Pluto's 'heart' sheds light on a possible buried ocean

September 23, 2016 by Kevin Stacey  
Pluto's famous "heart," half of which was created by an ancient impact, offers clues about a possible subsurface ocean. Credit: NASA/APL/SwRI

Ever since NASA's New Horizons spacecraft flew by Pluto last year, evidence has been mounting that the dwarf planet may have a liquid ocean beneath its icy shell. Now, by modeling the impact dynamics that created a massive crater on Pluto's surface, a team of researchers has made a new estimate of how thick that liquid layer might be.

The study, led by Brown University geologist Brandon Johnson and published in Geophysical Research Letters, finds a high likelihood that there's more than 100 kilometers of beneath Pluto's surface. The research also offers a clue about the composition of that ocean, suggesting that it likely has a salt content similar to that of the Dead Sea.

"Thermal models of Pluto's interior and tectonic evidence found on the surface suggest that an ocean may exist, but it's not easy to infer its size or anything else about it," said Johnson, who is an assistant professor in Brown's Department of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences. "We've been able to put some constraints on its thickness and get some clues about composition."

The research focused on Sputnik Planum, a 900 kilometers across that makes up the western lobe the famous heart-shaped feature revealed during the New Horizons flyby. The basin appears to have been created by an impact, likely by an object 200 kilometers across or larger.

The story of how the basin relates to Pluto's putative ocean starts with its position on the planet relative to Pluto's largest moon, Charon. Pluto and Charon are tidally locked with each other, meaning they always show each other the same face as they rotate. Sputnik Planum sits directly on the tidal axis linking the two worlds. That position suggests that the basin has what's called a positive mass anomaly—it has more mass than average for Pluto's icy crust. As Charon's gravity pulls on Pluto, it would pull proportionally more on areas of higher mass, which would tilt the planet until Sputnik Planum became aligned with the tidal axis.

But a positive mass anomaly would make Sputnik Planum a bit of an odd duck as craters go.

"An impact crater is basically a hole in the ground," Johnson said. "You're taking a bunch of material and blasting it out, so you expect it to have negative mass anomaly, but that's not what we see with Sputnik Planum. That got people thinking about how you could get this positive mass anomaly."

Part of the answer is that, after it formed, the basin has been partially filled in by nitrogen ice. That ice layer adds some mass to the basin, but it isn't thick enough on its own to make Sputnik Planum have positive mass, Johnson says.

The rest of that mass may be generated by a liquid lurking beneath the surface.

Like a bowling ball dropped on a trampoline, a large impact creates a dent on a planet's surface, followed by a rebound. That rebound pulls material upward from deep in the planet's interior. If that upwelled material is denser than what was blasted away by the impact, the crater ends up with the same mass as it had before the impact happened. This is a phenomenon geologists refer to as isostatic compensation.

Water is denser than ice. So if there were a layer of liquid water beneath Pluto's ice shell, it may have welled up following the Sputnik Planum impact, evening out the crater's mass. If the basin started out with neutral mass, then the nitrogen layer deposited later would be enough to create a positive mass anomaly.

"This scenario requires a liquid ocean," Johnson said. "We wanted to run computer models of the impact to see if this is something that would actually happen. What we found is that the production of a positive mass anomaly is actually quite sensitive to how thick the ocean layer is. It's also sensitive to how salty the ocean is, because the affects the density of the water."

The models simulated the impact of an object large enough to create a basin of Sputnik Planum's size hitting Pluto at a speed expected for that part in the solar system. The simulation assumed various thicknesses of the water layer beneath the crust, from no water at all to a layer 200 kilometers thick.

The scenario that best reconstructed Sputnik Planum's observed size depth, while also producing a crater with compensated mass, was one in which Pluto has an ocean layer more than 100 kilometers thick, with a salinity of around 30 percent.

"What this tells us is that if Sputnik Planum is indeed a positive mass anomaly —and it appears as though it is—this ocean layer of at least 100 kilometers has to be there," Johnson said. "It's pretty amazing to me that you have this body so far out in the solar system that still may have liquid water."

As researchers continue to look at the data sent by New Horizons, Johnson is hopeful that a clearer picture of Pluto's possible ocean will emerge.

Johnson's co-authors on the paper were Timothy Bowling of the University of Chicago and Alexander Trowbridge and Andrew Freed from Purdue University.

Explore further: Shedding light on Pluto's glaciers

More information: Brandon C. Johnson et al. Formation of the Sputnik Planum basin and the thickness of Pluto's subsurface ocean., Geophysical Research Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070694

Related Stories

Shedding light on Pluto's glaciers

September 19, 2016

What is the origin of the large heart-shaped nitrogen glacier revealed in 2015 on Pluto by the New Horizons spacecraft? Two researchers from the Laboratoire de météorologie dynamique (CNRS/École polytechnique/UPMC/ENS ...

Pluto's mysterious, floating hills

February 4, 2016

The nitrogen ice glaciers on Pluto appear to carry an intriguing cargo: numerous, isolated hills that may be fragments of water ice from Pluto's surrounding uplands. These hills individually measure one to several miles or ...

Image: The dark side of Pluto

June 3, 2016

NASA's New Horizons spacecraft took this stunning image of Pluto only a few minutes after closest approach on July 14, 2015. The image was obtained at a high phase angle –that is, with the sun on the other side of Pluto, ...

New Horizons imagery reveals small, frozen lake on Pluto

March 28, 2016

NASA's New Horizons spacecraft spied several features on Pluto that offer evidence of a time millions or billions of years ago when – thanks to much higher pressure in Pluto's atmosphere and warmer conditions on the surface ...

The jagged shores of Pluto's highlands

June 10, 2016

This enhanced color view from NASA's New Horizons spacecraft zooms in on the southeastern portion of Pluto's great ice plains, where at lower right the plains border rugged, dark highlands informally named Krun Macula. (Krun ...

Recommended for you

Solar eruptions could electrify Martian moons

October 18, 2017

Powerful solar eruptions could electrically charge areas of the Martian moon Phobos to hundreds of volts, presenting a complex electrical environment that could possibly affect sensitive electronics carried by future robotic ...

