The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate—or is it?

October 21, 2016, University of Oxford
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

Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.

Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae - the spectacular thermonuclear explosion of dying stars - picked up by the Hubble space telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named '' that drives this accelerating expansion.

Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University's Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set - a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size - the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.

Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: 'The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" that behaves like a cosmological constant - this is now the "standard model" of cosmology.

'However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based - and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call "3 sigma". This is far short of the "5 sigma" standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.

'An analogous example in this context would be the recent suggestion for a new particle weighing 750 GeV based on data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It initially had even higher significance - 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year - and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data show that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma. It was just a statistical fluctuation, and there is no such particle.'

There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background - the faint afterglow of the Big Bang - from the Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: 'All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.

'So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model - one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas - two key assumptions of standard cosmology - may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'

Professor Sarkar added: 'Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky. Hopefully this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models. Significant progress will be made when the European Extremely Large Telescope makes observations with an ultrasensitive "laser comb" to directly measure over a ten to 15-year period whether the expansion rate is indeed accelerating.'

Explore further: New evidence for a preferred direction in spacetime challenges the cosmological principle

More information: J. T. Nielsen et al, Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae, Scientific Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1038/srep35596

Related Stories

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?

June 26, 2015

Many know the phrase "the big bang theory." There's even a top television comedy series with that as its title. According to scientists, the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today. Yet, the ...

Universe may face a darker future

October 31, 2014

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

Recommended for you

Gravitational waves from a merged hyper-massive neutron star

November 14, 2018

For the first time astronomers have detected gravitational waves from a merged, hyper-massive neutron star. The scientists, Maurice van Putten of Sejong University in South Korea, and Massimo della Valle of the Osservatorio ...

The dance of the small galaxies that surround the Milky Way

November 14, 2018

An international team led by researchers from the IAC used data from the ESA satellite Gaia to measure the motion of 39 dwarf galaxies. This data gives information on the dynamics of these galaxies, their histories and their ...

Galaxies like Russian dolls

November 13, 2018

Jairo Méndez Abreu and Adriana de Lorenzo-Cáceres, researchers at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), have discovered a peanut-shaped structure in the inner bar of a double-barred galaxy close to the Milky ...

231 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2016
the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

Ah, a crack in the wall?
two key assumptions of standard cosmology - may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.'

Indeed, you don't. SQK provides an explanation for energy entering our observable subset of a larger realm in which we exist. But this cannot be considered while hanging onto Huge Bang assumptive models constraints. Yet, merger maniacs persist, even awarding Nobel Prizes. Just too much history to backtrack on all those fantasy-based careers now. So they will continue to bury their heads until PROVEN otherwise, despite the mounting evidence.
julianpenrod
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2016
I criticized Perlmutter's claims from the start and was called crazy.
Perlmutter's "technique", which was used on only one galaxy, found the galaxy's Doppler Shift, which gave its velocity. From that velocity and the Hubble Constant, they derived the distance to the galaxy. They then claimed that a Type 1a supernova supposedly in the galaxy was dimmer than expected. So the galaxy had to be further away. So it had to be moving faster than its Doppler Shift indicated. It had to be moving faster than its speed.
Note, also, if the universe "is accelerating" that means it's accelerating now. Which means there could not be a Hubble Constant. But out to five billion years ago, which is when the "acceleration" supposedly started, it is constant.
CubicAdjunct747
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2016
perhaps some areas of the universe are accelerating due to being sucked in/headed towards the large cold area of the microwave background radiation map. Other areas may be just simply expanding from momentum. I think both could be right.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JIMBO
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 21, 2016
To date, the PDG value for DE has been accurately reproduced since the late 1960s by several researchers, from heuristic to full-blown QFT computations. They all get the same result. Occam demanded centuries ago, that `All things given, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one'. The data over the last decade increasingly point to the CC as the source of the Hubble acceleration.
As far as any uncertainty in the data, this is Deja Vu ! Hubble & Humason's breakthru paper (1929) had it right, despite horrible scatter in the data. They stuck to their guns & were finally vindicated.
Sarkar's paper is much ado about nothing, & no such paper is even posted on the Arxiv.
Nattydread
3.2 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2016
I always suspected this acceleration was incorrect.
Landrew
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2016
I think it's about time someone questioned this ridiculous assumption. Observations make it "appear" that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Lots of things appear to be something they aren't.

The model that purports to explain the expansion, by postulating that stellar matter is being "pulled" by unimaginable amounts of invisible dark matter, sounds like a very sketchy placeholder theory at best.
Landrew
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2016
The consensus on dark energy was achieved with just one paper in Nature and agreement between just two teams of scientists. Nobody should be surprised that the idea might need revision ... Or even tossing it out.

I feel compelled to constantly remind people that consensus does not confer truth.
IMP-9
2.9 / 5 (16) Oct 21, 2016
"Oh Look, if we analyses supernovae data in a vacuum from all other cosmological information we have no very conclusive evidence for acceleration".

Wow, it's nothing. This is not how you do cosmology, you do not pretend you don't have the parameters fit from the CMB. You cannot ignore the constraints from BAO or RSD. This paper is insane and the conclusions are utter rubbish, they don't need redshift drift to test their model, they need to stop ignoring what is right in front of them. The data exists now, there is no excuse for not using it. Everyone in cosmology understands perfectly clearly that SN-1a were pretty useless until combined with other constraints but those exist. It's amazing that this was even published, I've read the very same thing before, it wasn't interesting then and it isn't now.
IMP-9
3.6 / 5 (17) Oct 21, 2016
Perlmutter's "technique", which was used on only one galaxy


No. Perlmutter's Supernova Cosmology project had 42 supernovae in 42 galaxies, for his paper he combined this with other samples bringing the total to 60 galaxies. It's been 18 years and you still haven't read what you're criticizing. The original paper was not bullet proof but it was not one galaxy.

The consensus on dark energy was achieved with just one paper in Nature and agreement between just two teams of scientists.


No. SN-1a are only one piece of the puzzle. BAO and the CMB without supernovae reject Lambda=0. Independent verification, totally different test but consistent results.
jeffensley
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2016
Thank you!! Nice to see studies that go back and question the foundations off of which many of our assumptions are made. Based on my limited understanding of the theory, they utilize star classification (which presumes a certain star SHOULD be emitting a certain wavelength of light), and when a discrepancy between the assumed and measured values is noted, they postulate that it MUST be the physical speed/direction of the star that accounts for it. Please correct me if I'm wrong... this subject is interesting to me.
tblakely1357
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2016
This could be embarrassing. If the Dark Energy theory is soon overthrown, will there be an asterisk beside the winner's names? I'm not aware of a theory that resulted in a Nobel award being falsified so quickly.

While I also find the Dark Energy theory more than a little bizarre, I'm aware that my personal tastes don't make for good science. It'll be real interesting to see this one play out.
OdinsAcolyte
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2016
Wise and intelligent men.Continue to question until there is proof that makes sense.
Congratulations. It something seems silly it most likely is.
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2016
Finally. Can we now start to work on pointing out the silliness of the soon to be footnoted "big bang", space expansion theory?
hemitite
5 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2016
Maybe "dark" is too strong a term for the evidence. What about pastel-beige energy? It might make the type 1-A's look a bit peaked in the distance.
IMP-9
3.6 / 5 (11) Oct 21, 2016
Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.


This quote also completely annihilates their claims and it makes it quite obvious they know about it. The ISW effect has been detected at ~3 sigma in many, many independent surveys. Ok, that's not definitive evidence but two independent 3 sigma results is a very significant detection. There are degeneracies here so a proper calculation should be done but it will be more than 5 sigma. They didn't bother to calculate that though because it destroys their conclusion, even following their terrible logic for throwing out the vast majority of cosmological information their conclusions don't hold.

the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy


But it is directly sensitive to the matter density which would break the degeneracy in the SN-1a data between dark energy and the matter density improving constraints.
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2016
So, although the evidence for dark matter remains pretty solid, the evidence for dark energy is now looking pretty shaky. I am just slightly relieved; don't mind dark matter but never liked dark energy.
Ultron
3.3 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2016
I would easily bet that Sarkar is wrong and next studies will confirm acceleration of the Universe.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2016
So, although the evidence for dark matter remains pretty solid, the evidence for dark energy is now looking pretty shaky. I am just slightly relieved; don't mind dark matter but never liked dark energy.

The evidence for Dark Matter remains pretty solid? Just reiterate it for me, would you?
komone
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2016
I'm willing to wait 15 years to improve the evidence. I accepted accelerating expansion as the best thing to believe, but it never sat too comfortably with my personal expectations. Let's gather the evidence to improve our best expectation of what we should most rationally believe.
komone
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2016
I feel compelled to constantly remind people that consensus does not confer truth.

Truth? As a scientific mind you must surely understand that science is the process of building the most accurate models we can of perceived phenomena from the best possible evidence. Disproof is often easy. A "proof" means better evidence but is never definitive. It's interesting that mathematical/logical resoning works so effectively for defining what is worth taking as evidence. But whatever theory is proposed and is believed as "truth" is really just a best model we currently have of what is best to believe about the world. That's a long way from what people would intrisically like to have which is some absolute "truth".
komone
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2016
@bs
So we can not study the muon, the neutron, apparently not even the positron (stable), etc even though we clearly observe them ?
Who are you to declare that out of nowhere?
"Know thyself" said the Greeks. Start there, bs: you are not a physicist.

I look at myself in the mirror. For all my perception there is a reversed copy of me and also the room I am in. I do not believe that what I see is actually "real", since I have a reasonable explanation of what this reflection is. If I did not have a good explanation, I guess I would believe that there is "really" a mirror-world with entirely reversed entities.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2016
It initially had even higher significance - 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year - and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data shows that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma.

LOL! That's about right. Oh to be able to pontificate on unicorns and fairy dust, and be published. Be damned ye laboratory filth!
BackBurner
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2016
Well, at least the science is settled :)

I'm both gratified and disappointed with these findings, gratified because I always thought of the dark matter/energy hypothesis as a horrible kludge (searching for the little man who wasn't there), and at the same time disappointed because I had my own hypothesis on the subject of negative mass represented by intergalactic space.

Well, all is not lost and the show isn't over...
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 21, 2016
A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas - two key assumptions of standard cosmology - may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy.

Whaaaaat? Just because the Universe is filamentary and cellular, just as Alfvén predicted back in the 30's, and every in situ measurement in space has shown the plasma in no way behaves anything like an ideal gas we should question this theory based upon pre-space age theoretical beliefs of how to treat the plasma. This guy is blasphemous, I'm reading all of his work.
deblackmere
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 21, 2016
First dark matter gets the rug pulled out from under it, now dark energy. An example of the pitfalls of "lemming cosmology".
Landrew
3 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2016
I feel compelled to constantly remind people that consensus does not confer truth.

Truth? As a scientific mind you must surely understand that science is the process of building the most accurate models we can of perceived phenomena from the best possible evidence. Disproof is often easy. A "proof" means better evidence but is never definitive. It's interesting that mathematical/logical resoning works so effectively for defining what is worth taking as evidence. But whatever theory is proposed and is believed as "truth" is really just a best model we currently have of what is best to believe about the world. That's a long way from what people would intrisically like to have which is some absolute "truth".

Of course. I said it doesn't give you truth. Read it again.
philstacy9
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2016
"So it is quite possible that we are being misled" also applies to climate.
http://www.expres...activity
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2016
'Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids'
http://www.spaced...999.html

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

At the scale of our Universal black hole the energy described causes the galaxy clusters to accelerate away from us. As matter falls toward our Universal black hole it evaporates into dark matter. It is the dark matter outflow which pushes the galaxy clusters causing them to accelerate away from us.
Urgelt
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2016
We've had nearly two decades to think about 'dark energy' and are no closer to an explanation for it than we were on day one.

Frankly, I will be relieved if we can dispense with it.

With new instruments coming on line soon, we should be able to convincingly rule it in or out.
Chris_Reeve
Oct 21, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 21, 2016
With one fell swoop of the pen astrophysicists have found 70% of their Universe by not having to invent it.
eric96
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2016
The best part of this article is the reference to all cosmologists on their high horse; their high horse being a pile of shit that sticks only to their arse. Cosmologists are dirty horses. I will never ever take a second to talk to one; talking to an idiot is more productive.
NIPSZX
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2016
This is the problem with astronomy. Too many theories, with to many supporters before the theory becomes fact. Somebody will probably correct me, and say they are hypotheses and not theories or something else or just hate and put 1 star. There will be a million+ comments on this astrology blog compared to none on all the other phys articles. People fighting over unproven theories! They are not theories. Whatever
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)

Sound familiar, mate? I tried to explain it all along; but you wouldn't listen because you believed old incorrect assumptions/methodologies etc instead of thinking it through in light of what I tried to tell you were the problems.

The article points out (as I have many times to you/others ere/elsewhere) that all those other 'evidences' for expansion/dark energy etc etc are results of modeling/interpretations which have those assumptions built-into the analysis/interpretations; hence making it all circuitous/self-referential etc and so no 'evidence' at all.

I explained to you before that CMB we 'see' may be from all sorts of plasmic processes/radiation attenuation going on NOW everywhere, such that 'primordial' BB 'surface of last scattering' is a MYTH; because deep space materials/processes are a mixmaster at all scales/wavelengths NOW for any 'signals' from any significant distance/sources.

PS: Please don't misrepresent what Prof. Sarkar said re CMB etc. :)
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
This is the "South Pillar" region of the star-forming region called the Carina Nebula

This is a grandly misleading statement. It intends to convey the idea that
a) stars are currently creating themselves in this region of space and
b) we have actually observed such self-formation occurring.
Neither of the two ideas is true. Hence the statement is misleading at the minimum and a blatant lie at best.
The only things that can be said about that regions is that there appears to be a lot of dust or gas and that it seems to be occupied by a predominance of "blue" type stars, i.e. what we would presume to be "young" stars. Nothing more has been observed.
jonnyrox
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2016
Seldom has so much been spent by so few to achieve so little to no purpose.

