Scientist suggests possible link between primordial black holes and dark matter

Scientist suggests possible link between primordial black holes and dark matter
Left: This image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows an infrared view of a sky area in the constellation Ursa Major. Right: After masking out all known stars, galaxies and artifacts and enhancing what's left, an irregular background glow appears. This is the cosmic infrared background (CIB); lighter colors indicate brighter areas. The CIB glow is more irregular than can be explained by distant unresolved galaxies, and this excess structure is thought to be light emitted when the universe was less than a billion years old. Scientists say it likely originated from the first luminous objects to form in the universe, which includes both the first stars and black holes. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/A. Kashlinsky (Goddard)

Dark matter is a mysterious substance composing most of the material universe, now widely thought to be some form of massive exotic particle. An intriguing alternative view is that dark matter is made of black holes formed during the first second of our universe's existence, known as primordial black holes. Now a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, suggests that this interpretation aligns with our knowledge of cosmic infrared and X-ray background glows and may explain the unexpectedly high masses of merging black holes detected last year.

"This study is an effort to bring together a broad set of ideas and observations to test how well they fit, and the fit is surprisingly good," said Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA Goddard. "If this is correct, then all galaxies, including our own, are embedded within a vast sphere of black holes each about 30 times the sun's mass."

In 2005, Kashlinsky led a team of astronomers using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope to explore the background glow of infrared light in one part of the sky. The researchers reported excessive patchiness in the glow and concluded it was likely caused by the aggregate light of the first sources to illuminate the universe more than 13 billion years ago. Follow-up studies confirmed that this cosmic infrared background (CIB) showed similar unexpected structure in other parts of the sky.

In 2013, another study compared how the cosmic X-ray background (CXB) detected by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory compared to the CIB in the same area of the sky. The first stars emitted mainly optical and ultraviolet light, which today is stretched into the infrared by the expansion of space, so they should not contribute significantly to the CXB.

Yet the irregular glow of low-energy X-rays in the CXB matched the patchiness of the CIB quite well. The only object we know of that can be sufficiently luminous across this wide an energy range is a black hole. The research team concluded that primordial black holes must have been abundant among the earliest stars, making up at least about one out of every five of the sources contributing to the CIB.

The nature of dark matter remains one of the most important unresolved issues in astrophysics. Scientists currently favor theoretical models that explain dark matter as an exotic massive particle, but so far searches have failed to turn up evidence these hypothetical particles actually exist. NASA is currently investigating this issue as part of its Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope missions.

"These studies are providing increasingly sensitive results, slowly shrinking the box of parameters where dark matter particles can hide," Kashlinsky said. "The failure to find them has led to renewed interest in studying how well primordial black holes—black holes formed in the universe's first fraction of a second—could work as dark matter."

Physicists have outlined several ways in which the hot, rapidly expanding universe could produce primordial black holes in the first thousandths of a second after the Big Bang. The older the universe is when these mechanisms take hold, the larger the black holes can be. And because the window for creating them lasts only a tiny fraction of the first second, scientists expect primordial black holes would exhibit a narrow range of masses.

Primordial black holes, if they exist, could be similar to the merging black holes detected by the LIGO team in 2014. This computer simulation shows in slow motion what this merger would have looked like up close. The ring around the black holes, called an Einstein ring, arises from all the stars in a small region directly behind the holes whose light is distorted by gravitational lensing. The gravitational waves detected by LIGO are not shown in this video, although their effects can be seen in the Einstein ring. Gravitational waves traveling out behind the black holes disturb stellar images comprising the Einstein ring, causing them to slosh around in the ring even long after the merger is complete. Gravitational waves traveling in other directions cause weaker, shorter-lived sloshing everywhere outside the Einstein ring. If played back in real time, the movie would last about a third of a second. Credit: SXS Lensing

On Sept. 14, gravitational waves produced by a pair of merging black holes 1.3 billion light-years away were captured by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) facilities in Hanford, Washington, and Livingston, Louisiana. This event marked the first-ever detection of gravitational waves as well as the first direct detection of black holes. The signal provided LIGO scientists with information about the masses of the individual black holes, which were 29 and 36 times the sun's mass, plus or minus about four solar masses. These values were both unexpectedly large and surprisingly similar.

"Depending on the mechanism at work, primordial black holes could have properties very similar to what LIGO detected," Kashlinsky explained. "If we assume this is the case, that LIGO caught a merger of black holes formed in the early universe, we can look at the consequences this has on our understanding of how the cosmos ultimately evolved."

In his new paper, published May 24 in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Kashlinsky analyzes what might have happened if dark matter consisted of a population of black holes similar to those detected by LIGO. The black holes distort the distribution of mass in the early universe, adding a small fluctuation that has consequences hundreds of millions of years later, when the first stars begin to form.

For much of the universe's first 500 million years, normal matter remained too hot to coalesce into the first stars. Dark matter was unaffected by the high temperature because, whatever its nature, it primarily interacts through gravity. Aggregating by mutual attraction, dark matter first collapsed into clumps called minihaloes, which provided a gravitational seed enabling normal matter to accumulate. Hot gas collapsed toward the minihaloes, resulting in pockets of gas dense enough to further collapse on their own into the first stars. Kashlinsky shows that if black holes play the part of dark matter, this process occurs more rapidly and easily produces the lumpiness of the CIB detected in Spitzer data even if only a small fraction of minihaloes manage to produce stars.

As cosmic gas fell into the minihaloes, their constituent black holes would naturally capture some of it too. Matter falling toward a black hole heats up and ultimately produces X-rays. Together, infrared light from the first stars and X-rays from gas falling into dark matter black holes can account for the observed agreement between the patchiness of the CIB and the CXB.

Occasionally, some primordial black holes will pass close enough to be gravitationally captured into binary systems. The black holes in each of these binaries will, over eons, emit gravitational radiation, lose orbital energy and spiral inward, ultimately merging into a larger black hole like the event LIGO observed.

"Future LIGO observing runs will tell us much more about the universe's population of black holes, and it won't be long before we'll know if the scenario I outline is either supported or ruled out," Kashlinsky said.

Kashlinsky leads science team centered at Goddard that is participating in the European Space Agency's Euclid mission, which is currently scheduled to launch in 2020. The project, named LIBRAE, will enable the observatory to probe source populations in the CIB with high precision and determine what portion was produced by black holes.


Explore further

LIGO researchers suggest background noise due to gravity waves may be much greater than thought

More information: A. Kashlinsky. LIGO GRAVITATIONAL WAVE DETECTION, PRIMORDIAL BLACK HOLES, AND THE NEAR-IR COSMIC INFRARED BACKGROUND ANISOTROPIES, The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8205/823/2/L25 , On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1605.04023
Provided by NASA
Citation: Scientist suggests possible link between primordial black holes and dark matter (2016, May 24) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-05-scientist-link-primordial-black-holes.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2531 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 24, 2016
one more theory to look into.

more than you know...

May 24, 2016
One does have to admit that primordial black holes could explain the missing mass. It fits all the criteria, since it does not require modification of GRT, does not require exotic particles we don't seem to be able to detect, and explains why we can't see the gravity source (black holes being, you know, like, black, and stuff).

I did an analysis of possible explanations for the missing mass recently on another thread, and I managed to leave this possibility out. My bad. I will go try to find it and add this.

May 24, 2016
Wow, the pseudoscience is getting even thicker and even more ridiculous.

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

And there you have it, imaginary conjecture!

May 24, 2016
No dice. Can't find the comment. Oh well.

Honestly, @cd, you jump at the least possible conjecture of a gap you can sustain your outmoded EU crap with.

This is why you are generally ridiculed and dismissed. Get over it.

May 24, 2016
DS: You may not be familiar with the MACHO (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) v. WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) arguments about Dark Matter, you should read into them.

MACHOs are things like small black holes and other 'objects' that would have mass but not emit, absorb, or scatter light significantly. WIMPs are the kind of usual dark matter we hear about, predominantly because a variety of data suggest that at least some, if not most or all, of the dark matter must be more like WIMPs in that there's a diffuse mass present, rather than some little knot of mass like a MACHO. ABaryon Acoustic Oscillations in the CMB are a particularly strong set of data that inform us of the early universe conditions.

May 24, 2016
@cd, you jump at the least possible conjecture

LOL, they are discussing highly speculative "primordial black holes" (regular black holes are highly speculative as well) , a highly speculative creation event of the BB, highly speculative DM, and highly speculative GW'so. And you call that "least possible conjecture"? You are clearly a rube of monumental proportions. BTW, I've got a bottle of DM for sale, it's labeled "magic pixie fairy dust", care to buy a bit?

May 24, 2016
Thanks, @shavera, sounds interesting. I'll definitely look into BAOs and their impact on MACHO hypotheses.

May 24, 2016
Thanks, @shavera, sounds interesting. I'll definitely look into BAOs and their impact on MACHO hypotheses.

Start here and give special attention to microlensing http://web.mit.ed...de1.html

May 24, 2016
@cantdrive85 From the article: "Future LIGO observing runs will tell us much more about the universe's population of black holes, and it won't be long before we'll know if the scenario I outline is either supported or ruled out," Kashlinsky said.

Speculative, yes. But not a zealot preaching that everyone else is wrong and he is right. Instead, they're following the rules of textbook science: make a reasoned conjecture, gather evidence, peer review, announce results. How far along that checklist are you and your "theories"?

Interesting stuff, let's see how this pans out.

May 24, 2016
@cd, you jump at the least possible conjecture

LOL, they are discussing highly speculative "primordial black holes" (regular black holes are highly speculative as well) , a highly speculative creation event of the BB, highly speculative DM, and highly speculative GW'so. And you call that "least possible conjecture"? You are clearly a rube of monumental proportions. BTW, I've got a bottle of DM for sale, it's labeled "magic pixie fairy dust", care to buy a bit?
- CD
I agree that it's all speculation & musings, not even close to Theory. Before & directly after a BB, there could not have been even one primordial BH. Not even to appear suddenly & then suddenly pop out of existence. It would be illogical for such "things" to pop in & out of a new Universe. The immense heat would have spread everywhere quickly, preventing such creation of BH when there were still no stars or very few to fuel those BHs. The heat spread into the space that already existed and kept going

May 24, 2016
(cont'd)
@CD
As the heat of creation spread out into the coldness of space, the temps dropped the further out it went. The stars then were able to form from the cooling gases and the pressures of gravity forced those gases to coalesce into stars and begin the nuclear fission process.
The CMB is the remains of the heat of creation.
The BB is but a metaphor for the primordial photon collisions that produced matter/energy.

May 24, 2016
Primordial black holes of certain sizes have already been ruled out http://www.nature...-1.14551

May 24, 2016
Good stuff, @Techno. Thanks! Griest is the one who originally named them MACHOs, correct?

May 24, 2016
*Edit: Nuclear Fusion Process, not fission...sorry.
Black Holes, if they exist, could only happen to stars that have collapsed into themselves and the levels of the BH where there had formerly been matter/energy have also collapsed. Each level then collapses further, and where those levels had once been filled with matter/energy, have become empty, causing the matter/energy outside of the BH to "fall into those empty spaces" to take the place of what had once been there.
This is similar to a demolition crew placing explosives into each level of a building where the first level explosion collapses the second level, then the third level, etc.

For me, this is the most logical explanation for a star's collapsing into itself, drawing matter/energy from outside of it closer to fill in the levels that have themselves collapsed.

May 24, 2016
Primordial black holes of certain sizes have already been ruled out http://www.nature...-1.14551
- philecrawford
The whole thing about primordial BH was illogical to begin with. Thanks for the link.
The assumptions all fly in the face of logic and reason. Grasping at straws for the sake of making theory is misleading when the most natural answers make the most sense.

May 24, 2016
Hmmm, @phile, not sure that fully rules out primordial black holes *in the halo*. But we'd need a good explanation for why they're in the halo and not in the disk, which definitely makes it very unlikely.

May 24, 2016
Good stuff, @Techno. Thanks! Griest is the one who originally named them MACHOs, correct?

I was not aware of this factoid. But that is what Wiki says... Thanks for that.

May 24, 2016
You know, the more I see, the more I start to think of another possibility for the missing mass.

What if it's not one thing, but several together?

Say, for example, a contribution from neutrinos, and from MACHOs, and from primordial black holes... maybe other stuff? I might go poke around and see how much contribution each one makes.

Could we be chasing something that doesn't actually need to exist here, simply because we've made the (possibly) incorrect assumption that DM is all one thing?

May 24, 2016
According to philecrawford's link from Nature website: "Bernard Carr, a theoretical physicist at Queen Mary University of London, who worked with Hawking on the concept of primordial black holes, says although Pani and Loeb's argument involves complex calculations describing how they interact with neutron stars, it does appear that most possible masses for them are ruled out. "For someone like me, who is keen to have primordial black holes as dark matter, it's a shame. On the other hand, it's important to know," he says." from 2014 issue.

Now here it is - 2016 - almost 2 years later and the dead horse is still being beaten, this time by astrophysicist, Dr. Kashlinsky of NASA Goddard whose opinion is that "If this is correct, then all galaxies, including our own, are embedded within a vast sphere of black holes each about 30 times the sun's mass."

May 24, 2016
Dr. Kashlinsky suggests, "that this interpretation aligns with our knowledge of cosmic infrared and X-ray background glows and may explain the unexpectedly high masses of merging black holes detected last year."

He then says that "If this is correct, then all galaxies, including our own, are embedded within a vast sphere of black holes each about 30 times the sun's mass."

