove his own assertions for once.

Are you too SCARED to give us the truth?

Today is the 41anniversary of the launch of Apollo 13. Know what that means?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2016
Then, change jobs, like I did.

Do not be scared to change. I spent my life doing it, and you can too, with some nerve and work
Ahaahaaaaa george kamburoff the psychopath can even find pride and honor in losing 12++ jobs.

Even if everybody knows the truth.

But getting fired from so many jobs was not his fault was it? Blame it on all those incompetent supervisors who hired him in the first place.

George kamburoffs main career contribution: the establishment of HR depts to weed out phonies like himself.

Corporate America thanks you george.

They told him he needed a degree so he went out and got an honorary MS in 'life experiences' and claimed it was for environmental mgt.

Didn't work for them did it?

Didn't work here either.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2016
I am real, otto. You are just a cowardly sniper.

High-school stuff.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2016
Today is the 41anniversary of the launch of Apollo 13. Know what that means?
@liar-kam
lets see... considering your history
... either you were there in person listening to the live launch
or
you were an engineer who single-handed was responsible for the safety, security and success of the launch because [insert "real claim" without evidence here]" !!!!

how close am i?

ROTFLMFAO

PS - argument from authority is not the same as argument from evidence
epic fail for liar-kam again

.

.

.

sorry to Proto, Thermo, Axe et al and the rest of the real engineers, science advocates and posters who continue to post science with evidence for that one!
... that was just too good an opportunity to pass up, yall
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2016
Today is the 41anniversary of the launch of Apollo 13. Know what that means?


My guess it means that Apollo 13 was launched on April the 11th 1975. Am I right on that one? I did not use the Google so I am just guessing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2016
I am real, otto. You are just a cowardly sniper.

High-school stuff
Everything I post about you is real isn't it? All gleaned from what you actually say as opposed to what you claim to be.

The real george kamburoff.

Have you done a Web search on yourself lately?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
CapS, Ira.

I tried for months now to be nice and forgiving to you in this New Year, but you two seem incorrigible. I had hoped that you would have grown up enough by now to realize this New Year and the next few had all the promise of being exciting new years of discovery and reconciliation. But you two seem determined to dwell in the old years of stupidity and malice.

Don't you realize your reputation on the net is now one of moronity and cowardice beyond the guise of 'fun' or 'sanity'?

End your delusional personality clutterings of the on-topic and on-science discussions; post *proofs* of your own identity and qualifications/experience; as gkam did when you demanded it.

Now it's your turn. Do it now, without further evasions; or be forever branded psychoanalytically and officially *Two Internet Idiots* who are too stupid to realize the hypocritical and cowardly position they've placed themselves in.

Don't cower behind anonymity. Deliver now. Or be confirmed dolts.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

but you two seem incorrigible
That is what Mrs-Ira-Skippette tells me and little Ira-Skippy all the time. She usually says it with the smirking laugh and rolling eyes. Is that how you mean it?

Don't you realize your reputation on the net is now one of moronity and cowardice beyond the guise of 'fun' or 'sanity'?
Okayeei, if you say so. What did you realize when you pondered your reputation on the interweb?

post *proofs* of your own identity and qualifications/experience; as gkam did
I am not stupid like glam-Skippy is, so I will pass on that if it is all the same to you.

Don't cower behind anonymity
Cower? Behind who? You want my address so you can come see me? It would not be much fun for you I think.

.
Deliver now.
I am not coming to the Australia so you got to come get it your self

Or be confirmed dolts.
That's just fine with me, don't hurt my feelings none.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Today is the 41anniversary of the launch of Apollo 13. Know what that means?
-----------------------------------

After I sent that, I wondered if I wrote 41 or the real number, 46 years.

And Grumpy's whine about "you were an engineer who single-handed was responsible for the safety, security and success of the launch because, . . "
-------------------------------------

No, no, Grumpy, it is "single-handedLY".

And the answer is "no, I wasn't anywhere near the launch."

How about you?

