Image: Hubble explores the hidden dark side of NGC 24

Image: Hubble explores the hidden dark side of NGC 24
Credit: NASA/ESA

This shining disk of a spiral galaxy sits approximately 25 million light-years away from Earth in the constellation of Sculptor. Named NGC 24, the galaxy was discovered by British astronomer William Herschel in 1785, and measures some 40,000 light-years across.

This picture was taken using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's Advanced Camera for Surveys, known as ACS for short. It shows NGC 24 in detail, highlighting the blue bursts (young stars), dark lanes (), and red bubbles (hydrogen gas) of material peppered throughout the galaxy's . Numerous distant galaxies can also been seen hovering around NGC 24's perimeter.

However, there may be more to this picture than first meets the eye. Astronomers suspect that spiral galaxies like NGC 24 and the Milky Way are surrounded by, and contained within, extended haloes of . Dark matter is a mysterious substance that cannot be seen; instead, it reveals itself via its gravitational interactions with surrounding material. Its existence was originally proposed to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own, rotate unexpectedly fast, but it is thought to also play an essential role in a galaxy's formation and evolution. Most of NGC 24's mass—a whopping 80 percent—is thought to be held within such a dark halo.


Explore further

Hubble spots an irregular island in a sea of space

Provided by NASA
Citation: Image: Hubble explores the hidden dark side of NGC 24 (2016, October 3) retrieved 19 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-10-image-hubble-explores-hidden-dark.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.
29 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 03, 2016
"Its existence was originally proposed to explain why the outer parts of galaxies, including our own, rotate unexpectedly fast."

"Let's also mention here the law of low temperatures: when the temperature lowers below the boiling point of helium (4,226 ° K) the object by accelerating independently of the reduced gravitational effects, which can be seen with the Oort cloud, the object at the edge of galaxies and with the sudden speeding up of Voyager 1 and 2. "

Quote from "Ether or vacuum"
http://www.svemir...Universe

Oct 03, 2016
you can't even copy/paste from your own website. If you were to construct slightly coherent sentences, you might actually get a discussion started someday.
Are you trying to say low temperatures magically cause things to accelerate?

Oct 03, 2016
Good pic. Stupid analysis!

Oct 04, 2016
@691Boat

Superconductivity is a known fact. Copied article has passed scientific a review.

Oct 04, 2016
So you are claiming that superconductivity in outer space causes rotation?

Oct 04, 2016
So you are claiming that superconductivity in outer space causes rotation?

Acceleration, not the rotation "... the object by accelerating independently of the reduced gravitational effects ...".

Oct 05, 2016
Paper ID: I090102
Paper Title: Weitter Duckss's Theory of the Universe
Author*: Slavko Sedić

has been accepted for publication in IJSER, which will be published in IJSER Volume 7, Issue 9, September 2016 Edition.

Oct 05, 2016
Yeah, I looked at the IJSER website and that paper was not in last month's publication, unless I missed it. Have a link to the actual paper?

Oct 05, 2016
"...till October 9, 2016"
9th falls on a Sunday. Until then, on https://www.acade...Universe

Oct 05, 2016
it's just pure random babblings that follow no coherent train of thought. I couldn't finish it. I can't read a paper that requires me to re-read lines and paragraphs 3+ times to try and figure out what you are trying to say. Good luck with your publishing.

Oct 06, 2016
Sory. I did not give enough attention to the publication. You are right, the publication has not yet been done. Mail from 2.9.16.y.

Dear Author,
You have successfully completed the registration process.

We'll keep you posted with further updates regarding publication. (Volume 7, Issue 9, Sept. 2016)

Best Regards,
Editorial Assistant, IJSER
Off Phone: + 1-831-854-7284
Fax: + 1- (281) -754-4941

RNP
Oct 06, 2016
@ALL
I was curious to see what kind of astronomy papers this "peer reviewed" journal publishes (IJSER). I found that it has not published many in the last year or so, but I did find these:

Theory of Anything-Sankhya Philosophy, IJSER, Volume 6, Issue 12, December, 2015 (link http://www.ijser....phy.pdf)

ABSTRACT
"I am going to present a unify theory of anything, from which you can solve all the unsolved problems of universe. To understand Theory of Anything (TOA) first I will explain an old Hindu philosophy called Sankhya philosophy. Than from Sankhya Philosophy I'll try to explain all the unsolved problems of universe."

And:

"I DISCOVERED THE ORIGIN OF UNIVERSE", IJSER, Volume 7, Issue 8, August, 2016 (link http://www.ijser....RSE.pdf)

Now I understand why wduckss is try to get published in this particular journal.

RNP
Oct 06, 2016

Oct 06, 2016

Sorry, links should have been

http://www.ijser....ophy.pdf

Wow...I skimmed that paper and that...is seriously some higher kind of crazy.
I particular like the part at the end, and I quote:

9. References
wikipedia

That's it! ROFL

http://www.ijser....ERSE.pdf

That one is even better. It starts off with a self-contradiction in the very first sentence
BEFORE origin of universe, the entire space (universe) is having a minute particles (like
dust) that particles are smaller than compare to electrons and protons.

(Caps mine for emphasis).

Erm...yeah...words just fail me while skimming the rest.
(The images are particularly hilarious)

In general: any paper that uses words like 'evidently' and 'clearly' without any substantiation right off the bat is garbage.

Oh...and no way were any of these peer reviewed. Any reviewer would reject them instantly on form/wording/grammar alone. Never mind the content.

RNP
Oct 06, 2016
@antialias_physorg
......no way were any of these peer reviewed. Any reviewer would reject them instantly on form/wording/grammar alone.


I know! Amazing, isn't it? However I quote the journal home page:

"All the manuscripts submitted for publication are first peer reviewed to make sure they are original, relevant and readable."

And, papers are:

"critically reviewed before they are published. Papers, which must be written in English, should have sound grammar and proper terminologies."

Oct 06, 2016
I know! Amazing, isn't it?

Definitely.
I'm just now trying to figure out the mindset of someone writing papers like this. Clearly some effort went into the writing. Images were 'drawn' (or scribbled in the latter paper's case). Some formatting was done. So the people who did these must be at least (partially) functionally literate and able to use a computer.

I also don't think they were produced under the influence of drugs, since the time to put these together likely exceeded any kind of buzz (unless the people in question are under some kind of mind-altering 24/7 medication).

They are clinically insane. That's really the only way to describe it.

But I'm sure the likes of RC and the EU crowd on here will find a welcoming home with that 'journal'.

RNP
Oct 06, 2016
@antialias_physorg
Personally, I am trying to figure out why any self-respecting "scientist" would want to publish in a journal that publishes this kind of nonsense.

Oct 06, 2016
Personally, I am trying to figure out why any self-respecting "scientist" would want to publish in a journal that publishes this kind of nonsense.

Werl...we're talking about Mr. Duckss, here. The term "scientist" and him are pretty much mutually exclusive.
I'm sure he'd publish in Mad magazine if they'd let him. (But that one actually has editors who read the stuff that goes in.)


Oct 06, 2016
Sorry, links should have been
http://www.ijser....ophy.pdf

Those are some pretty amazing papers. Wow. I really liked the squiggly drawings on the origin of the universe. Pretty impressive stuff. hahaha!
I guess "published paper" just lost some of its oompf.

Oct 06, 2016
Hi antialias_physorg. :)
They are clinically insane. That's really the only way to describe it.

But I'm sure the likes of RC...
Why do you do this kind of juvenile and insensitive personal disparagement crap, mate? Have you no sense of humanity or compassion for those not as lucky as you were in birthparents/place/culture, education, health (mental and/or physical) and wealth and opportunity? Do you also go past the local disabled school and laugh at those less fortunate than you?

antialias_physorg, you are a terrible role model for young/impressionable would-be scientists. You're unjustifiably arrogant; insensible to your own faults/errancy (eg, you fell for Bicep2 crap and started 'bashing cranks' with it until I cautioned how flawed it was).

So have some sense, mate; stop dragging me into your stupidity; especially now mainstream increasingly confirming me correct all along. A true scientist doesn't take 'cheap shots' at those less fortunate. Do better, anti. :)

RNP
Oct 06, 2016
@691Boat
The "peer review" process in some of these open access journals is clearly not worthy of the name. The process in major peer reviewed journals is VASTLY more rigorous. Please do not confuse the two.

Oct 06, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me, thanks for asking.

I see what you write to Anti-Skippy. So I will apologize for having the big fun with your handicapped mental conditions and making the desperationing remarks about them.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The apology only counts if you have handicapped mental conditions, not if it is because you are on drugs making you write the weird stuffs you do.

But I still have to leave you on the "1" karma point botting thing. That's so other peoples won't be bothered with your handicapped mental conditions (or drugged writing stuffs if that is what it is.)

Oct 06, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me, thanks for asking.

I see what you write to Anti-Skippy. So I will apologize for having the big fun with your handicapped mental conditions and making the desperationing remarks about them.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The apology only counts if you have handicapped mental conditions, not if it is because you are on drugs making you write the weird stuffs you do.