97 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wduckss
1 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
"Excellent" geologist.
As a body that exists within temperature -229 to -210 ° C for 4 billion years (if does not have sufficient mass for the existence of a molten core) may have an interior warmer for over 230 ° C?
Which school of geology teaches such "knowledge"?
Mr. geologist leave the universe to astronomers, please.
RNP
5 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2016
@wduckss
I would have thought that the tidal forces with Pluto would be enough to maintain such temperatures. Do you have evidence one way or another?
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2016
@wduckss
Your criticism is unreasonable as the paper may address these issues
and you have not read it.
Btw astronomers study stars, not planets.
Three of the four authors are planetary scientists.
Think. Then perhaps ask a polite question.
arcmetal
not rated yet Sep 23, 2016
Amazing. So, in the near future I'll expect to be doing some mountain climbing on Mars, asteroid hopping on Ceres, and submarine excursions in the heart Pluto.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (12) Sep 23, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@wduckss
I would have thought that the tidal forces with Pluto would be enough to maintain such temperatures. Do you have evidence one way or another?
The tidal forces between Pluto and its moon may not be that strong to input enough heat energy into pluto itself. Otherwise our own Moon would have a 'buried ocean' too, yes; especially considering Earth's much stronger tidal forces on it?

They only mention tidal forces as being the forces that 'tidally lock' the 'face' orientation of Pluto's moon Charon (just like our own Moon presents the same 'face' to Earth in a tidally locked manner).

Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
Hi shavera. :)

What's with the '1' rating, mate? What exactly did you find incorrect in my correct reply on top-ic and on science to RNP? :)

PS: I hope you are not letting your own personal uninformed prejudices against 'persons' turn you into another of those bot-voting idiots who downrate even when science posted is correct. That would be a sad day for otherwise objective science discourse; and for you. Good luck in avoiding that fate, mate. :)
Solon
1 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
"The basin appears to have been created by an impact, likely by an object 200 kilometers across or larger."
Appearances can be deceptive. Like all craters, they are electrically formed, which means their whole model is worthless.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2016
"The basin appears to have been created by an impact, likely by an object 200 kilometers across or larger."
Appearances can be deceptive. Like all craters, they are electrically formed, which means their whole model is worthless.


Lol.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 23, 2016
"The basin appears to have been created by an impact, likely by an object 200 kilometers across or larger."
Appearances can be deceptive. Like all craters, they are electrically formed, which means their whole model is worthless.


So how are they formed electrically? Who has written this up? Where can I see it? What is the evidence? What is the mechanism? And don't give me some crap about an EE p*ssing about in the lab, and saying, "Hey, these tiny little holes I've made look like Barringer Crater!" Actual, proper, well written science - where is it? I think we all know the answer to that. Dreamed up by idiots like Thornhill, would be the answer.
You do realise that meteoritic material at impact sites has been known about for decades, right?
http://www.scienc...78901849 (paywalled; but not for me :) )
Stick to screwing up mythology; science is beyond you lot.

Should add - that paper is from 1978!
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2016
^^^Here's another more recent paper. Still paywalled, but the clue is in the title:
"Discovery of a 25-cm asteroid clast in the giant Morokweng impact crater, South Africa."
http://www.nature...751.html

Surprisingly, they found no evidence of any electrical woo.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2016
Like all craters, they are electrically formed....


Well, this one wasn't:
http://onlinelibr...06.x/pdf

People see meteor. People hear bang. People find hole in ground. People find bits of meteorite. No people see electric woo. Funny that, eh?
Solon
1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
http://onlinelibr...06.x/pdf

" We present several lines of evidence that suggest that the Carancas crater was a hypervelocity impact. An event like this should have not occurred according to the accepted picture of stony meteoroids ablating in the Earth's atmosphere, therefore it challenges our present models of entry dynamics."

The proper entry dynamics is that any approaching rocky object will ablate for one thing, but will also explode due to the Coulomb force, a difference between the objects interior charge level and the ambient charge. The capacitor explodes if you like. The discharge from the exploding object will go to ground, and underground will form a congealed mass from the material at hand, and any ions in the discharge stream. Some objects found at craters are quite soft, could not have survived impact, they were created where they were found. All that ever hits the ground is sand and gravel and occasional larger pieces.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
@RealityCheck
I have done a little research, and you are right that the tidal forces are negligible. This is because, as you pointed out, Pluto is tidally locked to Charon, but also because their orbits have zero eccentricity (i.e. circular orbits). So, tidal heating clearly can not be a cause of heating. My bad.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2016
.......... All that ever hits the ground is sand and gravel and occasional larger pieces.


Are you blind, or just being deliberately obtuse? The meteor was SEEN. It was followed to the ground. They heard the explosion. It was detected seismically. Pieces of meteorite were found. No lightning bolts. Not to mention the various other lines of evidence, such as presented in the other papers I linked, also show that the craters are caused by extraterrestrial objects. Like pieces of the impactor, siderophile elements that can only be due to an ET object.
Where is your evidence? Where is your hypothesis? Where is it written up? Who wrote it? Don't be shy - give us a link so that we can all have a laugh - sorry, I mean assess it.
You lot really will believe any old crap, won't you?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2016


All that ever hits the ground is sand and gravel and occasional larger pieces.


And the platinum group elements, which could only come from an impactor of extraterrestrial origin. You really need to link to this scientifically illiterate nonsense, so that we can see how this anonymous genius is getting a lightning bolt (unseen) to cause these elements to come into being. Not to mention pieces of an impactor which have the same make up as ET objects. Very clever, this electric woo, isn't it? Invisible, and can perform alchemy as well, so that it EXACTLY resembles an impact by an ET object. Just to fool us all into believing that.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2016


All that ever hits the ground is sand and gravel and occasional larger pieces.


And the platinum group elements, which could only come from an impactor of extraterrestrial origin. You really need to link to this scientifically illiterate nonsense, so that we can see how this anonymous genius is getting a lightning bolt (unseen) to cause these elements to come into being. Not to mention pieces of an impactor which have the same make up as ET objects. Very clever, this electric woo, isn't it? Invisible, and can perform alchemy as well, so that it EXACTLY resembles an impact by an ET object. Just to fool us all into believing that.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
@Solon,
Another paper to be getting along with, after the site had a brain fart and posted my last comment multiple times!

"Chromium isotopic studies of terrestrial impact craters: Identification of meteoritic components at Bosumtwi, Clearwater East, Lappajärvi, and Rochechouart."

https://www.resea...0000.pdf (free access)

Perhaps you need to put this electrical genius in touch with these people, so he can explain where they are getting it all wrong! Given that he never seems to have published his nonsense, then that is the only way of getting his ideas out there, yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
High there rc :)))
What's with the '1' rating, mate? What exactly did you find incorrect in my correct reply on top-ic and on science to RNP? :)
Perhaps because there is not near enough water on the moon for an ocean?