Society should not go bankrupt to satisfy your curiosity,

should you disagree then please explain in detail how an answer to this could ever benefit enough people to justify the one's that are currently suffering so that we can fund this "research" ???
FredJose
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2016
So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model - one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data

How nice......!
FredJose
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
@Phys1, the regional expert.
So since you cannot refute either of the statements (a) or (b), you resort to some nonsensical comment as to whether I'm typing the truth. So I take it you prefer to either mislead or to be mislead instead of facing up to what is real?
IMP-9
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
I tried to explain it all along; but you wouldn't listen because you believed old incorrect assumptions/methodologies etc instead of thinking it through in light of what I tried to tell you were the problems.


If you were actually capable of reading you would see they haven't alleged any assumptions or methodologies are correct. Their results still favour dark energy, all they did is made different assumptions in the cosmological constraints and got slightly bigger errors. That and ignore most of the information available for no good reason. That last part does seem familiar, you to love to ignore what you don't agree with.

Let me say this again: They are not claiming the supernovea results are wrong, they are just claiming the formal uncertainty is larger.

IMP-9
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 22, 2016
that all those other 'evidences' for expansion/dark energy etc etc are results of modeling/interpretations which have those assumptions built-into the analysis/interpretations


That's not what they said at all. Don't try to put words in their mouthes. If you actually read the paper what you would find is that they aren't setting out to kill dark energy, their model still has dark energy. All they want to do is save the constant acceleration universe the authors have written about before. It still has lambda.

I explained to you before that CMB..


I don't care what you claim as you haven't got a shred of evidence. Until you can describe a model that fit's the CMB powerspectrum as well LCDM or offer some new test your claims are empty.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. His own words sink the paper, whether you like it or not.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2016
I am not going to argue science with a person who thinks stars are created by his invisible, personal friend
.......you must be referring to zany Zwicky's Dark Matter.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
Phys says I am not going to argue science with....


Too bad you shut your eyes and mind to things. Accept the fact that you may not know it all, or your worldview may be wrong. Then perhaps things will be a little clearer.
.........Hey, Bart, he's on the money about "not going to argue science", he along with his zany Zwicky grandpappy is totally clueless about science, they live in an "invisible" dark & tired fantasyland of 20th Century perpetual motion.
Bigbangcon
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2016
The whole edifice of modern official cosmology is built on the mathematical fiction of Einstein's GR. The epicycles, namely Big Bang, Inflation, black holes, dark matter, dark energy ad nauseum, including the "God Particle" are just the fictions of the fiction.

"Matter in Motion", the primary premise of materialism has no role in GR; and neither it has any philosophical, ontological and logical basis. "The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?" : https://www.amazo...4041884X

The self-seeking official physicists claim the "proof" of GR and other fictions based on dodgy and reductionist experimental results, assuming the theory is the absolute truth, so the manipulation of the data would be of little importance. For them, as it was for Arthur Eddington, "Experimental results are valide only when supported by the theory."
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2016
What "things" ?
Your sky daddy creating stars?
........actually, speaking of your zany "sky daddy" who creates things that can't exist except in a virtual universe of Perpetual Motion, you know, things like Tired Light, DM cosmic fairy dust......then you.
BackBurner
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2016
I am not going to argue science


I don't think anyone really expects you to. You've never managed it in the past. Why bother to start now?
Chris_Reeve
Oct 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2016
Re: "I explained to you before that CMB we 'see' may be from all sorts of plasmic processes/radiation attenuation going on NOW everywhere"

This is true, actually.

It is wrong actually. Such a source could not explain the spectral distribution.
The idea that there is only ONE WAY to explain the CMB is complete nonsense.

There is no such "idea". We _have_ only one explanation so far. This is a fact.

Ignorance is bliss, and phails1 is in utopia.

https://www.resea...el=1_x_2
BackBurner
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2016
@Backburner
You've never managed it in the past.

Not with the clinically insane, that's right.


That's quite a stretch there Phys. Are you a scientist or a clinical psychologist? They aren't the same. Psychologists have procedures for determining their diagnostics though and they should be, at the very least, observed if not respected. What you've done very consistently is use psychological terms and diagnosis as a form of invective. I recommend you work on that.

I had my own hypothesis on


The fact that you call your idea a hypothesis that may be wrong sets you a few levels higher that the absolute lunatics you associate with.

So I will argue science with you:

There is no such subject as negative mass.


Shall I consider myself blessed then? No such thing? Well, that wouldn't be my point exactly, but it is only something I tend to believe at the moment. Which was the point of my comment?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2016
There is no such "idea". We _have_ only one explanation so far. This is a fact.
.......what's that? Your grandpappy's, zany Zwicky, Tired Light theories?

One of these days you'll wake up in the morning & discover we're living in the 21st Century, not the 20th, well maybe you'll wake up.
Bigbangcon
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
There is no such "idea". We _have_ only one explanation so far. This is a fact.

There are other ideas about CMB, such as the (Quantum Dynamics and "The Uncertainty Principle" mandated) "Zero-Point Energy" of an infinite and an eternal universe; "The Cosmic Gamma Ray Halo" : http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2016
@Benni
The only explanation available at this time is that the CMB originated a short time after the Big Bang.
Perhaps you are not aware of this explanation. It would not surprise me.
........because I live in the 21st Century, you're the one who remains stuck with grandpappy Zwicky in the 20th.

It'll be just so nice when NASA can get that James Webb Telescope into orbit in a couple of years, so we can begin accumulating evidence against all these zany explanations for the CMB. You have no clue as to what happened "a short time after the Big Bang" & when the JWT's sensitivity to infrared reveals what the so-called 20th Century concoction of CMB is really all about, bingo, then we can dispense with that parade of pseudo-science. Thank you Electrical Engineers for all this new instrumentation (a feather in my own cap).
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2016
There is no such "idea". We _have_ only one explanation so far. This is a fact.
.......what's that? Your grandpappy's, zany Zwicky, Tired Light theories?

One of these days you'll wake up in the morning & discover we're living in the 21st Century, not the 20th, well maybe you'll wake up.

@Benni
Still bashing on with Fizz, eh? When he says "We _have_ only one explanation..." the "we" refers to the small club of paranoids he belongs to, not the sane majority he ignores. Well, keep trying, perhaps he will come to his senses one day, though I doubt it...
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
@Benni
Still bashing on with Fizz, eh? When he says "We _have_ only one explanation..." the "we" refers to the small club of paranoids he belongs to, not the sane majority he ignores. Well, keep trying, perhaps he will come to his senses one day, though I doubt it...


@ Reg, yeah I know exactly where you're coming from. It's just that there are times I get into a combative mood & this has been one of those mornings that I've been in the mood for this kind of entertainment. This Stumpy bunch of neophytes have no idea what easy targets they are simply because they refuse to gird themselves in 21st Century science.

RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Benni et al and Phys1 et al. :)

Please, can you all just drop your personal feuding and insulting for once; and just concentrate on discussing politely and objectively the science reported in the article and consider any and all implications for current/evolving theory. Please, just this once at lest, try to put personal egos/agendas aside, for the sake of science/humanity going forward. Thanks all. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Benni et al and Phys1 et al. :)

Please, can you all just drop your personal feuding and insulting for once; and just concentrate on discussing politely and objectively the science reported in the article and consider any and all implications for current/evolving theory. Please, just this once at lest, try to put personal egos/agendas aside, for the sake of science/humanity going forward. Thanks all. :)
Maybe if the world just used :) all the time there would be no war!
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
Hi IMP-9 and Phys1. :)

In past posts, I itemized MANY plasmic/jet etc materials/processes producing/attenuating EM radiation at ALL wavelengths NOW; which would swamp any supposed-BB-primordial 'surface of last scattering' CMB.

Even Planck/Bicep3 study cautioned against naively interpreting what we 'see' at ANY wavelength. Which 'seeing' depends on what the 'signal of interest' radiation has been attenuated by, not only by local dust/plasma etc, but also by whatever it has gone through/been produced by across the greater distances of deep space materials/processes.

Why, every space region above Black Hole Event Horizons is a source of 'gravitationally redshifted to a SPECTRUM of MW wavelengths' EM emissions! Depending on distances/materials/processes involved in collisional/frictional/tidal 'disruption' of in-falling matter. So EVERY Black Hole that has ever formed will have LONG contributed, and STILL contributes, to ONGOING CMB 'power spectrum'!

Reconsider, guys. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me and feeling fit, thanks for asking.

Hi IMP-9 and Phys1. :)

In past posts, I itemized MANY plasmic/jet etc materials/processes producing/attenuating EM radiation at ALL wavelengths NOW; which would swamp any supposed-BB-primordial 'surface of last scattering' CMB.

Blah, Blah, Blah, and a lot of other Really-Skippy Blahs repeated over and over for years.

Reconsider, guys. :)


That is a good theory you got there Cher. I got one question about it if you got the time. How you square it with the Olber-Skippy's Paradoxical thing?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
In past posts, I itemized MANY plasmic/jet etc
actually, no, you have not
you have made conjectures about science

and you have given opinion about your interpretations of science

but the one thing you categorically have not done is given an itemized anything, and especially not WRT to science, because that would require evidence

and the one thing you have *yet* to produce for any of your claims, from BICEP2 to above (or here: http://phys.org/n...its.html ) is provide evidence supporting your claims

if you have "itemized" anything, feel free to link/reference that post or series of posts here and prove it

otherwise the only difference between you and the religious nuts posting about their sky faerie is the specifics of your belief, because none of yall have evidence, be it benjiTROLL, barfV or the eu cult

IMP-9
4 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Ignorance is bliss, and phails1 is in utopia.

https://www.resea...el=1_x_2


Couldn't have said it better myself.

http://adsabs.har...76h7301L

Correlation is something that should be done statistically, not by eye. Verschuur's claims were debunked a long time ago with a simple cross-correlation. Also this has nothing to do with the lack of other models that can fit the observed spectral energy distribution of the CMB.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Hi CS and Ira. :)

@ CS: I see your personal scientific method of "TL:DR" has served you well (not), mate. You don't read yet you pretend to now what has transpired or not. Only in your version of 'reality' does that make any 'sense', CS. Try not embarrassing yourself anymore, CS; by simply not commenting when you are under the influence of whatever it is that drives your denials and malice, ok? Good luck. :)

@ Ira: Olber's Paradox is easily explained if one considers the whole range of over-distance interactions/attenuations which EM radiation at all wavelengths undergoes (with matter and plasmic processes; not to mention, in certain circumstances/energy-levels etc, between EM 'photons' themselves, both persistent and 'virtual' photonic fluctuations in the Quantum Vacuum). Think it all through for yourself. I haven't time to go through all of it again before my ToE publication (after all, as you say, I have 'blah-blahed' about it too often/more than enough.). Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
CS: I see your personal scientific method of "TL:DR"
1- didn't use it here: read your crap

still no evidence, just like the other linked thread

2- it aint my version of reality if there is evidence that proves point [a] while you're arguing for delusion [b] with no evidence

3- and again, just like every other thread: you want attention but can't actually follow the scientific method (the real one, like here: https://en.wikipe...c_method ) so you instead resort to lame vague comments that can't be substantiated in any way

reported for flaming/baiting and trolling pseudoscience

PS - feel free to get the last word in, like your compulsion shows you need to do
I will simply report it because it will not have any evidence, just like the other thread and every other post you make
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
Hi CS and Ira. :)
I'll let the Captain-Skippy sort out the gobbledygook you had for him and stick with the gobbledygooks you have for me.

@ Ira: Olber's Paradox is easily explained if one considers the whole range of over-distance interactions/attenuations which EM radiation at all wavelengths undergoes (with matter and plasmic processes; not to mention, in certain circumstances/energy-levels etc, between EM 'photons' themselves (both persistent and 'virtual' photonic fluctuations in the Quantum Vacuum). Think it all through for yourself.


You sure do use a lot words to say: "I never thought about that one."

I haven't time to go through all of it again before my ToE publication (after all, as you say, I have 'blah-blahed' about it too often/more than enough.


Well you had 12 years to go through it over and over and more overs, it has not slowed down your toes stuffs yet (and nothing in the world is going to speed him up it seems.)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
Actually thanks to you contributing ":)" to this blog the funny crowd gets all meek.
It works !
Good job, RC.
Thanks. My pleasure. Pity it has yet to 'work' on certain seemingly incorrigible bot-voting ignoramuses. But perseverance for the sake of objective science and polite humanity has always been my raison d'etre'; and main driver of my PO/other forum participation/behavior now and in the past. Patience and understanding can't hurt, can it!

Good luck to you, and to all genuine seekers after science and humanity advancement, irrespective from whom/whence it comes. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

How would you know, mate? Have you read all my posts, in every forum I posted in, explaining that item and many other things which mainstream is now increasingly confirming me correct in (the latest eg: this very thread's article confirms much of what I have been pointing out to IMP-9 et al for ages now).

Have you it in you, Ira, to interrupt the flow of your own bot-voting ignoramus's gobbledegook long enough to give credit where it's due, regardless? If so, it may be about time you stopped your metric skewing bot-voting and trolling, and just faced the reality that I have been correct all along and you/others incorrect. Good luck. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
Have you it in you, Ira, to interrupt the flow of your own bot-voting ignoramus's gobbledegook long enough to give credit where it's due, regardless?
What that is supposed to mean? I give you the credit all the time for all that stuffs over in your Earthman Playhouse. I even put up the link to him so everybody else gets to enjoy him like I do.

If so, it may be about time you stopped your metric skewing bot-voting and trolling,
I explain to you that I do that as a service to the humans and scientists who want to set their karma slider thing to 2.5 and not be distracted by you stuffs unless they want a good laugh.

just faced the reality that I have been correct all along and you/others incorrect.
I will face that fact as soon as you find somebody, anybody (except the crankpots on here) to back you up on that.

So far the vote count is:
Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (your vote)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 1,384
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2016
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

So far the vote count is:
Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (your vote)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 1,384


And that from just September and October. If you go back to the beginning past the old physorg the vote count is:
Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (yeah, your vote)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 173,983.

And if you take in all the different forums you been booted out of and add them in the vote count is:
Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (you know who that is)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 4.77 x 10^23
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Now now, mate, don't go so far off-scale on the unwitting irony. :)

A bot-voting ignoramus, skewing the metrics on a science site and trolling someone who knows what you haven't a hope of knowing while you keep doing what you have been doing, now waits for others to tell him that I have been correct all along. And along comes a MAINSTREAM STUDY as per the tread's article that tells everyone what I have been pointing out all along for years now to IMP-9 et al.

