Theory redraws formation of early universe

October 11, 2016
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula. Like cracking open a watermelon and finding its seeds, the infrared telescope "busted open" this murky cloud to reveal star embryos tucked inside finger-like pillars of thick dust. Credit: NASA

Scientists have provided a solid foundation for an alternative theory to help explain how the early universe took shape.

This theory, first devised two decades ago, proposes that the dominant expansion in the early universe some 14 billion years ago, known as cosmological inflation, took place in a warm environment.

The idea differs from existing theories which state that this time of change took place during a cold period.

Physical model

A group of physicists, including Professor Arjun Berera from the University, who first devised the theory, has now created the first compelling physical model of events that took place at this point in time, based on fundamental physical principles.

This work contradicts prevailing beliefs in the field that if would be near impossible to devise a compelling model, based on first principles, for this theory.

Their idea takes into account a scientific process known as the Little Higgs mechanism, which stabilises the mass of known as Higgs bosons.

Their theory combines this mechanism with the concept that energy produced in the early universe allows for a continuous warm temperature.

Their idea showed very good agreement with satellite measurements of temperature fluctuations in the early universe.

Alternative theory

The latest research, published in Physical Review Letters, contradicts an alternative theory known as standard inflation theory, which suggests that early expansion of the universe took place in a cold phase. In that theory, as the universe took shape, the temperature plummeted before getting reheated again. Their paper was highlighted by the journal as an Editors' Suggestion, which recognises its important contribution to the field.

"We are pleased to have formed a theoretical model for this phase of the universe, which is based on first principles. This could be a valuable theory for improving our understanding of how the took shape," says Professor Arjun Berera of the School of Physics and Astronomy.

Explore further: The Big Bang might have been just a Big Bounce

More information: Mar Bastero-Gil et al. Warm Little Inflaton, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.151301

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

The stacked color sensor

November 16, 2017

Red-sensitive, blue-sensitive and green-sensitive color sensors stacked on top of each other instead of being lined up in a mosaic pattern – this principle could allow image sensors with unprecedented resolution and sensitivity ...

44 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2016
Think we got the message, John...
NoStrings
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2016
And what was Universe's impression of this theory? Most likely it was a reverberating Ha-Ha-Ha!!!
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2016
And what was Universe's impression of this theory? Most likely it was a reverberating Ha-Ha-Ha!!!

Sounds like you may have an alternative. Please expound...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2016
Good, they got rid of those first 4 comments...
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2016
Hi optical.:)

Well spotted, mate. You beat me to it. I wonder how many more of these 'ad hoc awkward fixes' for BB scenarios (all of which basically fail to actually reflect the observable/logical and Occams Razor reality) the BB promulgators are going to attempt before they finally realize they have been 'sold a pup' (look up the term) by generations of 'mathematician/theoretical cosmologists/physicists' who went overboard with metaphysics/fantasies instead of keeping their thinking grounded in consistent physical reality. Oh well, it has to happen sometime. Sooner rather than later would be good. Cheers, mate. :)
RNP
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 12, 2016
@optical
I see, the cosmologists finally realized, that the http://phys.org/n...ion.html and they're looking for evasion in well forgotten idea: the reionization did happen before inflation, not after it...


You made the same claim in the reionization thread yesterday and then stopped posting when it was shown to be false. So you thought you could get away with pedaling the same hockum on another thread did you? Not really an honest/scientific response is it? Your misinterpretation of the other article that you link provides further evidence that you care nothing for scientific veracity and are only interested in selling your delusional point of view.

@RealityCheck
You are agreeing with this obvious drivel?? Where is your much vaunted critical thinking and scientific objectivity?

optical
Oct 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2016
@optical
and then stopped posting when it was shown to be false
Was it really shown? By who? BTW https://www.techn...ogists/, Say Cosmologists


SO WHAT? The epoch of reionization lasts from z~12 to z~6. We have already detected bright sources out to z=11, so we already see some objects in the reionization epoch.
Your claim that the epoch can not be observed is therefore DEMONSTRABLY WRONG.
(As was your previous claim that it would be invisible because its recession velocity is greater than the speed of light.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2016
Hi RNP.:)
Where is your much vaunted critical thinking and scientific objectivity?
It's alive and well and functioning at top revs, mate. It's based on up to date info and insights which you are apparently missing. Where have you been last few years of astronomical discovery that universe is replete with plasmic/charged dust/gases/processes wherever we look with new scopes which detect things previous hypothesizers/interpreters didn't have the benefit of when making their simplistic models/expectations? I would have thought that you would have twigged when dust, locally/all the way to cosmic horizon, ruined all the pretty/simplistic assumptions/models for "primordial Grav-Waves signal" expectations. Now realize that charged/plasmic stuff/process is going on ALL the time, ALL OVER, along EVERY line of sight to observational horizon. So BB-hypothesized 'primordial' re-ionization 'era' is NOT 'there'; since ionization/relaxation going on all the time NOW all over. :)
Phys1
5 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2016
BTW https://www.techn...ogists/, Say Cosmologists