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Don't you realize your reputation on the net is now one of moronity and cowardice beyond the guise of 'fun' or 'sanity'?
Okayeei, if you say so.
I do; backed by recorded behavior of you and CapS in evading your responsibility to reciprocate with your *proofs* about your own identities, qualifications/experience to gkam. Only fair, isn't it?
What did you realize when you pondered your reputation on the interweb?
I was vindicated as objective scientist and commenter despite internet hypocritical idiots and cowards trolling lies and personality games.
Deliver now.
I am not coming to the Australia so you got to come get it your self
Funny; but still hypocritically and cowardly evasive. You just confirmed your internet reputation again: idiots and cowards without wit and honor enough to see it
That's just fine with me, don't hurt my feelings none.
It wouldn't. That's industrial strength insensibility at work, Ira Podna-Skippy! :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
Okayeei, if you say so.
I do;
Well good for you Skippy.

backed by recorded behavior of you and CapS in evading your responsibility to reciprocate
I got no responsibility, how am I responsible for glam-Skippy being "real" and stupid?

Only fair, isn't it?.
Are you asking me that to be fair to glam-Skippy I have to be stupid like him?

What did you realize when you pondered your reputation on the interweb?
I was vindicated as objective scientist and commenter despite internet hypocritical idiots and cowards trolling lies and personality games.
Well good for you Skippy, maybe the Earthman Club will give you a plaque for that to hang on the Club House wall.

You just confirmed your internet reputation again: idiots and cowards without wit and sensibility enough to see it
Glad to be able to accommodate you Cher.

That's industrial strength insensibility at work, Ira Podna-Skippy.
Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Poor hypocritical, dimwitted, cowardly, Ira.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
Poor hypocritical, dimwitted, cowardly, Ira.
If you say so Cher. It don't bother me what you think, you are just another silly couyon on the interweb. Just like me,,, only difference is you take your self to serious. You should try to be more like me and laissez les bons temps rouler. Life is to short for all that anger and misere. Especially for you and glam-Skippy, why you waste your last few years jousting at the windmills on the interweb?

Choot, when I get to be your and glam-Skippy's age, I hope I can relax and enjoy life and my grandkids if I have them. I sure wouldn't waste my last years getting upset with some couyons on the interweb who won't recognize how wonderfully great I am at all the things I never did.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
RC, it still gets to Ira that he will never have those experiences, that there are folk who have, and he resents it. Gets under his hide. Bugs him, all day.

Makes him crabby, . . then he calls you names.

That's when you know he lost.

It works with Grumpy, too.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
RC, it still gets to Ira that he will never have those experiences, that there are folk who have, and he resents it. Gets under his hide. Bugs him, all day.
I love hearing about the things you never did, best show in town Cher. I really like more when you try to dress it up more and get all the engineering, science and technical mixed up while you are trying to sound like the engineer.

How can I resent all the things you never did? And even if you did do them, why would I resent it? If I was not happy with what I do, did and will do, I wouldn't be spending all day of my last golden years trying to make up for not doing what I really wish I did. I would be out doing them.I'm only 38 and I plenty of time to do whatever me. (A little late for you to go out do all those things you never did, eh? So play acting takes the place?)

That's when you know he lost.
Losing to you is good, I would hate to be winning if I had to be as goofy as you to win.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Ira.
If you say so Cher. It don't bother me what you think, you are just another silly couyon on the interweb. Just like me,,, only difference is you take your self to serious.
You fail to realize that I take science and humanity and honor and objectivty and fairness seriously. I have proven I (as science demands) do not go on personalities involved, only on the ideas and their merits, irrespective of source. I'm nothing like you, internet loser.
You should try to be more like me and laissez les bons temps rouler. Life is to short for all that anger and misere.
Apparently its long enough for to have your idiotic "funs" on a science forum, bot-voting and crapping on the floor.
Choot, when I get to be your...age, I hope I can relax and enjoy life and my grandkids if I have them.
I'm sure they'll feel proud when they read the cached internet record of your long-standing hypocrisy, idiocy, cowardice and crapping your 'schtick' on a science site, internet loser.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
You fail to realize that I take science and humanity and honor and objectivty and fairness seriously. I have proven I (as science demands) do not go on personalities involved, only on the ideas and their merits, irrespective of source.
If you say so,

I'm nothing like you, internet loser.
I am not the one who got the boot-a-roo on every forum that I signed up for. The nice peoples here at physorg give you your last place to be Really-Skippy..