And what is your reaction, Ira? You ignore the above article's MAINSTREAM STUDY, and its confirmation that I have been correct all along and others incorrect.

AND you wait for those who have been INCORRECT all along to tell YOU what to think?

Now that is just too funny for words, mate.

Are you going to call Prof Sarkar and that mainstream study "crankpot" and "gobbledegook" too, Ira? LOL

Good luck, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Oct 22, 2016
Are you going to call Prof Sarkar and that mainstream study "crankpot"
If he is foolish enough to come on here and say to us: "Really-Skippy has been correct all along",,, then yeah, I will call him a crankpot with you too.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
So far the vote count is:

Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (your vote)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 1,384

And that from just September and October. If you go back to the beginning past the old physorg the vote count is:

Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (yeah, your vote)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 173,983.

And if you take in all the different forums you been booted out of and add them in the vote count is:

Really-Skippy has been correct all along: 1 (you know who that is)
Really-Skippy sure does write a lot of gobbledygook: 4.77 x 10^23
I don't have to vote for myself; my posts/mainstream speak for me. :)

Pathetic mod-troll/bot-voting ignoramus gang votes/abuses don't amount to hill of beans against objective science reality; since mainstream articles increasingly confirming I was correct all along.

Hence mod-trolls/bot-voting ignoramuses 'opinions' irrelevant. :)
tblakely1357
3 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2016
And here I thought the worst flame wars were on political blogs.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Are you going to call Prof Sarkar and that mainstream study "crankpot"
If he is foolish enough to come on here and say to us: "Really-Skippy has been correct all along",,, then yeah, I will call him a crankpot with you too.
He doesn't have to, Ira. His study just did it for him, in light of the fact that it confirms much of what I have been pointing out to IMP-9 et al for some time now. But you wouldn't know that, Ira, since you don't read/understand what I have posted over the years to explain all that and more. Never mind, Ira, you can always say you were just "funning around" by skewing the metrics on a science site and trolling someone who has been confirmed correct all along on both the objective science and the polite humanity fronts. Let's hope posterity isn't too unkind to you and your means of "funs". Good luck, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 22, 2016
And here I thought the worst flame wars were on political blogs.


Naaa, we don't mean nothing by it non. Really-Skippy and me fool around like this all the time.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Benni et al and Phys1 et al. :)

Please, can you all just drop your personal feuding and insulting for once; and just concentrate on discussing politely and objectively the science reported in the article and consider any and all implications for current/evolving theory. Please, just this once at lest, try to put personal egos/agendas aside, for the sake of science/humanity going forward. Thanks all. :)

@RC
Tried that (been there, done that, got the tee-shirt...) but it doesn't work. Why not just engage with the reasonable, thinking contributors to this forum and put the dyckheads on your ignore list? I've got Cap'n Grumpy, Irate, and Fizz on mine, and the exchanges on phys.org are almost sensible without them.....and it makes them very, very angry, every one of my comments invokes dozens of responses from them probably containing unbelievable levels of vituperation which I don't read...
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (9) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Reg mundy. :)
Hi Benni et al and Phys1 et al. :)

Please, can you all just drop your personal feuding and insulting for once; and just concentrate on discussing politely and objectively the science reported in the article and consider any and all implications for current/evolving theory. Please, just this once at lest, try to put personal egos/agendas aside, for the sake of science/humanity going forward. Thanks all. :)

@RC
Tried that (been there, done that, got the tee-shirt...) but it doesn't work. Why not just engage with the reasonable, thinking contributors to this forum and put the dyckheads on your ignore list?...
It's tempting! But unfortunately someone has to be thorough and not ignore any 'side' in a discussion, however 'unpleasant' the poster on any particular 'side' may be.

It is my longstanding policy to NOT ignore anyone. I read everything, as that is the only way to be in any position to spot any 'gems' among the 'dross'. Objectivity pays. :)
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 22, 2016
Hi Benni et al and Phys1 et al. :)

Please, can you all just drop your personal feuding and insulting for once; and just concentrate on discussing politely and objectively the science reported in the article and consider any and all implications for current/evolving theory. Please, just this once at lest, try to put personal egos/agendas aside, for the sake of science/humanity going forward. Thanks all


..........oh well, you're so welcome RC. I gave you 3's most of the way down this thread, I'm charmed by half of your "Why can't we all just get along" plea. Look RC, I need comic relief sometimes with these amateurs who imagine NAME CALLING makes up for severe shortages of smarts.

I spend most of my work days with equations constantly buzzing through my head, but the comic relief I get coming here reading about the "insensible" is often just too hard to pass up. I only have the Stump & Ira on the ignore right now, but zany Phys1 is just way too much fun of late.
sylvain040664
1 / 5 (2) Oct 23, 2016
Is the Universe's expanding at an accelerating pace isn't the question. The question's how or with what energy the acceleration's done. E=mc2 where antimatter and matter annihilate each other might be the fuel energy of the Universe expanding acceleration at the core of black-holes and galaxies cores and the theory of the Big-Bang, ect...
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2016
Finally had time to give this 5 min, it reminded much of the recent claim for near 3 sigma evidence for non-acceleration. Turns out this claim is instead that they simply can't tell from the still low-z (i.e. close) SN1 data. But their "no dust" data is the same as that recent data unless I misunderstand in my glance, it is somewhat perverse if dark energy doesn't exist and you need dust to fuzzify the seeming observation.

So, ho hum, they throw in a still too unknown amount of dust, while the other data sets (like the CMB background spectra where dark energy is readily seen) and the combined data still predicts dark energy. The article title is click bait, the data says the universe is expanding with acceleration. 'Nuff said. (Though it points out that further SN1 surveys are interesting.)
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2016
@Bentknee
I only have the Stump & Ira on the ignore right now, but zany Phys1 is just way too much fun of late.

Hmm, you think Fizz is zany and fun, as opposed to most commenters on this forum who think he is a nasty little pr+ck. Well, will put your kind nature to the test and take him off my ignore list 'cos I can't get him to put me on his no matter what I do. But I draw the line at Cap'n Grumpy and Irate, having displayed and read their comments on this thread which vindicate my decision to ignore them - they really are creeps.
Keep on truckin'
optical
Oct 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2016
@Bentknee

I only have the Stump & Ira on the ignore right now, but zany Phys1 is just way too much fun of late.


you think Fizz is zany and fun, as opposed to most commenters on this forum who think he is a nasty little pr+ck. will put your kind nature to the test and take him off my ignore list 'cos I can't get him to put me on his no matter what I do. But I draw the line at Cap'n Grumpy and Irate, having displayed and read their comments on this thread which vindicate my decision to ignore them - they really are creeps.
Keep on truckin'
.........I don't disagree with the points of your opinions about the states of minds of those you bring into question Reg, you are dead on correct. Again, it's the light hearted entertainment I get from watching serious amateurs imagining there is a magical formula, which by the way only they can secretly understand, by which Infinite forces of gravity & density can exist on or at the center of a finite stellar mass.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2016
Ignorance is bliss, and phails1 is in utopia.

https://www.resea...el=1_x_2


Correlation is something that should be done statistically, not by eye. Verschuur's claims were debunked a long time ago with a simple cross-correlation. Also this has nothing to do with the lack of other models that can fit the observed spectral energy distribution of the CMB.

Vershuur shows in his most recent paper where his "debunkers" failed so miserably. Rubes trying to debunk the scientifically literate, laughable.
Ignorance is bliss, and phails1 is in utopia.
Why ?
Keep dreaming though, as the Big Bang stands and no one, _especially_ you, has a case against it.
Because you are an delusional ignorant POS who believes in his own sky daddy fairy tales of the big bang fantasy creation event. Lemaitre proposed the BB to reconcile the theological dictum of "creatio ex nihilo". The BB is religious in nature and you are defending it like a proper acolyte.
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2016
Vershuur shows in his most recent paper where his "debunkers" failed so miserably..


Lol no. He literally has a few lines where he makes the excuse that a 1-to-1 correlation was never claimed, the point he misses is that a cross-correlation is sensitive to any correlation, not just 1-to-1.

His new paper is just terrible, all he proves to the reader is that he doesn't understand statistics or even basic experiment design. He intends to prove the naysayers wrong by doing some statistics. He is selecting target regions and then comparing how often he calls them correlated compared to when one map is replaced with a random region. The catastrophic failure is that his target regions were selected because they look similar, of course they will show more correlation because he already decided they were correlated. It could have been a nice study if it was done blindly without selection but it wasn't, it's absolute drivel. Go ahead, defend this nonsense.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2016
serious amateurs imagining there is a magical formula,

Called GRT.

which by the way only they can secretly understand,

You don't understand GRT, indeed. You have just been educated on another thread but to no avail. Nor do you understand Poisson's equation. The list goes on
.
by which Infinite forces of gravity & density can exist on or at the center of a finite stellar mass.

Any physicist finds that part hard to believe, but is is possible in the context of GRT.


You keep telling us it is found in "GRT", but you won't quote the text of section in which the casual reader can go to find it.....Why do you keep it such a "secret" if it is so easily discovered to exist within the text of the document itself? The fact is, you're so far onto the plantation of Funny Farm Science that you've got it all made up in your head for anything that can be found anywhere within the text of General Relativity.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2016
Lemaitre proposed the BB to reconcile the theological dictum of "creatio ex nihilo".


Provide a quote from his work proving this or I will discard your statement.

You will discard regardless because it doesn't fit your beliefs and it would be silly for him to include in his published papers, although this is obviously above you.
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]." Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.
"It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Hannes Alfven

The BB is religious in nature

Logical fallacy. LeM's religiosity does not imply that his theory is religious.

And yet, there is a creation event.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2016
No one takes him seriously.

"No one" in the establishment takes anyone who shows the failures of mainstream guesses seriously, it's how they continue the maths pseudoscientific edifice. See gimp-9's response for "proof" claiming statistics to be superior to observation.
optical
Oct 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TopJimmy
5 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2016
So all these scientists are all in on this big scam but many continue to research and gather data that could poke holes in their scam. Why would they do that? Funny, I don't see the religious zealots or EU cult continuing research or questioning their assumptions, seems like they are set with their dogma.
Landrew
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2016
Surely, the illusion that we are at the center of the universe is a wrong one. Especially if it's based on the observation that the farther away matter is, the faster it is accelerating away from us. Obviously we are dealing with some type of illusion, based on distortion proportional to distance.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2016
You began by stating this:
Any physicist finds that part hard to believe, but is is possible in the context of GRT.
......after I asked you to explain by which Infinite forces of gravity & density can compressive forces create infinite density on or at the center of a finite stellar mass.

.......and you give me this which is not found in General Relativity:

I gave you the link to Landau&Lifshitz, paragraph 100.
All you have to do is say "Gee thanks, phys1", click and read.
Are you now declaring Landau and Lifshitz is "Funny Farm Science"?


Is it ever possible for you to have a cogent response to any question put to you? Anytime I have pushed you to provide text for the claims you make about the contents of General Relativity you punt to some other document Einstein had nothing to do with. Maybe Reg is right, you should simply be on Ignore & just leave it at that.

cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2016
And yet, there is a creation event.
True but the BB does not require divine intervention. It allows for it.

There is no doubt that the BB allows for the magic of divine intervention. "Either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
optical
Oct 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2016
Hi Phys1 and optical (and anyone else interested). :)
@optical
The BB model actually needs magic or divine intervention in every step of it. There is no physical reason, why the Universe should explode spontaneously from "nothing", why its explosion should suddenly stop, ...

The BB model does not require a reason, it just states that expansion is happening and calculating back, that it must have begun at some point.

I am not defending the BB model here. My position is that it is viable and that there is no viable alternative at this time.
Phys1, I have long been posting various telling arguments/observations/insights (increasingly confirmed by recent mainstream observations/revisions) which bring into serious doubt all 'beliefs' re the (still hypothetical) BB 'creation-ex-nihilo/inflation/expansion events' and all those old/naive supposed CMB/Standard-Candle etc 'interpretations/evidences in support' MYTHS.

Haven't you been reading me at all, mate? :)
optical
Oct 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2016
infinite density is also possible in Newton gravity.
It is only when you add to the theory a sufficient counterforce that the density remains finite
When was this "infinite density" measured?? It is TESTABLE for MEASUREMENT right? Some laboratory facility you know that you can identify?

In the case of GRT there are generally accepted argument
....there you go again, invoking General Relativity without quoting the text or linking to the actual text of what you're talking about, the epitome of the sort of ineptness that characterizes those who believe in Perpetual Motion.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2016
Hi Benni and Phys1. :)

Come come you two, time to be the better man about it all, hey? Drop the snide remarks/attitude and actually talk not take cheap shots. :)

Anyhow, @ Phys1: I still feel you are amenable to reason, and so I take pains to try and give you hints to make it easier for you to drop all your 'old certainties' about a lot of things 'mainstream of old'. The paradigms are changing due to more recent mainstreamers observations/revisions etc (which BTW are increasingly confirm me correct all along on many fronts in QM and in Cosmology theory/interpretation). You should listen, not kneejerk like those bot-voting ignoramuses have been doing for so long now that they have become internet jokes of their own making.

I am not lying to you or attacking you,mate. I just tell you the objective reality as it is being discovered as we speak. Denial won't help. Rethink it all; especially in the context of what I have long been posting for everyone's benefit.

Continued...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2016
@ Phys1 ...continued.

Take care not to fall into that unfortunate condition afflicting many who long trusted orthodoxy only to find themselves cast adrift into the sea of denial and fear when that orthodoxy is pulled out from under all their erstwhile 'ego-comforting certainties'. Science is finally reviewing/ridding old naive/simplistic cosmology theory/interpretations etc. Go with the newer reality-based flow of discovery/revision rather than attack and deny. Leave the attack and deny to 'religious believers'; we are supposed to be atheistic scientific intellects, not like those religious acolytes 'defending the faith' at all costs to atheistic intellectual objectivity/integrity.

There's a "paddoboy" at Sciforums; a pathetic parrot of orthodoxy; given free rein by ignorant/biased mods/admin to ruin/sabotage all my attempts at objective discussion of contentious issues which science mainstream is now increasigly confirming me correct in. Don't become a 'paddoboy', mate. :)
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2016
@Bent
Maybe Reg is right, you should simply be on Ignore & just leave it at that.