But I still have to leave you on the "1" karma point botting thing. That's so other peoples won't be bothered with your handicapped mental conditions (or drugged writing stuffs if that is what it is.)
What a pity you haven't learned anything worth a damn to science or humanity. But that is not your fault, since you have demonstrated that you are even dumber than the off-the-shelf bot-voting program you installed and since tried to un-install but then found that you are too dumb to un-install it. Anyone dumber than a bot-program is to be pitied. :(

Oct 06, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@691Boat
The "peer review" process in some of these open access journals is clearly not worthy of the name. The process in major peer reviewed journals is VASTLY more rigorous. Please do not confuse the two.
Did you miss the various 'stings' which were perpetrated against the 'prestigious journals', mate? One involved a 'paper' which was computer generated to include scientific terminology, buzzwords and the like. It 'passed peer review' and was published in said 'prestigious journals'. There were other 'stings' which were successful in demonstrating that your 'faith' in mainstream-approved prestige/reputation was no guarantee of real proper science 'papers/publications'.

The lesson one should take away from all this?....One MUST remain objective/critical at all times/stages; IRRESPECTIVE OF SOURCE/REPUTATION etc; which latter should play NO part in the scientific methodology which everyone should apply scrupulously, independently and objectively ALWAYS. :)

Oct 06, 2016
@ How you are again Really-Skippy. I am still good, thanks. Yeah, I know how it is Cher. Maybe you will feel better if you do like your doctors say to do. Anyhoo, you go right ahead with your diligence you like do and don't worry about the the real scientists and real humans, I got them covered for you.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher (That's coonass for: "See you around my cheery Matey".)

Oct 06, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@ How you are again Really-Skippy. I am still good, thanks. Yeah, I know how it is Cher. Maybe you will feel better if you do like your doctors say to do. Anyhoo, you go right ahead with your diligence you like do and don't worry about the the real scientists and real humans, I got them covered for you.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher (That's coonass for: "See you around my cheery Matey".)
That dumber-than-a-bot-Uncle-Ira claims to "know" anything worth knowing, is even sadder than his demonstrable failure to understand anything worth understanding. When this bot-voting ignoramus and malignant internet bot-voting idiot stops demonstrating his idiocy for all to see here at PO, then maybe he will have some chance at learning. Until that happens, all he is capable of is shatting on PO's floors and slinging his crap at those who are less than amused by his bot-voting idiocy and malice on a science site. Pity him, folks; for he is too dumb to do better. :(

Oct 06, 2016
@ALL

ASSTROPHYSICS at it's best & having one of it's finer moments since the concoction of Black Hole Math.

Oct 07, 2016
I'm just now trying to figure out the mindset of someone writing papers like this
@AA_P
@RNP
@691Boat
@Ira
considering the wonderful papers you listed above, the "impact factor" of 3.8 .... take a few seconds to go to the home page and look at the following heading
Yearly Research Paper Publication Statistics 2015
look at the volume of submitted and rejected papers...

now think about that a moment

now realise that they actually published all that "wonderful" stuff yall posted above and rejected so much more

^*snicker*^

.

yeah, this site is right up rc's alley... !!!!

ROTFLMFAO


RNP
Oct 07, 2016
RealityCheck
One MUST remain objective/critical at all times/stages; IRRESPECTIVE OF SOURCE/REPUTATION etc;..


Sadly, by these criteria, your posts often fall short, most noticably for lack of evidence. E.g. You claim that you identified 4 "flaws" in the BICEP2 study, but you consistently refused to explain what they were. Instead, saying things like:

"Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves (leave ego and bias aside or you'll fail)."

I.e. No useful science, just unsubstantiated claims. So, why should we believe that you identified the real flaw, or indeed, ANY flaws at all? Given your refusal to describe them, applying the above criteria, most people would assume you probably didn't, and that you are just feeding your own ego and bias. If you want to be taken seriously in future, PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS.

Oct 07, 2016
Have you no sense of humanity or compassion for those not as lucky as you were in birthparents/place/culture, education, health (mental and/or physical) and wealth and opportunity?

Why should I have compassion for you now all of a sudden?

you are a terrible role model for young/impressionable would-be scientists.

Funnily the 'young/impressionable would-be scientists' whose master's theses I have had the pleasure to guide and grade have all disagreed on that. I'm gonna take their word over yours if it's all the same to you.

now mainstream increasingly confirming me correct all along.

Since you never actually *say* anything (just make some vague hand-wavy statements...as in the BICEP case) that's a pretty weak argument. That shotgun approach of always saying "ain't so" and hoping that one in a million times you're right is just so...yawn.

That's so other peoples won't be bothered with your handicapped mental conditions

Appreciated.

Oct 07, 2016
@ "Smart" critics
 
It would be good that critics demonstrate their knowledge and publication of something clever and shipping a link to check. This, what you write will not be published, most of pages it be deleted.

Oct 07, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, you must have read all my relevant posts at the time and since, didn't you? Or did you just extract one quote and assume the rest is as you surmised by your confirmation biased reading of limited information? If you had all the context, you would have noted that I categorized the flaws; and that I had no time to say more at that time and/or could not divulge more because of my complete ToE work makes it inadvisable to give too much away before full and complete publication.

In any case, did you also 'believe' the Bicep2 crap work/claims at the time? Did you take my caution and advice to heart and check it out properly for yourself before using it to 'bash cranks' with flawed 'science' from 'reputable mainstream' team/source?

I suggest you take my advice, then and now, and look to your own lacks; in both the science knowledge itself and the application of the science methodology; and leave out the insults and unreasonable double standards/demands. :)

Oct 07, 2016
Hi antialias_physorg. :)
Why should I have compassion for you now all of a sudden?
Not me,mate; I was speaking of all those many others who haven't been as fortunate as you/me in so many ways; and you taking pleasure in their misfortune.
Funnily the 'young/impressionable would-be scientists' whose master's theses I have had the pleasure to guide and grade have all disagreed on that.
I bet they were very "impressed" when you fell hook-line-and-sinker for that Bicep2 crap and encouraged them to believe/do like you and 'bash cranks' with flawed Bicep2 work/claims.
That shotgun approach of always saying "ain't so" and hoping that one in a million times you're right is just so...yawn.
You're in denial, anti. I refer to the MANY times I have been correct all along, even on the KNOWN science.

And your collusion with Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus skewing metrics on a Science site says it all about who has the...
mental conditions


Do MUCH better, antialias. :)

Oct 07, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.

And your collusion with Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus skewing metrics


He make his conclusions on his own Cher, not with me. I did not do anything but tell everybody about the "volumetricating" going on in your Playhouse.

You skewered your self all by your self. So quit telling lies cheery Matey. Do better diligence.

Oct 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
And your [antialias_physorg's] collusion with Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus skewing metrics on a Science site...
He make his conclusions on his own Cher, not with me. I did not do anything but tell everybody about the "volumetricating" going on in your Playhouse...
Right on cue again comes the bot-voting ignoramus to 'help' his "preferred Skippy's" bury the discussion in Uncle-Ira-crap all over PO's floors. How sad and desperate, not to mention anti-science/anti-humanity, must a 'Skippy' be, to have to depend on, and encourage, a bot-voting Uncle-Ira-ignoramus, to come to their 'aid'?

PS: Ira, have you looked up the meanings of "volume", "metric" and "volumetric" in dictionary/wiki yet? Obviously not; else you would have understood the logical, consistent English/Science Usage extension to "volumetrication" to describe the concept outlined in the relevant novel physical-reality-based ToE context. Yeah, I "skewered myself" by being CORRECT. :)

Oct 07, 2016
Do MUCH better, antialias.
ROTFLMFAO

sorry for the OT post, but i had to just laugh!

idiot-earthling-girl rc denigrates antialias_physorg and his guidance to others, asks for sympathy and makes yet another set of unfounded claims, adding to the still-as-of-yet-unresolved argument about her BICEP2 stupidity making this far above the 4000 verifiable posts with still no specific evidence of 4 fatal flaws, etc

all the while ignoring the fact that she's not only unpublished, but not a scientist!
(a self-published from a vanity press set of delusional ToE-jam rants about physics you don't understand is still considered "unpublished" - as in NO journal peer reviewed anything!)

BUT
she wants to tell an actual published scientist with a PhD and studies on Google Scholar that i've personally validated to "do much better"!

that's Irony
the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
-Merriam-Webster

Oct 07, 2016
funnier still!
Ira, have you looked up the meanings of "volume", "metric" and "volumetric" in dictionary/wiki yet?
why? you specifically used nonsense & non-words
see:
<4> Volumetrication Flaw
These Realisations occur because fundamental relativities are infinitesimally unsettled (evidence PI etc.). This inherent flaw in the VSmatrix/Space processes means that volumetrication of direction is incomplete.
http://proxy9747....lub.com/

note to others: the above uses a free proxy to insure that your personal information is protected from the idiocy of penguin head Sam of the earthling-club, owner and publisher of that crappy pseudoscience site with no peer review

*proper* use of the word is found here: http://infohost.n...tter.pdf

or in any actual dictionary - those things that use the codified set of rules WRT the language so as not to appear an uneducated idiot posting nonsense

Oct 07, 2016
And there it is again, folks; the sad CapS, right on cue; the sidekick to PO's resident bot-voting ignoramus Uncle Ira making his own contribution to the Uncle-Ira-shat crap heaping up on PO's floors. It must be galling/infuriating to these nitwits, to realize more and more, every passing day, that mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct all along on MANY fronts; while these trolling nitwits and their enablers/exploiters have been proved incorrect all along; even as they trolled, insulted and cried "crank!" at me while they dishonestly skew the metrics, despite they being wrong and me correct, even on the KNOWN science! Pity the sods, they are unfit to be any sort of objective scientist, let alone objectively understand anything worth understanding in science and humanity discourse. These poor slobs keep putting their big feet in their even bigger mouths while disparaging me. Listen to them SQUEALING now, folks! They haven't learned any lessons from Bicep2! Sad.