Sounds dangerous. Almost like a vast left-wing conspiracy theory.

So we are "embedded within" a vast sphere of Black Holes? If this were true, then could that gravitational wave that LIGO experienced some time ago be a warning sign that the Milky Way is about to be pulled into the gravitational path of a Black Hole and the Earth and the Solar System stretched out like pizza dough?

Interesting thought.

May 24, 2016
You know, the more I see, the more I start to think of another possibility for the missing mass.

What if it's not one thing, but several together?

Could we be chasing something that doesn't actually need to exist here, simply because we've made the (possibly) incorrect assumption that DM is all one thing?

NOW you're gettin' it...:-)

May 24, 2016
So we are "embedded within" a vast sphere of Black Holes? If this were true, then could that gravitational wave that LIGO experienced some time ago be a warning sign that the Milky Way is about to be pulled into the gravitational path of a Black Hole and the Earth and the Solar System stretched out like pizza dough?

Interesting thought.

Not one I'm gonna lose much sleep over....

May 24, 2016
Neutrinos. Tiny mass individually. (they change flavour which implies mass (so I've heard)). Anyone done any kind of research into possible masses? (It's late, so I'm being lazy :)

May 24, 2016
"If this is correct, then all galaxies, including our own, are embedded within a vast sphere of black holes each about 30 times the sun's mass."

Wow... A Dyson sphere made of black holes...:-)

May 24, 2016
Neutrinos. Tiny mass individually. (they change flavour which implies mass (so I've heard)). Anyone done any kind of research into possible masses? (It's late, so I'm being lazy :)

Probable masses are very small fractions of the mass of an electron. Electrons are 520 keV, and maximum neutrino masses are on the close order of 1 ev, so it's like 500,000:1.

May 24, 2016
There is no dark matter. The black holes have enough power to cause gravitational anomalies across dimensions. There is no "invisible" matter causing gravitational fields in this dimension. Trying to blame unseen and unknown power is medieval reasoning. Very disappointing from a scientific community.

May 24, 2016
/me waits for one of the innumerate idiots to tell me I'm wrong because "it's not 520 keV, it's 0.52 MeV!!!11!"

May 24, 2016
Primordial black holes of certain sizes have already been ruled out http://www.nature...-1.14551
And even more recently, this preprint was just uploaded to arXiv a little over a week ago: Constraints on MACHO Dark Matter from the Star Cluster in the Dwarf Galaxy Eridanus II

From the abstract:
"For a wide range of plausible dark matter halo properties, Eri II's star cluster combines with existing constraints from microlensing, wide binaries, and disk kinematics to rule out dark matter composed entirely of MACHOs from ~10^(−7) M_sun up to arbitrarily high masses. The cluster in Eri II closes the ~20 – 100 M_sun window of allowed MACHO dark matter and provides much stronger constraints than wide Galactic binaries for MACHOs of up to thousands of Solar masses."

May 24, 2016
@Proto hits that one out of the park. Thanks for the link.

This is clearly a fast-developing area of astrophysics that will profit all the serious posters here to follow. Thanks, man.

May 25, 2016
So we are "embedded within" a vast sphere of Black Holes? If this were true, then could that gravitational wave that LIGO experienced some time ago be a warning sign that the Milky Way is about to be pulled into the gravitational path of a Black Hole and the Earth and the Solar System stretched out like pizza dough?

Interesting thought.

Not one I'm gonna lose much sleep over....
WhydGyre
Same here, but I'm sure there will be a few looking into it further, just in case. There is a more pressing need to watch out for incoming asteroids.
But if there is a chance that Dr. Kashlinsky is right about his hypothesis, what does he mean by "embedded within"? I read old Physorg threads, and one of them was in regard to Dr. Poplawski's hypo that every Black Hole contains a Universe. Somehow, that didn't seem right either.

May 25, 2016
Look. Hate hate to present speculation as fact, but if I were to this is how I'd put it.

The universe is a black hole.
Black holes are universes.
Black holes make up the multiverse.
Bubbles Inside of bubbles.

May 25, 2016
Wasn't there an article about the halo of a galaxy in a merger being offset from the visible matter b/c it doesn't experience friction? That is that it passes through stuff and keeps going until gravity drags it back in. If that science was right doesn't it rule out the blackholes as dark matter?

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

May 25, 2016
not sure that fully rules out primordial black holes *in the halo*. But we'd need a good explanation for why they're in the halo and not in the disk, which definitely makes it very unlikely.

here's a knee-jerk try.

To be within the disk the component of the velocity at right angles to the disc must be slowed down via momentum transfer. this can happen via impact on gas in the disc. Black holes are very small. even though they have great gravitational attraction this does not increase the amoiunt of matter that thehy impact with when travelling through the disc at high speeds markedly because of their size (it should leave a detectable 'wake' though.

Another issue might be slingshot events. Black holes (again due to their size) can approach each other very closely. Which makes for enormous slingshot potential as opposed to encounters with regular stars. Such a momentum trsnafer could skew the distribution between in-plane and halo entities.

May 25, 2016
Otto_Szucks says
I agree that it's all speculation & musings, not even close to Theory
Well it depends, more appropriate to label it (preparatory) hypothesis than an established theory in true Scientific sense but, as the math (so far) seems to work out & math advancing rather well re closer connection with Physical phenomena, their description & predictive qualities then I'm all for progressing to theory by keen observation asap

Otto_Szucks claims
Before & directly after a BB, there could not have been even one primordial BH
Hmm, only if during that period its completely utterly homogeneous ie Highly unlikely, ie There must have been quantum fluctuations "all the way down", ie not just in terms of scale but, also in terms of *any* granularity in ref to planck times since origin of big bang, or have I made a boodo be doo ?

@Da Schneib
Great comments, following :-)
@physman
New here, great to see :-)
@cantdrive85
Still havent answered my Q's re EM summing

May 25, 2016
Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids
http://www.spaced...999.html

"Some of the matter falling towards the [supermassive black] holes is converted into energy. This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies."

At the scale of our Universe the energy described above is dark energy. A Universal black hole is powering our visible Universe causing the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us.

May 25, 2016
@Otto_Szucks
He then says that "If this is correct, then all galaxies, including our own, are embedded within a vast sphere of black holes each about 30 times the sun's mass."

Sounds dangerous. Almost like a vast left-wing conspiracy theory.

I don't understand how this could be a conspiracy, and what aspect gives it a specific political flavour. Would you explain?

May 25, 2016
@Sigh
LOL I think that you misunderstood. That "vast left-wing conspiracy theory" was strictly "tongue in cheek" and an attempt at some humor with regard to Dr. Kashlinsky's "vast sphere of Black Holes". It was supposed to be a bit of irony and funny.
Happy "towel day", by the way.

May 25, 2016
Otto_Szucks says
I agree that it's all speculation & musings, not even close to Theory
Well it depends, more appropriate to label it (preparatory) hypothesis(..)

Otto_Szucks claims
Before & directly after a BB, there could not have been even one primordial BH
Hmm, only if during that period its completely utterly homogeneous ie Highly unlikely, ie There must have been quantum fluctuations "all the way down", ie not just in terms of scale but, also in terms of *any* granularity in ref to planck times since origin of big bang, or have I made a boodo be doo ?

- Mike_Massen
Math is trumped by direct observation.
For BH of any size to exist pre-BB there would have had to be gravity, also EM, particles/waves, etc. as well as the all-important photons. In short, ALL that are in existence now were all there at the moment of BB and prior to it. This would agree with BB only as a "local event" that did not involve the rest of Universe, making Universe far older

May 25, 2016
@Mike_Massen
The Universe is said to be 13.8 billion years old. But our t-scopes are limited as to distance, even with X-ray, IR, Gamma,etc helping to understand and see more clearly. As Benni said, the James Webb t-scope will prove that the Universe is far older than 13.8byo. I believe that the Universe is AGELESS; its age can never be quantified because it has ALWAYS existed. All matter/energy are recycled and Space is forever expanding with no end. IMO, the BB was a localized event in this quadrant and was set off deliberately and with forethought. But that is another thing altogether that involves "Thought" as a Force. That is something which most of those who are science-inclined would not even consider as a factor of an event in this quadrant of the Universe.
It would seem bizarre to their limited thinking...maybe even frightening. It would mean that humans are not the masters, after all.
BHs are important and are a requirement as a system of recycling/renewal.

May 25, 2016
@Mike_M
Primordial BHs could not have existed in this quadrant of the Universe prior to the BB...UNLESS they had drifted over from other quadrants. But then you would have to factor in that BHs of any size are the remains of stars...and In the case of tiny primordial BHs, there would have had to be tiny stars also from which the tiny BHs originated. Quantum stars. Are you willing to consider that?

May 25, 2016
ahhh Pissypants...I thought you would have joined ISIS by now...being a hater of Christianity.
Yes yes, I know that you hate ALL religions. But then you tend to polemicize that hatred in your posts in a science site, obviously to draw attention to yourself as "the sage of the age".
I am neither a "redneck" nor have a "religious disorder". Being anti-organized religion is not a disorder at all.
Of course, your mind is limited in scope and is closed to other realities, probabilities, and science which is not mainstream and in books to study.
Poor you.

Now I have to get back to work on our supercomputer. Make sure that you don't mislead newcomers with all that book larnin".

May 25, 2016
Now I have to get back to work on our supercomputer
Is it made out of cardboard and coathangers?

May 25, 2016
Otto_Szucks (OSz) says
Math is trumped by direct observation
For most part sure & you must appreciate if something isn't observed doesn't mean non-existence, Eg

1. Math predicted BHs, not observed until instruments & improvements thereof, this continues. Article re the paper therefore has a basis for its hypothesis.

OSz says
For BH of any size to exist pre-BB there would have had to be gravity, also EM, particles/waves
Before sure, but can't claim moments directly after, that's my main point, I should have been more precise.

OSz says
.. would agree with BB only as a "local event" that did not involve the rest of Universe..
Eg Branes. ie We know Universe as observed via instruments designed via Math/Physics confirmed empirically from local experiments & that Math can & has offered basis for hypothesis, extrapolation & predictions, see 1.

Can't comment on your later post as it leaps to nether regions re claims beyond scope of the article...

Cheers

May 25, 2016
/me waits for one of the innumerate idiots to tell me I'm wrong because "it's not 520 keV, it's 0.52 MeV!!!11!"

Well... you're right about that...:-)

May 26, 2016
Math is trumped by direct observation.


Errr, no.

It's obvious you have not the slightest clue what math is for or how it works. You are innumerate.

You might as well claim that fly fishing trumps astrophysics. This is a massive category error driven by your complete ignorance of what math is and what it means. It's probably about the stupidest thing I've seen anyone say about math ever.

May 26, 2016
Da Schneib said of Otto_Szucks
It's obvious you have not the slightest clue what math is for or how it works. You are innumerate.. ..You might as well claim that fly fishing trumps astrophysics
A bit unkind there, pretty sure from context of the para Otto_Szucks wrote to me, is firmly in context re Black Holes ref article.

Unless you've had encounters with this nick as alias before, in that case curious who/when as I can add it to my tracking script index to analyze writing styles etc ?

ie. Otto_Szucks' para specifically directed at me re my point to him that its inappropriate to claim a certainty "directly after a BB, there could not have been even one primordial BH"...

In that respect Otto_Szucks isn't up to speed on vacuum fluctuations re QM

I made the case re fluctuations there may have been localised variance directly after BB & at earliest inflation to nucleate black holes, offering a base QM Math for the article re the paper I want to focus on...

May 26, 2016
@Mike, that's a roger on previous encounters.

@Phys1 pretty much has it right.

May 26, 2016
I'm not sure I understand what is happening in this scenario. If there are bunches of so-called primordial black holes, they will interact gravitationally with each other, and with normal matter galaxies. What is unclear to me is how this giant cosmic dance of a galactic central black hole, surrounded by normal gas, dust, stars etc, and now we introduce an unknown number of black holes which don't seem to react much with anything. Is it the locked spin of this composite object that seems to minimise the gravitational gobbling up of normal matter by black holes, or the black holes themselves normally avoiding coalescing? I would expect to see a lot of cosmic lensing from this if there are so many of these space-warping objects in our line of sight in any direction, or am I missing something?

May 26, 2016
sub; misleading culture- Filtration of theories call for psychology shift
How best to mislead- self contradictions become part of escapism and do not attend to the subject
Paradigm shift become necessary-Demand to understand Cause-and effect- Cosmology study groups
https://www.scrib...-NANDURI
http://www.scribd...Dec-1999

May 26, 2016
@DS
Note that the poor delusionist does not distinguish "math" from "theory" or "hypothesis".

Really? Oh, please enlighten us, as to what is the distinction.