Oh, Nooooo......
I've just taken him off my ignore list, and you are thinking of putting hm on yours.....
Here's me, reading his crap and endeavouring to treat it as light entertainment, while you are moving to my old point of view! I'd assumed you were a christian, and were giving him the BENNIfit of a doubt, so I thought I was following your example by offering kindness to the afflicted, but I now realise that you too think he is a total pr+ck! Well, like I said, keep on truckin', and good luck.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Consider your position compared to mine.

Who has been telling you many of the things which recent mainstreamers discovery/revisions are now telling you (eg, above article), effectively and unambiguously confirming my correctness all along?

ME: the ONLY one, amateur or mainstream, to have a COMPLETE and CONSISTENT unified reality-based ToE, identifying/explaining fundamental-to-emergent physical scales/mechanisms; and a novel reality-axiomatic-maths to model it with....compared to...

YOU: who hasn't contributed any original ideas or challenges to orthodoxy; and is now increasingly effectively 'stuck in denial territory'; amongst the old naive/simplistic and obviously WRONG 'beliefs/claims' initially/continually brought by "combined brainpower of the physicists of the past 200 years" which has signally FAILED to unify the physical universal theory despite the intellectual, financial, experimental resources at their disposal over that time.

Rethink, Phys1. :)
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2016
See gimp-9's response for "proof" claiming statistics to be superior to observation.


You absolute liar. That's the best response you have? I never said that. Vershuur is the one who ventured into statistics and his attempt is laughable. I have explained precisely why. Instead of lying about my argument why don't you actually defend his methodology?

You jumped on Phys1 saying that he would just dismiss Vershuur either way but here we have real criticism of Vershuur's work and you've just cheaply dismissed it. A liar and a hypocrite. Why don't you take your own advice and consider the arguments rather than you're prejudice?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 23, 2016
...amongst the old naive/simplistic and obviously WRONG 'beliefs/claims' initially/continually brought by "combined brainpower of the physicists of the past 200 years" which has signally FAILED to unify the physical universal theory despite the intellectual, financial, experimental resources at their disposal over that time.


......and we're discovering this to be true because in the 21st Century we have instrumentation that have been laying waste to so much of 200 years worth of FAILED hypotheses based on theories born in Perpetual Motion.

No one who has ever passed a present day course in Thermodynamics would walk out of that classroom & try to convince anyone that INFINITE DENSITY at the center of a FINITE STELLAR MASS can be created by COMPRESSION FORCES surrounding the center of the given mass or from GRAVITATIONAL FORCES emanating from the center of that finite mass, yet this is precisely what BH hypothesis is all about, alias Black Hole Math.

Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking. Actually I don't need to ask how you are. You must be on cloud number nine, eh?

ME: the ONLY one, amateur or mainstream, to have a COMPLETE and CONSISTENT unified reality-based ToE,


Hooyeei. I will tell you true podna, I really was doubting you all these years. I thought that would the greatest theory I never did see me.

You always say what you mean and are always fair with your objectionable biases and stuffs so I know you would not lie to us. COMPLETE in Australia means what it does in Louisiana I hope.

Can I buy one of him on the Amazon? Or can I only buy him at the Playhouse? If you will put the address and tell me how much I will put the check in the mail tonight. (Or a money order if you don't take American checks.)

Hooyeei Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher. (That's a coonass way of saying: "Really-Skippy can't claim to be finishing up anymore".)
.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
ME: the ONLY one, amateur or mainstream, to have a COMPLETE and CONSISTENT unified reality-based ToE, identifying/explaining fundamental-to-emergent physical scales/mechanisms; and a novel reality-axiomatic-maths to model it with....
WOW... that is definitely going to get you the Nobel and more than a footnote in history

& all that without believing in zero ( http://phys.org/n...ole.html ) or being able to actually demonstrate anything with evidence!

i can't wait to read that one!

like Ira asked: where is it being published?

this is something i just gotta see, especially after you put so many decades into it without letting anyone see any proof that you even understood basic known validated physics! (or math - since you've usually claimed it's a maths free ToE until recently)

which journal picked it up?

[heavy satirical hyperbole intended]
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
You must be on cloud number nine,
No, mate; I remain at all times strictly non-emotional re scientific work. That is Scientific Methodlogy's 'dispassionate', 'objective', 'thorough', 'patient' etc. Hence why I also eschew personal feuds/grudges etc despite provocation. :)
I will tell you true podna, I really was doubting you all these years. ...You always say what you mean and are always fair ...so I know you would not lie to us.
Yes, it's strange for many to comprehend that patient, thorough, persistence over decades was necessary due to the enormous scope/complexity levels involved in complete Unified ToE 'from scratch' (if it was quick/easy, any old hack(s) during last 200yrs would have done it, hey!). Good you finally realized I haven't been lying to you. :)
Can I buy one of him...?
I don't want/need your money, mate. When finally published complete, I intend to send complimentary copies to those I have conversed with over the years.

Ciao. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

I will try once more to correct your wrong impressions of me and what I have posted over the years, especially re the concepts (Note the Plural, ie, "conceptS") of "Zero/0" as used in reality-physical-states and in abstract/metaphysical analytical/notional contexts/constructs.

Briefly:

REAL PHYSICAL CONTEXTS/STATES: In real physical states context there is no such thing as '0' or 'nothing' etc, only balanced and/or transitional and/or ineffective state involving opposite properties/directions/effects at particular location in energy-space and/or juncture/stage in an ongoing process which may either stagnate and remain balanced or may further evolve and become dominant one/other way, depending on the more effective/stronger etc properties/parameters acting out during that process.

PHILOSOPHICAL/ABSTRACT CONTEXTS/CONSTRUCTS: In arithmetic/number notation/string, the '0' may be a placeholder until a 'value' is assigned to said 'place' in string...

cont
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
@ Captain Stumpy...continued...

WHEREAS in purely philosophical terms/contexts the concept of 'nothing' is just that: an UNREAL concept which cannot be realized or manifested by the universal physical reality processes/states as described earlier.

Anyhow, Captain Stumpy, if you have missed most of my posts re this and other things which could have dispelled your mis-impressions of me and my scientific/logical/mathematical work/observations/insights etc over the years, I can understand your skepticism and your insufficient data/info base to make a proper objective assessment of me and/or my posts to date. No sweat, mate, I do not hold grudges or gloat. I trust the recent increasing trend of mainstreamer studies/revisions/observations confirming I have been correct all along, on many fronts, will soon give you pause to reconsider what you may have missed and caused the misunderstandings to date. The offer of the olive branch stands. No hard feelings. Good luck, CS. :)
PhysicsMatter
2 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
A black eye for Nobel committee taken over by Wall Street. Nobody sane is reading papers of laureates, if they did they would be have been more cautious, but prizes must be given while true scientific progress is dead for last 40 years except for wild speculation to fill the headlines. It is all about funding, 20 billion euro for Hadron collider, they had to produce something to give Nobel to Higgs and his boson based of questionable research, violating experimental rules obtained from broken collider as Danish scientists, wrote in PR Letters.
NoStrings
not rated yet Oct 24, 2016
What a delicious aluminum foil head's discussion. Go on, gentle beings.
HeloMenelo
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2016
Aaaahhhh...!
HeloMenelo
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2016
I see monkeys expanding at an accelerating rate
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
correct your wrong impressions of me
lets see, that makes 2 more posts without any empirical evidence or links/references to validate your claims

are you trying to prove you're illiterate and stupid?

i didn't miss anything in your posts... and as i noted above, you have given absolutely no evidence supporting your claims

even the link to the physorg article isn't support for your claims - an article isn't science, nor is it equivalent to peer reviewed studies: it is the opinion of the author & their interpretations of [x]

that is it

much like every post you've made to date: *opinion*, not science

.

so again: are you trying to prove you're illiterate & stupid?

PS- ya can't dismiss the fact that you are, literally, the very definition of pseudoscience
confused, delusional technobabble sans a lexicon or logic isn't the same thing as science
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2016
Can I buy one of him...?

I don't want/need your money, mate. When finally published complete, I intend to send complimentary copies to those I have conversed with over the years.

I certainly hope I am on that list...
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
rub·bish
ˈrəbiSH
nounBRITISH
1.
waste material; refuse or litter as in
"WHEREAS in purely philosophical terms/contexts the concept of 'nothing' is just that: an UNREAL concept which cannot be realized or manifested by the universal physical reality processes/states as described earlier."

bilge
bilj
noun
2.
informal
nonsense; rubbish. as in
"WHEREAS in purely philosophical terms/contexts the concept of 'nothing' is just that: an UNREAL concept which cannot be realized or manifested by the universal physical reality processes/states as described earlier."

sew·age
ˈso͞oij/Submit
noun
1.
waste water and excrement conveyed in sewers. as in
"WHEREAS in purely philosophical terms/contexts the concept of 'nothing' is just that: an UNREAL concept which cannot be realized or manifested by the universal physical reality processes/states as described earlier."

-Haul/shovel/pump away you moron.

:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)
rub·bish
1. waste material; refuse or litter...
2. nonsense; rubbish...
1.waste water and excrement conveyed in sewers. as in...
"WHEREAS in purely philosophical terms/contexts the concept of 'nothing' is just that: an UNREAL concept which cannot be realized or manifested by the universal physical reality processes/states as described earlier.":)
Thanks for effectively (unwittingly?) agreeing with me that the Philosophical/Metaphysical "zero" (eg, 0-dimensional "Point" notion) is rubbish, and produces only 'singularities/infinities/undefined nonsense as currently applied in maths analysis of real physical entities/processes.

That's why I pointed out those OTHER (ie, real Physical numerical/abstract physical) usages/meanings of "zero".

Since I began to point out these things for 'BB theorists', they have dropped nonsensical (ie, philosophical) notions of "no before big bang" and "ex nihilo"....and began to seriously consider 'what existed all along'. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
How you are too Cher? I am good.

Can I buy one of him...?
I don't want/need your money, mate. When finally published complete, I intend to send complimentary copies to those I have conversed with over the years.


I suspect you might be "correct all along" on that one Cher. The only way you can get the word out is to give him away for free.

Ciao. :)
Keeyooow to you too.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Can I buy one of him?
I don't want/need your money, mate. When finally published complete, I intend to send complimentary copies to those I have conversed with over the years.
I suspect you might be "correct all along" on that one Cher. The only way you can get the word out is to give him away for free.
So let's get you straight, Ira:

You gladly pay dearly for orthodoxy 'word' from 'professional theorists' increasingly being proven wrong by more recent mainstreamer efforts at observation/review of that 'word'.

But you turn your nose up at any correct-all-along 'word' from me, just because I have no mercenary or other 'personal gain' motivations for working out and publishing the independent, objective reality science 'word'.

Amazing!

Ira, you are living proof of the efficacy of advertising industry motto encapsulated in the (my paraphrasing) saying:
a 'commercially brainwashed' fool and his money are soon parted".


Ciao, fool. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. You got a mental condition? I did not turn my nose up at your toes book. I even offered to send you money for one of him. Is this just another way of saying you can not come up with him again like the last 10 years?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. You got a mental condition? I did not turn my nose up at your toes book. I even offered to send you money for one of him. Is this just another way of saying you can not come up with him again like the last 10 years?
That last line in your last post was dripping with disdain and contempt, else there would not have been any reason to write it. Not only a bot-voting fool, but a disingenuous malicious fool at that. Ira, you keep failing the test. Pity. Do better so the shock won't be too great when the complete ToE is published...by me.

PS: There was a time when serious scientists published their own work, because there was no 'publishing industry' to control what was published. Recent scandals and failures in current 'peer review and publishing' industry has caused many to see the damage that 'commercialization' of the science/publishing process has done: dismissing good/original work while passing hack/nonsense work into 'orthodoxy'. :(
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. You got a mental condition? I did not turn my nose up at your toes book. I even offered to send you money for one of him. Is this just another way of saying you can not come up with him again like the last 10 years?
Blah, Blah, Blah and Blah. Do better so I don't look so goofy writing to karma boting nit wit


You don't have to get all tetchy about it.

PS: There was a time when serious scientists published their own work, because there was no 'publishing industry' to control what was published. Blah, Blah, and Blah. So I still don't really have a COMPLETE Really-Skippy book about TOES and everything(


Well why you did not just say so to start with?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

So, you choose to remain a bot-voting ignoramus and fool, skewing the metrics/discussions on a science site, against all objective science and decent humanity ethics.

Ok, Ira. Your choice. A fool's choice it may be, but your choice.

Good luck with that, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

So, you choose to remain a bot-voting ignoramus and fool, skewing the metrics/discussions on a science site, against all objective science and decent humanity ethics.

Ok, Ira. Your choice. A fool's choice it may be, but your choice.

Good luck with that, Ira. :)


That's better, see if you can keep it up for more than one or two pustums.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Thanks for effectively (unwittingly?) agreeing with me that the Philosophical/Metaphysical "zero" (eg, 0-dimensional "Point" notion) is poop
Well I must admit I dont often read the rubbish/bilge/sewage you post in any great depth so please excuse if I picked the wrong quote.

:)

Oh and I dont bother to botvote your 1.7 because whats the point?

:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)

Now now, mate, don't be embarrassed that you effectively, if all unwittingly, agreed with me re such philosophical nonsense notions as: '0-dimension point' and/or 'no before big bang' and/or 'creation ex-nihilo'. It shows that your unwitting subconscious comprehension is still there working for you despite your conscious efforts to be a troll (which you are too intelligent/honest deep down to be very good at being a real 'bad' troll, mate; so you may want to drop that trolling persona/agenda and just be your intelligent and honest self in future).

Anyhow, despite yourself, you do show signs of understanding of complex/subtle issues/concepts (so a complimentary copy of my when-published ToE sent to you might not be anywhere near futile as it would be if sent to Ira).

Be proud of your atheistic intellect and better human self, mate; as it's very rare to encounter on the internet!