This is akin to speculating that the 'pyramids' were built to store 'grain'. You're not running for 'president' are you?

:))))
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
So how are they formed electrically?
Batteries can explode with great force... ?
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2016
Pluto may contain an inner solid body with a different rotation then the outer ocean.
The differential rotation can then produce enough heat to keep a briny, pressurized ocean liquid for a while.
luxorion
not rated yet Sep 24, 2016
Another study using a new model developped at CNRS shown that an internal reservoir is not needed, and that the heart can be explained by simple seasonal mechanims
http://www.nature...337.html
See also the animation at http://www.astros...anim.gif
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2016
The delusionist BartV down votes all atheists.
Isn't that pathetic.
Solon
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
@jd
"And the platinum group elements, which could ONLY come from an impactor of extraterrestrial origin."
Not the ONLY way, but you would need to be willing to research them, but that would require thinking on your part, whereas you seem much more content to just parrot the mainstream 'facts'. Let me know if you need some clues.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2016
@jd
"And the platinum group elements, which could ONLY come from an impactor of extraterrestrial origin."
Not the ONLY way, but you would need to be willing to research them, but that would require thinking on your part, whereas you seem much more content to just parrot the mainstream 'facts'. Let me know if you need some clues.


Don't give me your scientifically illiterate views. Just point me to the paper where this has been explained and accounted for. Yes? How are invisible lightning bolts leaving behind pieces of meteorite and asteroid? How are they converting the target material into chromium, iridium, geranium etc, etc. I'm not the least bit interested in your view. I've seen enough of it to know that you'll just parrot the scientifically illiterate, evidence-free garbage from Thornhill and the like. Guess what? They aren't qualified. So, to spell it out, and for the umpteenth time - show me where this has been explained and accounted for. A link, in other words.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2016
Whoops, just realised my typo above; should be germanium, not geranium! Lol. Douglas Adams would be proud. Was it the whale that turned into a bowl of petunias?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2016
Hi TheGhostofOtto1923. :)
High there rc :)))
What's with the '1' rating, mate? What exactly did you find incorrect in my correct reply on top-ic and on science to RNP? :)
Perhaps because there is not near enough water on the moon for an ocean?

:))))
Didn't you read the above article, mate? It spoke of possible liquid water layer 'beneath the surface' of Pluto, not at the surface. That's why I made the comment I did to RNP's suggestion re tidal forces 'heating' etc. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Pluto may contain an inner solid body with a different rotation then the outer ocean.
The differential rotation can then produce enough heat to keep a briny, pressurized ocean liquid for a while.
Any such differentially rotating system as you describe would produce some sort of persistent 'planetary' magnetic field for Pluto, wouldn't it? Did they discover any such like magnetic field effects (apart from its tenuous 'atmosphere' and/or trailing gases interacting with sun's solar wind, of course)? Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
I have done a little research, and you are right that the tidal forces are negligible. This is because, as you pointed out, Pluto is tidally locked to Charon, but also because their orbits have zero eccentricity (i.e. circular orbits). So, tidal heating clearly can not be a cause of heating. My bad.
No sweat, mate. Mistakes can happen. What's important is that mistakes are acknowledged (as you just did) and the lessons learned from them. Thank you for that response acknowledging my correctness on the science. Very rare here, and hence even more greatly appreciated because of that rarity!

PS: What are the chances, do you think RNP, that the other '1' raters will come in here and also admit their error in kneejerking; and acknowledging fairly my correctness on the science? In any case, thanks for being principled and brave both, mate. Very rare thing nowadays! Kudos. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Pluto may contain an inner solid body with a different rotation then the outer ocean.
The differential rotation can then produce enough heat to keep a briny, pressurized ocean liquid for a while.
Any such differentially rotating system as you describe would produce some sort of persistent 'planetary' magnetic field for Pluto, wouldn't it?

No. A rotating body of ice will not produce a magnetic field.
Did they discover any such like magnetic field effects (apart from its tenuous 'atmosphere' and/or trailing gases interacting with sun's solar wind, of course)? Cheers. :)

This is a scientific version of the straw man. The prediction is not made so the fact that it is not met is without meaning.

Undoubtedly the idea has weaknesses, but this is not one of them.
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2016
Thank you for that response acknowledging my correctness on the science. Very rare here,

That is so true. And you do as much of it as anybody.
Rather than admitting that you have no case, you occasionally resort to discrediting scientists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
Rc says
Didn't you read the above article, mate? It spoke of possible liquid water layer 'beneath the surface' of Pluto, not at the surface. That's why I made the comment I did to RNP's suggestion re tidal forces 'heating' etc. Cheers. :)
Naw you said
Otherwise our own Moon would have a 'buried ocean' too,
Explain how you think this would be possible please.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Thank you for that response acknowledging my correctness on the science.
And you do as much of it as anybody. Rather than admitting that you have no case, you occasionally resort to discrediting scientists.
No, mate. I stick to the science; and call out incorrect science regardless of persons, as is expected from scientific method/discourse. It's you and others that keep making it about the persons instead of sticking to the actual science issues raised. If I criticize and point out flawed 'exercises', I don't care WHO it was, only that it was flawed and they didn't follow the science method scrupulously enough to avoid possible confirmation bias etc etc. If you are so interested in the persons, then you go ask them how/why their 'exercise' got to that stage/claims, when it was obviously flawed to begin with and all along. No skin off my nose who they were. I only address science; and failures to stick to science method by whomever it may be. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Thank you for that response acknowledging my correctness on the science.
And you do as much of it as anybody. Rather than admitting that you have no case, you occasionally resort to discrediting scientists.
No, mate. I stick to the science; and call out incorrect science regardless of persons, as is expected from scientific method/discourse.

No, you don't. You do not present arguments but instead state falsehoods on the scientists. That is not "scientific discourse/methods".
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2016
Hi TheGhostofOtto1923. :)
Rc says
Didn't you read the above article, mate? It spoke of possible liquid water layer 'beneath the surface' of Pluto, not at the surface. That's why I made the comment I did to RNP's suggestion re tidal forces 'heating' etc. Cheers. :)
Naw you said
Otherwise our own Moon would have a 'buried ocean' too,
Explain how you think this would be possible please.
Yeah, 'buried' means 'not on the surface'. Yes?