Apparently its long enough for to have your idiotic "funs" on a science forum, bot-voting and crapping on the floor.
Cher, it is not that important, relax and improve your quality of life.

I'm sure they'll feel proud when they read the cached internet record of your long-standing hypocrisy, idiocy, cowardice and crapping your 'schtick' on a science site, internet loser.
Really-Skippy says I am the loser,,, that's a lot better than Really-Skippy saying I am a winner (given Really-Skippy interweb creds.)

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Just for the sake of full exposure and doing diligence. I did get the boot-a-roo at one forum. Seven or six times the same one. It was the Bully-Tea-Skippy-Pulpit. Or something like that. I was so good there that they actually had to turn off the karma voting buttons because I up voted every time somebody said something good about Obama, and down voted all the regulars who get mad when you say anything good about Obama.

But during the election time, they were not going to have me saying anything good about Obama or any other democrat, so they show me the door for disrupting the tea partying they like to do with non liberal distractions.

Hooyeei, I can't wait for the election to get going so I can have another go at them. Hillery-Skippette or Bernie-Skippy, don't matter to me, I will be their biggest fan. You can come and watch me if you are sneaky and don't give away that you are a Democrat.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Ira.
You fail to realize that I take science and....seriously.
If you say so,
You know so. Proven by the record. Whereas you are "Uncle Ira", an internet loser with none of that.
I am not the one who got the boot-a-roo on every forum that I signed up for.
Given the mod-trolls were a disgrace, and proven so via internet experiments, being boo-a-roo'd by them was a badge of honor and credibility.
Apparently its long enough for to have your idiotic "funs" on a science forum, bot-voting and crapping on the floor.
Cher, it is not that important, relax and improve your quality of life.
I'm sure they'll feel proud when they read the cached internet record of your long-standing hypocrisy, idiocy, cowardice and crapping your 'schtick' on a science site, internet loser.
Really-Skippy says I am the loser,,, that's a lot better than Really-Skippy saying I am a winner (given Really-Skippy interweb creds.)
My 'cred' confirmed; yours self-trashed, loser.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Ira.
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Just for the sake of full exposure and doing diligence. I did get the boot-a-roo at one forum. Seven or six times the same one. It was the Bully-Tea-Skippy-Pulpit. Or something like that. I was so good there that they actually had to turn off the karma voting buttons because I up voted every time somebody said something good about Obama, and down voted all the regulars who get mad when you say anything good about Obama.
Political sites don't count in science, Ira. And don't be so modest about your own boot-a-roo'd record; you were also booted from Sciforums science site when you tried to crap your "Schtick" all over their floor too. They sussed you out pretty damn quick, didn't they, Ira! Even the crooked mod-troll gang there at the time couldn't stomach your "special" brand of morronic "funs" which PO here seems to allow for the sake of pity, and to keep you off the other sites (a PO "public service" to internet forum community).
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
Political sites don't count in science, Ira.
It's another place you find a bunch of couyons who take them selfs to serious.

And don't be so modest about your own boot-a-roo'd record; you were also booted from Sciforums science site when you tried to crap your "Schtick" all over their floor too. They sussed you out pretty damn quick, didn't they, Ira!
You mean the place where you was doing one of your "experiments" and made a puppet of Ira-Skippy? And stole my materials from here with the snip and glue to make your self look like a diligent doing scientist being victimized on the interweb? That was as lame as all your "experiments" Cher.

Even the crooked mod-troll gang there at the time couldn't stomach your "special" brand of morronic "funs".
And when they found out it was you they banneded that "experiment" too along with Really/Skippy/Undetermined/Skippy, eh? Just like they caught all your "experimental" puppets.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Ira.
Political sites don't count in science, Ira.
It's another place you find a bunch of couyons who take them selfs to serious.
No, they are idiots. Much like you, except for different "Schticks".
...you were also booted from Sciforums science site when you tried to crap your "Schtick" all over their floor too.
You mean the place where you was doing one of your "experiments" and made a puppet of Ira-Skippy? And stole my materials...
Lame try, mate. You were caught red handed. I didn't have to lift a finger to prove you were the PO Ira internet idiot; you accomplished that all by yourself, and pretty damn quick too!
Even the crooked mod-troll gang there at the time couldn't stomach your "special" brand of morronic "funs".
And when they found out it was you they banneded that "experiment" too along with Really/Skippy/Undetermined/Skippy, eh?
They knew it wasn't me, dummy.