Oct 07, 2016
PS: Amazing, isn't it folks? The poor ignorant slob cannot even understand that English is a "living language" wherein usage/coining is an on-going process which allows it to encompass new meanings/usages as novel exigencies demand. He also doesn't know that the Science terminology/lexicon is replete with newly coined/repurposed/extensions etc, again, due to the exigencies of new concepts and explanatory narratives.

How can this poor slob, sidekick to the Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus 'function' at all? Both he and Uncle Ira demonstrate themselves to be insensible and ignorant and malicious to degrees which even the bot-voting program Uncle Ira is captive to cannot ever match.

Pity them, folks; they are too dumb to even realize how sad and creepy and just plain ignorant and malignant they are being on the net; and on a science site no less! Pitiable anti-science/anti-humanity trolls being exactly that, exhibiting 'industrial strength' insensibility and malice. Sad.

Oct 07, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Cher, you really don't have to get all prickly and het up. We're just fooling around with you. You keep writing stuffs like that, peoples are going to start thinking that there might be something to all that talk about your handicapped mental conditions.

Oct 07, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Cher, you really don't have to get all prickly and het up. We're just fooling around with you. You keep writing stuffs like that, peoples are going to start thinking that there might be something to all that talk about your handicapped mental conditions.
Not only still 'in denial', but also still 'projecting' again, hey Ira?

Mate, stop squealing like a stuck pig now that I am being increasingly proved correct all along and you and your anti-science/anti-humanity bot-voting and metric-skewing troll 'buddies in ignorance and malice' incorrect all along. Take it like a man, Ira; stop complaining just because you can't take it in return; especially when I have been correct all along and you and your unconscionable arrogant 'enablers/exploiters' being wrong all along.

Do better, Ira; and don't add "wimp" to all the other unsavory traits which your ignorant/malicious bot-voting and trolling antics have demonstrated all too well and often here at PO. Good luck. :)

Oct 08, 2016
blah "living language"blah illiterate bullsh*t
@bounced-checkTROLL
i understand that english is malleable, but technical & scientific lexicons tend to be fairly static for very specific reasons, AND changes are always explained or noted with evidenciary reasoning

please show me the 100 year old meaning of the word "volumetric", then find the (roughly first use) mid 19th century definition of it, and lets compare it to the current definition

you will find that, despite the massive changes in english, the meaning for the word has remained: "Relating to the measurement of volume"
https://en.oxford...lumetric

worse for you... by examining the context of your bullsh*t pseudoscience, any 3rd grader can honestly see where you should have stated "volumetric analysis", instead of making sh*t up without even being able to note a logical reason for the made-up BS (and not giving notation or definition)

clarity aint your strong suit

Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
Now you're doing error. If to the jury take away the power of giving rating they disappear and their purpose there. Their one and only value and power of the rating and be in a pack.
You need to understand and they must live.

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
........you would have noted that I categorized the flaws; and that I had no time to say more at that time and/or could not divulge more because of my complete ToE work makes it inadvisable to give too much away before full and complete publication.


So, your justification for not supporting your claim that you saw the "flaw(s)" in the BICEP2 results is another unsupported claim. Perhaps it would have been wiser never to have posted at all.

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

You are in denial; either that or you are blustering, trying to cover for the fact you didn't actually bother to look for the posts which would have informed you. Typical. Miss everything on purpose; then just deny it ever happened. Not a very good methodology for a supposed 'scientist' pretending to be objective and interested in the facts, mate. And how 'sciencey' is it to tacitly approve of the Uncle Ira and Captain Stumpy duo of bot-voting trolls skewing the metrics on a science site?

Face it, mainstream is now confirming I've been correct all along; on many fronts, not just bicep2 etc. That you miss it all, or deny it all, is irrelevant. As are your demands of me, while you miss the scientific insights observed for your/others benefit. But it seems that all you are interested in is personal feuds, attacking 'cranks' etc; while the whole evolving science discovery/understanding passes you by, due to your own failings. Do better, mate. Good luck. :)

Oct 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Face it, mainstream is now confirming I've been correct all along; on many fronts, not just bicep2 etc. That you miss it all, or deny it all, is irrelevant.

Delusions of grandeur.
Denial only works for so long, mate; then reality hits and you either face it like a man or just keep taking cheap shots even when you have been proven wrong and me right. For example, you and Da Schneib were wrong and me correct on many things, even on known science aspects. But did you ever admit it? No. Instead you keep pretending I'm a 'crank' so that you can ignore and deny. That is not a good sign, mate. It shows your bias is deeply entrenched. Your ego overrides your scientific objectivity. Not good. Do better. :)

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck

You are in denial; either that or you are blustering, trying to cover for the fact you didn't actually bother to look for the posts which would have informed you......


So inform me. You spend enough time writing your lengthy posts. Why not take a little of that time to put me right?

And how 'sciencey' is it to tacitly approve of the Uncle Ira and Captain Stumpy duo of bot-voting trolls skewing the metrics on a science site?......


Uncle Ira, Captain Stumpy and everyone else have the right to vote as they see fit.

Face it, mainstream is now confirming I've been correct all along; on many fronts, not just bicep2 etc.......


AGAIN (knowing that this is probably pointless), SHOW ME.

Oct 08, 2016
mainstream is now confirming I've been correct
@delusional-checkTROLL
no it hasnt
more to the point, you can't be specific about what "mainstream" is confirming either
hell, any time you're asked for evidence you simply say some bullsh*t crank go-to response about how you don't want your crap plagiarized (then why the earthling page ??LMFAO)
you understand as much about science as you do about plagiarism laws: absolutely nothing
Denial only works for so long
well, you've been using it for decades... so it has a shelf life of at least that long

LMFAO

:-P

more specifically: it's usually a good sign that you're a crank (or nutcase) when all the sane people around you tell you that you're wrong but you claim you're the only one who understand, or can "see", or can know, or can...you get the drift?

(no) but anyone else reading will....

you leave all the evidence anyone needs to prove delusions of grandeur and D-K for you

:-)

Oct 08, 2016
@691Boat
The "peer review" process in some of these open access journals is clearly not worthy of the name. The process in major peer reviewed journals is VASTLY more rigorous. Please do not confuse the two.

Yeah, right! This from the Astrophysical Journal;

http://hubblesite.../pdf.pdf

Note the objects in question are "blobs". And their location of origin flip-flops...
The AJP is as legit as wduckss' publisher. A publisher of astrophysicists fanciful thought experiments, devoid of any real science.

Oct 08, 2016
When they produced this article, they forgot to include other pertinent images;

https://www.googl..._AUIBigB

Oct 08, 2016
I was speaking of all those many others who haven't been as fortunate as you/me in so many ways;

You were speaking of people with bad mental health. The only people in that category I would ever make fun of is people like you - your handicap is yourself.
(I've worked with mentally and physically handicapped people before during my civil service years - and they are all vastly more worthwhile humans than you are).

And your collusion with Uncle Ira bot-voting ignoramus skewing metrics

Delusional, much? (OK, forget that. Rethorical question).
If I were to collude with Ira, don't you think I downvote you, too? I extremely rarely downvote anyone on this site (maybe one post per week or so) - and never someone while I'm actively conversing with.

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@cantdrive
@691Boat
The "peer review" process in some of these open access journals is clearly not worthy of the name. The process in major peer reviewed journals is VASTLY more rigorous. Please do not confuse the two.

Yeah, right! This from the Astrophysical Journal;

http://hubblesite.../pdf.pdf

Note the objects in question are "blobs". And their location of origin flip-flops...
The AJP is as legit as wduckss' publisher. A publisher of astrophysicists fanciful thought experiments, devoid of any real science.


Are you suggesting that just because the paper you linked uses the words "blobs" and "flip-flop" it is just as unscientific as the papers that are linked above?
Did you not look at those papers? Anybody that has so much as glanced at them will recognize such a claim to be patently false. (By the way it is ApJ not AJP).


Oct 08, 2016
Are you suggesting that just because the paper you linked uses the words "blobs" and "flip-flop" it is just as unscientific as the papers that are linked above?

Yes, maybe you'd like to explain the sciency terminology which is "blob".

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@cantdrive.
Are you suggesting that just because the paper you linked uses the words "blobs" and "flip-flop" it is just as unscientific as the papers that are linked above?

Yes, maybe you'd like to explain the sciency terminology which is "blob".


Oh, for pity's sake! READ THE PAPER IT IS DESCRIBED THERE!

Oct 08, 2016
I did, it's described as a "blob of plasma"....
Oh so sciency!

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@cantdrive
Odd! I can not find the phrase "blob of plasma", or indeed even just "plasma", in either the paper or the article above. Can we please at least stay in contact with reality long enough to discuss the same material? Or, perhaps you would prefer to just continue inventing things?