If the heating suggested by RNP had taken place to liquify buried water on Pluto, then even stronger such heating would liquify buried water on the moon. Yes?

My point went to the fact that such 'tidally locked' systems do not heat up because they do not suffer tidal force differentials across their surfaces if they don't actually rotate (ie, like our Moon; and like the tiv=dally locked Pluto-Charon system). Yes?

Have you got it straight now, mate? :)....and a few more :) :) :) just to make your day! :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Thank you for that response acknowledging my correctness on the science.
And you do as much of it as anybody. Rather than admitting that you have no case, you occasionally resort to discrediting scientists.
No, mate. I stick to the science; and call out incorrect science regardless of persons, as is expected from scientific method/discourse.
No, you don't. You do not present arguments but instead state falsehoods on the scientists. That is not "scientific discourse/methods". What falsehoods? Is it true that Bicep2 was flawed as I pointed out? Yes, it is. And is it true that the 'team' involved did NOT follow scrupulously the scientific method? Yes it is.

So where's the falsehoods? Just because the flawed exercise involved persons, it doesn't put the exercise, OR their failures, beyond reach of fair scientific scrutiny/criticism where it falls. You seem to think that 'scientists' are beyond reproach, even when failing science! Naive. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
REFORMAT @Phys1.
Thank you for that response acknowledging my correctness on the science.
And you do as much of it as anybody. Rather than admitting that you have no case, you occasionally resort to discrediting scientists.
No, mate. I stick to the science; and call out incorrect science regardless of persons, as is expected from scientific method/discourse.
No, you don't. You do not present arguments but instead state falsehoods on the scientists. That is not "scientific discourse/methods".
What falsehoods? Is it true that Bicep2 was flawed as I pointed out? Yes, it is. And is it true that the 'team' involved did NOT follow scrupulously the scientific method? Yes it is.

So where's the falsehoods? Just because the flawed exercise involved persons, it doesn't put the exercise, OR their failures, beyond reach of fair scientific scrutiny/criticism where it falls. You seem to think that 'scientists' are beyond reproach, even when failing science! Naive. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2016
@RC
You stated "Otherwise our own Moon would have a 'buried ocean' too".
People here are trying to explain to you that that would, besides tidal forces, require a lot of water and floating moon rocks. Do you concur?
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
You stated "Otherwise our own Moon would have a 'buried ocean' too".
People here are trying to explain to you that that would, besides tidal forces, require a lot of water and floating moon rocks. Do you concur?
Which is why I explained how that cannot be in Pluto's case either. :)

I suspect you and The Ghost may have got the wrong end of the stick. It was RNP suggested tidal heating could have melted buried water on Pluto; and it was me that explained why it cannot be, because the tidally locked system cannot heat via tidal forces.

Is that straight now? :)

PS: On the separate issue of water per se, are you by any chance suggesting that our Moon has NO frozen water in its interior/subsurfaces at poles?
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
You stated "Otherwise our own Moon would have a 'buried ocean' too".
People here are trying to explain to you that that would, besides tidal forces, require a lot of water and floating moon rocks. Do you concur?
Which is why I explained how that cannot be in Pluto's case either. :)

But Pluto's HAS a lot of water AND its surface consists of ice, so floats on water, AND its density of 1.86 g/cm3 implies a rocky core.
https://en.wikipe...tructure
are you by any chance suggesting that our Moon has NO frozen water in its interior/subsurfaces at poles?

It does not have a body of frozen water in its interior. Are you suggesting it does?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, I never said there wasn't ice on Pluto, did I? :)

Anyhow, this is growing like topsy, away from the relevant issue I commented on: ie, RNP's suggestion that tidal heating could explain liquid water beneath Pluto's surface.

I explained why tidal heating could not be involved in tidally locked system. He acknowledged that was so. End of story. All else is irrelevant/misunderstandings which appear to be compounding with every post from you/Ghost.

PS: Re Moon and water distribution, it was merely another example of NO TIDAL HEATING of whatever frozen water may be there, however distributed....because the Moon too is tidally locked and constantly facing Earth on same side....and hence also cannot be 'tidally heated' (as I explained). It was just a comparable case to help explain the point to RNP. That was all. A non-issue. Cheers. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2016
Yeah, 'buried' means 'not on the surface'. Yes?
No no. Focus here. WHY do you think there is enough WATER on the MOON for an OCEAN?

And while you're at it, why did Carson think the pyramids were hollow?

Same thing.
RNP
5 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2016
@RealityCheck
Just a point of order. Having an orbit that is not exactly circular (eccentricity of ~0.05) and a slightly imperfect tidal lock, the Moon does actually suffer a (small) amount of tidal heating. A brief description is given at
http://www.nao.ac...ise.html
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, I never said there wasn't ice on Pluto, did I? :)

Yes you did. You just don't have a clue know what you are saying.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2016
Hi TheGhostofOtto1923. :)
Yeah, 'buried' means 'not on the surface'. Yes?
No no. Focus here. WHY do you think there is enough WATER on the MOON for an OCEAN?
There is water both in the rick mineral compounds and the possible water frozen interstitially between grains/deposits of different mineral bodies; not to mention the possibility of past frozen buried water bodies deep in interior.

And if tidal heating (as suggested by RNP) had been possible (which it is not due to tidally locked system) on Pluto, then it would also be possible on Moon; and any such tidally melted 'buried water' ocean in Pluto would also be occurring on the Moon too (which it isn't; so Pluto also cannot have'liquid' tidally heated water 'buried ocean'.

If the logic is too difficult for you to grasp, then look to your own 'focus', mate. :)

And while you're at it, why did Carson think the pyramids were hollow?

Same thing.
Only to you, maybe; who obviously cannot 'focus'. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
Just a point of order. Having an orbit that is not exactly circular (eccentricity of ~0.05) and a slightly imperfect tidal lock, the Moon does actually suffer a (small) amount of tidal heating. A brief description is given at
http://www.nao.ac...ise.html
But insignificant compared to solar heating; and insufficient to 'liquify' any frozen water or release interstitial/compound trapped H2O. Also FYI, the tidally locked Moon 'face' hemisphere 'oscillates' slightly too. But again, not enough for tidal force differentials 'friction' to heat anything much. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
No. A rotating body of ice will not produce a magnetic field.
What are you talking about? You said:
Pluto may contain an inner solid body with a different rotation then the outer ocean.
Note you said "outer ocean". That is the scenario I asked about, not "body of ice". OK?