Poor Ira in denial.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
They knew it wasn't me, dummy.
That must be why you are really Really-Skippy still there, eh? How many puppets with that one they catch you making? The ones where you talked to your self count double.

Anyhoo, I will let you carry on with doing your diligence and Earth Club sciences and whatnot. I got to get up early to drive up to St. Louis in the morning for work. Maybe Captain-Skippy will come around to give you some reason to be here. Or Otto-Skippy. Choot, you like to fool around with all the Skippys, so you will find someone to play with.

Try to not be so disrespecting of the scientists and humans with your Weird Science so I don't have to come back and take care your dishonorable and biased objectionable foolishments and diligences.

Laissez les bons temps rouler. (That's Cajun for "Do Better Matey")

Oh yeah, I almost forget. :)(: and (")

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
Ira.
They knew it wasn't me, dummy.
That must be why you are really Really-Skippy still there, eh? How many puppets with that one they catch you making? The ones where you talked to your self count double.
No dummy, they knew your Uncle Ira attempt there was not me. Are you really this stupid off the internet as well?

And the internet experiments (to prove their mod-troll abuses were responsible for my bannings) did not require me to talk to myself because no two experiments were running at the same time.

And I have never needed to use the tactics which you losers have been employing for years now as a gang of socks in 'conversation' with each other. They were so transparent and juvenile it was almost too painful to watch you lot sometimes!

Have a safe trip. Remember, you may think it's ok to be idiotic on a science site when navigating Internet 'communications highway', but real 'hard highway' to St. Louis should not be as idiotically disrespected by you. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
post *proofs* of your own identity
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck the insipid retard
1- i am not anonymous - if you can't figure out how to interwebz, then the problem is yours
2- i don't care what gkam "did"... only what he can prove, and that mostly has to do with his claims regarding science (except for his commando engineering "listened to the Scorpion sink "live" bullsh*t", which i know is a lie)
3- liar-kam has my address
4- i'm not making it any easier for you incompetent idiots (see links below)
5- i don't care what you or any other idiot narcissistic trolling pseudoscience crackpot pervert thinks

when yall post about me, it helps me b/c it gives me examples to demonstrate stupidity at it's most blatant

http://www.answer...internet

http://netsecurit...book.htm
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
"@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck the insipid retard"
------------------------------------

Did you have no parents?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2016
CapS.

It is unstable characters like YOU that people should be wary of on the internet. It was YOU STALKING people on internet, harassing and making threats to me and others, and even ending up with mistaken-identity stalking results which you boasted about getting through 'pinging' and other 'techniques'. And you still haven't posted here links to *proofs* of your qualifications/experience. The forum doesn't need your address, only *proofs* of your own qualifications/experience which you have claimed but not yet *proven* like gkam did for his own when you demanded it. No more evasions and excuses, CapS. Do it; like you have demanded of others.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2016
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck the insipid retard
CapS
TL;DR
OT

just because you're an unstable idiot that stupidly posts personal contact information and home addresses on the interwebz out of some misguided sense of narcissistic glory doesn't mean everyone else should be as stupid

tell you what, you two twins start posting actual science content with valid references and source material and stop posting unsubstantiated conjecture and you'll not only get along with folk better, you'll actually be able to hold your head up

...instead of being the cowardly sniping whiny byotches crying about being picked on by people with evidence

until then: i may or may not respond to your BS

oh... and reported for OT baiting, flaming, trolling and pseudoscience stupidity

thanks
have a nice night
:-P
http://www.eonlin...1714.jpg

gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2016
You are reported for offensiveness and personal attack, Stumpy.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2016
You are reported for offensiveness and personal attack, Stumpy.
@liar-kam
that is your prerogative

but be warned, that means i get to report all of your non-factual personal attacks as well... including, but not limited to your "anti-nuke responses without factual evidence or references"
anti-Ira posts
anti-me posts
anti-otto
whining about being proven a liar with evidence (and all the other whining too)

that also means reporting all your pseudoscience sloganeering posts in AGW or Energy, EV's...

pseudoscience and emotional outbursts based on fear are not science
and the above is a factual representation of rc and her incapacity to functionally utilise the internet, much like yourself

gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2016
Let's do it.