Oct 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

And there it is again, mate; you insult and deny and ignore and are too lazy to catch up with the latest discovery; all in order to keep justifying to yourself that your behavior is that of a 'scientist'. It isn't, mate. The way you bring in personal animosity is worse than those cranks, because 'scientist' should be know better than to make it about the person/source rather than the science. I had hopes for you becoming a real objective scientist, Phys1. Too bad. Do better, mate. :)

Oct 08, 2016
I did, it's described as a "blob of plasma"....
@cantread
for starters, oh illiterate one, there are also specific references in said utilisation (one such reference is: Kahane 1996 )

Did you actually read *any* referenced study they noted?

secondly:
is there a rule against using clear, concise descriptive adjectives in science?

i can bet you $100 dollars right now that i can pull more scientific studies where the word "blob" or even "glob" is used (About 12,900 results - and even some from electrical engineers - LOL)

... but considering you don't actually read (any) studies and don't know WTF you're talking about, then that isn't surprising at all, really. they don't write studies so that children can understand them. they write them so that they're clear, concise and technical for their peers and other educated readers

heck, you still argue the whole EDM cratering of the moon despite observation - proving you're a fanatical acolyte of a cu

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Been there; done that; too often; but every time it only wasted my time because the trolls who ask that only continue denying it all regardless. No more time to waste on that any more.

Anyway, it's the principle of the thing. If one is really interested to know the facts they should be prepared to use their own time to find same. :)

It's something I have noticed, that many of those who purport to be defending mainstream orthodoxy aren't fully apprised of that orthodoxy themselves, because they haven't bothered to keep apprized of what's been going on in the relevant fields!

And yet they always sound so "certain" while they accuse me of lying and being ignorant etc etc....until I have had to tell them where they have been wrong and uninformed.

It happened with Da Schneib/Phys1 re plasmoids in sun and with non-Keplerian mass-distribution/orbital profiles. It happened with antialias-physorg et al re bicep2. But have they learned lessons from it all? Seems not. :(

Oct 08, 2016
It happened with antialias-physorg et al re bicep2
no, it didn't
you have YET to be able to produce any actual evidence that you were correct about BICEP2

making a vague statement is one thing... had you only stated it was "wrong" then you could claim some kind of accuracy (rule of psychics, cranks, idiots and those who predict the future: keep it vague enough to be able to allow people to assume it applies to any given situation. see: bible, Nostradamus)

however you made a specific claim of 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws (Proven - and that is verifiable by reading your comments starting here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html - but continuing everywhere)

you have not actually read the papers nor pointed out what those flaws are (proven)

you've not been able to produce evidence of those 4 fatal flaws in more than 5000 posts (proven)

therefore we can objectively prove you're a liar, with evidence

Oct 08, 2016
Hi antialias. :)

Mate, how can you so fool yourself like that? Making fun of ANYONE with mental health issues is WRONG, no matter how you rationalize your inhumanity and just plain unscientific egomania to yourself while you do it.

And your collusion with Uncle Ira bot-voting idiot is both tacit and overt. TACIT because you exploit, benefit from, and fail to denounce, his bot-voting on a SCIENCE SITE where CORRECTNESS on the Science/Logic/Humanity should be the voting basis used, not 'personal malice' on the part of the voter. OVERT because you 'converse' with,m encourage, thank him etc, for his trolling! Even in this thread you replied "Appreciated" to his trolling comment.

And you still haven't replied about how "impressed" were those...
'young/impressionable would-be scientists' whose master's theses I have had the pleasure to guide and grade
...when you fell hook-line-and-sinker for bicep2 crap and gleefully 'bashed cranks' with flawed 'science'. In denial. :)

Oct 08, 2016
@cantdrive
Odd! I can not find the phrase "blob of plasma", or indeed even just "plasma", in either the paper or the article above. Can we please at least stay in contact with reality long enough to discuss the same material? Or, perhaps you would prefer to just continue inventing things?

Oh how quickly the mentally challenged can lose track of the conversation. Or is it obfuscation? Reread the thread, clearly the question you posed and the answer I responded with was in regards to the paper I posted a link. Now you have changed the subject to defend your lazy response.

Oct 08, 2016
I posted a link.
cantreadTROLL
1- the link in no way, shape or form mentions the specific phrase "blob of plasma" or even the word "plasma" - any idiot can use CTRL+F and search for that exact phrase and find RNP's post to be factually accurate

2- you still can't read. perhaps you should check out the word "blob" on google scholar, you idiot

3- making a claim that is both factually inaccurate and intentionally stupid, all the while claiming that you're correct because [insert claim here] is the crackpot tactic du jour

4- you win the red flag of the month http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

5- your crackpot index already burnt out one calculator: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Oct 08, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

Are you still spluttering and denying like your mates are? Pity you learned no lessons in humility or science from the bicep2 and other instances where I was right and you all were wrong. Why keep denying it? It's futile, mate. Everyone here knows by now that all you 'Uncle Ira's "preferred smart Skippy's" fell hook-line-and-sinker for that bicep2 crap 'science' just because it came from a "reputable mainstream team/source". You were all proved DEFICIENT in objectivity and humility in that and many other instances. Instead of denying, blustering and squealing like stuck pigs every time you are reminded I was right all along and you wrong, just face it like a man and admit to error and learn from your mistakes. This kind of repetitive denial, insults, bot-voting and whining at me about it won't help you get credibility on the science or the humanity. Stop being an insulting creep on the net, and actually learn what is correct on the science and the humanity. :)

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@cantdrive
It was the link that you posted ( http://hubblesite.../pdf.pdf ), and the article above describing it, that I searched. So, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
Hi CapS. :)

Are you still spluttering and denying like your mates are? Pity you learned no lessons in humility or science from the bicep2 and other instances where I was right and you all were wrong. Why keep denying it? It's futile, mate. Everyone here knows by now that all you 'Uncle Ira's "preferred smart Skippy's" fell hook-line-and-sinker for that bicep2 crap 'science' just because it came from a "reputable mainstream team/source". You were all proved DEFICIENT in objectivity and humility.......


YET MORE abuse and ridiculous unsupported claims. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

When you finally (I hope) lose your bias and actually inform yourself properly of all the background/context involved, you might realize that I am merely defending against unprovoked and scurrilous attacks. The defense is straightforward: I remind the attackers who was right all along and who was wrong all along. And any insults in my defense posts hardly compare to what has issued from the creeps who attack me while denying and lying and presenting only half-truths as if they were the full story. Face it, RNP, the trolls have influenced your own mind, and made you susceptible to the same anti-science/anti-humanity 'disease' they suffer from; as demonstrated by their continued attacks though I have been correct and they incorrect in science and on humanity aspects. It's all there in the post record, here and elsewhere. Those who witnessed it all and are objective know the background. You've been 'captured' by bot-voting malignant types skewing it all. Too bad. :(

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
When you finally (I hope) lose your bias and actually inform yourself properly of all the background/context involved, you might realize that I am merely defending against unprovoked and scurrilous attacks. The defense is straightforward: I remind the attackers who was right all along and who was wrong all along.


The "attacks" that you complain about are made because you constantly claim to be " right all along", but you have NEVER given anybody a good reason to believe you. SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE.

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Read, mate. I explained already many times. It does no good. They just keep denying, half-truthing etc as a 'pack'; and bot-vote '1' so innocent readers may miss it all. Which you have apparently done; else you would have all the facts by now, from long ago to the present, here and elsewhere.

Recent few:

Bicep2 fiasco: Who fell hook-line-and-sinker for that crap? Hint: It wasn't me. :)

Plasmoids in Sun: Who was wrong about that? Hint: It wasn't me. :)

Non-Keplerian mass-distribution and orbital profiles: Who was wrong about that? Hint: It wasn't me. :)

I have mentioned that and many other instances where I have been correct and the attackers wrong. It's all on the post record.

But have my attackers learned from their mistakes? Hint: They still deny and attack hoping it and I will all go away. Which is why they bot-vote '1' even when I am correct!

They hope people like YOU are lazy/gullible enough to fall for their skewing. Beware the creeps, RNP. :)

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
I am going to give up here!!!!! No matter how many times you make these unsupported claims, nobody is going to believe you. Indeed, the more times you make the same excuses for not actually SHOWING an understanding of the science under discussion, the more ridiculous you look.

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Are you under the impression I am interested in your 'beliefs' about anything in the reality? If so, you are mistaken, mate. The reality is what it is, whether you are informed of it or believe it...or not. I withdrew from detailed lengthy discourse on the net some time ago to concentrate on my off-line ToE compilation work. I only come in to read here and keep myself abreast of what's transpiring; and once in a while may comment in a thread with an interesting topic/news/discussion....but only as time permits. I have no time now to rehash for the umpteenth time all the background just for your 'belief' status. It's immaterial to me now. I will publish complete ToE. That will tell. And as for my understanding of the science under discussion, well, bicep2/many other instances showed who did understand science and who did not. Just denying and pretending those instances 'never happened' is no way to go if credibility on the science understandings is the issue. :)

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
Hi RNP. :)

Are you under the impression I am interested in your 'beliefs' about anything in the reality? If so, you are mistaken, mate. The reality is what it is, whether you are informed of it or believe it...or not. I withdrew from detailed lengthy discourse on the net some time ago to concentrate on my off-line ToE compilation work. I only come in to read here and keep myself abreast of what's transpiring; and once in a while may comment in a thread with an interesting topic/news/discussion....but only as time permits. I have no time now to rehash for the umpteenth time all the background just for your 'belief' status. It's immaterial to me now. I will publish complete ToE. That will tell.