Anyhow, if it was liquid, then it would contain dissolved ions; and hence be electro-magnetically interactive with any differentially rotating mineral body having ionic/metallic characteristics.

In any case, you don't know if any magnetic field from such phenomena is present/predicted for Pluto? Then that would also indicate that no such 'fluid' bodies and/or differentially rotating layers are present in Pluto? OK. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, I never said there wasn't ice on Pluto, did I? :)

Yes you did. You just don't have a clue know what you are saying.
Mate, you are demonstrating reading-confirmation-bias and kneejerking from your own misunderstandings again.

Get it straight before you 'react' again, please. I said there wasn't any tidal heating process to liquify any buried ice within Pluto; I did NOT say there was 'no ice'. OK? :)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Is it true that Bicep2 was flawed as I pointed out?
@UNreality TROLL
no, it isn't - and i can prove that with the following request:

please provide the 4 fatal flaws and 4 "other" flaws that you claimed to have "seen" in the BICEP2 report which makes it "flawed"

... until you can do that, you can't state with any accuracy that BICEP2 was "flawed as [you] pointed out" because you never pointed out any flaws. you've never once been able to be specific about BICEP at all other than to denigrate science in general and the team specifically.

reported for spamming, trolling and baiting ... along with your pseudoscience crap
and especially for being a d*ck and denigrating scientists

PS-don't bother replying or baiting further. i won't reply. i'll just report that crap too.
PHYS is correct - You just don't have a clue
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
There is water both in the rick mineral compounds and the possible water frozen interstitially between grains/deposits of different mineral bodies; not to mention the possibility of past frozen buried water bodies deep in interior
So you ARE saying that theres enough water on the moon for oceans.

Youre making shit up again in order to try to cover up an ignorant statement, arent you? Big surprise.
so Pluto also cannot have'liquid' tidally heated water 'buried ocean'
Sorry, I think I'll accept the opinions of pros who are not prone to making things up and thinking nobody will notice.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
HI Ghost. :)
So you ARE saying that theres enough water on the moon for oceans. You're making shit up again in order to try to cover up an ignorant statement, arent you?
so Pluto also cannot have'liquid' tidally heated water 'buried ocean'
Sorry, I think I'll accept the opinions of pros who are not prone to making things up and thinking nobody will notice.
If you knew anything about geophysics and hydrology etc etc in any large mineral bodied planet, you'd knw what I was referring to is known science and probable situation. Whereas you are just trolling based on semantics, irrelevances and ignorance of your own. That is now obvious to all who are not prejudiced and have actually properly read/understood the exchange between me and RNP. That is sad, mate. Have you nothing better to do with your time and intellect than to troll like that? Do better with your life, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Poor CapS. :)

He is still in denial of past/present/continuing correctness on my part, and past/present/continuing inadequacies on his and others' part, on many things. So all he can do is troll and intrude his personal and off-topic 'baggage' into threads. He must be as much in a rage as his 'buddy' Uncle Ira the bot-voting irrelevance; now that mainstream is increasingly catching up with me and confirming I have been correct on many things all along. Hey, look at my feedback page! What do we see? The CapS and his 'buddy' bot-voting together! Awww, how cute! They do say that irrelevant malignant trolls who bot-vote-together 'stay together', don't they! Sad 'Internet Troll Disease' cases. :(
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Hey, look at my feedback page!
Nobody is able to read that. I got the karma thingy bot set so nobody gets to see your stuffs unless they set it all the way down to under "2".
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Hey, look at my feedback page!
Nobody is able to read that. I got the karma thingy bot set so nobody gets to see your stuffs unless they set it all the way down to under "2".
You're confusing the above ratings against the username, with the feedback page of that username. Two different things. Anyone can access anyone else's feedback page, even though they may not see that person's posts because of the 'low ratings' filter cutoff within the thread itself. Maybe you should ask the off-the-shelf bot-voting program you installed for lessons on how to grow a brain, mate. It's obviously more intelligent than you, since it is the master and you the slave. Poor slob. Sad. :(
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Hey, look at my feedback page!
Nobody is able to read that. I got the karma thingy bot set so nobody gets to see your stuffs unless they set it all the way down to under "2".
You're confusing the above ratings against the username, with the feedback page of that username. Two different things.


Non Cher, you are the one confused. They can not see you ask to go look at it if you don't get more than a "2" or "2.5". It's a service I provide for humans and scientists so they don't get to see you bothering them with all the asking to go look at silly stuffs. Cher, you got some serious mental conditions, somebody has to look out for all the humans and scientists that don't want to be distracted by all your blahs and stuffs.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2016
Poor dumber-than-a-bot Uncle Ira. :)
Hey, look at my feedback page!
Nobody is able to read that. I got the karma thingy bot set so nobody gets to see your stuffs unless they set it all the way down to under "2".
You're confusing the above ratings against the username, with the feedback page of that username. Two different things.
Non Cher, you are the one confused. They can not see you ask to go look at it if you don't get more than a "2" or "2.5". It's a service I provide for humans and scientists so they don't get to see you bothering them with all the asking to go look at silly stuffs. Cher, you got some serious mental conditions, somebody has to look out for all the humans and scientists that don't want to be distracted by all your blahs and stuffs.
If they know the name "RealityCheck", they can substitute that in url line of feedback page for any other name already called up. Try it. Call up your page, substitute my username for yours. :)
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 27, 2016
Blah, Blah, Blah, even though you heard him all before, another GREAT BIG BLAH.


Skippy, you are still confused. You ask everybody to go look at your page. That is all well and all good. But if they can not see you asking, because your karma is running low, then they won't know you want them to go look. Cher, for a genius you are remarkable stupid sometimes.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 27, 2016
Poor Uncle Ira.
Skippy, you are still confused. You ask everybody to go look at your page. That is all well and all good. But if they can not see you asking, because your karma is running low, then they won't know you want them to go look. Cher, for a genius you are remarkable stupid sometimes.
The people who matter already know my username. Which is why they find it curious that posters refer to me in their posts but my posts do not appear in the thread. The intelligent ones will question how this can be, since mainstream discoveries/articles etc are increasingly confirming me correct all along on many fronts. It must gall you that people can get around your insensible and anti-science tactic of bot-voting-'1'-irrespective in order to skew the metrics on the science site and try to 'hide' my correct-all-along posts. You 'poor' moron, attempting to skew the metrics on science site, and proud of it! Saddest case of 'Internet Troll Disease'; definitely worth a 'study'.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
@rc the PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL
past/present/continuing correctness
got this far and stopped
1- no evidence means you still... *still* ...can't prove anything!
thanks for demonstrating that (again) and validating my claim