We will count the times we each directly accused the other of lies or lying.

If you were ever in a technical professional field, you would know we do not do that.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2016
We will count the times we each directly accused
@LIar-kam
sorry... doesn't quite work like that

you must only count the times you proved yourself correct over me

you know... with evidence and all that

so, if i provide evidence proving you wrong (means you lie) then i get to report that one

tell you what... lets just appeal to the MODS?
oh wait...

better option:
start putting evidence or references and validation in your posts and alleviate the back and forth!

If you were ever in a technical professional field, you would know that it is required to validate a claim!!

that will solve a lot of problems...

in fact... make sure there are no links or references in any of the posts you report, ok... because if you do report something that can be easily proven, that means i get to appeal to the site and get you perma-banned

thanks

this should be fun!
you should be perma-banned by weeks end!

THANKS gkam, for making it easy for me!
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2016
CapS.
@pain-in-the-ass-nincompoop-RepulsivityCheck the insipid retardTL;DR;OT just because you're an unstable idiot that stupidly posts personal contact information and home addresses on the interwebz out of some misguided sense of narcissistic glory doesn't mean everyone else should be as stupid
Look again at how you address your posts; and your internet stalking/threats; and the insulting and OT images/sites you link to; eg....
http://www.eonlin...1714.jpg


...and your general creepiness.

Now tell this forum again: who's the childlish malicious unstable idiot? (be advised, CapS, your record/reputation as such is already legend; so cowardly dishonorable denial won't work for you anymore).
start posting actual science...
Da Schneib is honest enough to admit his errors because I posted known science correctly understood/applied. Mainstream conjectures too, CapS. Learn.
gkam
1 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2016
Hey Grumpy. Go away.

This is a science site, not one for your Twitter adolescent nonsense.

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2016
CapS.
TL;DR

.

.

This is a science site
@liar-kam
so why do you keep posting false claims, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture?

trying to be like rc?
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2016
Hey, . . .

TL;DR

LSMFT

ROLTLKFAOMTS

Boy, I sure told him off, huh?

I guess somewhere in adolescence all that makes some kind of superficial sense.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2016
Poor CapS.
CapS.
TL;DR
This is a science site
@liar-kam so why do you keep posting false claims, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture? trying to be like rc?
CapS, you poor Schmuck, how can you not see how totally stupid it is for you to say....
TL:DR (Too Long:Didn't Read)
....about gkam's TWO LINE comment?

And CapS, how can you also not see, that you saying...
posting false claims, opinion and unsubstantiated conjecture? trying to be like rc?
...takes extra industrial strength nitwittery in a forum where everyone is by now fully aware that Da Schneib was honest enough to admit he was wrong and me correct because I didn't post what you delude yourself I did; I posted known science correctly understood/applied, or Da Schneib would not have bravely admitted I was correct and he in error!

Poor CapS; he can't read two lines, denies recorded facts, yet he replies pretending to know what's going on!

Poor CapS, internet loser.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2016
DaSchneib admitted to being wrong? That actually happened ?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 01, 2016
hmmm. depends upon the AI trainer, here is everything. Now this is ... and yes Maxwell, sensors, ...
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 01, 2016
hmmm. depends upon the AI trainer, here is everything. Now this is ... and yes Maxwell, sensors, ...

and logic, and fuzzy logic, morality, ...quantified priori structure
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet May 01, 2016
Einstein got acceptance of GRT quite quickly because he was able to predict gravitational bending of the light of a star. He proposed it in 1915, and after Eddington observed the light of a star near the Sun during a total eclipse in 1919 it was generally accepted.

Sources:
https://en.wikipe...lativity shows the 1919 confirmation by Eddington.

eh, you mean he adjusted his figures to fit the expected date and position. We get that from Newton. He was off by a few months. gimmee a break. unacceptable. so maybe constant for the emitter but ...

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.