Good luck, Ghost. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Mate, you needn't keep apologizing to me about your bot-voting ignoramus 'condition'. We all know by now you can't help it, as that was the only 'avenue for expression' left open to one who is obviously deficient in the wherewithall it takes for intelligent comprehension of anything beyond what his dog can understand (if even that level). Your idiotic trolling attempts are just 'background noise from a fool' here at PO now. Your dog is smarter (so maybe I will send your Dog a complimentary copy, since he is bound to understand it better than you can based on your 'Uncle Ira performance' here at PO to date. What's your dog's name?). :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2016
Your idiotic trolling attempts are just 'background noise from a fool' here at PO now
Well I will admit to you, I certainly do not think I will ever hope to be thought of like you are thought of here on the physorg (and everywhere else to from what I hear.) But that's okay, the humans and the scientists seem to like me even if they don't like you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Your idiotic trolling attempts are just 'background noise from a fool' here at PO now
Well I will admit to you, I certainly do not think I will ever hope to be thought of like you are thought of here on the physorg (and everywhere else to from what I hear.) But that's okay, the humans and the scientists seem to like me even if they don't like you.
Never mind, Ira.

You probably don't even realize that personal 'likes' or 'dislikes' have no part to play in scientific method/understanding.

It's not your fault, after all, since your only avenue for expression of your bot-voting ignoramus insensibility, and the only way for you to garner personal 'likes' from equally insensible 'social media tragics', is to do your Cajun-Uncle-Ira-bot-voting-fool-on-a-science-site-schtick.

Yeah, Ira, you're being helpful (not) to scientists seeking objective logically consistent comprehension of the complex/subtle universal physical reality!

It's your choice, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2016
It's your choice, Ira.
Well thank you so much for that Cher. I usually make better choices for my self than Skippys that play around in Playhouses and are the only people in the whole world that know they are "correct all along". Those kind of couyons don't always make very many good choices has been my life experience. Usually if they make the good choice, it's by accident..
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
I usually make better choices for my self than Skippys that play around in Playhouses and are the only people in the whole world that know they are "correct all along". Those kind of couyons don't always make very many good choices has been my life experience. Usually if they make the good choice, it's by accident.
Mate, I already told you that you needn't keep apologizing for your bot-voting ignoramus idiocy like that. :)

And I bet you would have said much the same things to Darwin, Newton, Einstein, and any other Original thinker/scientist who just happened to BE (in their time) 'the only people in the whole world that knew they are correct all along'.

In every era, SOME ONE had to be FIRST, CORRECT, Ira. That's the way it works. :)

In the present case, recent mainstreamer observations/reviews increasingly confirming I was the one "correct all along". :)

Bot-voting ignoramus choices/dislikes has always been just 'fools noise', Ira.

Do better, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2016
Darwin, Newton, Einstein, and who just happened to BE (in their time) 'the only people in the whole world that knew they are correct all along
Lie Cher.

So you think you are one of those, eh? That's a good theory for a mental patient but it does not stand up to scrutiny.

1) Darwin had a fan club before he published. In the scientist circles, he did not have to resort to the foolishment you do here trying to get somebody to pay attention.

2) Newton was the go-to guy from the time he was in his late twenties. Nobody that was anybody called him a crankpot. Ever.

3) Same with Einstein, he was odd, but he was well thought of odd. Max Planck asked him to come to Berlin as professor (without having to bother with students), director of his own department (to do what ever he wanted. He was 30 years old when that happened.

All those people actually wrote stuffs, that people read. While they was in their 20's, they were well know by everybody who was anybody.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
Hi BurnBabyBurn. :)
He knows you're a nutty old codger and like the rest of us, wish you'd STFU or better yet, just expire gracefully.
In your urgent need to troll without reading/comprehending, you missed the bleedingly obvious point that the science mainstreamer study appearing at the top of this very thread effectively confirms me correct all along on much of what I have been pointing out to IMP-9 et al for ages now.

Not bad....for a "nutty old codger" who all the IN-correct ones here "wish" would "STFU or better yet, just expire gracefully", hey?

Wake up to yourself; and stop wasting your intellect/life being yet another of those many legions of irrelevant trolls on the internet, BBB. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

The mainstreamer study/observations of the above article effectively makes your 'fools noise' irrelevant, Ira.
1) Darwin had a fan club before he published.
You forget all the decades leading up to the point of completeness/publication of his insight/idea, Ira.
2) Newton was the go-to guy from the time he was in his late twenties. Nobody that was anybody called him a crankpot. Ever.
Learn some history, Ira.
3) Same with Einstein, he was odd, but he was well thought of odd....He was 30 years old when that happened.
Until he had his bright idea/insight, he was just another hack among hacks. Learn some history, Ira.
All those people actually wrote stuffs, that people read. While they was in their 20's, they were well know by everybody who was anybody.
I choose not to publish my ToE 'piecemeal', and prefer to work to 'thorough completeness' like Darwin before I publish.

Science/Ideas will be better presented; and less hassles for me. Win-Win. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2016
You forget all the decades leading up to the point of completeness/publication of his insight/idea, Ira.
He was famous by the time he was 30, just a couple of years after his return from this "voyage".

Newton was the go-to guy from the time he was in his late twenties. Nobody that was anybody called him a crankpot. Ever.


Learn some history, Ira.
You mean like he was a full professor by 27, had invented calculus by 25, was buddies with Hooke, Halley, Pepys, yeah while still in his 20's.

Until he had his bright idea/insight, he was just another hack among hacks. Learn some history, Ira
He had published quite a few things before he was 25, published SRT when he was 26, photoelectric effect at 26, Brownian motion at 26, GRT at 35 (by that time he was already famous among scientists)

What have you done? Publish gobbledygook on physorg and make the fool of your self. You are 70 years old and you are the only person who knows you are great.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 24, 2016
Science/Ideas will be better presented; and less hassles for me. Win-Win. :)


Yeah, I can see where writing nothing would be less hassles for you. But you only get one win from that, the other win is really a lose. (Unless you enjoy to be the object of ridicule and derision all over the world then it is a win win.)

How it does feel Cher to be 70 years old and known the world over only for being a mental case? 70 years old and not one accomplishment, unless you count the Playhouse foolishment and all the stuffs you littered up the physorg with.

Laissez les bons temps rouler (That's coonass for: See you round the Playhouse Cher http://earthlingclub.com/)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira.
He was famous by the time he was 30, just a couple of years after his return from this "voyage".
Fame did not expedite his slow, thorough, methodical compilation of all the necessary data/insights to complete his magnum opus, did it? It took him decades to finally be ready to publish complete evolution theory.
You mean like he was a full professor by 27, had invented calculus by 25, was buddies with Hooke, Halley, Pepys,...
He was called a plagiarist by Hooke et al; and worse by others (ie, by ignoramuses and fools much like you, Ira).
published SRT when he was 26, photoelectric effect at 26, Brownian motion at 26, GRT at 35
Each novel idea/insight made him 'the first one' to be correct on THAT particular aspect, no?

FYI, Ira, my sporadic Internet Forum experiments/discussions here/elsewhere were backgrounding/soundboarding (with occasional hints to get others thinking for themselves) while completing the COMPREHENSIVE (not a 'partial') Theory. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Science/Ideas will be better presented; and less hassles for me. Win-Win. :)
Yeah, I can see where writing nothing would be less hassles for you. But you only get one win from that, the other win is really a lose. (Unless you enjoy to be the object of ridicule and derision all over the world then it is a win win.)

How it does feel Cher to be 70 years old and known the world over only for being a mental case?
You seem to be suffering from the same 'condition' that BBB suffered from when he made similar insulting assertions which ignored the 'inconvenient facts' that the article/study of this very thread provides confirmation that, for a so-called (by idiots and ignoramuses) "mental case", I was the one who was correct all along, while all those who trolled/insulted/ignored me were WRONG all along.

And my accomplishments are many but not trumpeted, as I am not in it for money or glory; a concept which seems 'alien' to some. Don't cry, Ira. :(
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2016
FYI, Ira, my sporadic Internet Forum experiments/discussions here/elsewhere were backgrounding/soundboarding (with occasional hints to get others thinking for themselves) while completing the COMPREHENSIVE (not a 'partial') Theory. :)


Well FYIeeei to you too. So FYI your "sporadic" (if sporadic in Australia means years of writing hundreds and thousands) was not all that much groundbreaking Cher. It was just run of the mill sort of mental patient gobbledygook.

I looked you up in the Wiki thing. What you got is the delusions of grandeur. That is science talk for thinking you are a Newton or Einstein when you are actually just the disheveled ragged man carrying a tattered cardboard sign that shouts gobbledygook at the peoples trying to get into the Parish Courthouse to pay their taxes and fees for licensees.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira.
He was famous by the time he was 30, just a couple of years after his return from this "voyage".
Fame did not expedite his slow, thorough, methodical compilation of all the necessary data/insights to complete his magnum opus, did it? It took him decades to finally be ready to publish complete evolution theory.

His "fame" was a result of his knowledge being shown (and shared) in incremental bits. Like layers in a cake...
Cake can take a while to assemble...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
What you got is the delusions of grandeur. That is science talk for thinking you are a Newton or Einstein when you are actually just the disheveled ragged man carrying a tattered cardboard sign that shouts gobbledygook at the peoples trying to get into the Parish Courthouse to pay their taxes and fees for licensees.
Oh, how cute! A bot-voting ignoramus comes onto a science site to accuse me, whom the mainstreamer study/observations of this very thread effectively confirms has been correct all along on much of what I have been pointing out for IMP-9 et al, of having "delusions of grandeur".

Meanwhile, what I also pointed out above re "zero" etc concepts remain beyond this bot-voting ignoramus's comprehension.

So: If actually being correct/comprehending is labeled "delusions of grandeur"; then what label can we attach to this bot-voting ignoramus...Oh!...that's right; we already have the perfect label: A fool being what he chose to be...an Idiot. Sad, Ira.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
I certainly hope I am on that list...
No sweat, mate. Unlike some, and notwithstanding any occasional 'hiccup' on your part, you appear to have what it takes to properly consider/comprehend it. So you can expect a complimentary copy when the time comes. :)
His [Darwin's] "fame" was a result of his knowledge being shown (and shared) in incremental bits. Like layers in a cake...
Cake can take a while to assemble...
Exactly. It was what was happening in scholarly circles in that era. Most were acutely aware that pestilence, war and poverty etc could overtake them at any moment in those 'uncertain times'; hence why they were driven to do/discuss their utmost while they were young (especially as the average expected lifespan was in the late twenties/early forties...the lucky few made it to ripe old ages of course).

Anyhow, it's a case of "horses for courses/times". I made a conscious choice to work towards comprehensive complete theory/publishing. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2016
Oh, how cute! A bot-voting ignoramus comes onto a science site to accuse me, whom the mainstreamer study/observations of this very thread effectively confirms has been correct all along on much of what I have been pointing out for IMP-9 et al, of having "delusions of grandeur".


Yeah Cher, just like that. That is what the Wiki place was talking about when I looked up your mental conditions. Delusions of grandeur. It means you think you are great with the scientific stuffs and theories but it is only gobbledygook to normal peoples.

You should try another thing for a hobby, something you can do alone where you are not so inclined to convince other peoples you are really good at it. Gobbledygooking can only get you so far Cher before peoples start having the fun with you.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2016
Hi Ira.:)
That is what the Wiki place was talking about when I looked up your mental conditions. Delusions of grandeur. It means you think you are great scientific stuffs and theories but it is only gobbledygook to normal peoples.
Have you sufficient self-awareness, wit to see the two glaring questions which your idiot drivel raises?

1) What does wiki have to say about the 'condition' of insensible bot-voting ignoramus skewing the metrics on a science site while opining about those who are actually being confirmed correct by the mainstreamer study/article of this very thread? Let me guess....it's: "Sad Uncle Ira Condition: a Fool choosing to be an Idiot trolling correct posters and skewing the metrics on a science site."

2) Why do you think you, a demonstrably insensible bot-voting idiot on a science site, are in any way shape or form "normal peoples" when it comes to comprehending scientific complexities/subtleties? Oh...because you're not "normal peoples".

Sad.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2016
the science mainstreamer study appearing at the top of this very thread effectively confirms me correct
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
1- no, it doesn't

2- unless you can specifically point to not only the specific data points and your historical "prediction" of said data points, then you're talking out your *ss, like usual

3- any singular study is simply a point of interest. to be a scientific "truth" there must be validation, and considering your lack of math skills and evidence, you can't provide that part at all

4- you made15 posts with absolutely no evidence at all, whatsoever (not even a reference) - & you still can't see why this directly violates the scientific method?
ROTFLMFAO
If actually being correct/comprehending is labeled
you still can't make this claim as you can't provide evidence for "actually being correct/comprehending"
FOAD
:)
:P
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ

post script regarding this
I intend to send complimentary copies to those I have conversed with over the years
there are a few ways this can be taken:
1- terroristic threatening, badgering or a direct threat with malicious intent
(review your local and other laws RE classification)

2- religion: you will likely have to either be formally recognized as a religion or at least hold (in the US, anyway) a 501(c)3 designation

.

i would ask for a copy myself but i know the truth:
i know who hacked your system and copied all your "thoughts" and "research" ... more to the point, i have what you call your "ToE" or "COMPREHENSIVE (not a 'partial') Theory"

say hi to Anon when you get arrested for that hidden stuff on your pc... because they called 5-0 on you

you really should learn to delete and defrag, your HD is a mess and you have a lot of BS on there

[satirical hyperbole - or is it?]
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Oh dear.

Now you're claiming I (an atheist since age nine, and, unlike you, against violence and personal malice) am intending to send 'religious' or 'terrorist' manifestos to people whom I have been conversing with re objective science/logics of a complete, comprehensive atheistic reality-based ToE?

And you claim you 'have' my complete ToE because you say someone hacked my system and stole it (even though my complete ToE is not on my on-line-connected computer)?

Wow! Mate, what are you on these days? Quit it quick! Before you go troppo paranoid and/or shoot somebody who happens to fall foul of your malignant delusions!

Are you under 'care' somewhere, CapS? Is anyone responsible for you? I only ask because you certainly don't appear to be sufficiently compos mentis; making false and libelous accusations against a stranger on the internet while admitting to complicity in 'hacking' across the internet!

As Phys1 might say: Get help, asap! :(
jorisvaneil
3 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2016
I suspect at least half of the comments above to be by Deepak Chopra
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2016
are in any way shape or form "normal peoples" when it comes to comprehending scientific complexities/subtleties?