May 26, 2016
With all due respect to Mike_Massen, a real scientist, I still stand by my statement that observation trumps Math. With the correct instruments, observation is 100% correct and models may be produced from the resulting direct observational data. The trouble with Math wrt astrophysics and QM is that all too often it is based on speculation/hypotheses/wishful thinking and some mumbo jumbo or faerie dust that has been joined with older data which may or may not have been validated to 110% accuracy. An educated guess is still only a guess, and there appears to be way too much guesswork in these two disciplines, wasting much time, money and energy, as well as confusing students' intellectual capacity to absorb ONLY true and accurate science information. Eg "spacetime" where I have often said that Time as another dimension is incorrect & should never have been included in Math formulas/equations along with the 3 dimensions. And yet it is still being taught to students. Therefore, GIGO

May 26, 2016
@Mike_Massen
My present nick is my only sock puppet, which is in reference to Theghostofotto"s mental condition, something which you have already encountered. In my previous nick, Obama_socks, you inquired re my algorithms which I produce at my company. As I am watched by my superiors, I am not free to talk about my work OR my math, as I do not wish to become unemployed for having discussed indiscreetly aspects of my employment. As I have explained several times before, I am on a "learning curve" wrt astrophysics and QM. I have learned much from you, Noumenon, shavera re Standard Model, as well as learning from CD85, Hannes Alfven, bschott, benni and others re Electric Universe. I hold both theories in high regard, but I wish to learn absolutes, not faerie dust from DaSchneib and his cohort, Phys1 (Pissypants) who are mere scientist wannabes with apparently very little formal training in astrophysics but have decided to pretend that they know and understand more than anyone else

May 27, 2016
Mike_Massen proclaimed:
"ie. Otto_Szucks' para specifically directed at me re my point to him that its inappropriate to claim a certainty "directly after a BB, there could not have been even one primordial BH"...

In that respect Otto_Szucks isn't up to speed on vacuum fluctuations re QM"

There were no "vacuum fluctuations" immediately after the BB and certainly not prior to it. The tremendous heat and velocity of a BB would have limited such processes, if they even occurred at all. The momentum of the blast itself would have prevented any such actions due to the velocities at which all objects were flying out in every direction.
Black Holes of any size that could possibly have existed, would have been ripped apart at the moment of the BB, and could not have existed prior to the BB while there were no stars before, which idea would have had to be a complete fabrication thought up by those with not much logic and reason. For a BH to form, it must have an origination point.

May 27, 2016
Dark Matter... (nope) It's an inter-dimensional Brane, whose contents are exerting their force (G) on our brane and its contents.


May 27, 2016
DS: What if it's not one thing, but several together? Say, for example, a contribution from neutrinos, and from MACHOs, and from primordial black holes... maybe other stuff? ..

Almost certainly all of the above contribute, but ..

DS: Could we be chasing something that doesn't actually need to exist here,

Something needed to exist that could clump together gravitationally prior to recombination to explain the speed of growth of large scale structure. Primordial BH would be in the right place at the right time but would dynamical friction slow their coalescence too much? Neutrinos were 'hot' and DM needs to be mostly cold.

https://en.wikipe...friction

May 27, 2016
Astonishing!! An imaginary thing is made from something that befuddles the imagination.

May 27, 2016
Thanks, @Fleetfoot. Good point.

May 27, 2016
Astonishing!! An imaginary thing is made from something that befuddles the imagination.

- antigoracle

I agree that's it's all imaginary plus fuzzy reasoning in the mix. Sort of like belief in the magic fairy daddy (or whatever they like to call it). A good imagination is nice to have, but this junk I'm reading is patently absurd. lol

May 28, 2016
.. something that befuddles the imagination.


Science isn't for everyone, especially those who are easily befuddled. For the rest of us, the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.

May 28, 2016
"The signal provided LIGO scientists with information about the masses of the individual black holes, which were 29 and 36 times the sun's mass, plus or minus about four solar masses. These values were both unexpectedly large and surprisingly similar.

"Depending on the mechanism at work, primordial black holes could have properties very similar to what LIGO detected," Kashlinsky explained."

Long thread, so I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but this is a last effort based on that every other mass/density possibility has been excluded. So there is this narrow window where proponents hope the fit isn't a coincidence of a just-so unlikely hypothesis but a possible fit.

The consensus theory of DM as non-baryonic (inclusive black hole products) seems robust, and now the last gap can be narrowed or ruled out.

May 28, 2016
@torbjorn
Being ruled out is in the works. Your Dark Matter (DM) will be found to not be Matter/Mass at all. Matter/energy was created in a finite amount in Space. Space in and of itself has ALWAYS existed. When you are able to define what Space actually is, then you will have found the answer.

Consensus - hypothesis - allegations - conjecture - could have - may have - may be - these are all empty words meaning..."you don't know and you're just guessing".That isn't Science but only bugga bugga mumbo jumbo, the kind that ghostofotto partakes in.

"Depending on the mechanism at work, primordial black holes could have properties very similar to what LIGO detected,"
WTF kind of nonsense crap is THAT? Depending on - could have - very similar to - IS THIS THE STUFF THAT SCIENCE IS MADE OF?

May 28, 2016
This theory makes sense..
But we need more modeling, wouldn't so many black holes cause tons of stars to be ejected from there host galaxies? Do we find evidence of them in the movement of individual stars? Would these not cause regular gamma ray bursts? Why don't we measure gamma rays from stars getting destroyed in the local neighborhood?

May 29, 2016
Astonishing!! An imaginary thing is made from something that befuddles the imagination.

- antigoracle

I agree that's it's all imaginary plus fuzzy reasoning in the mix. Sort of like belief in the magic fairy daddy (or whatever they like to call it). A good imagination is nice to have, but this junk I'm reading is patently absurd. lol


Talking to one's own puppets... again ? Priceless :D

monkey got plenty imaginary friends, we see you posting all day everyday... ;)

May 29, 2016
Astonishing!! An imaginary thing is made from something that befuddles the imagination.


we know what befuddles your monkey brain, that's why your ratings are mainly 1s out of 5s ;)

May 29, 2016
.. something that befuddles the imagination.


Science isn't for everyone, especially those who are easily befuddled. For the rest of us, the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.

Congratulations. Get back to me when that theorem is straightforward.

May 29, 2016
Taken directly from the article:
"The nature of dark matter remains one of the most important unresolved issues in astrophysics. Scientists currently favor theoretical models that explain dark matter as an exotic massive particle, but so far searches have failed to turn up evidence these hypothetical particles actually exists."

So, the researchers are HOPING that it actually exist, so perhaps they need to go back to the basics. They are not even at all sure that the type of black hole they want even exists or existed. They had pretty well disproven them some time back, or at least showed that they would have either evaporated quickly or merged and grew into the larger BH's that we find today. But, too many egos have been bruised because the simpler ideas of valence and magnetics are actually the major cause of star formation due to the fact that matter is more widespread than originally found since the poor early equipment and data from them were faulty, so faulty theories come.

May 29, 2016
Recent studies with radio telescopy, Infrared and X-Ray telescopy are showing that there is much more mass to the galaxies being studied, such as the plasma bubbles forming the 'hot gas' regions to either side of a disc galaxy, the much farther away massive clouds of neutral, cold hydrogen that are a part of the galaxy only it forms the large-scale shape of a torus. We have smaller galaxies and globular clusters that 'just happen' to follow paths about this galaxy that can only be considered "p-type orbitals' and 's type orbitals' just like electrons follow about atoms, and there is even visual evidence to be able to place electrons into various 'shells and corresponding energy levels looking at the different densities and star forming regions within spiral galaxies. IF there was a BB, then such a macro-universe where galaxies are atoms, then IT's BB just happened seconds or minutes ago on IT's timescale (using C as an absolute) so we can look outward to study the BB.

May 29, 2016
The Original Studies that showed that there was not enough mass for the spiral galaxies to be spinning as fast as they apparently do was badly mistaken as they had no way of detecting the huge masses that they had yet to discover, the massive gas clouds around the galaxies and the mass from BHs and their jets and plasma bubbles. So many things because they were depending on JUST visible light and not X-rays, UV, Radio band and microwave etc. and we now see that the sky is FULL of things that they had absolutely no clue about when the Dark Matter Hypothesis was formulated. There has been enough matter found by scientists looking for Dark Matter to more than make up for the difference in the seen radial velocity of the stars in spiral galaxies, especially since we now know that the stars do not just orbit, but also circulate amongst themselves in orbitals dependent on local masses which removes any need for there to be 'Dark Matter' at all.

May 29, 2016
@Steelwof
And of course nothing you say makes sense in general.
You left out that very important bit of information.

How would you know what makes sense?
You left out that very important bit of information.

May 29, 2016
There has been enough matter found by scientists looking for Dark Matter to more than make up for the difference in the seen radial velocity of the stars in spiral galaxies


A commonly repeated claim but it just isn't true. The amount of dark matter in the standard does not come from counting matter of any kind and finding whats left. Nobody is counting stars or x-ray plasma or anything else in the calculation of how much dark matter there is. The amount of dark matter comes from the CMB powerspectrum and the abundances of light elements. Two independent tests which rule out normal matter being the culprit. In fact standard cosmology predicts that a large fraction of the baryonic content of the universe is so far undetected, part of the intergalactic medium. Until the CMB powerspectrum can be explained without dark matter and a new cosmology takes over there will always be a need for dark matter.

May 29, 2016
.. something that befuddles the imagination.


Science isn't for everyone, especially those who are easily befuddled. For the rest of us, the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.

Congratulations. Get back to me when that theorem is straightforward.


5 bannanas for that 1 rating of yours... ;)

May 29, 2016
@Steelwof
And of course nothing you say makes sense in general.
You left out that very important bit of information.

How would you know what makes sense?
You left out that very important bit of information.


it's the part of antisciencegorilla's skull being empty not being able to process any science

May 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Come on, mate, that's no way to scientifically and/or logically 'refute' what Steelwolf pointed out for you to consider/respond to objectively, as a scientist.

Even in last few weeks, humongous, previously 'dark', ORDINARY matter discovered.

When added to discoveries over last few years, and in near future due to new telescopes coming into service, it mostly OBVIATES any 'need' for EXOTIC Dark Matter.

Plus my explanation (to Da Schneib) that NON-KEPLERIAN orbital behaviour within disk galaxies was to be expected; so earlier/subsequent astronomers/cosmologists in the 1960s MISTAKENLY proposed a 'need' for DM (and later for 'exotic' DM) in/around Spiral galaxies etc because they did not properly allow for NON-Keplerian regime in their Rotation Curve/Motions observation interpretations.

And my observations re Infinite Eternal Universal energy-space system with JETS PROCESSES RECYCLING explains ongoing Hydrogen/Helium content.

Be objective, scientist. :)

May 29, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
The amount of dark matter in the standard [cosmology] does not come from counting matter of any kind and finding whats left. Nobody is counting stars or x-ray plasma or anything else in the calculation of how much dark matter there is. The amount of dark matter comes from the CMB powerspectrum and the abundances of light elements. Two independent tests which rule out normal matter being the culprit. In fact standard cosmology predicts that a large fraction of the baryonic content of the universe is so far undetected, part of the intergalactic medium..
Please see my above response to Phys1. I pointed out where the (obviously mistaken) 'need' for additional matter (at first ordinary, then later 'exotic') came from. Also, I pointed out how the Infinite Eternal Jets-Recycling processes account for the observed ongoing Hydrogen/Helium content (and also accounts for the CMB itself and its spectrum). And agrees: much ordinary matter found, and to be found. :)

May 29, 2016
Hi Fleetfoot: How are you, mate; long time no 'see'. Trust you are well. I noted this from you (to antigoracle?):
.. the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.
The virial theorem doesn't 'work' in the case of the 'exotic' DM whose properties are as hypothesized. As was pointed out some time ago (and more recently by Phys1 IIRC?) any acceleration towards any transient gravitationally active aggregation (ie, transient 'clump') will only produce a change in direction of motion, not a slowing (loss of momentum), because that increased speed will take it THROUGH any such transient 'clump' and any such transient clump of 'exotic' DM itself will dissipate in like way, because no e-m properties/forces to trap/convert its energy into binding energy/heat radiation etc when ordinary matter loses energy to clump/slow (even Uncle Ira has pointed that out in the "Hubble finds clues..." thread, in answer to gkam's question re 'clumping' behavior of exotic DM).

Stay well, mate! :)

May 29, 2016
and also accounts for the CMB itself and its spectrum


The CMB powerspectrum is not the same as the CMB spectrum. It is the spherical harmonic decomposition of the CMB anisotropies. The fact you don't know the difference tells me you probably haven't actually explained either. If I'm wrong please attach your numerical model for the TT powerspectrum.

May 30, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
and also accounts for the CMB itself and its spectrum


The CMB powerspectrum is not the same as the CMB spectrum. It is the spherical harmonic decomposition of the CMB anisotropies. The fact you don't know the difference tells me you probably haven't actually explained either. If I'm wrong please attach your numerical model for the TT powerspectrum.
Yes, I know that. It was just saving space in limited text format. I assumed you would associate the term spectrum with your posted "powerspectrum" aspect which I was responding to.

Re 'models': Big Bang model assumes various particle/energy/physical energy-space etc parameters and timeline conditions/evolutions. One problem with current BB-CMB interpretations/models is the "degeneration" and "variability" unknowns which a REAL physical energy-space Quantum universal expanding context involves: which makes all Gausian and other mathematical averaging of observed 'values' set subject to question.

cont..

May 30, 2016
RC
cont..


Plz dont.

May 30, 2016
...cont @IMP-9. :)

It also involves many assunptions about the mean free path etc re 'surface of last scattering' which in reality determines what we 'see' now. The BB hypothesis is STILL being 'tweaked' for all sorts of reasons (DM, expansion rates/epochs, intervening plasma surfaces of last scattering' imprinted on the various temperature powerspectrum profile for any specific CMB radiation beig 'gathered' at the instruments at any one time/location. All these complicating/masking intervening/assumptive processes/assumptions make the current BB-CMB 'modeling' all too much easy prey to 'theory confirmation bias' being 'built-in' to all current analysis constructs (as BICEP2 did, remmember?).