That links to a rather confused article.
optical
Oct 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
We have already detected bright sources out to z=11, so we already see some objects in the reionization epoch.


The reionization epoch is not about bright sources but bright background of diluted hydrogen between them. The distant bright sources would actually violate this cosmology instead.


This is nonsense. The reionization epoch exists because the first bright sources began to reionize the surrounding gas. So how can bright sources "violate this cosmology".

That links to a rather confused article


There are http://io9.gizmod...03361325


You do not understand. There is no contradiction between an infinite Universe and the epoch of reionization being visible.
optical
Oct 13, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
@optical
There is no contradiction between an infinite Universe and the epoch of reionization being visible
Nope, it actually excludes the visibility any history of Universe. It leads to flat homogeneous uniform Universe, as we are observing it by now.


Wrong again. Just the fact that a source is at a great distance from us means it has taken the light from it a long time to reach us. We are therefore seeing the object as it was a long time ago. With modern telescopes we can see to distances at least as far back in time as the epoch of reionization. So, how can you claim that "it actually excludes the visibility any history of Universe".

You really would be better spending your time learning real cosmology than spending it critisizing what you imagine it to be.
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2016
@RealityCheck
Where have you been last few years of astronomical discovery that universe is replete with plasmic/charged dust/gases/processes.......

.......So BB-hypothesized 'primordial' re-ionization 'era' is NOT 'there'; since ionization/relaxation going on all the time NOW all over. :)


How does one respond to such unrepentant, obfuscating nonsense?

It has been known almost since the invention of the word "astrophysics" that the universe is "replete with plasmic/charged dust/gases/processes". It is most certainly not a discovery of the "last few years". What in the name of all reason do you think they astrophysicists have been researching all this time? The recent discoveries to which you refer are REFINEMENTS to our understandings, they do NOT require major revisions.

The logic that leads you to the conclusion that the "re-ionization 'era' is NOT 'there'" is beyond laughable. You too should take my advise to optical and learn some real cosmology.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2016
Isn't it the case that most of the H (etc) is ionized which allows transparency?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Mimath224. :)
Isn't it the case that most of the H (etc) is ionized which allows transparency?
No. The plasmic /charged/ states/processes would mean that light scatter from electrons/protons/ions/dust etc would 'extinguish' distant 'signals' much fog extinguishes light signals from objects eneveloped in sufficient thickness of fog such that 'distinguishable features' visibility becomes 'nil'.

The BB 'timeline' for opaqueness/transparency is complicated, involving not only 'recombination' to neutral hydrogen etc, bu also 'expansion cooling' which supposedly 'rarefied' the hydrogen plasmic density sufficiently to allow long distance light signal travel.

The problem for all BB 'scenarios/explanations' is that our present universe is full of all sorts of plasmic/charged dust/gases/processes which along any line of sight effectively builds to a column of plasma/scattering density that attenuates most light 'signals' from distant sources.

Also see my post to RNP. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Hi RNP, please also see my post to Mimath224 above. Thanks. :)

Simplistic earlier assumption was that the plasmic/charged dust/gases/process were too tenuous to obstruct/attenuate much the distant light signals.

Such simplistic assumptions have been blown out of the water since they recently found they had GROSSLY UNDER-estimated line-of-site effective density of dust/gases/processes involved in scattering/attenuating all wavelengths from far distant sources.

I previously pointed out to IMP-9 that 'images' we 'see' of far distant sources are BUILT UP OVER TIME via ACCUMULATION of 'hits' by INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS; and NOT a 'clean and full' stream of photons of the brightness/density your eyes receive from your local street lamps.

So think about all that before again sounding so 'certain' that simplistic earlier interpretations/assumptions are still in any way valid. A 'bright source' at THAT extreme distance may be 'artifact' of data processing/smoothing/patterning etc. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Such simplistic assumptions have been blown out of the water since they recently found they had GROSSLY UNDER-estimated line-of-site effective density of dust/gases/processes involved in scattering/attenuating all wavelengths from far distant sources.