Well, Ira is certainly not normal people. He's way above average when it comes to comprehending science (and more importantly he has a very good eye for recognizing what is and what isn't science).

Then again there is nothing subtle about science. Either you can explain what you mean in a way that others understand it or you can't. If you can't then that's a 100% indicator that you're wrong. (Note that in science even if you can there's a chance you're wrong)

But since you're most definitely in the "can't explain your stuff" camp you've got those 100% working for ya.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2016
Hi antialias. :)
Ira is certainly not normal people.
Trivially obvious; demonstrated by his bot-voting and self-admitted ignoramus status when it comes to science subtleties/complexities.
He [Ira] is way above average when it comes to comprehending science (and more importantly he has a very good eye for recognizing what is and what isn't science).
If he didn't fall hook-line-and sinker-for that bicep2 crap like you did while gleefully using it to 'bash cranks', then he is certainly above YOU re 'comprehension of science' and 'recognizing what is and what is not science', hey!
Then again there is nothing subtle about science.
No wonder you fell for all those old 'un-subtle' naive/simplistic...and increasingly being proven wrong...interpretations/explanations, hey!
But since you're most definitely in the "can't explain your stuff" camp you've got those 100% working for ya.
...says the one who has been wrong while I have been correct.

Learn, mate. :)
javjav
1 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2016
No cosmological constant? So maybe Einstein was right when he said he was wrong. But only new data will tell us. I don't understand all these comments trying to defend one position or the other so categorically when there is no conclusive data yet. You don't f. know it, and you know it
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2016
Posts & ratings this thread so far:

Tuxford: posts=1; 2.4 / 5 (14)
julianpenrod: posts=1; 2.6 / 5 (15)
CubicAdjunct747: posts=1; 1.9 / 5 (9)
Chris_Reeve: posts=3; 2.1 / 5 (26)
JIMBO: posts=1; 1.9 / 5 (9)
Nattydread: posts=1; 3.4 / 5 (11)
Landrew: posts=4; 3.2 / 5 (30)
IMP-9: posts=8; 4.4 / 5 (69)
jeffensley: posts=1; 4.3 / 5 (6)
tblakely1357: posts=2; 2.8 / 5 (9)
OdinsAcolyte: posts=1; 3 / 5 (6)
arcmetal: posts=1; 2.2 / 5 (13)
Phys1: posts=39; 4 / 5 (228)
bschott: posts=3; 2.4 / 5 (25)
hemitite: posts=1; 5 / 5 (3)
humy: posts=1; 4 / 5 (4)
Ultron: posts=1; 3.6 / 5 (7)
Reg Mundy: posts=5; 1.8 / 5 (33)
komone: posts=3; 3.2 / 5 (13)
cantdrive85: posts=8; 1.6 / 5 (78)
BackBurner: posts=3; 1.7 / 5 (12)
deblackmere: posts=1; 2.2 / 5 (13)
philstacy9: posts=1; 1.7 / 5 (11)
liquidspacetime: posts=1; 1 / 5 (7)
Urgelt: posts=1; 4.2 / 5 (5)
eric96: posts=1; 1.8 / 5 (11)
NIPSZX: posts=1; 2.1 / 5 (7)

cont'd >
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2016
> cont'd:

RealityCheck: posts=34; 1.4 / 5 (120)
FredJose: posts=3; 1.7 / 5 (23)
jonnyrox: posts=1; 3.7 / 5 (6)
Benni: posts=12; 1.1 / 5 (73)
BartV: posts=1; 1.9 / 5 (9)
Bigbangcon: posts=2; 1.7 / 5 (17)
TheGhostofOtto1923: posts=3; 4.7 / 5 (11)
Uncle Ira: posts=18; 4.3 / 5 (94)
Captain Stumpy: posts=6; 4.3 / 5 (31)
sylvain040664: posts=1; 1 / 5 (1)
greenonions: posts=1; 5 / 5 (7)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson: posts=1; 5 / 5 (9)
optical: posts=6; 2 / 5 (29)
TopJimmy: posts=1; 5 / 5 (8)
PhysicsMatter: posts=1; 2 / 5 (4)
NoStrings: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
HeloMenelo: posts=2; 5 / 5 (7)
Whydening Gyre: posts=2; 5 / 5 (8)
BurnBabyBurn: posts=1; 5 / 5 (3)
jorisvaneil: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
antialias_physorg: posts=1; 5 / 5 (3)
javjav: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
you're claiming
not claiming: http://phys.org/n...mes.html

an atheist
WTF does this have to do with anything? belief in something without evidence is a faith, and that means a religion, therefore you promote religion over science. period
unlike you, against violence blah blah
i am against violence
it doesn't mean i ain't capable, it simply means i prefer to not have to go there, idiot
not on my on-line-connected
and?
who said i did anything, let alone did it on-line?

it's not like the world doesn't know your home address... or your IP, or... you get the point yet? LOL
making false and libelous accusations
if you could prove this you could litigate

feel free to
i will even send your lawyers my contact info
you will have to litigate here, though, - jurisdictional requirement

LMFAO
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

You are showing all the signs, mate. Seriously, get some help. Are there any true friends who would tell you the truth about your juvenile behavior and obsessive lying and trolling on the net, as betrayed in your last few posts? Look to someone who isn't just a 'yes man' friend who will tell you what you want to hear. Choose, if there is one available, a true friend who will read the last few posts and tell you honestly just how bad the signs are. Do it before your choice 'not to shoot anyone' morphs into a choice 'to shoot somebody, anybody'. Ok, mate? The olive branch offer still stands, and there's still no hard personal feelings this end towards you. Good luck, CS. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2016
Hi Ira.
-And so we can tell when the crackpot rc is miffed when he uses a period instead of his usual insipid neurotic smileyface.

This is how insipid neurotic crackpots communicate on multiple levels.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)
Hi Ira.
-And so we can tell when the crackpot rc is miffed when he uses a period instead of his usual insipid neurotic smileyface.

This is how insipid neurotic crackpots communicate on multiple levels.
So, occasional typos and/or rushed unintended omission of ":)" and/or intentional culling of text to fit PO post text limits and/or semantics/spelling etc etc, is more important to you than the actual science/ideas being discussed/explained?

PS: Mate, that last line of your post fits you infinitely more aptly than it does me. Isn't it you that was outraged whenever I used ":)" in my posts? So that absence of ":)" in my post (for whatever reason it was absent) should have been cause for 'joy, celebration and praise' from you!....instead of using it as yet another lame excuse for even more inane trolling of your personal/egotistical semantical etc obsessions...all of which are irrelevant to objective constructive science/humanity discussions. :)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2016
@Protoplasmick
Fascinating! You must be desperate to find some meaningful way of spending your time!
I was interested to note;-
Reg Mundy: posts=5; 1.8 / 5 (33)
which means that, given the usual number of automatic 1's awarded by Strumpo, Irate, Fizz, etc. plus the robotitc glomming, there must be at least 5 fellow nutmegs who rated me a five. Thanks, fellows, but I fear your considerations will not sway the troglodytes who infest this site with their moronic insults and refusals to ever THINK!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2016
@RC,
Hi Ghost. :)
Hi Ira.
-And so we can tell when the crackpot rc is miffed when he uses a period instead of his usual insipid neurotic smileyface.

This is how insipid neurotic crackpots communicate on multiple levels.
So, occasional typos and/or rushed unintended omission of ":)" and/or intentional culling of text to fit PO post text limits and/or semantics/spelling etc etc, is more important to you than the actual science/ideas being discussed/explained?

PS: Mate, that last line of your post fits you infinitely more aptly than it does me. Isn't it you that was outraged whenever I used ":)" i..........)


Et boring cetera. Mate, have you actually ever published anything? Really? Please provide a link. Jesus. Some people, eh?

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)

A question in return...

Why is it that I, who actually do hold scientific method, objectivity etc principles in high regard, have to keep reminding people who claim the same, that double standards, ignorance and prejudice etc are no way to assure anyone you actually uphold those principles?

It's painfully obvious from your attitude and uninformed manner, that you are sticking your nose into things which you have no full appreciation of let alone any objectivity about.

I say 'obviously' because if you had been fully informed and objective you would not have taken such a personally prejudicial cheap shot; made worse because you clearly are not fully appraised of all the background.

jonsedave, as someone who does value highly and practices scrupulously the principles of independence, objectivity and fairness, and informs himself throughly before commenting, your above cheap shot brings disrepute to true science/scientist ethics.

Be better than that. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL
Why is it that I, who actually do hold scientific method, objectivity etc principles in high regard
this is where you and i differ, rc... i can prove my points or claims with evidence

i can prove your above quote is a false claim (AKA- a blatant lie) with one single reference: your earthling club posts (earthlingclub.com)

so i reiterate what i posted above and what you have always failed to address: where is your evidence?
Do it before your choice 'not to shoot anyone' morphs into a choice 'to shoot somebody, anybody'
promise to visit in person and i promise to rethink my choice not to shoot anyone
OK?

:-)

more to the point: i don't care what your feelings are
i don't care if you like or dislike me
what i *do* care about is science and the scientific method

and given that you regularly sh*t all over it while regurgitating pseudoscience, then we can never get along until that changes

period
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2016
@Protoplasmick
Fascinating! You must be desperate to find some meaningful way of spending your time!
I was interested to note;-
Reg Mundy: posts=5; 1.8 / 5 (33)
which means that, given the usual number of automatic 1's awarded by Strumpo, Irate, Fizz, etc. plus the robotitc glomming, there must be at least 5 fellow nutmegs who rated me a five. Thanks, fellows, but I fear your considerations will not sway the troglodytes who infest this site with their moronic insults and refusals to ever THINK!

Just to prove my point, within 5 minutes of making this comment, two votes of 1/5 were registered. Pathetic!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Just to prove my point, within 5 minutes of making this comment, two votes of 1/5 were registered
@reg-pseudoscience TROLL
actually, i read your comment and downrated it based upon the fallacious content... like
automatic 1's
i don't automatically give you a 1

you have earned every single 1 star rating that i've given you
you have refused to post evidence, content, proof or even a reasonable explanation for any of the "science" claims you have made WRT your own delusional "no gravity" speculations (it doesn't even rate the hypothesis nomenclature as it has no logic AND the evidence directly refutes your claims)

more to the point: you can't explain the simple things that observation has showed directly refute your belief without asking people to buy your book and simply believe the bullsh*t in it

that is the very definition of pseudoscience (and a really crappy CON as well)

now *that* is pathetic!
on your part
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
So, occasional typos and/or rushed unintended omission of ":)" and/or intentional culling of text to fit PO post text limits and/or semantics/spelling etc etc
-And so Im thinking you couldnt actually refrain from using your little smilyface droppings even if you wanted to. Perhaps you have tried. Perhaps you are the unfortunate OCD sufferer that you appear to be.

You dont mind if we continue to make fun of you do you? Theres a trooper-
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

It's not a matter of personal like or dislike, mate; it's just that I don't harbor grudges against people, period; hence I harbor no hard personal feelings towards you despite your behavior. :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)

Why would I even consider refraining from using a perfectly serviceable text symbol to convey lack of animosity towards interlocutors, just because an anonymous typos-and-semantics-troll on the internet fixates on it as one more lame excuse to troll his inane science-irrelevant waste of life and time, mate?

Good luck with your chosen role in life, mate. :)....and another :) just for you, just in case you are sadder today than you usually are, Ghost. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

I caution against any "publish or perish" exercise using obviously compromised observational data sets and inadequate, simplistic assumptions/methods in analysis/interpretation.

The bicep2 team learned that scientific lesson the hard way. But the temptation seems too great, overcoming many otherwise intelligent humans eager to 'beat the competition' or 'ridicule adversaries' or whatever 'personal' agendas/needs.

It should be born in mind by anyone embarking on a 'statistical exercise' like yours, using PO's ratings stats, that the relevant 'metrics' here at PO are being intentionally and unconscionably 'skewed' by bot-rating ignoramuses and troll-gang personal/troll feuds/agendas; hence the majority of ratings bear no relation to the rated post's actual science/logics contents/merits per se, but reflect mainly the complicit rating trolls' stupidity and malice.

Bicep2 fiasco proved it is a waste of time to do/depend-on such flawed 'exercises', mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

See Proto? :)

Within minutes the Uncle Ira bot-voting program used by that malignant ignoramus has downvoted '1' despite the fact that my caution not to do/depend on flawed 'stats exercises' was supported by the example of bicep2 fiasco which similarly involved compromised data sets and flawed/simplistic assumptions/analysis etc.

Just look at this thread so far: On-topic/related science/logics posts have been swamped by posts from trolls against whom I am duty bound to defend myself. The malicious trolls and bot-voting ignoramuses then 'vote' accordingly to skew the PO metrics/stats even more.

You see starkly demonstrated, even as we speak, the source and motives which make your PO ratings-stats 'exercise' a total waste of time because it will inevitably mislead and detract from, rather than inform, re the reality.

First apply intellect/time to condemning and ejecting from PO such trolls/bot-voters; then maybe your exercise might mean something. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Uncle Ira bot-voting program used as a service to humans and scientists that don't what to see all my blah, blah, blah don't have to see it my gobbledygook if they set their karma vote slider thingy to 2.5.


Unless they just want something to laugh about, then they can set it lower to see all the weird delusions of grandeur ravings.

condemning and ejecting from PO such trolls/bot-voters;
How that been working out for you Cher? Now sit one out so I don't have to give you a whack with that Cajun Stick you was whining about last year.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Got it. You intentionally skew the metrics on a science site in order to censor what gets past the filter settings of the reader who doesn't suspect that trolls and bot-voting ignoramuses like you are manipulating their reading options against all proper science and humanity ethics.

Thanks for that confession, Ira! :)

I'm sure Protoplasmix will be so glad that you are 'helping' him and all the "science/human-Skippys, by contaminating the stats/metrics so that they present misleading picture to the reader and to Protoplasmix's own 'exercise' whose credibility depends on those same PO stats you are 'helpfully' skewing. :)

PS: How's that, Proto? Are you, as a scientist-Skippy, in any way concerned that Ira is bot-voting and skewing the very stats you are using? Considering recent scandals re 'peer review/publishing' process, it bears a disturbingly similar pattern to what is going on here, doesn't it? See why credibility of science/scientists is under attack? :(
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
@Protoplasmick
Fascinating! You must be desperate to find some meaningful way of spending your time!
I was interested to note;-
Reg Mundy: posts=5; 1.8 / 5 (33)
which means that, given the usual number of automatic 1's awarded by Strumpo, Irate, Fizz, etc. plus the robotitc glomming, there must be at least 5 fellow nutmegs who rated me a five. Thanks, fellows, but I fear your considerations will not sway the troglodytes who infest this site with their moronic insults and refusals to ever THINK!