BALDERDASH!!!!

Oct 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Please also read my responses to RNP above. Note: I've been there; done that: long ago and often: here and elsewhere. The time came for me to eschew detailed discussion and concentrate on finalizing my reality-maths for my complete ToE work/publishing efforts. And 'presentation form' is not the determining factor of whether one is correct on 'science reality' or not. Neither is 'source or reputation' etc. Anyone really interested and objective and intelligent enough will sort through the chaff to find the gems. Bot-voting to skew the metrics on a cience discussion site is anti-science. I have tried to get participants to concentrate on the science and be polite instead of feuding/attacking posters even when they are correct. The damage from the bot-voting gangs is done. Anyone who has been damaged by those unscrupulous trolls who lie and deny and attack even when a poster is correct, is already damaged. I only hope they are not permanently so. Good luck. :)

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

That's the attitude Da Schneib and others took when I was explaining something to them they did not know. Amazing how common is that 'certainty' in those who assume they are right even when wrong and uninformed and not up to date with the facts. All too human. But not a good trait to have if one is purporting to be an objective intellect/reader/observer/discourser, mate. They came a cropper. Their uncritical belief in Bicep2 claims was merely the most OBVIOUS demonstration of where they were failing science. Their own fault; I tried to inform them. They wouldn't listen. Attacked the messenger instead. Bot-voting and denial is all that they have now. Oh, and responses like "Balderdash!!!" of course. Never mind, mate. You'll wise up someday (I trust). Meanwhile, drop your 'certainty' while being uniformed of all the facts. Don't fall for the bot-voting creeps' false coin, RNP. Else you'll only have yourself to blame, mate! Good luck. :)

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
No actual support for your claims then? Why am I not surprised?

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP, Phys1, everyone. :)

For anyone who is still blissfully unaware how they are being manipulated by unscrupulous characters gaming the metrics, here is something you should read again and again for the next few days to make sure all the naivete' has been fully dispelled in you. :)

http://www.nature...201a.pdf

The same unscrupulous gaming is going on here with PO's ratings metric. Anyone who believes that Uncle Ira, Captain Stumpy, tooty, lite and all their exploiters/colluders are just 'harmless and funny' for trolling and bot-voting to skew the ratings metric to bury/hide their targeted posters comments is kidding themselves. These are anti-science and malignant influences on the minds of those not aware enough that such manipulation is going on and damaging their own attitudes and objectivity and access/knowledge of all the facts on all 'sides' of an issue or point under discussion.

Good luck. :)

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
No actual support for your claims then? Why am I not surprised?
You're not the only one "not surprised", mate. You are naive and trusting the wrong influences. Did you read my post above about such wrong influences? Go to it. Then drop all your 'certainty' despite you being so naive and uniformed about me and what I have already posted here and elsewhere that has been correct all along.

Here is that link again:

http://www.nature...201a.pdf

Happy reading/wising-up, mate. :)

RNP
Oct 08, 2016
@RealityCheck
Still no actual support for your inflated claims? Then I see no sense in continuing this conversation any longer.

Bye Bye.

Oct 08, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

You said that before, mate. You just don't want to inform yourself. Not my problem.

You haven't even acknowledged my last post linking an article you should read for your own benefit. Now that is just plain laziness (or fear of learning/acknowledging just how naive, manipulated and uninformed you have been in all this).

Too bad. No wonder the mainstream is full of hacks and frauds even worse than the cranks they ridicule even when the 'crank' is right and they wrong. Denial and false coin is more valued than science and objective method for informing oneself. You are headed for a fall, RNP; and it will be because you didn't listen either, just like all those who demonstrated the same traits during that bicep2 fiasco.

Anyway, good luck; and no hard feelings this end, mate. Bye Bye. :)

Oct 08, 2016
No wonder the mainstream is full of hacks and frauds even worse than the cranks they ridicule even when the 'crank' is right and they wrong.
ROTFLMFAO

if you could prove this with evidence you wouldn't be posting to a personal page, attempting to get attention on a pop-sci news aggregate or self-publishing in a vanity press...

LMFAO

You are headed for a fall, rc; and it will be because you didn't listen either, just like all those who demonstrated the same traits posting pseudoscience to a science site without evidence for their claims.
:-)
:-P

Oct 08, 2016
Making fun of ANYONE with mental health issues is WRONG

If you read my post: I only make fun of one type of person with mental health problems: you (and your like, like cantdrive, Zeph, wuckdss, et. al)
If you think that's wrong then. Meh. Couldn't care less what you think. You don't matter in this world. You don't contribute knowledge or original thought. You lie and bluster and all you produce is: nothing.
In the words of that one song: "That don't impress me much".

and fail to denounce, his bot-voting

Denounce? I applaude it. Why should I denonunce it? He takes his time to perform a public service (keeping you off the radar of people who peruse this site). Whatever could be wrong with that? If i weren't such a lazy bastard I'd join in. But I see he's achieving the goal without my aid just fine.

Oct 08, 2016
when you fell hook-line-and-sinker for bicep2 crap


a) That was after my time as an advisor (as I have noted many times - I currently do not work as a scientist. Though I get to go to the most high level conference in my field in two weeks time. Awesome)

and

b) It would have changed nothing, since my expertise and their work is not in astrophysics

The thing you don't understand: I didn't really mind that the study was shown to have problems. I found it exciting when they presented their results and I found it exciting when others presented counter-evidence. That's the most awesome display of how science works: Debate, argument, and evidence.
For me it's win-win either way becaue the one important thing is: knowledge is being generated. Science isn't an ego-trip.

Oct 08, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

So, cautioning you to check the bicep2 claims for yourselves before continuing bashing cranks with what I saw immediately was flawed work, is now me 'trying to get attention' instead of me 'trying to warn you of possible error'? Only a CapS could skew it so badly.

Since, as the saying goes "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery", then I'm flattered that you plagiarized that comment I made to RNP. As usual you skewed it; in denial of the obvious fact that it applied most clearly to yourself as well as your other buddies during that bicep2 fiasco.

Poor thing. No original thought or good contribution. Only malice and plagiarism. As usual. Poor CapS. Sad. :(

Oct 08, 2016
Hi antialias_physorg. :)

Mate, you are channeling Trump now! He too makes horribly stupid remarks and then just doubles down on same when taken to task. Get it through that ego of yours, mate: There is NO justification for ridiculing ANYONE with mental health issues. PERIOD. That you quibble, equivocate and rationalize about that is WRONG. PERIOD. Drop it, mate. :)

So you applaud bot-voting on a SCIENCE SITE....even when the target is CORRECT on the science. Is that metrics gaming part of your 'Personalized Scientific Method' which you inculcated in your 'students'? Quit that while you're behind, mate. And just read this article on 'gaming' the metrics by frauds and bounders:

http://www.nature...201a.pdf

Then hang your head in SHAME, mate

The WHEN doesn't change the fact YOU UNCRITICALLY 'believed' bicep2 crap and ignorantly/egotistically 'bashed cranks' with OBVIOUSLY FLAWED 'claims'. Learn humility. :)

Oct 09, 2016
is now me 'trying to get attention'
@delusional crankTROLL
yes, it is

and the evidence plainly points to this too...

the point isn't that you were "warning" anyone... it's that you couldn't then nor can you even now articulate any actual problems with the BICEP study (other than your false claims of "fatal flaws" perceived by you, and you alone)

you know that anyone with any logical or scientific background will immediately ask for evidence

given that you can't validate your claims, nor can you currently find evidence

then logically it's a matter of you making claims for the sake of attention because you're such an abject failure everywhere in life

for more about your demonstrated neurosis, see the following 2 links:
http://www.yourli...artid=65

http://outofthefo...mization

RNP
Oct 09, 2016
@RealityCheck
The abstract from the BICEP2 paper says:
"However, these models are not sufficiently constrained by external public data to exclude the possibility of dust emission bright enough to explain the entire excess signal."

Was this the "flaw" that YOU ALONE spotted? If yes, then you can hardly claim it as your own, since the authors flagged the possibility IN THE ABSTRACT of the paper. If not, then whatever flaws you "found" were clearly not relevant as this was actually shown to be the source of the problem.

Also, as antialias_physorg points out above, in fact, this is a wonderful example of how REAL science works. One person/team makes a (appropriately qualified) claim, supported by evidence, other people then critique, and attempt to reproduce the result (which they can do as the paper provided all the relevant information). If the claim does not stand up to this scrutiny, as it did not in this case, then the claim is rejected, as in this case. There was no "fiasco".

RNP
Oct 09, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
Two very interesting and, I think, pertinent ,links. Thank you.

Oct 09, 2016
There is NO justification for ridiculing ANYONE with mental health issues. PERIOD.
So you're admitting to having mental health issues? Finally we're getting somewhere.

So you applaud bot-voting on a SCIENCE SITE

The way I see it he isn't bot voting. He is using the voting system the way it's intended: Flagging qualitatively good and qualitatively bad posts so that others can choose to have a higher quality level experience by using the filter. Your posts are just universally bad (I know you don't see it that way, but trust me: everyone else does)

and ignorantly/egotistically 'bashed cranks' with OBVIOUSLY FLAWED 'claims'.
I bash cranks who couldn't - and still can't - back up their claims. That's standard behavior. I have no respect for people who produce nothing but hot air.
(if you haven't figured it out by now: that means you. Heck, I'd take Trump over you any day. And he's currently occupying a position on my "top 10 least respected people" list)

Oct 09, 2016
I bash cranks who couldn't - and still can't - back up their claims. That's standard behavior. I have no respect for people who produce nothing but hot air.
........while you exclude yourself and the rest of the foulmouthed brigade who live here with you, from the criteria you set for others.