Infinite, Eternal Jets-recycled energy-space does NOT 'need' averaging assumptions/treatments, only logical recognition Hydrogen/Helium deconstructing/reforming via Jets, and plasma 'surfaces of last scatterings', is occuring all over the place all the time. Hence what we 'see'. :)

May 30, 2016
Hi EF. :)

RC
cont..


Plz dont.
Is that the latest 'scientific method' being taught where you are 'learning' about how to conduct scientific discourse and research with an 'open mind', mate? If so, it won't get you past 'present orthodoxy' while everyone else is busy advancing/modifying that orthodoxy to reflect the new information/insights being gained through proper scientific method and open minded discourse. Mate, don't let such stubborn/egotistical kneejerking and cheap shots like that above cut yourself off from scientific evolution of status quo understandings. You'll never learn what you don't know (or even yet suspect) about the scientific reality if you don't listen (even when you don't 'want' to) because it threatens your current 'comfort zone'. Good luck. :)

May 30, 2016
I'm not shutting down discourse with a competing theory. I'm shutting down discourse with baseless assertions about unknown "degeneration" and "variability" fouling up the CMBR. It's very similar to when Creationists assert anything not in the Bible. "How do you know that?" you might ask them but the response is always unsat. Im certain that your responses in regards to the CMBR would be hand waving these admitted 'unknowns' and throwing out the baby, bathwater, and the tub. Where's the evidence? You go on with BICEP2; who doesn't remember that? Just like with the superluminal neutrinos the scientific community cross checks the hell out of itself and corrects problems. Apparently you forget the only reason we know some BICEP 2 conclusions were flawed is because the community exposed itself.

Infinite, Eternal...sounds like violation of conservation. The assertion of additional surfaces of last scattering doesn't jive with CMBR consistency. Unevidenced plasma redshift everywhere!

May 30, 2016
Hi EF. :)

Your reaction to degeneration/variability etc considerations tells me you're not acquainted with analytical construct for CMB analysis/techniques. Those considerations are a part of that construct as the 'reality check' component. In such mathematical treatments/interpretations/conclusions re CMB properties etc, this question of degeneracy and variability affecting the eventual observed signal (after experiencing cosmologically significant long distances travel through universal energy-space) are indispensable considerations included at every stage of analysis to try and minimize maths/techniques 'results' departing from the reality of universal system it is intended to 'model', 'interpret' and 'conclude' things from. They are part of mainstream techniques/considerations in this area of observation/analysis; and certainly NOT 'baseless fouling' intrusions from me. :)

Infinite/Eternal 'jets recycled energy-space' Universal system does not 'violate' anything. :)

May 30, 2016
Hi Fleetfoot: How are you, mate; long time no 'see'. Trust you are well.


Yeah, I'm good, I just got fed up with the number of cranks here, it seems little better but the "ignore user" button is a great addition ;-) How are you?

.. the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.
The virial theorem doesn't 'work' in the case of the 'exotic' DM ... increased speed will take it THROUGH any such transient 'clump' ... because no e-m properties/forces to trap/convert its energy into binding energy/heat radiation ..


DM does interact gravitationally however so close encounters between particles will randomise their motion eventually virialising them.

https://en.wikipe...friction

Gravitational interaction with the ISM would also cause drag so coupling DM with normal matter. It depends on the mass of the particles of course (if that's what they are) and it can act more directly:

http://arxiv.org/.../9710039

May 30, 2016
The CMB powerspectrum is not the same as the CMB spectrum. It is the spherical harmonic decomposition of the CMB anisotropies.
Yes, I know that. It was just saving space in limited text format. I assumed you would associate the term spectrum with your posted "powerspectrum" aspect which I was responding to.


What is being talked about is the "angular power spectrum", not the "power spectrum", i.e. the variation of temperature with location on the sky.

One problem with current BB-CMB interpretations/models is the "degeneration" and "variability" unknowns ...


Degeneracy is not an unknown physical process, it means that two different parameters can have a similar effect on a measurement hence it is hard to separate them. The solution is to measure the same parameter in different ways, BAO versus CMB versus SNe for example.

https://inspirehe...wski.png

May 30, 2016
Less and less places for dark matter to hide. I'm waiting for the realisation that "dark matter" and "dark energy" could actually be different aspects of a single thing, and that there is no "dark matter" per se, just the missing energy from the current equations. It's just a hunch.

May 30, 2016
Hi Fleetfoot. :)
How are you, mate; long time no 'see'. Trust you are well.
Yeah, I'm good, I just got fed up with the number of cranks here, it seems little better but the "ignore user" button is a great addition ;-) How are you?
I'm as well as could be expected, considering my chronic (since childhood) allergy and other systemic ill health (now add aging (now 67) issues to that, and you'll gather well why I say "as well as could be expected, considering..."! And, yes, troll posts etc have buried and otherwise distracted from some otherwise very interesting and original ideas/discussions prompted by some members (even by some who had been, for personal reasons/feuds etc, been hastily and unfairly labeled/ignored/harassed etc by some here who themselves have been guilty of trolling etc in the past (some are sadly 'still at it').

Glad to see you back. You'll need to catch up to 'shifted' paradigm regarding who is doing the 'trolling' etc nowadays though! Cheers. :)

May 30, 2016
...continued @Fleetfoot. :)
.. the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.
The virial theorem doesn't 'work' in the case of the 'exotic' DM ... increased speed will take it THROUGH any such transient 'clump' ... because no e-m properties/forces to trap/convert its energy into binding energy/heat radiation ..
DM does interact gravitationally however so close encounters between particles will randomise their motion eventually virialising them.
Yes, but 'primordial' conditions in the hypothesized BB 'early moments' would make such 'virialization' of 'postulated exotic' DM practically impossible; considering the energy scales/extremes involved in hypothetical 'BB early moments' Inflation/Expansion when only Free-Energy-States/Forms could exist in that hypothesized maelstrom of quantum and thermodynamic chaos. Without any E-M mechanism for losing energy/slowing, any such hypothesized exotic DM would instead increasingly disperse, not aggregate in 'clumps'. :)

May 30, 2016
...again @Fleetfoot. :)
What is being talked about is the "angular power spectrum", not the "power spectrum"...
Yes, I already understood that, and made mention of 'mean free path' considerations etc for such parametric oscillations/patterns to 'imprint' on signal from plasma 'surface of last scattering' etc. (I also point out that such plasma 'processes/surfaces' are still 'locally' occurring all over, and so complicate modeling/averaging etc analytical assumptions/techniques/interpretations/conclusions).
Degeneracy is not an unknown physical process, it means that two different parameters can have a similar effect on a measurement hence it is hard to separate them. The solution is to measure the same parameter in different ways, BAO versus CMB versus SNe for example.
Yes, as I said. I also know what the 'techniques' are; and merely point out possible shortcomings (eg, astronomers are discovering NON 'standard candle' Supernovae, etc).

Welcome back, mate! :)

May 30, 2016
This is RealityCheck's site.

http://earthlingclub.com/

Please read at to least <6>
...

May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016
@ Arthur-Skippy. How you are? I am good. I been the Really-Skippy a fan for a long time. But not a big enough fan to make it all the way to number 6 in one sitting.

Please read at to least <6>...


That was painful.


You really read him all the way to number 6? Maybe we could trouble you to tell what the heck it means.

May 31, 2016
@ Arthur-Skippy. How you are? I am good. I been the Really-Skippy a fan for a long time. But not a big enough fan to make it all the way to number 6 in one sitting.

Please read at to least <6>...


That was painful.


You really read him all the way to number 6? Maybe we could trouble you to tell what the heck it means.

It means that RC has no purpose in life and, although the Humane Society might object to that, you can employ him as useful monkey without any guilt.

May 31, 2016
I'm waiting for the realisation that "dark matter" and "dark energy" could actually be different aspects of a single thing,

Don't hold your breath on that one because they are two placeholder theories for VERY different things that operate at VERY different scales (more precisely they effects of dark matter ist pretty much opposite to dark energy. Dark matter attracts wheras dark energy causes acceleration of expansion of space)

May 31, 2016
And one, DE, seems to be proportional to space-time, while the other not.

May 31, 2016
@RealityCheck
.Welcome back, mate! :)


So as agreed you had 1 Year while I left you alone to publish your "Theory of Everything" or publicly apologise for being an idiot and a liar

The year is up.... publisher???????

May 31, 2016
@RealityCheck
.Welcome back, mate! :)


So as agreed you had 1 Year while I left you alone to publish your "Theory of Everything" or publicly apologise for being an idiot and a liar

The year is up.... publisher???????


@ Interesting-Skippy. How you are? I am good. But I got something to tell you that might ruin your day, I am sorry for that but somebody needs to tell you.

Really-Skippy been making that exact same promise to dozens and dozens of people every year for the last 13 or 12 years. He even made it to me (again) last year, but he had to take the year off so he could organize a posse or cavalry or some such to save the world. You hear about all that? It was in all the papers. So you are going to have to do like I learned to do diligently, be patient. He wants to perish before he publishes his book about toes and everything.

May 31, 2016
@iIra I missed your honest calm answers to idiots that demonstrated their stupidity whilst they they honestly believed they were stating arguments.

May 31, 2016
Hi RC,

I'm luckily free of allergies but I'm 63 so creaking a bit too so I can sympathize ;-)

... the Virial Theorem is fairly straightforward.
... Yes, but 'primordial' conditions in the hypothesized BB 'early moments' would make such 'virialization' of 'postulated exotic' DM practically impossible


Topics can drift, if you look back my original comment was in response to a comment that DM was "An imaginary thing". The evidence based on the Virial Theorem was applied to nearby clusters what first alerted Zwicky to its existence. I wasn't talking about primordial conditions. While DM can and is thought to be virialised, it was the velocities of the galaxies themselves that gave away the extra hidden mass.

Incidentally, DM is not considered "exotic", that term usually refers to hypothetical matter with negative mass. Nobody thinks it exists but the term is used when discussing concepts like "warp drive" where it would be essential. Just FYI, it's only jargon.

May 31, 2016
[@ Interesting-Skippy. How you are? I am good. But I got something to tell you that might ruin your day, I am sorry for that but somebody needs to tell you.

Really-Skippy been making that exact same promise to dozens and dozens of people every year for the last 13 or 12 years. He even made it to me (again) last year, but he had to take the year off so he could organize a posse or cavalry or some such to save the world. You hear about all that? It was in all the papers. So you are going to have to do like I learned to do diligently, be patient. He wants to perish before he publishes his book about toes and everything.

He asked for a YEAR I gave him a YEAR. I kept my promise.

Gee so he thinks I thought it would go otherwise.... next 12 months is gonna be interesting!

May 31, 2016
What is being talked about is the "angular power spectrum", not the "power spectrum"...
Yes, I already understood that, and made mention of 'mean free path' considerations etc

That's what raises concerns, the phrases you are using are not really related to the topic.

I also point out that such plasma 'processes/surfaces' are still 'locally' occurring all over,

No, recombination only lasted about 140k years around the fiducial age of 378k years.

Degeneracy is not an unknown physical process, it means that two different parameters can have a similar effect on a measurement hence it is hard to separate them. ...
Yes, as I said. I also know what the 'techniques' are

Yeah but degeneracy is not a technique, it is a fact of nature, a relationship between different parameters and their effects.

RC, you are close but not hitting the bull with your comments, but I think a little more study would get you there. It may just be semantics though.

May 31, 2016
So that for example the dark matter ring around Earth is formed with black holes? Is this for real?

http://www.scient...e-earth/


The report of the speculation by Adler is easily checked but that's all it is, just a suggestion that perhaps there might be a means there to do another type of search (and why not look?). Adler though is thinking of WIMPS, not black holes.

Note also that Adler seems to have mentioned a halo while the site author seems to have mentioned 'rings' so I would look carefully at that. Again, one would expect a virialised halo, not a ring.

The whole idea of heating seems highly unlikely, the rate of collisions would need to be very high implying we should see them directly.

If there is a local halo, perhaps looking for the effect of dynamical drag of spacecraft orbits would be more productive but the idea is at the edge of possibility.

May 31, 2016
@GhostofOtto1923,.... you 1-rated the following post?

And one, DE, seems to be proportional to space-time, while the other not.


Do you care to explain why. It's standard physics my boy. Did you forget to change your socks?

May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016
[cont]

You had the good fortune to have affiliated with groups that understand how deal with factual data and reach valid conclusions. He identified with people whose whole raison d'etre is to support disproven theses. That's a big difference, but, at the end of the day, you're both still taking your positions based on who you identify with, and more and more lately, who you hate.

That's not understanding science versus rejecting it. You're both still first identifying, then accepting the theses of that group, then learning their preferred data sources, then cherry picking the data, working backwards. Then you both lie by saying that you looked at things objectively, worked forward from best data and just happened to reach a conclusion that just happens to agree 100% with your ego reference group.

There but for the grace of Allahah, go thou.
- Sheik_Yerbuti
LOL That's a matter of opinion. And there's plenty of that here.

May 31, 2016
@Sheik_Yerbuti
I do not understand your character yet, but found your comments interesting and enjoyable. 5's for feeling generous, being a fan of Frank Zappa and returned favor. Welcome to Physorg ( although it seems that you have been here a while ).

For those who don't get it
https://www.youtu...V5f2-MaU

May 31, 2016
Noumigoon 1 / 5 (4) 25 minutes ago
@GhostofOtto1923,.... you 1-rated the following post? Do you care to explain why.


Probably the same reason I did. You're an insufferable git that understands not a jot of Kant, philosophy of science, or physics, yet has to chatter away constantly on these threads. Oh, and rude, or did you just forget the question mark? Do you raise your voice when you make statements, like a Nazi?