Just to prove my point, within 5 minutes of making this comment, two votes of 1/5 were registered. Pathetic!

Yup! There they go again! Phys.org should identify who has voted what, so we could all have a good laugh at Irate, Cap'n Sumpy, Fizz, et al.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2016
Hi Protplasmix, IMP-9, Phys1, antialias et al. :)

Many of my longstanding observations/cautions re flaws/problems with orthodoxy of cosmological modeling assumptions, distance-ladder methodologies, etc etc (which I have long been pointing out for your benefit, to urge you to do your own objective scientific consideration/review), are again being increasingly confirmed correct by recent newer mainstreamer observations/reviews.

The above article of this thread was one example of confirmation of correctness of my relevant observations/challenges to orthodoxy; and below I link to two more examples where newer mainstreamers/studies/reviews confirm me correct all along in what I have been trying to get you to realize in the hope it gets through your ignore/denial/biases:

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

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

Too many examples to list all! Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2016
Phys.org should identify who has voted what, so we could all have a good laugh at Irate, Cap'n Sumpy, Fizz, et al


All you had to do was ask, here you go Skippy,,,,

https://sciencex....y/?v=act
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2016
@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL sucking up to the wrong people
It's not a matter of personal like or dislike
you do realise that i still don't care, right?

what i care about is science and evidence that can be validated
you present neither, therefore i am apathetic to your feelings

.

and not just apathetic, mind you... i really don't give a sh*t about what or how you feel, mostly because you're a liar and fraud, and i've already proven that
hence I harbor no hard personal feelings towards you despite your behavior
1- let me check to see if i care yet....

.

.

nope. still don't care

2- until you start presenting evidence for your claims, it still boils down to the fact that i can prove my claims and you can't (see post above)

.

reported for OT pseudoscience baiting/trolling
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2016
Phys.org should identify who has voted what, so we could all have a good laugh at Irate, Cap'n Sumpy, Fizz, et al


All you had to do was ask, here you go Skippy,,,,

https://sciencex....y/?v=act

@Ira

that was epic...

you just demonstrated, with less than a hundred characters, that the idiot reg is inept at not only the internet - but also literacy

you won the internets today
LFMAO

beer is on me
mgagne
1 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2016
I would urge us to actually read the Nielsen, Guffanti & Sarkar paper, especially their Figure 2. Any scientist, even the authors, would have presented this as strong evidence for dark matter and lambda. Essentially the entire 3-sigma ellipsoid is above the no acceleration line. Their claim is simply that the result is "marginal" based only on this sample of Type Ia supernovae. I'm not sure I would describe 3-sigma in this case as marginal. This is a tempest in a teapot. Based on the flatness of the observable universe seen in the CMB, it's up to someone to disprove accelerating expansion. This result does not do that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2016
just because an anonymous typos-and-semantics-troll on the internet fixates on it as one more lame excuse to troll his inane science-irrelevant waste of life and time, mate?
Hold on, are you admitting that youre an anonymous typos-and-semantics-troll on the internet who fixates on his precious little emoticon as one more lame excuse to troll your inane science-irrelevant waste of life and time?

Mate?

That's the longest Freudian slip I've ever seen.
optical
Oct 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2016
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Mate, you're making irrelevant noises again. Have you any science point to make re the thread article/topic revelations? :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)
just because an anonymous typos-and-semantics-troll on the internet fixates on it as one more lame excuse to troll his inane science-irrelevant waste of life and time, mate?
Hold on, are you admitting that youre an anonymous typos-and-semantics-troll on the internet who fixates on his precious little emoticon as one more lame excuse to troll your inane science-irrelevant waste of life and time?

Mate?

That's the longest Freudian slip I've ever seen.
Wow, you can twist that obvious observation re your own posts into something else entirely different to the reality? Mate, the irrelevant internet troll 'fantasy twisting force' is strong in you. Careful you don't fall into your own pile of troll crap, mate. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
Hi optical. :)
In addition, the finding of dark energy is already supported with another observations, despite in http://i.stack.imgur.com/JtnYB.gif. So I would wait with premature dismissal of the Nobel prize for physics in 2011 in this case.
Take care, mate. All those 'measurements' and 'interpretations you linked to were based on assumptions/methodologies which are being increasingly discovered to have been simplistic/naive and downright silly/artifacts of unscientific 'exercises' that mislead every subsequent 'exercise' or 'conclusion' which only perpetuated the whole shaky edifice of logically/physically untenable 'house of cards' since the BB etc hypotheses biased all so called 'scientific' 'papers' and 'work' thereafter.

But you are correct. The more we learn from newer mainstream efforts the sooner we can discard old myths which invaded early on the literature/mindset of so-called 'professional' cosmologists. Good luck to science and humanity. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2016
HI Phys1. :)
I put RC on ignore because he have lost all contact with reality.
I put Coco the Clown on ignore for being a clown.
Now they solicit 1 votes by whining.
Much obliged.
Mate, you put me on ignore because I was correct all along, and you know it even though you're obviously in denial because your ego won't let you admit it out loud.

And your own penchant for personal 'ratings' instead of science correctness shows that you are here for skewed metrics to feed your ego-games 'needs' rather than learning correct science irrespective of source. Too bad. I had hopes that you might turn out to be a true scientist one day; but you keep using ignore/denial and ego-ratings personal games. You are turning out worse than those religious/ignoramus trolls you attack. They don't know any better, but you should. Pity. Good luck in your games while remaining ignorant of the evolving mainstream paradigm which increasingly confirming me correct all along, mate. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2016
Wow, you can twist that obvious observation re your own posts into something else entirely different to the reality? Mate, the irrelevant internet troll 'fantasy twisting force' is strong in you. Careful you don't fall into your own pile of troll crap
Wow mate looks like you're really enjoying making this thread all about you matE :)

mate

Is mate some Freudian compulsion to reproduce? Mate/mate :)
If so I'm not interested mate :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2016
@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL sucking up STILL
Have you any science point to make re the thread article/topic
you mean like this gem?
Are you, as a scientist-Skippy, in any way concerned that Ira is bot-voting and skewing the very stats you are using?
or are you referring to your Freudian slip?

or your still-as-yet claims of BICEP2 and their fatal flaws that you've posted about more than 5000 times with absolutely no evidence at all whatsoever?

yeah... very science-y stuff there

that also has a specific label that defines what it is. either:
pseudoscience
or false claim

take your pick

reported
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2016
Hi Ghost, CapS. :)

It's you two making it all about me, via your trolling. :)

I merely reminded IMP-9 of my SCIENCE observations re relevant serious flaws/problems in past observational/analysis 'exercises' which for many decades built up incorrect/misleading 'interpretations/conclusions' into the 'professional cosmology' theory/mindset. I also pointed out that newer/recent mainstreamer observations/reviews such as the study above and in other recent PO articles, are increasingly confirming I have been correct all along in said observations I have been trying to get him to realize for himself each time I pointed out the relevant flaws/problems to him. Now we note that IMP-9 is silent (possibly at last seriously considering my many past/present science-based reminders); while you and CapS (irrelevant noisemakers) troll me while you remain ignorant of the science issues/advances involved. Hence my many posts defending against your troll posts. So stop your noises, sillies. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2016
@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who still cannot read
It's you two making it all about me
really?
lets see some of your own comments - i will only go back 2 days:
I merely reminded
I am duty bound
I caution
I was correct all along
I harbor no hard personal feelings
my longstanding observations/cautions re flaws/problems
I have long been pointing out
my relevant observations/challenges
all offered with NO evidence at all, whatsoever, other than your personal ASSurances that you are correct

but you claim that is science?
perhaps you should read up on the method - https://en.wikipe...c_method

so, Have you any science point to make re the thread article/topic - and by that i mean something that is real, can be researched and validated, and isn't simply posted on your crackpot delusional website of pseudoscience?

no?

didn't think so

reported

now you will want the last word- which will have zero evidence
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

Please stop your irrelevant trolling noise, mate. Since you long applied your own 'scientific methodology' comprising mostly of intentional ignorance and personal insults, it is of no use whatsoever telling you anything anymore, since you missed/ignored/twisted it all when it was told you and others the first few times over years now.

@ Forum: here is Captain Stumpy's longstanding attitude and research methodology encapsulated in his long repeated trolling posts 'justified and illuminated' by his very own personal bot-voting ignoramus's 'science method mantra': and I quote...
TL:DR (ie, "Too Long : Didn't Read")
...usually accompanied by...
FOAD (ie, F*uck Off And Die").


What sort of silly self-deluding troll expects anyone to take his self-demonstrated malignant anti-science/anti-humanity ignoramus 'troll noises' seriously? Yep, the 'CapS' sort; the silly noisy irrelevant bot-voting little bugger! :)
optical
Oct 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 29, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
"@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL sucking up STILL"
--------------------------------------

Why can't you outgrow your nastiness and need to abuse others?

What is it with you? You hide behind a phony name and attack others.

Outgrow it.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
The past science is usually wrong
@ZEPH-the pseudoscienceTROLL
you mean like your aether crap? yeah, that is definitely wrong!
but GR/SR, QM and others are "past science" and are still proven correct regularly

i see you are back to using your sock army to vote - voting on yourself with proxies doesn't make what you say correct
having the evidence to support your science does

that is why you always eventually get banhammered

.

.

.

@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Why can't you outgrow your
why can't you outgrow your need to spread lies and unsubstantiated claims while bragging and redirecting a thread into narcissistic irrelevant troll bullsh*t?
You hide behind a phony name
your momma named you gkam?

huh... and all this time i thought that was a pseudonym

at least i am still well known and called Truck Captain Stumpy or Captain Stumpy by everyone who knows me - more than my own birth name

i never hear your wife calling you gkam
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
CS should show more restraint
@Phys1
ROTFLMFAO

perhaps i should reiterate what i am doing here on po?

1- i love science. actual science
not the bs crap that people like zeph or cd posts advocating for known debunked pseudoscience

so why do they do it?
that leads to the actual reason i poke them

2- i am studying the pseudoscience (religious, conspiracy, etc) true believers

and how do you get them to open up?
challenge them. debunk them. post about their tactics. force them to advocate for their belief

get them to open themselves up and spill their guts, either intentionally (like zeph or cd) or unintentionally (like gkam or hannes/reeve)

why do they advocate for something that is *known* to be false?
it's the same reason we still have religion and cults in the information and science age

it may be irritating to some folk, but it is also necessary since i can't see them in person and they won't answer direct polls truthfully
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
Yeah, Trumpy, hiding and sniping is all you can do.

Why do you hide? Of what are you so SCARED?

Give up your silly adolescent hide-and-seek, and grow up and identify who you are. Are you afraid of me? I'm a nice guy.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
" i can't see them in person "
--------------------------------

Oh yes, you can! You have my address, phone number, pictures of my house., and even some of my personal performance reports. You are just too SCARED to meet anybody, while you cower in the woods only opening up your big mouth to attack others who have bested you.

Let's get together! I want to see what fear does to people.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2016
" i can't see them in person "


Here you go Captain-Skippy, I can help with that.

https://www.youtu...9Or0cYEY
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2016
I want to see what fear does to people.


I can help with that too glam-Skippy. Here you go again.

https://www.youtu...jI571prU
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Let's get together! I want to see what fear does to people
funny thing - you also have my home address and a map to my house, yet you've never tried to visit me, either

why is that?
fear?
because you know you would be outed as the liar you are?
my personal performance
ROTFLMFAO

and that helps me get to your house how?

tell you what - send me about $500 and i will personally visit you
ok?

i'm just surprised you didn't get your lawyers involved already so we could meet, per your own threats here on PO

it's not like i wasn't willing to go toe-to-toe in court

why didn't you file suit?
fear?
lack of evidence?
because your lawyers told you exactly what i did?
LMFAO

FOAD

.

.

PS - your house- it's not as nice as i thought it would be, considering your braggadocio about being a super engineer, spy, in the "biz" and having so many important jobs and all...

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
Yeah, Trumpy, and you have dirty underwear. See, I can get down to almost your level.

Did you say who you were hiding from?

From what do you cower?

Let's get off your need to "get even" with those who bested you, and back on the topic.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I agree with you that CS should show more restraint.
See? I said you weren't a dead loss to objective intellect and fair humanity ethics! Kudos.
Otherwise, he is completely right.
Oh oh, you relapsed again. How can he be 'right'?...when he is just a juvenile insulting/denying/lying 'bot-voting machine'....who hasn't a clue re subtleties/complexities of the known science, let alone re evolving science being discovered as we speak? He just pretends he is tackling cranks/pseudoscience by parroting orthodoxy, linking repeatedly to juvenile irrelevances to what actual science is being discussed re the PO science articles.
Nurse ! Quick !
No need to call the nurse on CapS, mate; just because he (and his gang of twits) fell for that Bicep2 crap, hook line and sinker, while bashing cranks with that IN-correct 'work'. :)

How long before the lesson is learned?

You must objectively ensure you are 100% Correct before you 'bash' others.

Learn it, Phys1. :)
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
"PS - your house- it's not as nice as i thought it would be, considering your braggadocio about being a super engineer, spy, in the "biz" and having so many important jobs and all..."
---------------------------------------

The topic is the Universe.

Am I your Universe?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
I want to see what fear does to people.


I can help with that too glam-Skippy. Here you go again.

https://www.youtu...jI571prU
Strange men jumped upon commander mcbragg and tied him to a large wooden penis. That doesnt seem like something george would be afraid of.
I want to see what fear does to people.
Well yeah, we've already determined that your disease renders you incapable of experiencing normal human emotions. So you crave them vicariously.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
"Oh, indeed, they can imitate feelings... That is to say, they "feel" need/want as love, and not having their needs/wants met is described as "not being loved" by them. What is more, this "need/want" perspective posits that only the "hunger" of the psychopath is valid, and anything and everything "out there," outside of the psychopath, is not real except insofar as it has the capability of being assimilated to the psychopath as a sort of "food."