Source?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
Such simplistic assumptions have been blown out of the water since they recently found they had GROSSLY UNDER-estimated line-of-site effective density of dust/gases/processes involved in scattering/attenuating all wavelengths from far distant sources.
Source?
Why not read up/check for yourself, mate?

I post info/insights which have regard to many (some very recent) years of mainstream astronomical discoveries/rethinks/reassessments and estimates and studies etc etc which show a TREND in the ORDINARY mass-density of the universe at all scales. :)

Even a most recent study of comprehensive telescope observational data has agreed that much had been missed which now requires total recalibration of all previous simplistic/naive mainstream theories which didn't allow for the reality re ORDINARY MASS/PROCESSES at all scales.

Eg, http://phys.org/n...ght.html

Planck/Bicep3 should have given you a clue, Whyde. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are? I am doing pretty good, non complaints.

Such simplistic assumptions have been blown out of the water since they recently found they had GROSSLY UNDER-estimated line-of-site effective density of dust/gases/processes involved in scattering/attenuating all wavelengths from far distant sources.

Source?


Here, I can help with that source stuffs,,,,,, http://earthlingclub.com/

I think the part you want comes under the section on "Volumetrificating the Universal Energy-Time" or some such foolishment.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Have you read/understood yet this latest mainstream confirmation of my correctness on these particular scientific matters?

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

It adds to all the other recent confirmations by mainstream of my correctness in many other scientific matters as well.

Don't you just hate it when you are bot-voting based on your personal ignorance and prejudice/ego, while your victim turns out to be consistently correct? Silly Ira! :)

Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
How you are too Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Have you read/understood yet this latest mainstream confirmation of my correctness on these particular scientific matters?
What you haven't notice I am here reading everyday? I understand them good enough for what I have to do.

Don't you just hate it when you are bot-voting based on your personal ignorance and prejudice/ego,
Non, not particular I don't hate it. Why I should? I am not the one pretending to be the scientist.

while your victim turns out to be consistently correct?
Well that is a really good Really-Skippy theory you have there. Only one problem I can find with it but he is just a tiny little problem. You are the only person in the whole wide world who thinks you are consistently correct. Choot, you probably can't find more than one more person in the world who thinks you are even inconsistently correct.

Silly Ira!
You get mild with me in your elderly age.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
The problem for all BB 'scenarios/explanations' is that our present universe is full of all sorts of plasmic/charged dust/gases/processes which along any line of sight effectively builds to a column of plasma/scattering density that attenuates most light 'signals' from distant sources.

Is that "column" homogenously populated?
(Considering expansion and all...)
Item 2 - why are all your source references from Phys.org articles and not from any actual papers?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Have you read/understood yet this latest mainstream confirmation of my correctness on these particular scientific matters?:

http://phys.org/n...ght.html
What you haven't notice I am here reading everyday?
So, did you read/understand the above linked mainstream work confirms what I have been pointing out since even long before bicep2 etc?
...what I have to do.
You "have" to do? Are you an "obsessive compulsive" bot-voting ignoramus then? Oh, the humanity!
I am not the one pretending to be the scientist.
The above link; and my longstanding observations which have been confirmed correct, should have told you long ago that I wasn't pretending to be a scientist, Ira.
Well that is a really good Really-Skippy
Yes, it's better to be correct than to be you, Ira.
You get mild in your elderly age.
And you get more bot-like,insensible, ignorant, malignant. Not good, Ira. See to it, asap. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
I do have to wonder, tho...
If all this new matter (and the subsequent mass to go with it) is becoming visible, why is a change in DM/M ratio, not reflected in that data? or is it...?
(Oh, great... Now he's got ME doin' the "/" thing...)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
The above link; and my longstanding observations which have been confirmed correct, should have told you long ago that I wasn't pretending to be a scientist, Ira.


Like I said, until you get somebody, even one person who agrees that you have been confirmed correct, you are just the pretend scientist. What kind of real scientist has to have the Earthman Playhouse to play scientist in? You are the only who thinks you have confirmed correct. When you get one or two more to sign on to how correct you have been confirmed to be, I'll sit up and take notice.

Being the only person in the whole wide world who knows what it all "really" about is the definition of crankpot Cher. You don't even know to pretend to be a scientist very good, just look at the gobbledygook you write.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
(Oh, great... Now he's got ME doin' the "/" thing...)