Go learn German, if you can, then read Kant again, the right way.
- Sheik_Yerbuti
Wrong response. Theghostofotto1923 is strongly against philosophy of any kind, even while indulging in it in every post.
Noumenon is already aware that Theghostofotto is a fraud who projects his hatred of Noumenon through his sock puppetry, but never ever produces any posts within the context of actual scientific knowledge. Most people who read Physorg articles and comments have already become aware of Ghost's fakery. Apparently, you have yet to learn it.

May 31, 2016
He doesn't fake it any more than gkam does. They're both narcissists. Yeah, they lie and cast aspersions, but they're being very real narcissists, no fakery involved.

Get it? They're not lying. They're sick. Is a schizophrenic making up a story when he tells you about how the sitzies are beaming thoughts into his head? No fakery there. Genuine heartfelt psychopathology. Far from fakery, they're the real deal.

Think about that when y'all decide it's your social duty to kick them. It's like feeling it's your social duty to shout to someone with a speech impediment, "You talk funny!". Reserve your contempt for a site that would encourage that just to get some cheap hits.

May 31, 2016
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding! We have a winner folks. It's been a rough and tumble competition but we have, by far, the most stupid thing ever posted to PO.


Otto_Szucks 1 / 5 (3) May 26, 2016
With all due respect to Mike_Massen, a real scientist, I still stand by my statement that observation trumps Math. With the correct instruments, observation is 100% correct and models may be produced from the resulting direct observational data.


1). There is no way to communicate your observations without math. That's like accepting an eyewitness statement but rejecting it in any language. Absurd.
2). There are no observations without models, not the other way around. As an Apollo scientist said, "We have answers to questions we can't ask yet".
3). "With all due respect" is used by losers to introduce a statement that will be without due respect. Save the lie-speak to gen X'ers. They're much better at it.

May 31, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

May 31, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)

That site is old. My TOE is close to finalized. The necessary reality-maths has taken a long time too: it eliminates philosophical 'points/singularities' etc bedeviling SR/GR/QM.

I mentioned that site only once, many years ago in passing, in another forum; and recently only in answer to others linking it. No fuss or push. :)

Reforming/recasting cosmological physical (and appropriate maths) for explaining/modeling universal physical reality 'from scratch', is no 'short term' project. Darwin, Newton, Einstein etc were in in for the longterm too! It took them decades to develop and finally shape their theories into something consistent/complete enough to present/explain 'all at once'.

And I am not subject to the usual 'publish or perish' imperatives/motivations; so I shall only publish my reality-physics/maths-consistent TOE complete; irrespective of troll/other ridicule/impatience.

I've also been busy on longterm Climate Solutions project(s)!

Patience. :)

May 31, 2016
Noumigoon 1 / 5 (4) 25 minutes ago
@GhostofOtto1923,.... you 1-rated the following post? Do you care to explain why.


Probably the same reason I did. You're an insufferable git that understands not a jot of Kant, philosophy of science, or physics, yet has to chatter away constantly on these threads.


All you can do is post subjective characterizations, without any actual articulated substantive counter-point.

I have never had a discussion with you about any topic and you have never demonstrated any knowledge about Kant, physics, or anything here,.... except how to troll rate with a dozen screen-names.

Do you know the difference between ad hominems and substantive counter argument? I have to assume you don't.


May 31, 2016
Hi Arthur_McBride, TechnoCreed, Uncle Ira, InterestedAmateur. :)

Please see my post to TehDog above. It will fill you in on what for decades has been, and is still going on at present, and will be into the near future. I hope to finalize, publish and implement a diverse number of things as appropriate, according to personal/extant circumstances/resources and scheduling/working commitments/windows of opportunity etc.

Anyhow, enough about me. It's never been about me; but rather science, humanity and the greater good itself; at least as far as MY OWN efforts/motives are concerned. :)

So, now, it's your turn: Can you guys tell the forum what you all have been doing with your respective lives? :)

I'm sure we'd all be VERY interested to hear: How have you all been applying YOUR respective personal/financial resources (ie, time, intellect, talent, goodwill, tolerance, education/skills etc) that will significantly advance the cause of science, humanity and the greater good? :)

May 31, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, on a road trip and having a blast me. Thanks for asking.

Newton, Einstein etc were in in for the longterm too! It took them decades to develop and finally shape their theories into something consistent/complete enough to present/explain 'all at once'.


Newton had all his remarkable works done while he was still less than 40.Calculus before he was 30.Optiks too. And he only published the Principia because Halley begged him to. It took about three months to throw together for the first edition.

Einstein was only 26 and 27 when he publish the Nobel Prize winning paper on Photo-Electric Effect. Same year he did Brownian Motion and Special Relativity.

And I am not subject to the usual 'publish or perish' imperatives/motivations
More like the perish before publish at the rate you are going. Choot, you told me you been working on it since you were 9 years old and you been promising it "this year" for the last 13 or 12.

May 31, 2016
So, now, it's your turn: Can you guys tell the forum what you all have been doing with your respective lives? :)


Well, let's see. I was borned. Spoke three languages by the time I was five so was called on by the hospital to act as the interpreter for the doctors. Started being a scientist when I was nine. I blew them away at a couple of climatic conferences so my name is the household name and got the award for joining the climate cavalry and saving the world. Other than that, not so much. Oh yeah, for the last 20 years I been studying toes and hope I can write a book about them before I perish.

I regret I do not have the really Really-Skippy playhouse for Earthmen though. My toes got in the way of that. And all the time I have to spend on the interweb making the couyons respect humans and scientists.

May 31, 2016
Hi FleetFoot. :)
Hi RC, I'm luckily free of allergies but I'm 63 so creaking a bit too so I can sympathize ;-)
If aging is all you have to contend with health-wise, you're way ahead of the game! Stay well; and keep your mind as 'young' as possible for as long as possible! Cheers. :)
The evidence based on the Virial Theorem was applied to nearby clusters what first alerted Zwicky to its existence. I wasn't talking about primordial conditions. While DM can and is thought to be virialised, it was the velocities of the galaxies themselves that gave away the extra hidden mass.
Understood. IIRC, the 'need' for 'exotic' DM (ie, NON-Baryonic, gravitationally-interacting-only) was only proposed later. Initially, 'dark' Baryonic 'stuff' which we could not 'see' in the E-M, was suspected. Major discoveries of humongous amounts of ordinary Baryonic 'stuff' now make 'exotic' DM unnecessary. And if applying GR correctly, NON-Keplerian motions in galactic disc are explained! :)

May 31, 2016
Hi Fleetfoot. :)

I'm rushed; and limited PO text allowance doesn't help. Please read in context; always. :)
I also point out that such plasma 'processes/surfaces' are still 'locally' occurring all over,
No, recombination only lasted about 140k years around the fiducial age of 378k years.
No, the universe 'epochs' have always produced, and ever been replete with, plasma medium at all scales (Astronomical discoveries now confirm this every day). The assumptions/timings/interpretations you are 'using' are from BB hypothesis/theory, not the physical/observational reality evolving since BB etc were proposed (even 'standard candle' type Supernovae are increasingly found to VARY significantly depending on 'local' and 'intervening' energy-space medium conditions/content etc.)
Yeah but degeneracy is not a technique,
I know. You misunderstood me. Degeneracy, Variability etc are 'reality-check considerations' for analysis/techniques/interpretations etc involved. :)

May 31, 2016
PS @Fleetfoot:

If you re-acquaint yourself with the relevant scientific literature, you will also find that the "mean free path" considerations are also crucial in determining the resulting angular power spectrum in any one instance involving plasma process/scattering 'surfaces'; and many intervening such processes since hypothesized 14 Billion years ago BB etc process would have been long swamped and complicated what is observed from 'here' and 'now'. The problem with simplistic models and theoretical assumptions built into 'analysis' and interpretations is manyfold, not justin that one aspect. I have over the years pointed to them and cautioned about them. You may have missed them all because you have not been keeping track while not visiting PO. In any case, I haven't time to again and again repost all those relevant observations/cautions. So I'll have to leave it to you/anyone else who has missed it, to review the literature in light of recent discovery in astronomy. :)

May 31, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Your response and your admissions say a lot about you. To wit:

- you live vicariously through others' lives/accomplishments;

- you try to 'cover' for your own ineptitude and irrelevance to science and humanity by creating and living in the "funs" world of your '"Uncle Ira, bot-voting idiot persona" schtick;

- you cannot understand that personal health and professional circumstances may differ between Darwin, Newton, Einstein and any other longterm project initiator/completer (for instance, I also had other projects in Climate Change Solutions, and more besides, in addition to my TOE project);

- you don't appreciate others' achievements which, by your own meager standards/achievements, are fit only for your "funs" bot-voting/insensible-idiot "Uncle Ira" trolling and ridicule (at no stage does it seem to enter, into what passes for 'thought processes' in your bot-idiot's 'mind', that something better than what you bring is possible).

Never mind, hey? :)

May 31, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Hi Really-Skippy. How you are again? I am still good, not much has changed since the last Hi about the hour ago, thanks for asking.

I bet you can never guess where I am and what I am doing. Want to try or do you just want me to go ahead and tell you?

Never mind, hey? :)
Non Cher, I do not mind.

May 31, 2016
"Well, let's see. I was borned. Spoke three languages by the time I was five..."
That I believe, and the rest of the sentence is also believable.
(Toes are meant for tickling (but you know this) :)

May 31, 2016
"That site is old. My TOE is close to finalized."

Does your TOE have any similarity to the concepts described at that website?

"The necessary reality-maths has taken a long time too: it eliminates philosophical 'points/singularities' etc bedeviling SR/GR/QM.

Singularities arise from maths, not philosophy. Points are mathematical constructs.

"I've also been busy on longterm Climate Solutions project(s)!
Patience. :) "

Finally, an appropriate smiley.

May 31, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)
"Well, let's see. I was borned. Spoke three languages by the time I was five..."
That I believe, and the rest of the sentence is also believable.
(Toes are meant for tickling (but you know this) :)
It seems you are easily amused by a self-confessed bot-voting idiot Uncle Ira, mate. No wonder you miss more important things going on in science advancement, if you pay so much attention to Uncle Ira bot-idiot 'opinions' and 'shtick'. Time for a reset of your attention-allotting intellectual-program, hey? Good luck. :)

May 31, 2016
@Sheik_Yerbuti
I do not understand your character yet, but found your comments interesting and enjoyable. 5's for feeling generous, being a fan of Frank Zappa and returned favor. Welcome to Physorg ( although it seems that you have been here a while ).

For those who don't get it
https://www.youtu...V5f2-MaU

Zappa was my 1st thought...
He also mentioned the "Grace of Allahaha" . A tip off as to his character...:-)

May 31, 2016
@Sheik_Yerbuti
I do not understand your character yet, but found your comments interesting and enjoyable. 5's for feeling generous, being a fan of Frank Zappa and returned favor. Welcome to Physorg ( although it seems that you have been here a while ).

For those who don't get it
https://www.youtu...V5f2-MaU

I liked Dynamo Hum. More tech sounding...:-)

May 31, 2016
@ Teh-Dog-Skippy. How you are too? I am good.

"I've also been busy on longterm Climate Solutions project(s)!
Patience. :) "

Finally, an appropriate smiley.


Did you see the ones he postumed here about a year ago about putting his toes on hold because he had to go to the climatic conference with a simple plan to save the world? That's the ones with the stuffs about the Really-Skippy-Cavalry.

If you have not seen that one I will try to find him for you, it shouldn't be too hard because it was one of his better meltdowns. Not as good as the bot/mafia/gang/mod/troll conspiracy that spend years following him around the interweb fighting humans and scientists ,,,, but it was still pretty good.

Just say the word and I will try to dig it up.

May 31, 2016
Hi again, TehDog.
My TOE close to finalized
Does your TOE have any similarity to the concepts described at that website?
Yes, except it has another Gravitation Mechanism identified which is acting in concert with that already alluded to in that early precis. You'll be surprised what it is; as it was 'under the noses' of all us cosmological theorists all the time! Can't say more until complete publication.
The necessary reality-maths has taken a long time too: it eliminates philosophical 'points/singularities' etc bedeviling SR/GR/QM.
Singularities arise from maths, not philosophy. Points are mathematical constructs.
I long pointed out that the maths 'Point' concept is actually a purely Philosophical concept (wiki it). And it's precisely because current GR maths leads to 'singularities' etc, that I have spent much time working up the necessary Reality-based maths to describe my TOE entities/processes/consequences which has no such flaws.

Patience. :)

May 31, 2016
Poor Ira. :(

You've long been apprised of the reasons for not needing to go to that conference. You also have long been apprised of the need for further development to optimum form in order to reduce costs and increase likelyhood of take-up, financing and implementation. Your continuing self-confessed idiot-bot-voting 'considered opinions' and commentary is just 'noise' which some of your 'followers' may find "funs", but actually doesn't mean squat in the science and humanity scheme of things. Poor, bot-voting Uncle Ira; poor irrelevant sod. Pity. :(

May 31, 2016
Poor Ira. :(

You've long been apprised of the reasons for not needing to go to that conference. You also have long been apprised of the need for further development to optimum form in order to reduce costs and increase likelyhood of take-up and implementation. Your continuing self-confessed idiot-bot-voting 'considered opinions' and commentary is just 'noise' which some of your 'followers' may fund "funs", but actually doesn't mean squat in the science and humanity scheme of things. Poor, bot-voting Uncle Ira; poor irrelevant sod. Pity. :(


Does that mean you think I am good at what I do? It's kinda hard to understand what you are getting at sometimes, well actually all the times.