2- you didn't list the 4 fatal flaws, nor did you list the additional 4 flaws

the rest?
TL;DR

therefore

reported for trolling/spam
You're confusing the above ratings against the username
no, he isn't

so long as you're so low rated, then the default placement of /3/ on the slider is set to the reader. therefore you never show up on the thread at all. period.

just because you see it doesn't mean everyone else does... it's computers
you should know that one, super-jeenyus
LMFAO

buh bye
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

Poor CapS. Still not reading ("TL;DR") yet pretends to be 'informed' while in denial of the evolving reality that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct on the science all along on many fronts. Poor CapS, can't face reality; so continues to play sidekick to his bot-voting buddy Ira; and both crapping all over PO's floors and throwing their feces at passersby who just laugh (and then cry) at their tragi-comic anti-science antics skewing the metrics on a science site. Poor irrelevant malignant ignorant internet saps. Sad.
RNP
5 / 5 (5) Sep 28, 2016
@RealityCheck
.......the evolving reality that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct on the science all along on many fronts.


Only in your own crazed imagination.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
If you knew anything about geophysics and hydrology etc etc in any large mineral bodied planet, you'd knw what I was referring to is known science and probable situation
I know there's not enough water on the moon for an ocean you dumbass.
FredJose
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2016
Water, water, everywhere in the universe, and not a shred of life to found anywhere. Except here......?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
Water, water, everywhere in the universe, and not a shred of life to found anywhere.

That comment was stupid when you posted it over in the other thread (and has been addressed there why it is stupid). What makes you think it's any more intelligent here?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 28, 2016
"I know there's not enough water on the moon for an ocean you dumbass."
------------------------------

Oh? Been there? How far down did you drill?

You know nothing. You read and assume.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
"I know there's not enough water on the moon for an ocean you dumbass."
------------------------------

Oh? Been there? How far down did you drill?

You know nothing. You read and assume.
George kamburoff the sicko psychopath enjoys baiting legitimate posters in his free time (which is always). But he thinks one has to travel to the moon to know if there is enough water there for an ocean.

George seems to enjoy exposing himself in public like many senile old men. I mean he does it so often, it must be on purpose right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
Water, water, everywhere in the universe, and not a shred of life to found anywhere.

That comment was stupid when you posted it over in the other thread (and has been addressed there why it is stupid). What makes you think it's any more intelligent here?
If there was life elsewhere freds god would have SAID so in the book he wrote duh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
.......the evolving reality that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct on the science all along on many fronts.


Only in your own crazed imagination.
You're in denial, mate. It's all over the place now; mainstream catching up with observations/insights I have been pointing out for years/decades now. Never mind, the reality is what it is, irrespective of what you believe. Good luck to you in your own efforts to objectively understand the universal physical reality around us. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)
If you knew anything about geophysics and hydrology etc etc in any large mineral bodied planet, you'd know what I was referring to is known science and probable situation
I know there's not enough water on the moon for an ocean you dumbass.
Not ON the Moon, IN the Moon; ie, buried water in various forms/states. But since you "know", Ghost, please link to the studies which have explicitly quantified the water (in all its forms/states/locations) within the Lunar mass? :)

PS: The point was about any 'liquid' water presence on Pluto due to tidal heating of any ice there. I explained that tidal heating is not possible in tidally locked systems; and merely used the tidally locked Moon as a similar example of why liguid water (of whatever extent/quantity/location etc) can NOT be due to tidal heating, because it too is tidally locked. Naturally you troll and make trivial posts and waste everyone's time. As usual. Do better with your life and intellect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
Hi there rc :))))
Ghost, please link to the studies which have explicitly quantified the water (in all its forms/states/locations) within the Lunar mass? :)
Please link to studies which are the source of your suppository suppositions that there is enough water on the moon for a subsurface ocean.

As always,

;)))))) giggle guffaw snicker
https://www.youtu...AIQG_CPI
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
.......the evolving reality that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct on the science all along on many fronts.


Only in your own crazed imagination.
You're in denial, mate. It's all over the place now;

Delusions of grandeur.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
.......the evolving reality that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct on the science all along on many fronts.
Only in your own crazed imagination.
You're in denial, mate. It's all over the place now;
Delusions of grandeur.
That's exactly what a denialist would say, wouldn't he, mate (like those who went into denial re my bicep2 'pointers'); especially if not up to date with the reality as it is, and not as your obsolescent beliefs would have it.

I have proved correct and you/Da Schneib et al incorrect more than once now. How many times does it take to give you pause to objectively consider the possibility you are in error and in denial of reality re me/what I have posted over the years for your/others' benefit (one may lead some to new insight, but it seems one cannot persuade some to think it through for themselves to update their 'understandings' of reality).

Take care, good luck, good thinking in future, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Forum. :)
Hi there rc :))))
Ghost, please link to the studies which have explicitly quantified the water (in all its forms/states/locations) within the Lunar mass? :)
Please link to studies which are the source of your suppository suppositions that there is enough water on the moon for a subsurface ocean.

As always,

;)))))) giggle guffaw snicker
https://www.youtu...AIQG_CPI
And there it is, folks, the sum total of Ghost's contribution to advancement of science and humanity discourse; namely: semantical/strawman irrelevances to waste people's time; and juvenile level "giggle guffaw and snicker" and links to Sesame Street video aimed at childlike minds like he is demonstrating now. How sad for science/humanity if that is his only 'contribution' to advancement of discourse in either.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
And there it is, folks, the sum total of Ghost's contribution to advancement of science and humanity discourse; namely: semantical/strawman irrelevances to waste people's time; and juvenile level "giggle guffaw and snicker"


His skewering points are higher than yours, so maybe more people think it is worth a snicker or two?

and links to Sesame Street video aimed at childlike minds like he is demonstrating now.


Yeah, I can see how you would take offense at that. I got the good links though that you will really like.

http://earthlingclub.com/

Cher, you really want to be making attention to things like Sesame Street and childlike minds? The creator of the Earthman Club with the Earthman Playhouse like you have?

volumetrication,
mRDloop Quantum Of Reality,
a relative Realised Direction medium,
DeRealisation Of mRDloops,

What kind of mind comes up with stuffs like that? A Penguin-Headed-Earthman, eh?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
His skewering points are higher than yours, so maybe more people think it is worth a snicker or two?
In your opinion? The opinion of an admitted ignoramus and bot-voting troll skewing the metrics on a science site? Yeah, that is an opinion other trolls and bot-voting ignoramuses would '5'. D'oh!
volumetrication,
mRDloop Quantum Of Reality,
a relative Realised Direction medium,
DeRealisation Of mRDloops,

What kind of mind comes up with stuffs like that?
Since you asked...