That's alright, at least when you do it you are actually saying something that you want somebody to understand.

But to answer your question. Even all this new stuffs they are finding, is just a drop in the bucket of the missing masses. Not even enough to make up for 1% of what they are looking for.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Like I said, until you get somebody, even one person who agrees that you have been confirmed correct, you are just the pretend scientist.
Ira, it's enough that mainstream is doing so increasingly now. I don't need 'validation' from people/scientists not yet up to speed on the reality. :)

Ira, if you had been paying attention instead of bot-voting and skewing and trolling while it all passed you by, you would have understood my deliberately chosen STATUS as INDEPENDENT objective scientist; beholden to no group/organization/professional 'system' of review/acceptance etc which allowed such incorrect interpretations/beliefs to infest the scientific literature/understandings all these years.

Every era has/needs at least ONE observer/researcher totally immune to all the personal/professional imperatives, temptations and compromises etc. :)

Someone had to be this era; and it just so happened Probability/Necessity/Chance dictated that one such was me. Fate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Even all this new stuffs they are finding, is just a drop in the bucket of the missing masses. Not even enough to make up for 1% of what they are looking for.
So, you haven't actually read/understood the implications of the following mainstream update...

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

Until you actually do, your response to Whyde is that of a bot-voting ignoramus in denial and parroting discredited rationalizations which ignore the actual real objective science being discovered even as we speak. See to that asap, Ira. :)

Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2016
Every era has/needs at least ONE observer/researcher totally immune to all the personal/professional imperatives, temptations and compromises etc.


Yeah, and most eras have a lot more than ONE. Must be hard being a crankpot with all those types of real scientists around writing and teaching. With real laboratories and telescopes to use,,,,, instead of having to make do with physorg articles and the Earthman Playhouse.

Someone had to be this era; and it just so happened Probability/Necessity/Chance dictated that one such was me.
Okayeei, so you say you don't really have the handicapped mental conditions. Are you on drugs or something?

Fate. :)
If you say so. It still looks like mental conditions or drugs to me.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
So, you haven't actually read/understood the implications of the following mainstream update...

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


So I have. And understood them enough to know, now you got 10 times the galaxies that need 10 times the dark matter to explain how they are rotating so fast AND it was the dark matter lensing that made it possible to even see them. How's that for understanding?

Until you actually do, your response to Whyde is that of a bot-voting ignoramus in denial and parroting discredited rationalizations which ignore the actual real objective science being discovered even as we speak.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But I will let Whydening-Skippy decide whether he wants to put me on the ignore thing or not.

See to that asap, Ira. :)
You sure are slow on the observing things Cher. I just did that.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Every era has/needs at least ONE observer/researcher totally immune to all the personal/professional imperatives, ... etc
Yeah, and most eras have a lot more than ONE.
Yes, that's why I said "at least" ONE.
Must be hard being a crankpot with all those types of real scientists around writing and teaching.
You conveniently 'forget': UNTIL NOW they were WRONG about almost everything 'cosmological', while I was correct all along; as increasingly recently confirmed by new mainstream not so brain-washed/influenced by previously WRONG 'teachers'. :)
Someone had to be this era; and it just so happened Probability/Necessity/Chance dictated that one such was me.
Okayeei, so you say you don't really have the handicapped mental conditions.
Being correct all along is just being correct all along. So, if I have any 'mental condition', it is one which resulted in me being correct all along. Pity YOUR 'mental condition' is so 'unfortunate', Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
while I was correct all along
It takes more than you saying that over and over to make it so.

Being correct all along is just being correct all along.
But you have not been correct all along. That is only in your head. To everybody else in the whole world you are a crankpot.

So, if I have any 'mental condition', it is one which resulted in me being correct all along.
Now we are getting somewhere. It's all in your head, it is not correct in the real world.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
So, you haven't actually read/understood...

http://phys.org/n...ght.html
So I have. And understood them enough to know, now you got 10 times the galaxies that need 10 times the dark matter to explain how they are rotating so fast AND it was the dark matter lensing that made it possible to even see them. How's that for understanding?
Faulty 'understanding', Ira. Can't you see that such additional mass means the 'need' for 'dark' EXOTIC additional mass is obviated immediately? Not only for the mass estimates re NUMBER of galaxies; but also because recent discoveries that actual EXTENT of galactic mass go well beyond the usual disc, and far into deep space surrounding all galactic/cluster/supercluster regions/processes. So, if you multiply NUMBER of galaxies you automatically amplify the mass extents they indicate.