Oct 09, 2016
while you exclude yourself and the rest of the foulmouthed brigade who live here with you, from the criteria you set for others.

Funnily you will find that I can invariably back up my claims with actual fcats, numbersm, math and/or references.

But I know: facts/math ain't your strength so it's pretty understandable that wouldn't know the difference.

Oct 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
RC now demands humility from his readers.
A bit like a medieval Pope or Louis XIV.
RC, something ain't right.
No, mate. It's THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD demands HUMILITY. I only urged antialias_physorg and all who claim to any 'scientific' objectivity to first learn humility, else their 'objectivity' will be insidiously compromised (as yours and antialias's was when your bias ego led you to uncritically 'believed' the Bicep2 claims and 'bash cranks' with 'work' which to any truly humble objective observer was immediately obvious as to its fatal flaws.

It amazes me how intelligent intellects with such education and opportunities, will nevertheless rather attack and insult me rather than take my reminder to heart.

Phys1, please do yourself a favor: Learn Humility, not only for the Scientific Method's sake, but for Humanity's sake as well. And for the sake of your character and intellect and contribution to Science itself in the future. Good luck, mate. :)

Oct 09, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

The flaws were immediately obvious to any truly objective observer. I saw them immediately. The 'team' went for MONTHS still standing by their obviously flawed claims. It took the determined critiques of objective observers to bring them and the mainstream kicking and screaming to admit it in the end. Meanwhile they tried to bluff their way through to some sort of face-saving 'mainstream managed' damage-control PR 'story' about "science method in action" etc etc which you and antialias are parroting now to also save face.

Face it, if the "science method" was followed it would never have got to the stage of the claims. It would have been immediately obvious to any objective 'team member' that it was multiply flawed and that motivations were 'personal' not 'scientific': fame, fortune and Nobel and 'beating their rivals' (Planck) etc.

THE POINT WAS: antialias_physorg et al were TAKEN IN UNCRITICALLY; whereas I WAS NOT....because I was objective and they not. Ok? :)

Oct 09, 2016
Hi antialias_physorg. :)

The fact you still 'don't get' that there is no excuse for ridiculing anyone with mental health issues, no matter who it is, is in itself a sure sign of mental illness or sociopathic insensibility or overweening ego (or all three).

Will you ever become aware enough of your own human foibles to be able to finally face them and overcome them for the good of science, humanity and your own character and intellect's sake? That is the question, antialias. I hope so. :)

And Uncle Ira bot-voting idiot has ADMITTED he votes according to PERSONAL 'Karma' points considerations based on his own ignorance and malice, not science/logic correctness. The fact you still rationalizing such anti-science/anti-humanity trolling/skewing/burying tactics on a SCIENCE site is OBVIOUSLY indicative of EGO and MALICE in your own motives. It certainly NOT indicative of the humility, objectivity and fairness in mind/character of a truly 'scientific' intellect/method. Learn, it.

Oct 09, 2016
PS: @ antialias, @RNP, @Phys1, @everyone). :)

Links and references are not enough (especially if they are flawed like Bicep2 was).

For ATHEISTS (like me), who are also a scientific researcher/observer, HUMILITY, OBJECTIVITY, CRITICAL THINKING and FAIR, POLITE DISCOURSE is also important. Sometimes critically so.

I as an ATHEIST listen to ALL SIDES of an issue, irrespective of person/source presenting same. That is what a true SCIENTIST, especially if they are ATHEIST as well, should strive to do at all times, no matter one's ego or personal interests.

If one is not humble, objective etc as Scientific Method and Atheistic Philosophy encourages, then one only adds to problems faced by both science and humanity. If you are truly atheistic and scientific in aspiration and in fact, then you must learn humility, objectivity and fairness irrespective of personal considerations; especially now our civilization is trying to extricate itself from age-old ignorance and barbarity. :)

RNP
Oct 09, 2016
@RealityCheck

The flaws were immediately obvious to any truly objective observer. I saw them immediately.


So you say, but nobody reading your posts believes it because you have never presented any evidence to support the claim.

The 'team' went for MONTHS still standing by their obviously flawed claims. It took the determined critiques of objective observers to bring them and the mainstream kicking and screaming to admit it in the end.


This is clearly misinformation. I refer you AGAIN to the abstract where they had already recognized the possible "flaw" in their analysis.

....face it, if the "science method" was followed it would never have got to the stage of the claims. It would have been immediately obvious to any objective 'team member'


You clearly do not understand the "science method".

Oct 09, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Before anything else, have you read the article I linked to for dispelling your naivete' re the 'gaming' of metrics etc by frauds and scoundrels NOT actually being true to the ideals of the scientific method/process and 'system'? Yes? No? Here it is again....

http://www.nature...201a.pdf

If Yes, did it have any salutary effect on your thinking/assumptions/beliefs etc about what may be legitimate/good science references/citations and what may be fraudulent manipulation of the system? Yes? No?

When you've answered and we have settled that issue, we can continue with the Bicep2 issue. :)


RNP
Oct 09, 2016
@RealityCheck
So still no scientific input.

Bye Bye.

Oct 09, 2016
Hi RNP, Phys1. :)

@ RNP. :)
@RealityCheck
So still no scientific input.

Bye Bye.
Your denial and biased avoidance of issues that show your own failures against the scientific method objectivity and process is telling. See to it asap, mate. Bye Bye. :)

@Phys1. :)
Hi Phys1. :)
RC now demands humility from his readers.
A bit like a medieval Pope or Louis XIV.
RC, something ain't right.
No, mate. It's THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD demands HUMILITY. I only urged antialias_physorg and all who claim to any 'scientific' objectivity to first learn humility,

The scientific method demands no such thing.
No wonder your ego rules your intellect. Ask around, especially of the most serious and objective atheist scientists you can find. They will set you straight about that. Good luck, mate. :)

Oct 09, 2016
Hi Phyys1. :)
RC

If there is one person on this blog, among all the cranks, that shows no humility, it is you.
Your sermons are unbearable and your pretense immeasurable.
You make Muhammed Ali look humble.
That is the opinion of the one who brings in personal and insulting tactics while encouraging and approving anti-science/anti-humanity tactics of bot-voting and discussion trolling by those who claim to be objective and scientific but fall for obviously flawed 'work/claims' (bicep2 instance most telling).

Mate, you don't understand that the scientific method requires absence of ego, personal interests and biased self-serving opinions and insults and rationalizing of the reality. So how can you possibly be in any position to judge one who does?...ie, me. :)

Have you asked a true atheist scientist yet about humility? It is automatically invoked/required by dint of scientific method objectivity: ie, self/ego removal from the observation/analysis/conclusion process. :)

Oct 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

How many times have I offered the olive branch; urged everyone to be objective , polite, eschew personal animosity/trolling/insults etc?

Only to have you et al, who SHOULD BE better, continue egotism/personal attacks EVEN WHEN I HAVE BEEN CORRECT in science/behavior!

Phys1, you are displaying serious levels of denial, projecting etc. You continue to do/say anything in order to avoid self analysis which may show you are the one at fault, not me.

I have been correct, increasingly confirmed so by mainstream discovery/rethinks of late.

Whereas you/others have continued on your merry way encouraging bot-voting, insults and other anti-science/anti-humanity tactics/disgraces against all that true atheist scientists stand for and wish to promulgate to everyone aspiring to that profession/calling.

Phys1 et al, isn't it time to stop giving ammunition to those detractors much less generous than I, who will use that ammunition against you? Rethink it all, mate. :)

Oct 10, 2016
t there is no excuse for ridiculing anyone with mental health issues

And I ask again.: Do you have mental health issues?
If so: I apologize and we all know why you're posting the crap you're posting.
If not: Then by YOUR OWN definition I'm not making fun of anyone with mental conditions so there's no need for me to change.

indicative of EGO and MALICE in your own motives.

I think you overvalue what you mean to me (or any of us), here. You're a buffoon. And the only reason we indulge you sometimes is because it's fun to do so and watch you freak out. Love or hate are things I reserve for people who actually matter to me. You really, really don't.

As for the word humility: I don't think it means what you think it means. I think you have that one confused with narcissism.
And no: you're not even close to a scientific mindset - and here I speak from experience of knowing many scientists. You most definitely don't qualify in any way, shape or form

Oct 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Do you have mental health issues?
Have you no sense at all, mate? Why didn't you drop this while you had the chance? The point was that you are on record as being insensitively prepared to ridicule ANYONE who may have been less fortunate than you regarding birth/culture/education/health/life-opportunities etc. Now you fantasize about me even more so you can 'justify' whatever your malicious mind fabricates about me while denying your own 'conditions'? Leave it. Learn empathy, compassion, as well as scientific objectivity.
Love or hate are things I reserve for people who actually matter to me.
Pathological Malice is insensible to finer feelings. Describes you et al to a "tee".
humility
The Scientific Method automatically adjures removal of self/ego from the process. Be humble/polite when 'doing science'.
you're not even close to a scientific mindset - and here I speak from experience of knowing many scientists.
You knew bicep2 team? :)

Oct 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

It's all over the thread(s), mate. You're in denial, Phys1. See to that 'condition' asap. :)

And as for scientific mindset: I try to be objective and polite despite ceaseless provocations from insensible pretenders to 'scientific mindset' who are nevertheless prepared to applaud/exploit anti-science/anti-humanity bot-voting and metrics-skewing and malicious personal attacks and trolls because their ego and self-interest is more important to them than scientific method objectivity/humility.