The same kind of mind that came up with:

photon
entanglement
superposition
collapse of wavefunction/decoherence
spooky action at a distance
plasmon
black hole
wormhole, and more recently...
spinterface (see: http://phys.org/n...ion.html ).

Get it yet? Novel isights/concepts/explanations make new terminology/words necessary to convey new understandings/perspectives in new context. Too novel a concept for you, Ira? :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
Too novel a concept for you, Ira? :)


Non Cher, not for me. I think they are really big fun. So you put them in the same group as all those words, eh? You are in the same class as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Weinberg, Thorne and Hawkins? Okayeei,,,, Well that shines the lamp on some of your mental conditions.

Tell the trut Cher. Don't you wish we never did find the Earthman's Playhouse in the neighborhood of the Penguin Heads? I can't figure out why you leave him up there on the interweb for all the couyons like me to have the big fun with.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. In case you ever "lose" (take him down in shame) your interweb place, do not worry none about that non. Little-Ira-Skippy made me a copy of the thing for my very own, so I could still have great big fun even if the interweb was broken or out of range. How you like me now Cher?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
So you put them in same group as all those words, eh? You are in same class as Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Weinberg, Thorne and Hawkins? Okayeei. Well that shines the lamp on some of your mental conditions.
No, on yours, mate.

Anyone speaking of new things/concepts may find existing lexicon/usage insufficient for purpose of explaining novel things/concepts in novel contexts.

That situation applies to anyone involved in novel research/invention/explanation situation. It's not 'the person', it's 'the exigencies of original invention/creative mind/situation'.

Here are more terms invented due to such exigency:
neutralino
graviton
gravitino
string/brane theory
loop quantum
axions
time travel
spacetime
holographic universe
singularity 'cloaked' in black holes
'naked' singularity
exotic dark matter
gravitational lensing
frame dragging
etc.

But wait!...let's not forget:

BOT-VOTING-IGNORAMUS-UNCLE-IRA

You're (in)famous now, mate!
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 29, 2016
Well that is nice list Cher. But you don't see the difference in all those words and your weird made up stuffs on the Playhouse?

All those words are used and being used by thousands of real scientists all over the world. In books and papers and classrooms. Your weird words are only being used by you all by your self. Not one of your "new necessary" words ever shows up anywhere except the Playhouse (and physorg when I am mocking you.)

BOT-VOTING-IGNORAMUS-UNCLE-IRA

You're (in)famous now, mate!


Choot, that ain't nothing. You still can not come up with good "new necessary" words. I was in-famous (and out-famous too) way longer than I have known you. Your insult names are really light weight compared to a lot I get. But I usually get them from peoples who are smarter or better at it than you are. The name calling at physorg is mostly pretty lame, except when the peoples doing it think they are really smart, then it can be fun.
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Cher, I got to run off to take care of a few things. I probably won't be but maybe I might be back to pick this up with you later. Probably tomorrow, eh?

Do better diligence and all that good stuffs Matey. ((.,,,)0()()))
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 29, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Well that is nice list Cher. But you don't see the difference in all those words and your weird made up stuffs on the Playhouse? All those words are used and being used by thousands of real scientists all over the world. In books and papers and classrooms. Your weird words are only being used by you all by your self. Not one of your "new necessary" words ever shows up anywhere except the Playhouse (and physorg when I am mocking you.)
The word you seek is "YET". All those words were invented due to said creative situation exigency, irrespective of who it was; but not immediately adopted; took time to be accepted into the lexicon.
and let's not forget:

BOT-VOTING-IGNORAMUS-UNCLE-IRA

You're (in)famous now, mate!
Your insult names are really light weight compared to a lot I get.
Just the exigencies of describing a newly discovered category of GENUS: IGNORAMUS; called "Bot-Voting-Ignoramus-Uncle-Ira". In a new class of your own there, Ira! :)
gkam
1 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2016
"Ira" admits to being a bot-voter. He said that is how he gives every one of my posts a one, . . . out of spite, . . like a tantrum.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
.......the evolving reality that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct on the science all along on many fronts.
Only in your own crazed imagination.
You're in denial, mate. It's all over the place now;
Delusions of grandeur.
That's exactly what a denialist would say, wouldn't he,

Anybody who doubts your unsubstantiated delirious statemenst is a "denialist".
Mate, you are food for psychiatrists.

When I tell you that you are completely nuts, it is not to insult you.
It is a futile attempt to make you see that you need to talk to somebody.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, you are defaulting to personal tactics/denial again. I have been polite and honest with you; and have already given examples where I've been correct and Da Schneib/you/others incorrect on the science. You even have the recent science news items which I have pointed out confirm many of my longstanding observations made over the years in other forums and here. I even reminded you of the bicep2 fiasco which you/others who are prejudiced against me believed and accepted without demure, but which I cautioned against and listed the category of flaws in the whole exercise. There are too many such instances over the years/recently for you to now deny you have been given sufficient to support my claims and at least give you pause to rethink. You are also not up to date with the astronomical/cosmological discovery/rethink happenig even as we speak; it is obvious because you demonstrate it, by your continuing obstinate denial/personal tactics. Not good, mate. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2016
It is called a diagnosis.
We are past the level of debate.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
It is called a diagnosis. We are past the level of debate.
Mate, seriously, you being in denial while defaulting to personal tactics and insults, was never "debate" level. For you to go "past level of debate" requires for you to first even "approach debate level" at all....which can only be accomplished by you when you finally update yourself in the relevant field and get past the level of denial, personal tactics and insults (now become your "drive-by echoing campaign" of said denial, personal tactics and insults). Not good 'advertisement' for the "Phys" in your username, Phys1. Good luck, mate. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2016
in denial while defaulting to personal tactics and insults

You have no case.
Yet you keep making these statements, claiming superiority.
You also call anyone who disagrees with you a denialist.
I am sorry to have to tell you that that comes across as delusional.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You have no case....You also call anyone who disagrees with you a denialist.
I am sorry to have to tell you that that comes across as delusional.
You wouldn't know, because you still in not up to date with what's going on in, and merely in denial of ongoing mainstream astronomy/cosmo discovery/rethinks, mate.