Update/Redo your 'understandings', Ira. Stop being bot-voting ignoramus,mate. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2016
Update/Redo your 'understandings', Ira.
My understandings are right up-to-date Cher. It is your misunderstandings that are causing you so much trouble with peoples having the fun with you.

Stop being bot-voting ignoramus,mate. :)
Non, can't do that Cher. It's a service I provide for the humans and scientists who don't have the sense of humor like me and don't want to read your stuffs.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. When you going to work up some new materials? Maybe the reason the humans and scientists don't like to read your stuffs is because you have been repeating the same couple of gobbledygooks over and over and over for years now (and still have not found even one person who thinks you are onto something.)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Update/Redo your 'understandings'
My understandings are right up-to-date
...and all wrong. :)

Never mind, as long as you are happy being so wrong, Ira. I mean, why should you bother trying to objectively understand the reality around you, when it's so "funs" to be a bot-voting ignoramus on a science site and being so proud/boasting of it, hey! :)
Stop being bot-voting ignoramus,mate. :)
Non, can't do that Cher.
Yes, you already admitted it is a compulsion you suffer from. Get better soon, mate. :)
Maybe the reason the humans and scientists don't like to read your stuffs is because you have been repeating the same couple of gobbledygooks over and over and over for years now (and still have not found even one person who thinks you are onto something.)
My correctness all along demonstrates (just as in bicep 2 instance) that those same "humans and scientists" you mentioned come a cropper when they ignore me/my cautions/insights etc. :)
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2016
Non, can't do that Cher


Yes, you already admitted it is a compulsion you suffer from. Get better soon, mate. :)


Maybe the reason the humans and scientists don't like to read your stuffs is because you have been repeating the same couple of gobbledygooks over and over and over for years now (and still have not found even one person who thinks you are onto something.)
........but at least RC directs his repeated posts onto topics of science, whereas you constantly repeat the same couple of gobbledygooks over and over and over for years & still have found only Stumpy thinks your onto something. And by the way, you're on my Ignore, I just picked this up from RC's post. Science is not for purpose of entertainment, which is how you falsely imagine your gobbledygooks content functions.

Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
.......but at least RC directs his repeated posts onto topics of science
Glad you think so Skippy. It would really make me worry if you agreed with me. Now why you don't go volumetricate your self before you get hurt.

And by the way, you're on my Ignore, I just picked this up from RC's post.
Telling me that I am on your "Ignore" put the lie to that, eh? How you ignore somebody you are wasting your time writing to?

Science is not for purpose of entertainment, which is how you falsely imagine your gobbledygooks content functions.
I am sure you think that means something, but it's not working. My gobbledygooks are functioning just fine.
Hat1208
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
@Uncle Ira

Hope you and yours are well. Do you think RC gets tired standing on the ledge or he has a chair or something out there to rest on?

Thanks in advance!
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2016
.....but at least RC directs his repeated posts onto topics of science
Glad you think so Skippy. It would really make me worry if you agreed with me. Now why you don't go volumetricate your self before you get hurt.
.....get "hurt"? What is that? Yet another threat to commit bodily harm on me?

And by the way, you're on my Ignore, I just picked this up from RC's post.
Telling me that I am on your "Ignore" put the lie to that, eh? How you ignore somebody you are wasting your time writing to?
...... Sometimes "gobbledygooks" can be entertaining psychobabble.

Science is not for purpose of entertainment, which is how you falsely imagine your gobbledygooks content functions.
I am sure you think that means something, but it's not working. My gobbledygooks are functioning just fine.
........now back to the Ignore list.

Now we know the Ira theory for: Theory redraws formation of early universe

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2016
"Oh yeah, I almost forget. When you going to work up some new materials? "
------------------------

Says pot to kettle.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2016
.....get "hurt"? What is that? Yet another threat to commit bodily harm on me?
Who said anything about bodily harm? More like getting your feelings hurt again, like when you got caught plagiarizing the Ask Yahoo A Question when you were trying to pretend you were doing some ciphering.

.... Sometimes "gobbledygooks" can be entertaining psychobabble.
Does not sound like Ignoring to me. What ignore means where you come from?

........now back to the Ignore list.
Psst, Bennie-Skippy. When you are ignoring somebody, it only works when you are not writing stuffs to them. Telling them you are ignoring them is not ignoring them.

Now we know the Ira theory for: Theory redraws formation of early universe
Now aren't glad you did not really ignore me?

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.