The irony is, these same anti-science/anti-humanity types keep fooling themselves they have 'scientific mindset'. Yet WHO were the ones who uncritically believed, accepted without demure, all the crap bicep2 claims? And WHO were the ones who preferred to keep attacking the messenger rather than actually checking the bicep2 'work/claims' OBJECTIVELY for THEMSELVES as I urged them to because of the obvious flaws I and other objective observers saw immediately?

Do/Be better. :)

Oct 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Are you kidding? Your bias/in-denial conditions must be deeply entrenched for you not to see it for yourself all over the thread(s); which are ruined by bot-voting, ridiculing, even when posters are correct on science/behavior.

They even make fun of non-English speakers; and posters who may not be scientists but are trying to express what's on their minds about the universe around them; some may be impressionable youngsters; some may have personal difficulties; some may have been unfortunately inculcated with religious/superstitious/ignorant propaganda etc; some may be suffering mental health issues....etc.

It takes all kinds to make a world. Yet some here are insensitive to the damage they may be doing, to others/to the reputation of science/scientists/scientific method, by making personal attacks on obviously 'soft targets', just because they can and it's "funs".

That is insensible ego games; against all proper ethics of science/humanity.

Do/Be better. :)

Oct 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, I expect bias, denial, self-serving beliefs in religious/ignora types, but it is shocking to see it on one whose username is "Phys1".

There are none so blind as those who will not see for themselves; even when it has been brought to their attention. Just like in the bicep2 case; where those who should know/be better, preferred to attack the messenger rather than actually see for themselves the flaws in the bicep2 'work'claims' which objective physicists saw immediately.

That you still use denial/time-wasting 'demands' to be shown what you should have seen already because it was all under your nose (just as in bicep2 case), is a terrible 'hit' on your own fitness to even use "Phys" in your username.

You, antialias_physorg et al, don't seem to understand that your continued 'playing dumb' on matters which are obvious to anyone with objective reading/comprehension faculties, merely ends up in you 'being seen as dumb' and/or dishonest and/or in denial. :(

Oct 10, 2016
PS: Phys1 et al.

In a friendly spirit from a fellow atheist and scientist, I suggest you stop digging while there remains some tolerance and generosity in the readers watching this particular exchange. Leave it, mateys. :)

Oct 10, 2016
I suggest you stop digging while there remains some tolerance and generosity in the readers watching this particular exchange. Leave it, mateys. :)


Stop it? Are you kidding or what? It's a genetic trait he inherited from grandpa Fritz Zwicky who was so wacked out that he deservedly earned the nickname "zany Zwicky" from the science community of his time.

This Asstrophysicist would scream profanities in science symposiums if the lecturer dare challenge his Tired Light & Dark Matter theories. Zany Zwicky was well known for charging to the podium & getting right into the face of a person delivering the lecture, all the while screaming obscenities at the person. Phys1 is simply carrying on this zany family tradition prompted by the genes he inherited........in other words "he can't help it".

Oct 11, 2016
Hi Benni. :)

If they are now willing to 'leave it', then you should also, mate. It's only good sportsmanship to reciprocate in a 'truce'. Ok? :)

PS: As for Zwicky and his 'tired light': The cosmos is now known to be full to the brim with all sorts of plasmic/charged dusts, gases, processes; all of which is constantly attenuating radiation at all wavelengths; so he wasn't far off the mark. And as for his ORDINARY then-undetectable 'stuff', well we now also find that all over the place wherever we look with new scopes which can detect it now; so he wasn't wrong about that either. Given all that, I ask again, Benni: please stop slagging off Zwicky; he may have been a little eccentric, but he was more right than most of his contemporaries who ridiculed him and his hypotheses (and it may have been the ignoring and ridicule from his wrong 'peers' which may have frustrated him into the reactions which you describe). So again, please stop slagging him off, mate. Thanks. :)

Oct 11, 2016
Either this is a science blog, where you can call a spade a spade, or is it psychiatric day care (Hi Benni how are we feeling today?.


The "spherical bastards" tag that Zwicky labeled so many real scientists of his time, is in reality a reflection on himself & the outlandish theories he promoted so ardently, just like the type of zany slop & swill "optical" posts for which you should be giving him 5 Stars because you both believe the same zany stuff, you just don't like "optical" stealing the Zwicky family tradition of "how zany can I be today". Say hello to Barb & Christian.

Oct 11, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me, I had a busy couple of days but I am now back to my relaxed as usual self, thanks for asking.

Cher, can you answer the question for me? It won't take long. I really want to know if you have the handicapped mental conditions. If you do I don't want to have the big fun with you because that would be wrong. But if you don't then I think it will be okay because that means you are just a regular crankpot.

So are you handicapped with mental conditions? Or are just a regular crankpot without the mental conditions?

Oct 11, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

See? I offer the olive branch and get insult and continued ego games in return.

And surely, mate, you must be self-aware enough to see the almost palpable irony, not to mention the pathos, in an obviously mentally disturbed bot-voting troll skewing the metrics and burying under his crap even the most correct/interesting OP discussions/threads asking someone whether they are the ones with the 'mental conditions'?

And it's no less ironical/pathetic to see those who enable/encourage/exploit such pitiable unfortunates also ask that question of others.

Mate, what does it take? I am correct in science/behavior; yet you keep resorting to, and encouraging/applauding, personal prejudice and ego-games which go against all the best ethics of our atheistic science method and our atheistic scientists' ideals.

Do/Be better, mate. Despite all, still no hard feeling this end, mate. Good luck. :)

Oct 11, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? I am still good, nothing changed since a couple of hours ago.

So when you say your mental is disturbed by the skewering you get, does that mean you have the actual real handicap or does it just mean you don't like being skewered by somebody like me?

Oct 11, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
...nothing changed since a couple of hours ago.
Yes, we can all see that, Ira. You are still a pitiable, obviously mentally disturbed, internet irrelevance who has a compulsion to be a bot-voting troll skewing the metrics and crapping all over the discussions/floors of PO.

Not a 'good' condition for anyone to be in, mate; you should try to make changes that will improve your 'situation'. Try to learn from your 'condition' even if you obviously can't rid yourself of it. Good luck. :)

PS: Do you even know what the term "offering the olive branch" signifies in human affairs? Look it up. :)

Oct 11, 2016
Not a 'good' condition for anyone to be in, mate; you should try to make changes that will improve your 'situation'.
My situation is fine. No problems there non,.

Do you even know what the term "offering the olive branch" signifies in human affairs?
I thought I did. But usually things mean something different to everybody else than they do to you. The way you say it, I'm thinking that you think it means: "Admit I was right about everything, and start showing me the respect I deserve as the world's greatest Earthman and quit making the fun with me." Is that what you think it means?


Oct 11, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Not a 'good' condition for anyone to be in, mate; you should try to make changes that will improve your 'situation'.
My situation is fine. No problems there non,.
A patently mentally disturbed bot-voting ignoramus does 'self-diagnosis' and concludes his condition is just "fine, no problems".

Do all the inmates of your 'institution' do 'self-diagnosis' and all come up with the diagnosis of "fine, no problems"? Or are some more honest than others despite their 'mental conditions'?

Do you even know what the term "offering the olive branch" signifies in human affairs?
I thought I did.
Your 'mental condition' compelling you to be a bot-voting ignoramus on a science site strongly indicates you do not 'think' at all, but just 'act' like you are acting now. Pitiable. :(

Oct 11, 2016
@ Really Skippy. Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher. Life is not so bad as all that. You should try to enjoy it more.

Anyhoo, let's move on to the science and stuffs.

How is the book about your Toes & Everything coming along? I hope you haven't give up on him. I don't know about the humans and scientists feel about it (actually I think I have a pretty good idea what they are thinking about it) but I am really looking forward to reading him.

Will the Amazon have one for sell? Or will you only be able to get him at the Earthman Playhouse like the other book you wrote? Maybe you should only sell him at the Playhouse because Amazon lets you give karma points like here on the phyorg and that has not worked out to good for you, eh?

Oct 11, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Life is not so bad as all that. You should try to enjoy it more.
I can do more than just enjoy life; I also enjoy doing science and humanity correctly and politely. :)

Whereas it seems all Ira 'enjoys' is being a bot-voting ignoramus shatting all over the PO discussions/floors while skewing the metrics on a science site; which is against not only the atheistic science ethics but also the atheistic humanity ethics.

Are you aware enough in your 'lucid' moments (if there are any) to see whose 'enjoyment' is more fulfilling and constructive to science and humanity, Ira?
Anyhoo, let's move on to the science and stuffs.
A bot-voting on a science site cannot hope to pretend to even know the meaning of the term, let alone practice its method.
I don't know about the humans and scientists feel about
Your bot-voting ignramus opinion as to what scientists/humans think about anything is totally irrelevant to both, Ira. You admitted that many times already. :)

Oct 11, 2016
Being a crankpot must hard if it makes you that tetchy all the time. Why you hate the humans and scientists so much, was they mean to you when you walked to school every morning? How often you ever have a good day?