May 31, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Poor Ira. :(

You've long been apprised of the reasons for not needing to go to that conference. You also have long been apprised of the need for further development to optimum form in order to reduce costs and increase likelyhood of take-up and implementation. Your continuing self-confessed idiot-bot-voting 'considered opinions' and commentary is just 'noise' which some of your 'followers' may fund "funs", but actually doesn't mean squat in the science and humanity scheme of things. Poor, bot-voting Uncle Ira; poor irrelevant sod. Pity. :(


Does that mean you think I am good at what I do? It's kinda hard to understand what you are getting at sometimes, well actually all the times.
Are you good at what you do? Being an idiot-bot-voting irrelevance and embarrassment to both science and humanity advancement? Sure! You're the best at being just that and no more: 'an uncomprehending insensible idiotic irrelevance par excellence'!

Pity. :(

May 31, 2016
Are you good at what you do? Being an idiot-bot-voting irrelevance and embarrassment to both science and humanity advancement? Sure! You're the best at being just that and no more: 'an uncomprehending insensible idiotic irrelevance par excellence'!

Pity. :(


Well thanks, glad you approve. It's not really hard you know. Especially since you told me how to save some time with the automatic karma score voting thing.

May 31, 2016
OMG - this is ... wow
The necessary reality-maths has taken a long time too
now that i found interesting ... and hysterical!

after years of stating things like
math/geometric analytical construct 'frames of reference' co-ordinate systems are NOT real
or that your ToE is
sans the current UNreal maths
- IOW, free from validated math
... then you've always stated
No 'publish or perish' imperatives for me
which also means no peer review and no scientific credibility, just the "buy my book" regm argument

... so now you put math into your ToE?

was it because all the real scientists which your publisher checked with told them it's crap (or religion) without it?

LMFAO

Until you publish it, your ToE has all the same validity as the comment: "Tinkerbell snot causes Unicorn faeces to look like rainbow smurfs"

May 31, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Are you good at what you do? Being an idiot-bot-voting irrelevance and embarrassment to both science and humanity advancement? Sure! You're the best at being just that and no more: 'an uncomprehending insensible idiotic irrelevance par excellence'!

Pity. :(
Well thanks, glad you approve. It's not really hard you know. Especially since you told me how to save some time with the automatic karma score voting thing.
So your idiocy is other people's fault now? Anyway, you were bot-voting here long before I accused you of using one of the internet bot-voting programs used to destroy other sites' ratings system. So you are even too idiotic to accept responsibility and acclaim for your idiocy of award-winning levels of insensibility and irrelevance. Have you asked your 'friends' how your bot can be disconnected from your account/ratings function yet? Or don't they know, either? Maybe they're as useless as you? Nah, not possible; you're 'Idiot King'.

May 31, 2016
@RC, when you say
according to personal/extant circumstances/resources and scheduling/working commitments/windows of opportunity etc.
instead of "as time permits," and then complain that
limited PO text allowance doesn't help
it typifies how you tend to invite the wrath of fellow commenters. 5-stars on the audacity scale. 10-stars for doubling down, wait, tripling down on what Fleetfoot and IMP-9 were trying to help you with.

May 31, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Well one more time I can not understand what you are trying to say. (Actually I would get worried if I started understanding you.) But I got to cut this short tonight so we can get on the road early tomorrow. I left you a message over on the gravity nebula star article explaining about my road-trip with the family.

May 31, 2016
Hi Caps.
OMG - this is ... wow
The necessary reality-maths has taken a long time too
now that i found interesting ... and hysterical!...after years of stating things like
math/geometric analytical construct 'frames of reference' co-ordinate systems are NOT real
or that your ToE is
sans the current UNreal maths
- IOW, free from validated math
... then you've always stated
No 'publish or perish' imperatives for me
which also means no peer review and no scientific credibility, just the "buy my book" regm argument... so now you put math into your ToE?

was it because all the real scientists which your publisher checked with told them it's crap (or religion) without it?

LMFAO
Calm down. Read again; and comprehend in proper context/meaning instead of jumping to your usual LMFAO etc crap noise. Maths is maths. Even Einstein and others had to do the same for explaining new concepts/theories. I am just doing it without the 'philosophical' axioms. :)

May 31, 2016
One last P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Whenever I turn my computer off or disconnect from the interweb my troll/bot/mafia/vote/gang thingy does not vote for me, so if you write more stuffs tonight I will catch it up in the morning. I am using the motel wi-fi interweb and I don't think I should leave him on and running unattended,,,, okay?

May 31, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)
@RC, when you say
according to personal/extant circumstances/resources and scheduling/working commitments/windows of opportunity etc.
instead of "as time permits," and then complain that
limited PO text allowance doesn't help
it typifies how you tend to invite the wrath of fellow commenters. 5-stars on the audacity scale. 10-stars for doubling down, wait, tripling down on what Fleetfoot and IMP-9 were trying to help you with.
Unnecessarily pedantic and nitpicking there, aren't you? Circumstances can involve more than just available time resource; it can involve health, financial, evolutionary exigencies of the theorizing process itself at all stages. If I had just said "as time permits" you and the trolls would have taken issue and accused me of not being expansive enough in explaining the reasons. Mate, try to avoid further wating your time and intellect pursuing personal feuds and making ego-tripping cheap shots. Good luck. :)

May 31, 2016
Read again; and comprehend in proper context/meaning
unlike you my reading and comprehension skills are excellent
Maths is maths
uhm... all the quotes i gave are yours verbatim
LOL

you've historically claimed validated math isn't real and that your ToE is going to me math free so everyone can understand it easily

so ... are you lying now?

or have you always been lying?

or is your ToE just going to be another self published regm epic fail like your last attempts from your earthling club page?

or are you just seeking attention yet again?

which is it?

.

don't bother answering me... i don't care

i also know you are lying, so i am only poking fun of your attempted promotion of your ToE, which i know doesn't exist

this is your attention seeking ploy because of a narcissistic and delusional disorder and victim complex with low self esteem due to chronic life failures

http://www.yourli...artid=65

May 31, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira.

Understood. Drive sober/safely, mate! :)

May 31, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

Give it up, mate. The record demonstrates quite well just how 'good' is your comprehension and ability to follow the evidence. Your half-truths and outright lies and just plain incomprehension of evidence or putting your own biased 'spin' on it, even when the true fuller facts/context was provided to you on a silver platter, is now legendary on the net. Please cease your 'noise' and put whatever intellect and integrity you CAN muster to better use than you have been so far. Wise up to yourself, CapS. You're on the losing self-serving pathway to nowhere in your current direction. Take a long break and do better with your life than this same old LMFAO etc personal tactics and 'noise', mate. Good luck. :)

May 31, 2016
"Did you see the ones he postumed here about a year ago about putting his toes on hold because he had to go to the climatic conference with a simple plan to save the world?"

Yup, I was there, made me chuckle :)

PS, here's a useful trick for finding folks posts, use this format in google,

site:physorg.com "RealityCheck"

And use Search tools to narrow date ranges etc.
:)

May 31, 2016
LOL
Your half-truths and outright lies
if you could prove this i would have been perma-banned years ago when you started lying about BICEP, being reality-cavalry saving the world from climate change and your ToE's

this is why i laugh at you!
i can prove everything i said

you can only prove that you believe what you say
big difference!
BIG big difference

good night, petty liar girl...

oh, and reported for spreading pseudoscience, spamming with "i'm gonna put out a book so you can buy it" and blatant lying even with the factual above verbatim quotes of your own words!

http://outofthefo...mization

oh, and when you get the time... FOAD
thanks

May 31, 2016
Hi TehDog, CapS. :)

@TehDog: So,mate, what have you been doing with your life, time and intellect towards advancing science and humanity? I ask this of all those who seem to prefer personal irrelevancies to science and humanity discourse. Do tell us, mate, since you have concerned yourself with what I have been doing to that end. :)

@CapS. Give it up, mate. Been there, done that all too often already. Your 'expedient forgetting' and 'denial' is a bore to everyone who knows the score now. Do something better with your life and time etc. Be relevant and constructive, not personal, malicious, egotistical and destructive of the flow of science and humanity discourse. Good luck. :)

May 31, 2016
here's a useful trick for finding folks posts, use this format in google,
@TehDog
the chocking part - apparently there are still a whopping lot of folks who still can't use a search engine! (no names on those trolls - it's fun to watch them flounder)

10 stars

.

.

Do something better with your life and time
@FOADgirl
i do

i let people know, with evidence, that people like you are liars, delusional, pseudoscience idiots or con-artists, just like above
if you can provide evidence to support your conclusions, feel free to link it and quote it
(that is how science works)

but you won't, because:
1- you can't - there is no evidence to support your claims

2- http://outofthefo...mization

3- http://www.yourli...artid=65

this has been a barrel of laughs, but i have actual important things to do now that Ira hacked your computer

ta-ta!

Jun 01, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

Sure, mate; you're a 'legend' in your own mind; and on the net also, for all the wrong reasons. Less of the self-serving LFMAO etc noise, and more self-searching appraisal and effort at doing better for its own sake not for your personal ego-tripping etc agendas. Good luck. :)

Jun 01, 2016
Hi CapS. :)
so-o-o .... that's a no for evidence then?

ya can't find anything to support your claims?

imagine that

(don't forget to insure you get the last word in! this is my last post! - LMFAO)

Jun 01, 2016
HI CapS. :)

Mate, how stupid do you think the forum members are here and elsewhere? You've tried this tactic too many times now, and have been proven totally unprincipled in your pretense and attempts at framing/denying even when your challenges were met with irrefutable proof that your 'version' of reality, and your 'claims/assertions' based on same, are totaly bogus and embarrassing only to you and your occasional foray at trying on the same time-wasting tactics. Mate, less LMFAO etc infantile noise, and more self-correction, from you in future pls. The record has increasibgly shown I have been correct on-science and on-topic all along. The only reason I post anything else is in response to your/other internet-loser-trolls tactics and lies aimed at skewing the readers' perception and the site's metrics. Face it, CapS, you lost it long ago. Don't keep embarrassing yourself like this. Move on to more respectable interactions and commentary. You can do it if you try! :)

Jun 01, 2016
@RC

to Ira above
actually doesn't mean squat in the science and humanity scheme of things.


I have a feeling you and I mean an equal amount to science and humanity. That is that neither of us are really contributing. Just a hunch but I have as much math and evidence to back my hunch as you do to back your whole TOE.

The record has increasibgly shown I have been correct on-science

Me thinks you must be playing the record backwards. Your take down of Cap was priceless comedy. Stop projecting and start publishing if you have the answers.

Jun 01, 2016
@Fleetfoot, thanks for forcing me to go figure out how the Virial Theorem works. It's a watershed concept for me. It draws together several different lines of argument that I have pursued for years without seeing how they were connected.

Jun 01, 2016
The record has increasibgly shown I have been correct on-science and on-topic all along.
You making stuff like this up is exactly why you are ignored and/or ridiculed by everyone on this site who is serious.

@Fleetfoot has utterly destroyed all your BS about gravity not accounting for galaxy motion, which you support with unfounded assertions about "non-Keplerian orbits," with the Virial Theorem, which you are clearly unfamiliar with and probably not capable of understanding given your obvious prejudice against science and the scientific method.

Tell me, @RC, do you have the slightest idea what the difference is between a theory and a theorem?

Jun 01, 2016
@Fleetfoot, thanks for forcing me to go figure out how the Virial Theorem works. It's a watershed concept for me. It draws together several different lines of argument that I have pursued for years without seeing how they were connected.

It made me want to look it up and investigate further.
Unfortunately, bout halfway a quarter way into it, my damn Adult ADHD kicks in and I wanna go run my chain saw or trim the bushes, instead..
But I got the gist of it. Interesting.

Jun 01, 2016
Hi RC
.. keep your mind as 'young' as possible for as long as possible!

If you don't use it, you lose it.

IIRC, the 'need' for 'exotic' DM ..

Second time: It's not exotic, just non-baryonic.

Initially, 'dark' Baryonic 'stuff' which we could not 'see' in the E-M, was suspected.

Missing mass was suspected, there was no assumption beyond that.

Major discoveries of humongous amounts of ordinary Baryonic 'stuff' now make 'exotic' DM unnecessary.

No, what has been found is still only a small fraction of what is needed.
And if applying GR correctly, NON-Keplerian motions in galactic disc are explained! :)

Sorry, that's also not true. You can try MOND derivatives though but they can only ever address dynamical evidence.

The evidence from structure growth and nucleogenesis also still requires non-baryonic matter but of course that was unknown to Zwicky.

Jun 01, 2016
What is being talked about is the "angular power spectrum", not the "power spectrum"
I also point out that such plasma 'processes/surfaces' are still 'locally' occurring all over,
No, recombination only lasted about 140k years around the fiducial age of 378k years.
No, the universe 'epochs' have always produced, and ever been replete with, plasma medium at all scales

Sure but that doesn't contribute to the CMB, that plasma is at a much higher temperature, so it is not of relevance to the angular power spectrum. I can see that the conversation has drifted a bit, keeping track is hard when you're rushed.

Jun 01, 2016
(even 'standard candle' type Supernovae are increasingly found to VARY significantly depending on 'local' and 'intervening' energy-space medium conditions/content etc.)

That's nonsense. There are two mechanisms, single or double degenerate. The latter will be more variable and have slightly different characteristics. As we get more examples and better telescopes, we''l be able to separate them and refine the modelling.