And as for me being 'delusional', you also in denial of the many times I have been correct and you/Da Schneib et al incorrect. You also were the ones 'believing' any old rubbish from bicep2, while I was the only one to caution you about believing it, and even categorized the flaws for you to check for yourselves. And now recent discoveries/experiments/thinking from mainstream about the plasmonic effects involved in two-slit/one-slit-and-groove phenomena/results. And huge quantities of Ordinary (previously 'dark') matter being found as I predicted. And so on...

Uninformed + Denial + Delusion + Insults now your forte, Phys1. Re-think-it, mate! :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You have no case....
How would you know,mate?:)

You're still in not up to date with what's going on, and merely in denial of ongoing mainstream astronomy/cosmo discovery/rethinks.

And as for me being 'delusional', you also in denial of the many times I have been correct and you/Da Schneib et al incorrect. You also were the ones 'believing' any old rubbish from bicep2, while I was the only one to caution you about believing it, and even categorized the flaws for you to check for yourselves. And now recent discoveries/experiments/thinking from mainstream about the plasmonic effects involved in two-slit/one-slit-and-groove phenomena/results. And huge quantities of Ordinary (previously 'dark') matter being found as I predicted. And so on...

Meanwhile, what do you contribute here lately, Phys1: Uninformed Subjectivity + Denial + Delusion + Insults (now your forte, Phys1). Re-think/uodate your own situation/behavior/knowledge base, mate! :)

Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2016
The Universe
The Whole Universe
& Nothing But The Universe

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
The Universe
The Whole Universe
& Nothing But The Universe
That's right; no gods or demons; no myths/mysteries about BB creation/beginnings; no unreal maths convolutions of space and the motional relativities within it that we label "time" (which should more correctly be termed "timing", not "time"...since "time" is not an extant 'thing in itself, but an abstraction by us humans when analyzing/graphing/modeling the motional relativities etc abstracted from the underlying Universal 3-D energy-space extent from which everything arises and reverts to in constant cycling between the fundamental level and higher emergent levels of physical process/features).

That's why I came up with that title for initial (not then complete ToE) explanatory papers. :)

Thanks, Ira. I trust you now understand better where I'm coming from as an atheist and scientist not beholden to or swayed by personal beliefs or preferences when observing the reality as it is. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2016
Yeah Cher, it was real scientifical sounding and all like that. Carry on with your really observing and stuffs.
Phys1
5 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2016
@RC
Where are the observations, not opinions, that support your case?
I have seen only opinions. Unfounded ones.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Yeah Cher, it was real scientifical sounding and all like that. Carry on with your really observing and stuffs.
Thanks anyway, mate; but permission from bot-voting ignoramuses (who never seem to learn) was never needed or sought, especially for my research as an independent, objective atheist and scientist gleaning consistent, comprehensive and correct physically real insight by observing the universal phenomena as it is. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Been there, done that, more than once, over many years, mate. You missing it because of not reading and/or ignoring/denying same is not my problem. I will publish complete reality-ToE after my reality-maths reworking is completed. I have no time to waste again on others' denials and tactics. Until then you do well to research all my posts here and other forums in the past, to get an idea of why I am being increasingly confirmed correct by recent mainstream discovery/rethinks on many fronts. I alluded to them before; not repeating them ad infinitum just because you/others in denial or ignored/missed it all because you fail to update yourself on all that has transpired from me and from recent relevant mainstream news.

PS: I will have to leave off posting for a while, to concentrate on my off-line work again after this break. Rather than repeating denials etc, use your time to update yourself on all relevant matter so when complete ToE is out you'll be ready. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Been there, done that, more than once, over many years, mate.

interesting that you actually think you have any credibility.
You missing it because of not reading and/or ignoring/denying same is not my problem.

Agreed. You have worse problems.
I will publish complete reality-ToE after my reality-maths reworking is completed.

If it it as well founded as your claims that DM is baryonic, then count me out.
I have no time to waste again on others' denials and tactics.

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, let's cut to the chase:

1) Do you deny that I taught Da Schneib/you/others KNOWN science/facts re Plasmoids in the Sun's processes?

2) Do you deny that I taught Da Schneib/you/others KNOWN science/facts re NON-Keplerian regimes/profiles re mass distributions/orbitals etc?

3) Do you deny that I was the one who cautioned against uncritical acceptance of Bicep2 'results/claims'; while antialias_physorg/other mainstream believers/parrots accepted it without demure and immediately used it to 'bash cranks' with it even though it was obviously fatally flawed 'work'?

4) Do you deny recent/increasing astronomical discoveries of HUGE/EXTENSIVE mass/distributions of ORDINARY (previously 'dark' but still not 'exotic') DM confirming my longstanding observations/predictions re such; and that rethinks re 'exotic DM hypothesis/interpretations' is going on NOW perforce of these new discoveries?

That's enough to demonstrate where "credibility" lay, mate. Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2016
1) Do you deny that I taught Da Schneib/you/others KNOWN science/facts re my mental conditions?
Yeah, you did that one.

2) Do you deny that I taught Da Schneib/you/others KNOWN science/facts re how to do your diligence while Blahing and Blahing?
Okayeei, you do that one too.

3) Do you deny that I was the one who cautioned against a lot of silly things with a lot of repeating Blahs?
What your point is Cher? Everybody tells you all the time you do that.

4) Do you deny recent/increasing astronomical discoveries of things I know not a thing about and get all confused and twisted because nobody understands my made-up words without maths or stuffs?
Why you wasting everybody's time with stuffs we been telling you all along?

That's enough to demonstrate where "credibility" lay, mate.
You demonstrate him so good you win a brand new shiny silly looking pointy cap to wear while you are prancing around your Playhouse with your Lab-Play scientist lab coat.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

And there it is, folks, right on cue; the Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus attempting to again 'skew' the ratings and 'bury' the discussion so his 'preferred Skippy's' can try to deny it ever happened and hope no-one noticed because it was rated '1' and buried under the crap shat on the PO floors by the bot-voting ignoramus Uncle Ira. Pitiable slob. Even more pitiable are the 'Uncle Ira preferred Skippys' who take advantage of and encourage such morons to hide their own anti-science/anti-humanity malice and ignorance. Let's see who the latter are, by noting who rates the bot-voting ignoramus a '5' for that latest crap on our PO floors. Wait for it.... :)

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

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