Oct 11, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Being an insensible malicious bot-voting ignoramus and internet irrelevance to both science and humanity makes you automatically unfit to comment on either science or humanity in/from those who know the terms and practice the best ethics of both atheistic science and atheistic humanity, Ira.

I have good days every day because I look out the newest knowledge and consolidate it into a continuous knowledge base that is both objective and consistent in practice and insight potential.

Whereas you seem to have settled for just being an insensible malicious bot-voting ignoramus and internet irrelevance to both science and humanity.

That's why I would rather be me than you any (school) day, Ira. :)

Best of luck in your 'chosen profession' and 'self-made condition', as malignant internet bot-voter and troll, mate. :)

Oct 11, 2016
Yeah, we can all see how successful you are Cher.

Crankpot with the Earthman Playhouse?

Or towboat engineer with a real house?

Tuff choice,,, I think I will stick with what I got.

Oct 11, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Yeah, we can all see how successful you are Cher.

Crankpot with the Earthman Playhouse?

Or towboat engineer with a real house?

Tuff choice,,, I think I will stick with what I got.
Yes, you are really "successful" in being a malignant internet bot-voting insensible troll who happens to live in a house.

I prefer to be correct science/humanity contributor to both in whatever way it takes. Success in that is measured not in mercenary or material terms (but you insensible ignoramuses wouldn't know that), but rather in the final result which may not be fully known/appreciated until decades later, whether one had his own house (which I have) or great wealth (which I purposely eschew in preference to helping out my fellow humans in local community irrespective of who they are).

Go ahead, Ira; "stick with" what you got; since it's all you got, as a 'housed' malevolent bot-voting ignoramus irrelevance to both atheistic science and atheistic humanity. Pity.

Oct 12, 2016
I prefer to be correct science/humanity contributor to both in whatever way it takes
except you're not any of the following:
1- successful

2- scientific

3- contributing to discourse

4- contributing to science

5- contributing to humanity (or anything else, for that matter)

what you have contributed is:

1- proof of compulsory regurgitation of beliefs without evidence

2- validation of the diagnosis of : martyr victim complex - http://www.yourli...artid=65

3- spreading pseudoscience

4- trolling, flaming, baiting and refusing to produce evidence of your claims

5- using gish-gallop to distract from the fact that you're a liar and can't actually validate your claims

that isn't something to be proud of, penguin-head sam

at least IRA has been able to validate his claims, demonstrate knowledge and link/reference proof
that is orders of magnitude beyond what you've done

5000 posts and still not one shred of evidence, sammie

Oct 12, 2016
You'd think he'd have the sense to drop it too. Obviously not. But what can one expect from an in-denial, malignant, lying/half-truth peddling 'sidekick' to a bot-voting ignoramus? That's right, he is even more irrelevant and pitiable. He still doesn't know the meaning of the term "offering the olive branch". That's why he is the 'slow' sidekick to a bot-voting ignoramus irrelevance to atheistic science and atheistic humanity. Character and Comprehension poor sod can't see that the others are beginning to see the reality now, but his bias and in-denial state still blinds him to it as he spins his own fantasy versions of that reality. Let's all hope and trust that he wises up sooner than later, folks.

PS: Offering the olive branch again, CapS. :)

Oct 13, 2016
@nonrealityTROLL
Offering the olive branch again, CapS
so, you are willing to insult people and post blatant misinformation in a baiting attack, but because you end it by offering an olive branch you think i will simply let you be?

i will tell you the same thing i told you last time:
until you can actually substantiate your claims with evidence then forget it

you've yet to produce evidence to support your BICEP claims
... more than 5000 posts and you can't copy and paste the minimum of 4 fatal flaws?
it's because you're full of BS

more to the point - you continually mislead people with pseudoscience because you believe it while never substantiating your claims with any evidence at all

that aint science, that's religion

so again: if you start posting links, references and evidence for your claims, i will ignore you and i will not downrate you

until then, i will continue to point out you're BS because i despise pseudoscience and religion

Oct 13, 2016
Hi CapS. :)
..i despise pseudoscience and religion
So do I. That's why I am an independent objective polite atheistic scientist and atheistic human being. :)

Whereas you are 'sidekick' to a bot-voting ignoramus skewing metrics on a science site even when a person has been confirmed correct on science and humanity.

That makes a mockery of your claims to integrity of any sort. Which means no-one can trust you not to skew the reality with half-truths and outright lies.

It's your longstanding "TL;DR" modus operandi, and ego/malice, that has enabled your denials and biases, so you have only yourself to blame for being what you have become.

Nevertheless, no hard feelings this end. :)

When you finally come to your senses and accept my (standing) offer of the olive branch, we can forget it all and move on into the new era of discovery and reconciliation which has dawned between me and many others previously mistaken about me/my insights into the universal phenomena. :)

Oct 14, 2016
So do I
@reality-bouncedcheck
stopped there

in order to be considered "science" you must comply with the scientific method (simplified here: https://en.wikipe...cess.svg )

what you do NOT do:
make logical assumptions
make testable predictions
gather data
match data to predictions
have evidence
publish peer reviewed studies with evidence
get validated
conform to historical known laws of physics

what you do:
http://earthlingclub.com/

given the evidence, you are now posting a false claim about reality *and* your work
http://www.auburn...ion.html

therefore you're making a mockery of factual validated science, science in general and anyone who follows the scientific method in an attempt to get attention and play the victim

reported for trolling/baiting/flaming


Oct 14, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

Give over, mate. It's getting old for everyone now. The reality is on record, and no amount of your skewing/denial of that record is going to help now. I am being increasingly confirmed correct all along on many fronts by new mainstream observers/experimenters/re-interpreters who are not biased by, or beholden to, previous wrong hypotheses/assumptions/claims etc (which got past 'peer review' and 'reputable journals' even though the 'scientists/science' were compromised by glory/grant-money/passing grades etc imperatives, and now increasingly demonstrated to have been wrong while I had been right all along). Accept the olive branch offered, CapS; so we can all start afresh in a new spirit of discovery and reconciliation, for the sake of atheistic science and humanity if not for your own future wellbeing/understandings. Good luck in your choices, mate. No hard feelings this end still. Be well. :)

Oct 15, 2016
hi idiot f*ckwad troll :)
The reality is on record
you don't have anything actually "on" record except the earthlingclub pseudoscience and some vague hand-wavey non-science bullshit claims that can't be validated

period

reported for baiting, flaming, pseudoscience and trolling stupidity
Accept the olive branch offered, CapS
SURE

just as soon as you learn and then accept the scientific method
THEN
comply with it
AND
start using it

which means using actual validated research-able evidence based argument rather than pseudoscience hand-wavey bullsh*t argument from delusion like your earthlingcrap
http://phys.org/n...mes.html

until you do, your just another common D-K idiot seeking attention
http://www.yourli...artid=65

FOAD

Oct 15, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

You're exhibiting unhealthy disconnect with reality. The record is there; whatever a sidekick to bot-voting ignoramus skews/denies via a 'CapS's version' that doesn't intersect anywhere with the objective reality.

As for scientific method etc, that's what my complete reality-based ToE was built on/by. While you sadly troll/skew etc.

Pending complete publication, I offered occasional observation re known science, and a few of my own novel insights into the universal phenomena which recent mainstream observers/experimenters/re-interpreters increasingly confirming correct.

My comments/insights were offered for the benefit of those at PO with objective, polite minds/attitude. All who have denied/ignored/trolled me and my contributions, have usually come a cropper because they preferred to troll their ignorance/ego/malice at me/my posts rather than listen/learn something about the universal physical reality before my complete ToE is finally published.

Rethink. :)

Oct 15, 2016
@f*ckwad stupendously stupid troll :-)
that's what my complete reality-based ToE was built on/by
no, it isn't
more to the point, you have yet to produce anything other than earthling crap to support your claims
therefore at best you're making an untested claim
however, given your propensity for pseudoscience (on your earthlingcrap page) then it's a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

you claim observation re: known science, but you can't even back up that claim with factual known published data (case in point: BICEP - with 5K plus posts and still no 4 fatal flaws posted from THEIR paper)

You're exhibiting unhealthy disconnect with reality. The record is there;

you're a liar and you post pseudoscience

and so long as you do, i will point out your lies to the scientifically illiterate by showing them how to research facts over taking the word of a delusional troll

so "Rethink. :)" yourself

reported

and FOAD

Oct 15, 2016
post script to the idiot illiterate unreality moron
Hi CapS. :)
1- http://phys.org/n...mes.html

2- given that you seem to think getting the last post in is some kind of "win" and justifies your delusional state of mind, i am not going to continue to point out you are a liar in this thread, especially since i've produced evidence of your lies while you've only made claims

I will, however, report any post you make after this that isn't supported by fact and backed up by evidence and links/references supporting your conclusions

:-)

now back to your regularly scheduled martyr-victim complex display where you claim to be scientific & attempting to be unbiased / fair, despite your spewing of pseudoscience and unsubstantiated crap in an evidence based science conversation which directly violates the premise of actual scientific discourse
http://www.yourli...artid=65

FOAD :)

Oct 15, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Still no hard feelings this end, CS. My offer of the olive branch still stands. Good luck in your future choices, mate. Be well. :)

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