Yeah but degeneracy is not a technique,
I know. You misunderstood me. Degeneracy, Variability etc are 'reality-check considerations' for analysis/techniques/interpretations etc involved.

No they aren't. I think this is the fourth time I've pointed this out, don't you think you should take a moment to research the term instead of just repeating the same error over and over again? As I said elsewhere, "if you don't use it, you lose it" and that goes for the ability to study and learn too. I did a Coursera course a couple of years ago, try them.

Jun 01, 2016
@Fleetfoot, thanks for forcing me to go figure out how the Virial Theorem works. It's a watershed concept for me. It draws together several different lines of argument that I have pursued for years without seeing how they were connected.
It made me want to look it up and investigate further. ... But I got the gist of it. Interesting.

Thanks guys, I greatly appreciate the feedback. :-)

Jun 01, 2016
I mentioned in another post that I'd done an online course, this is it:

https://www.cours...se/cosmo

It's basically the first year of the CalTech course but with much less homework and it's free. I can highly recommend it for anyone wanting a basic grounding in modern cosmology (though it doesn't cover inflation).

Jun 01, 2016
It made me want to look it up and investigate further.
Unfortunately, bout halfway a quarter way into it, my damn Adult ADHD kicks in and I wanna go run my chain saw or trim the bushes, instead..
But I got the gist of it. Interesting.

I got a lot from Baez' discussion; the first parts will probably resonate well with you:

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

Jun 01, 2016
These may also be of interest in relation to the virial theorem regarding halo mass distributions:

https://en.wikipe..._profile

https://ned.ipac....e27.html

https://en.wikipe..._profile

https://en.wikipe..._profile

Now here's an interesting question, if the virialisation time is long enough, could capture of DM by the SMBH in a galaxy explain the "cuspy halo problem"?

https://en.wikipe..._problem

Jun 01, 2016
Captain Stumpy.
...this has been a barrel of laughs, but i have actual important things to do now that Ira hacked your computer

ta-ta!
CapS, this is seriously disturbing news.

Is this true? Has Uncle Ira hacked my computer?

If true, how do you know he hacked my computer? What evidence do you base this claim on?

Are you colluding with, assisting, or otherwise enabling his seriously criminal act of hacking a fellow PO member's computer?

Are you/Ira also hacking PO's system to gain member details to use in your hacking activities?

Has Uncle Ira hacked any other PO member's computer?

Please explain yourself to the forum. I'm sure we are all interested in what nefarious activities you and your 'friends' get up to while abusing PO metrics and members' privacy/legal rights.

PS @ UNCLE IRA: If you are reading this, Ira, can you please confirm or deny CapS' criminally serious allegation that you have hacked my, or any other PO member's, computer?

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira.

Understood. Drive sober/safely, mate!
@ Really-Skippy. How you are? I am good but you did not need to put in the Hi to tell me good bye. I always drive sober, because I do not drink. Not much, maybe three or two times a year for occasions to be social. But I did drive safe and we are staying the night In Tuscon. That's in Arizona which is the state next to California.

UNCLE IRA: If you are reading this, Ira, can you please confirm or deny CapS' criminally serious allegation that you have hacked my, or any other PO member's, computer?
Yeah, I am reading this.

Non Cher, I can not confirm or deny whether Captain-Skippy alleged anything like that. I must have missed that one. But I can deny I hacked your or anybody else's computer. 1)I don't know how to do that. and 2)The free stuffs at the Earth Playhouse are more than enough for me. and 3)I doubt anybody has stuff in their computer I would want that I can't find on the regular interweb.

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

Am very glad to hear you don't drink and drive. Am also very glad to hear you are not hacking anyone's computer (especially not your fellow PO members', as Captain Stumpy has alleged above).

As for your uncertainty as to whether or not Captain Stumpy did allege you were guilty of such a crime, I now quote again the relevant part of his post (approximately 19 hours ago) responding to me thus:
...this has been a barrel of laughs, but i have actual important things to do now that Ira hacked your computer...
Note his "...Ira hacked your computer" wherein and whereby his allegation is explicitly made.

Now you have denied his allegation, the forum may conclude that Captain Stumpy is again lying and dissembling about the reality in order to suit his ongoing personal vendetta of lies and half-truths and generally cavalier disregard of scientific and ethical principles, all while pretending he is 'defending and upholding' same. Thanks for confirming that, Ira. :)

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira
Hi and how you are again Cher.

I now quote again the relevant part of his post (approximately 19 hours ago) responding to me thus:
...this has been a barrel of laughs, but i have actual important things to do now that Ira hacked your computer...
Note his "...Ira hacked your computer" wherein and whereby his allegation is explicitly made.
Yeah I missed that.

Now you have denied his allegation, the forum may conclude that Captain Stumpy is again lying and dissembling about the reality in order to suit his ongoing personal vendetta of lies and half-truths and generally cavalier disregard of scientific and ethical principles, all while pretending he is 'defending and upholding' same.
Peoples without mental conditions will probably conclude it was a joking around.

Thanks for confirming that, Ira.
Non problem Cher, now you know it was nothing to get all prickly about and can get on with doing some diligence for the humans and scientists.

Jun 01, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
I now quote again the relevant part of his post (approximately 19 hours ago) responding to me thus:
...this has been a barrel of laughs, but i have actual important things to do now that Ira hacked your computer...
Note his "...Ira hacked your computer" wherein and whereby his allegation is explicitly made.
Yeah I missed that.
I'm glad you now see it.
Now you have denied his allegation, the forum may conclude that Captain Stumpy is again lying and dissembling about the reality in order to suit his ongoing personal vendetta of lies and half-truths and generally cavalier disregard of scientific and ethical principles, all while pretending he is 'defending and upholding' same.
Peoples without mental conditions will probably conclude it was a joking around.

...
Peoples without mental conditions would never joke about committing such a serious crime against fellow PO members or any other innocent victim. :)

Jun 01, 2016
Peoples without mental conditions would never joke about committing such a serious crime against fellow PO members or any other innocent victim. :)
Well good for you. Now you have somebody to share the rubber-room with. I am sure you and the Captain-Skippy will have a lot of stuffs to do diligence on. Maybe they will give you the special discount rate for double occupancy. But if I were you I would not be pressing that issue about him joining you. You seen that man's picture on the profile page? I would not want to share a rubber-room with somebody that looks like him, even if the discount was free.


Jun 02, 2016
@Ira
Maybe they will give you the special discount rate for double occupancy
i will sweet talk the warden and build a special bunk from the remains of the last bunk-mate i had!
... i aint had a cool Bunkie-playtoy in a year cause the warden doesn't like me breaking them
I would not want to share a rubber-room with somebody that looks like him
awww... don't scare away my new bunkie a'fore i can even play with it!

so sad...

(do i really need to indicate the intentional use of satire or hyperbole above, or is it evident enough?)
Peoples without mental conditions will probably conclude it was a joking around
yeah... i've noticed a direct correlation between mental illness (especially in geriatrics like above) and the inability of said afflicted to comprehend hyperbole, sarcasm, irony and satire... perhaps it is due to paranoia?

Jun 02, 2016
Peoples without mental conditions will probably conclude it was a joking around.


Peoples without mental conditions would never joke about committing such a serious crime against fellow PO members or any other innocent victim. :)

Uh, RC..
You might need a reality check on that statement....:-)

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Whyde. :) Long time no 'speak', mate. How's things in the artistic world/business? Trust you and yours are well. Anyhow...
Peoples without mental conditions will probably conclude it was a joking around.
Peoples without mental conditions would never joke about committing such a serious crime against fellow PO members or any other innocent victim. :)
Uh, RC..
You might need a reality check on that statement....:-)
Are you suggesting that people in their right minds would ever consider it 'ok' to make jokes over the internet (where impressionable young minds may be reading) about hacking/stalking/harassing/bullying etc innocent victims using the internet?

Perhaps you don't classify egotistical malice aforethought as symptom of a 'mental condition'?

Anyhow, I was justly appropriating Uncle Ira's own sarcasm/terminology to counter his self-serving apologist defense of the indefensible on the part of the 'certain person' involved in this case. Stay well. :)

Jun 02, 2016
Anyhow, I was justly appropriating Uncle Ira's own sarcasm/terminology
And I was justly explaining that it seems like joking around to me. It was me he was talking about, if it don't bother me, why it should bother you?

to counter his self-serving apologist defense of the indefensible on the part of the 'certain person' involved in this case.
Now hold on a minute Skippy. Why you say I was apologizing for Captain-Skippy making a joke and it did not bother me. You got some really weird ideas about what apologizing is. I was not the one that make the joke you did not like, so I am not going to apologize for it. And I don't think the Captain-Skippy should apologize for it either, it did not bother me. I did not get the joke, but it did not bother me.

I think you should apologize for trying stir up trouble again like you always do when two people get along better with each other better than either one of them does with you.

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Anyhow, I was justly appropriating Uncle Ira's own sarcasm/terminology
And I was justly explaining that it seems like joking around to me. It was me he was talking about, if it don't bother me, why it should bother you?
His 'joke' is taken in serious earnest by innocent victims (including some PO members) he boasted about stalking etc over the internet in the past. And also that 'joke' included ME as the 'target' of your alleged 'hacking'; so please don't play dumber than you usually do trying to ignore that aspect of it which DID concern me. :)
to counter his self-serving apologist defense of the indefensible on the part of the 'certain person' involved in this case.
Now hold on a minute Skippy. Why you say I was apologizing for Captain-Skippy making a joke and it did not bother me.
The word was "apologist", not apology. Definition: a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial...

See the difference now?

Jun 02, 2016
Are you suggesting that people in their right minds would ever consider it 'ok' to make jokes over the internet (where impressionable young minds may be reading) about hacking/stalking/harassing/bullying etc innocent victims using the internet?

Left handed here, so DEFINITELY in my right mind. People say a LOT of things, Your own BS discriminator should be switched on when on the internet. And you don't give "young" minds enough credit (something you prob'ly complained about as a youth) - They're as sharp and aware as you or I are. Maybe more.
Stop the PC bitching and get a thicker skin, I'd say...

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
So you spoiled Da Scheib-Skippy's and Noumenom-Skippy's discussion and NOW you want to take up my offer after you ran them off?

See the difference now?
Not really Cher, it all looks just as goofy as most of the stuffs you write. Non different then any of the others.

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Whyde.
Are you suggesting that people in their right minds would ever consider it 'ok' to make jokes over the internet (where impressionable young minds may be reading) about hacking/stalking/harassing/bullying etc innocent victims using the internet?

Left handed here, so DEFINITELY in my right mind. People say a LOT of things, Your own BS discriminator should be switched on when on the internet. And you don't give "young" minds enough credit (something you prob'ly complained about as a youth) - They're as sharp and aware as you or I are. Maybe more.
Stop the PC bitching and get a thicker skin, I'd say...
Please read about CapS past boasts about his REAL and dangerously irresponsible internet stalking etc. So no leeway can be afforded one who has REAL 'form' in this regard.

Degrees of 'sharpness' etc represented in a given population of Young Readers (due to age and/or mental/social maturity etc). At least ONE/more may be impressionable and be misled. :)

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :) So you spoiled Da Scheib-Skippy's and Noumenom-Skippy's discussion and NOW you want to take up my offer after you ran them off? Spoiled? As in posting relevant informative science based observations which may help them both to discern better where they agree/disagree so that their exchange is not so messy and cross-purpose? Yes, I 'spoiled' it that way, mate! Guilty as charged. :)

What have YOU done for their scientific discourse/mutual understanding lately, mate? Never mind. :)
See the difference now?
Not really Cher, it all looks just as goofy as most of the stuffs you write. Non different then any of the others. You admit you don't understand the different effective/contextual meanings of the words "apologist" and "apology" in English usage; but you think you are justified in attributing your 'goofiness' to the one who pointed out the difference for you? Now THAT's industrial strength 'goof'!

Stay safe, mate. :)

Jun 02, 2016
Correcting Format of above:
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
So you spoiled Da Scheib-Skippy's and Noumenom-Skippy's discussion and NOW you want to take up my offer after you ran them off?
Spoiled? As in posting relevant informative science based observations which may help them both to discern better where they agree/disagree so that their exchange is not so messy and cross-purpose? Yes, I 'spoiled' it that way, mate! Guilty as charged.

What have YOU done for their scientific discourse/mutual understanding lately, mate? Never mind. :)
See the difference now?
Not really Cher, it all looks just as goofy as most of the stuffs you write. Non different then any of the others.
You admit you don't understand the different effective/contextual meanings of the words "apologist" and "apology" in English usage; but you think you are justified in attributing your 'goofiness' to the one who pointed out the difference for you? Now THAT's industrial strength 'goof'!

Stay safe, mate. :)

Jun 02, 2016
Correcting Format of above:
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Yeah, the other one was all mixed up, this one is better and I saw him quick enough to get a vote in before my computer give you the 1 again.

Anyhoo, apology accepted. But you should also apologize to them too because it was their conversation you spoiled.

Stay safe, mate. :)
Always do, and you stay safe too.

Jun 02, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
...I saw him quick enough to get a vote in before my computer give you the 1 again.
Better if your computer was cleaned out of that nasty software which shackles you to bot-voting unless you are quick enough. It must be tiring for you to always be trying to beat your computer bot-vote-program to the punch! Self-inflicted 'unnecessary/avoidable stress' is not a good thing as you age, mate. Try to get some local techie advice on how to remove that bot-program asap. :)
Anyhoo, apology accepted. But you should also apologize to them too because it was their conversation you spoiled.
You are still 'seeing' "apologies" where none exist or necessary. Maybe you should get your eyesight tested/corrected? It may help your English usage/comprehension/communication and so avoid your usual 'goof' in those areas; maybe it'll assist in your future reading/comprehension of the science discourse too!
...and you stay safe too!
Thanks. Enjoy your vacation. :)

Jun 03, 2016
Well I guess that's why I stopped posting on this site, 18 consecutive messages and not a single word on the article or even any other related science.

See you around guys, maybe in another couple of years.

Jun 03, 2016
See you around guys, maybe in another couple of years
i would ask Fleet to stay and appeal to the site for moderation
(I've sent in many petitions where they can do it for almost free... minimal programming to change permissions)

perhaps with enough posters we can change the site for the better?

.

.

I did not get the joke
@Ira
sophomoric ding of the sociopathic narcissistic paranoia to create a pathological autonomous reaction defining their mental status as it denigrates in a predictable manner due to their inherent mental issues

much like calling a friend who is a conspiracy theorist (who thinks the gov't is targeting them) and telling them the cops are looking for them...

it's useful for diagnosis when you can't watch body language (like on the net) because of the nature of disease means there will be a finite number of potential responses validating a predicted status -especially in psychology

Enjoy your trip! & send pics!

Jun 03, 2016
@Ira
sophomoric ding of the sociopathic narcissistic paranoia to create a pathological autonomous reaction defining their mental status as it denigrates in a predictable manner due to their inherent mental issues

much like calling a friend who is a conspiracy theorist (who thinks the gov't is targeting them) and telling them the cops are looking for them...

it's useful for diagnosis when you can't watch body language (like on the net) because of the nature of disease means there will be a finite number of potential responses validating a predicted status -especially in psychology


Your interweb experiments work a whole lot better than Really-Skippy's do.

Jun 03, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@Ira
sophomoric ding of the sociopathic narcissistic paranoia to create a pathological autonomous reaction defining their mental status as it denigrates in a predictable manner due to their inherent mental issues

much like calling a friend who is a conspiracy theorist (who thinks the gov't is targeting them) and telling them the cops are looking for them...

it's useful for diagnosis when you can't watch body language (like on the net) because of the nature of disease means there will be a finite number of potential responses validating a predicted status -especially in psychology


Your interweb experiments work a whole lot better than Really-Skippy's do.
Your response to his "mental conditions" is pure 'experimental gold', Ira. And the Irony! You, one 'unwitting experimental subject', assessing the alleged 'results' of your "friend", also another 'unwitting experimental subject', in my longstanding/diverse Internet Experiments. Funny! :)

Jun 04, 2016
@Da Schneib I need some help here. My reading of Dm started a few year back with Iain Nicolson's Dark side of the Universe. It does mention BH but not primordial BH. I was under the impression that PBH's would have 'evaporated' by now unless perhaps the evaporation theories aren't quite correct. In addition to that, mini PBH's appparently would cause a type of acoustic aberration (least that's how I understand it) so if there are a great many PBH's (to make up the large amount of DM) would we not be able to see stars 'vibrating' as the mini PBH's pass through. Is there evidence of this?

Jun 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 07, 2016
aptain Stumpy 5 /5 (5) Jun 03, 2016

See you around guys, maybe in another couple of years


i would ask Fleet to stay and appeal to the site for moderation


Good idea. One hitch might be that the site doesn't want to change. Seems pretty odd that they have no probs with moderation in the forums but here it's a free-for-all. If Fleet stays to moderate, will he change his screen name to "Flatfoot"? :-)

Jun 07, 2016
You do realize that RC is just a self serving spammer? He's put his nonsense into a book and paid to publish it himself online. The review is spot on. Gotta give credit to the reviewer for finding a use for it. https://books.goo...mp;hl=en

Jun 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 08, 2016
Hi AlbertPierrepointOBE. :)
You do realize that RC is just a self serving spammer? He's put his nonsense into a book and paid to publish it himself online. The review is spot on. Gotta give credit to the reviewer for finding a use for it. https://books.goo...mp;hl=en
Is that your doing,mate? Pretty low, even for a troll like you.

@FORUM: Please note that the book is NOT published ON LINE at all. It is ONLY HARD COPY, and WITHOUT an ISBN, because it was intended ONLY IN-HOUSE for Earthling Club members and their friends/families (and for legal publishing copyright reasons, Legal Deposit Copies were sent to the relevant libraries/institurions to comply with legal Copyright requirements).

NO copies were sold to public...NOR PUBLISHED ON LINE, as claimed by AlbertPierrepointOBE above.

So you can judge for yourself how "genuine" that "Review/Reviewer" is, if the book is NOT available on line! :)

Jun 11, 2016
Your interweb experiments work a whole lot better
i know, right?

LMFAO

.

.

NO copies were sold to public...NOR PUBLISHED ON LINE, as claimed by...
this makes the ASSumption that no parties that already own the book sold said book (or copied) for financial recompense due to the nature of the physics fails of said contents, especially considering the blatant notification of the site where you state:
a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics
which is directly contradictory to your more recent claims

therefore the review can be every bit genuine
AND
the book can be sold on line through Amazon or used sites

.

unless you can establish evidence that demonstrates all known parties still retain said book and are not the author of said review, then the review stands as evidence above and beyond what you have provided

Jun 11, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Is life so lonely where you live, and genuine friends and respectful attention so meagre, that you still clutch at every trollish opportunity to 'converse' with your 'friend' the self-admitted and uncomprehending bot-idiot-voting Uncle Ira? Why waste your intellect/remaining self-respect, on perpetuating personal hatreds/vendettas on a science site; where your 'friend' skews the metrics against all proper rules of scientific and humanity ethics?

Anyhow, can't you read? That was IN-HOUSE publication BACK in 2002!

All observers who have even a skerrick of objectivity would acknowledge what I said SINCE then. It was an in-house interim report to clubmembers, outlining my theory and works.

It was NOT the finalized version; since completed, using my OWN new reality-maths to model it without hitting the 'singularities' brick wall that all current cosmological Classical/Quantum/String theories/maths/models do.

It was NEVER "published on-line". Period. :)

Jun 11, 2016
PS: @ CapS.

As for that 'review/reviewer', how 'genuine' could it be if the text is not on-line and they do not mention one issue which they can actually argue is 'delusional' etc? It's an OBVIOUS FAKE ENTRY by an obvious troll with personal (not scientific) axe to grind. That entry/reviewer is blatantly the work of a stupid internet troll like YOU and your 'friends' who boast about doing such things fo your own trollish reasons to skew the metrics and perpetuate your own versions of reality for your own ego-tripping reasons having nothing at all to do with 'defending science' as you and your 'friends' claim to be doing by trolling/demonstrating your stupidity like this.

How often do you need to be told? Please stop your 'irrelevant noise' which clutters the discussion and skews the readers' objective reading process. You are just become a nuisance internet noise troll now, CapS. The sooner you learn to resist and shut it, the better for all concerned, mate! :)

Jun 11, 2016
uncomprehending bot-idiot-voting Uncle Ira?


Hi to you too and how you are?

where your 'friend' skews the metrics against all proper rules of scientific and humanity ethics
By that I suppose you mean me exercising my right to vote, eh?

All observers who have even a skerrick of objectivity would acknowledge what I said SINCE then.
It has not improved over the years Cher. I kind of like the Earthman Playhouse version better than the stuffs you written SCINCE then.

It was NEVER "published on-line". Period. :)
So when you are offering it up for $20 of Australia money or $15 American money you are running a scam? I suppose it could mean you never sold a single copy. If you still have one laying around, I will send you $15 for one, $16 if you will autograph it to me.


Jun 11, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

How's Vacation for Ira-Skippy-family going? Everyone OK/enjoying it I trust?

You were already made aware bot-voting is against all science/humanity ethics. You also admitted/confirmed your "considered opinion" is that of a bot-voting-idiot, so not of any value to site metrics or science discourse. So "your right" is "misappropriated" by bot-voting-idiot; and "not conferred" by site rules re science standards and debate fairness.

It's all from compete, consistent ToE. :)

Even last couple weeks, astronomial discoveries continue to support my observation re eternal infinite 'jets recycling' universe; explaining: Helium/Hydrogen abundances; the CMB; variety of new/old stellar clusters; variety of fully formed galaxies/supermassive black holes so "early in alleged BBang epochs"; alleged 'Inflation/Expansion rates" being misinterpreting of now-variable so-called 'standard candles" etc.

EC members not just in OZ. Charge cover costs. Idiot-money not accepted. :)

Jun 12, 2016
well.. you're seeking attention, but can't read
.blah blah IN-HOUSE blah bullsh*t blah
i didn't say it wasn't, ya idiot
perhaps i just used big words and you didn't understand them, eh?

important math & logic lesson:
unless your membership was only you (and i can believe this considering your rant and typical sociopathic paranoia behaviour)

then that means, by definition, that others own copies of said book, you idiot

therefore an owner of said crappy manuscript can sell it to get $ because he figured out it was worth the equivalent of used toilet paper, just like your web-site crap

none of the above state digital/on-line text nor anything else
but that also doesn't preclude an on-line review, either

if said person read your book and felt like sharing a review then it is possible to find an on-line review

reviews are not contingent upon where or how you publish, only upon the reviewers desire to share their opinion of said book

learn to read- ya idiot

Jun 12, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Take it easy, CapS, you'll bust a blood vessel if you keep that up. The book was not sent to people idiotic or mercenary enough to say those things or sell their copy. And the text of that book was not made available on-line, nor did that so-called review/reviewer give any indication they were aware of the book text, let alone make any cogent argument against any ideas presented therein. It is an obviious trollish attempt at trashing people/things they have no real idea about, let alone understand. Anyone objective and genuine enough to have read and considered that book's contents would have been more measured and objective in their assessment and arguments. Obviously that individual is disturbed and personally malicious troll (you know, like you/your 'friends' have been proven to be here/elsewhere by Internet Experiments designed and carried out for that express purpose over the years). That review/reviewer.is an obvious fraud and twerp, you twerp :)

Jun 13, 2016
ok now i know you only want attention
The book was not sent to people idiotic or mercenary enough to say those things or sell their copy
you are either lying, you didn't send any out, or you required a signed contractual obligation not allowing them to disclose contents or even talk about it
no matter what, it also doesn't mean no one can put up a review or sell personal property, moron
not made available on-line
are you f*cking stupid? i didn't say it was

however, it also doesn't mean someone is prohibited from selling their own copy, you idiot!

if they own it it is theirs to do with as they choose
https://www.amazo...ed+books

quit being an illiterate idiot

and since you are simply seeking attention, i aint replying to your crap anymore
just going to report it because you can't read and are stupid

Jun 13, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

You're the one seeking attention, making all the 'noise' here.

And I wan't the one who mentioned the book, it was AlbertPierrepointOBE.

He also claimed I "published it on-line". Which I did not.

And that "review/reviewer" is obviously NOT someone selling my book; since there is no excerpt or actual details discussed on that 'entry'.

Another telltale sign that is the work of a troll, and an idiot at that, is he mentions I post at phys.org; thus denoting him as a LONGTIME phys.org TROLL like you and your 'friends' have been.

Naturally, a proven stalker and internet troll (like you/your 'friends' have admitted to being more than once before now) couldn't possibly be responsible for such an inane and amateurish attempt at trolling me via google as well!

...Or could you/they? It certainly is STUPID and CHILDISH and anti-ethical and just plain creepy enough for just such well-proven internet loser types!

CapS, get a life. Shut your twerp-noise.

Jun 13, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)

How's Vacation for Ira-Skippy-family going? Everyone OK/enjoying it I trust?
How you are too Cher? Yeah, the vacation is going great, we have been having a great time. My favorite part comes tomorrow,,,, we are heading home. Sometime taking a vacation and relaxing and having fun sure is a lot of work.

Charge cover costs. Idiot-money not accepted. :)
Non, I was going to send American money. Will a post office money order do or should I get something else?

Cher, don't be so hard on the Captain-Skippy, I am sure he don't really mean to be mean to the scientists and humans. It's all in good fun, eh? Choot, look at some of the things you call me just fooling around, it's just a bunch of couyons fooling around on the interweb, right? If it was that big a deal you would see us all on the evening news or being talked about by peoples on the street.


Jun 14, 2016
be careful and safe, Ira!
we are heading home. Sometime taking a vacation and relaxing and having fun sure is a lot of work.
what a vacation does is allow you to remove yourself form your typical lifestyle and set yourself in other conditions for the sake of exposure to something new... its a release

but it also helps you to appreciate what you have and the familiarity that is home, eh?

drive safe!
and PEACE


Jun 14, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. Thanks Cher.

By the way. I see I got me a new fan, called the Ghost-Uncle-Captain-Skippy. He seems to take umbrage at my stuffs and really likes glam-Skippy's stuffs. Who he is, do you know?

Jun 15, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. Thanks Cher.
you are welcome By the way. I see I got me a new fan, called the Ghost-Uncle-Captain-Skippy. He seems to take umbrage at my stuffs and really likes glam-Skippy's stuffs. Who he is, do you know? i haven't the foggiest idea, but i actually like the name - i think it's hilarious

i was going to ask you if you knew who it was in an e-mail but you beat me to the punch

hit me up when ya get home and we can hash out some ideas ... it will be very limited given the extremely small content posted
http://techxplore...ans.html

but there are other ways - perhaps some python can help?

Jul 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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