-George kamburoff cant hide what he is and doesnt seem to want to.

"Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless."

-Nearly effortless except for incompetent psychopaths like george.
Am I your Universe?
-Anybody else see how obvious his disease is? Show of hands?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)

Mate, you are the one being "obvious" in your whatever it is that drives you to such silly trolling despite calls to concentrate on the PO article's science point/discussion. So asking for a "show of hands" about your obvious "disease" may not be the smartest thing you ever did, hey? As the saying goes: "Careful what you wish for!", mate. :)

Now how about proving us all wrong about you by concentrating your future posts on the issues/discussion re above PO article's science points. Thanks. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
who you were hiding from?
you were the one who threatened to do that - i don't know what you're talking about
those who bested you
like whom? not you, for sure... those who post science or calidated claims i don't bother, even if or when i may disagree
for instance: Thermo, Ira, runrig, AA_P

i respect those who can substantiate their claims
i don't respect lying narcissists who need to claim things like a "combat v" to get attention

feel free to FOAD, or litigate as promised

.

.

How can he be 'right'?
@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who doesn't know sh*t about science and can't read

because i don't make unsubstantiated claims - i've been able to validate everything i say

unlike 99% of the claims you make, which is all about your opinion
and considering you've still not been able to even substantiate your BICEP claims with any actual evidence after more than 5000 posts....
FOAD
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2016
"FOAD"

"@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who doesn't know sh*t about science and can't read"
--------------------------------

Your personal problems are obvious and tiresome. You spend all your time here trying to abuse others, while hiding from responsibility for your own words.

Please get help or go to back to Twitter
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Hi Forum. :)

See? CapS claims to "validate everything" he says; yet STILL hasn't realized I haven't lived at Penguin Head for YEARS now!

And his 'method' for "validating everything" he says? Here again are quoted the two main 'steps' in his (now (in)famous on the net) CapS's "validation method":
"TL : DR-----[ie, Too Long : Didn't Read]....

and

"FOAD"-------[ie, F*ck Off And Die]


He/gang of nitwits fell hook-line-and-sinker for flawed pseudoscience in bicep2 'work/claims'; and were busy bashing cranks with said obvious crap.

BUT WHERE WAS CapS et al's OWN OBJECTIVE METHOD for "validating" that bicep2 'work/claims' for themselves as I had suggested?

That's right! It subsisted in attacking the messenger while REFUSING TO OBJECTIVELY CHECK OUT THAT BICEP2 CRAP FOR THEMSELVES as I suggested!

As per CapS's 'validation method':
"TL : DR-----[ie, Too Long : Didn't Read]

and

"FOAD"-------[ie, F*ck Off And Die]
CapS "validation" in action! :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
while hiding from responsibility for your own words.
who's hiding?

when you threatened to sick your lawyers on me i sent you not only a link to my home, but it was embedded with my address and contact information just so you could give it to your lawyers

that isn't hiding or failing to take responsibility, ya lying POS

you're just pissed that you can't do anything about it except spread more lies that i can prove are bullsh*t, like i did here: http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

PW=VALIDATE

.

.

@pathetic sociopathic fodera head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who doesn't know sh*t about science and still can't read
yet STILL hasn't realized ...
you sure about that?

your IP address doesn't lie, mr fodera

As for your attempted distraction: my argument re: BICEP is the same as it was then - you made a false claim and still can't substantiate it
where is your evidence?

still waiting
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
CapS. :)

You have the wrong info. Years old. You are personal trolling/stalking over the net. How is that in any way 'sane' and 'right' example to be setting impressionable young readers here at PO? You bring the scientific/humanity into disrepute every time you open your mouth and insult and lie and just plain babble malignantly here. Have you no real true friends in either scientific or personal circle who will tell you what is going on in your obviously disturbed and dangerous mind? If they were any kind of true friends (instead of gangmembers and 'yes men' types who tell you only what you want to hear so that they won't become your next 'target for malice') then they should have brought you into touch with reality and integrity long ago. Get some help, mate. Seriously. Before a tragedy occurs precipitated by your patently disturbed self-delusion that you are any sort of objective researcher or commenter. Until then, hush CapS. Be still. Introspect. Get well. :)

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2016
@pathetic sociopathic fodera head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who doesn't know sh*t about science and still can't read

You are personal trolling/spreading pseudoscience and religion over the net. How is that in any way 'sane' and 'right' example to be setting impressionable young readers here at PO?

you have yet to provide any actual science to argue all your anti-science posts, so how is that rational, sane, skeptical discourse or even science in general?

Get some help, mate. Seriously. Before a tragedy occurs precipitated by your patently disturbed self-delusion that you are any sort of objective researcher or commenter. Until then, hush idiot f*ckwad trolling pseudoscience fedora head sammie. Be still. Introspect. FOAD

PS- soon you will have posted more than 6000 times without ever posting a single "fatal flaw" for BICEP

no evidence = blatant lie = pseudoscience

reported
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Hi CapS. :)

Hush, mate. I am the one who didn't fall for that bicep2 crap, remember? I am the one who suggested you all check it out for yourselves, but you refused and attacked me instead, remember? I am the one who corrected Da Schneib et al on both the known science and the novel insights being increasingly confirmed correct by more recent mainstreamer discoveries/reviews etc such as the above. And I am the one trying to get everyone to be objective and polite in discussing on-science not personal irrelevances.

If you don't think that is sane and right and proper on my part, then I humbly submit to the forum that it is you that has a problem, CapS.

Now, have you anything to contribute objectively to the science/topic issues being discussed? If so, please post away. If not, please refrain from again posting personal trolls requiring me posting to defend against same.

PS: My offer of the olive branch still stands, mate; as ever. Good luck and be well, CapS. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2016
I am the one who didn't fall for that bicep2 crap, remember? I am the one who suggested you all check it out for yourselves, but you refused and attacked me instead, remember? I am the one who corrected Da Schneib et al on both the known science and the novel insights being increasingly confirmed correct by more recent mainstreamer discoveries/reviews etc such as the above. And I am the one trying to get everyone to be objective and polite in discussing on-science not personal irrelevances.


https://www.youtu...a8QgGGkc
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

So, I remind you/CapS of why I have been confirmed correct all along on known/new science and polite humanity ethics/behavior; and the only 'rebuttal' you post is the Mighty Mouse song! lol

Ok, since I was correct all along, I can live with that 'rebuttal', Ira. :)

PS: It's much better than your own 'tag'; ie, the internet's latest bot-voting ignoramuses: "Dumb and Dumber Bots"! I'd love to hear the 'signature' tune/song for your dipsy duo, Ira! Have you a link? :)

PPS: Now we've had our "funs", how about posting on-science/topic comments if you have any, mate? :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2016
I'd love to hear the 'signature' tune/song for your dipsy duo, Ira!
Well heck Cher, why you did not say so before?

Have you a link? :)
Don't I always got that me? Here you go (don't try this at home p'tit boug, you might get hurt.)

https://www.youtu...y7kfiLQE]https://www.youtu...y7kfiLQE[/url]

https://www.youtu...y7kfiLQE]https://www.youtu...y7kfiLQE[/url]
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2016
P.S. This one fell off when I postumed, it was supposed to be at the top of the list.

https://www.youtu...y7kfiLQE

https://www.youtu...lXinGyzQ
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
"FOAD"

"@pathetic sociopathic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who doesn't know sh*t about science and can't read"
--------------------------------

Your personal problems are obvious and tiresome. You spend all your time here trying to abuse others, while hiding from responsibility for your own words.

Please get help or go to back to Twitter

Hi Gkam,
You are following in the footsteps of RC etc. by interchanging insults with the Cap'n Grumpy/Irate/Fizz/et al mob of twits and encouraging them to continue with their bot-voting stupid crap. Why not put them on your ignore list and just engage with sensible, well-mannered and honest people like me? (This will further enrage the mob, and incite them to hurl more poison at me, which I will ignore! Great fun!)
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2016
I agree, . . but defending oneself is natural.

I will resist the urge.

But I actually looked forward to those down votes as signs I got to them, . . badges of honor.

But I will leave them and others with one message:

https://www.thegu...n-google

Experience counts.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2016
@ Reg-Skippy. How you are Skippy? I am good, thanks for asking.

Why not put them on your ignore list and just engage with sensible, well-mannered and honest people like me?


This is glam-Skippy we are talking about here. He has tried that ignore thing dozens of times. Maybe even hundreds of times. He can't get him to work reliably because his no-will-power-can't-help-him-self part of his mental conditions won't let it keep working. So it was good advice, but not for glam-Skippy,,,, he just don't have what it takes for it to do any good.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Did you figure out that link I left for you so you can get the nice peoples at the physorg to show you who is voting on you? And who is not voting on you? Glad I could help.
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2016
Reg, how can you ignore it when silly goobers make fools of themselves trying to establish a phony identity? It is a target-rich environment.

"Ira" lives hundreds of miles from the water, and is no Cajun. He puts on that phony nonsense for the tourists, maybe. That "environmentalist" rides on a 9,000 horsepower Diesel polluting clattering boat, while blaming the oil and gas industry for ruining his local environment.

This was supposed to be "The Uncle Ira Show", as he called it, thinking he was going to be a Cajun Mark Twain. He just embarrasses himself, which is why they hide their names.

How far we have fallen from a discussion of the Universe.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2016
Now how about proving us all wrong about you by concentrating your future posts on the issues/discussion re above PO article's science points. Thanks
You stop using your idiot condescending neurotic little emoticon and I'll consider it.

Go ahead give it a try. Baby steps.

Maybe this will help.
https://www.silve...F_zw_wcB
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Experience counts
not when your "experience" is directly refuted by the science and the evidence

making a "statement about the real world refuted by the evidence" is technically called a false claim ( http://www.auburn...ion.html )

also- the study discusses
an increase in "cognitive self-esteem,"
there isn't anything in the study that states the information provided was not correct

also stated
The boundary between personal and interpersonal knowledge is becoming increasingly blurred (Clark & Chalmers, 1998). As technology makes information ever more easily available and accessible through searching, the ability to assess one's internal "unplugged" knowledge will only become more difficult
simple fact is: it may be illusory but it is also a blurred line

& none of that applies when all the factual evidence refutes the claims made by a self-assigned "authority" like your arguments
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)
You stop using your idiot condescending neurotic little emoticon and I'll consider it
https://www.silve...F_zw_wcB
Sorry, mate; I was unaware you were undergoing drug addiction rehab treatment. Keep at it. :)

A promise from drug addicted trolls is not very trustworthy, is it Ghost?

Besides, that leaves you a dishonest 'out'. Admit it; your 'considerations' do not even intend to even consider the possibility of 'stopping' trolling. That's what addicted trolls are like when it comes to character 'integrity' (your drug rehab institution should have got you to face that in yourself up front).

Anyway, the ":)" is just a way to convey to normal, intelligent, polite, scientist/layperson readers that I bring no personal animus. So 'dislike' of ":)" by a troll (you) is just sad. Too bad. :(
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
So, I remind you/CapS of why I have been confirmed correct all along on known/new science and polite humanity ethics/behavior; and the only 'rebuttal' you post is the Mighty Mouse song! lol

Ok, since I was correct all along, I can live with that 'rebuttal', Ira. :)

PS: It's much better than your own 'tag'; ie, the internet's latest bot-voting ignoramuses: "Dumb and Dumber Bots"! I'd love to hear the 'signature' tune/song for your dipsy duo, Ira! Have you a link? :)
Well heck Cher, why you did not say so before?...Don't I always got that me? Here...

https://www.youtu...y7kfiLQE

https://www.youtu...lXinGyzQ
Thanks, Ira, for that (what sounds like Irish-French 'fiddling-prosing' melody-making session link. Ok as far as it goes, I guess. Not my 'cup of tea'. :)

Now, have you any on-science posts?...as per my PPS:
Now we've had our "funs", how about posting on-science/topic comments if you have any, mate.


:)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2016
Now, have you any on-science posts?...as per my PPS:


Now we've had our "funs", how about posting on-science/topic comments if you have any, mate.


Yeah I got the two questions. When does the toes book about everything get out for the humans and scientists to see? And where does he come down on that long standing question about the aether stuffs?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

As I responded to FSC in another thread:
I'm also working on the Reality-Axiomatic-Math to model the Reality-Postulatic-ToE. So both will be free of unphysical 'creation-from-nothing', 'undefined entities' etc nonsense underlying all 'professional' cosmology theory/math.
So it depends on when I finalize that maths/modeling work.

As I also responded to FSC:
I started theorizing from scratch; strictly grounded it in physical reality (instead of in all those metaphysical/philosophical 'unrealities' in which BB etc theories/models have been 'floating' for far too long under the mistaken impression they had any connection with the physical reality). To start the reality-physics-logic-question 'chain', I asked:
What objective reality-based physical SCALAR POTENTIAL is absolutely independent of any and all other concepts? Answer: Undifferentiated Direction.
More real than 'ex nihilo'! :)
Hence more real than all current/conventional concepts, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2016


So it depends on when I finalize that maths/modeling work.
Are you saying you were teasing us when you say he was complete? Okayeei, so when will he be completely finalized?

Answer: Undifferentiated Direction.
So that's where it all got started, eh? How do you get a direction without differentiating him from the other directions?

More real than 'ex nihilo'!
More real than a direction that is undifferentiated? Sounds like the same thing to me.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
it depends on when I finalize that maths/modeling work.
Are you saying you were teasing us when you say he was complete? Okayeei, so when will he be completely finalized?
The reality-postulatic physical concepts/entities etc of the complete ToE is already finalized; it is the reality-axiomatic maths/modeling construct which is still to be finalized (still 'under construction', as it were) before I publish the lot in full.
Answer: Undifferentiated Direction.
So that's where it all got started, eh? How do you get a direction without differentiating him from the other directions?
That's what theory itself explains and describes consistent with the observable reality; and is much better than all the unexplained 'ex nihilo' and 'dimensionless points' and 'unknown entities/mechanisms' etc of other theories.
Sounds like the same thing to me.
Think about it, Ira: "Nothing" is NOT physical concept; whereas "Scalar/Vector Direction" is. :)
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2016
@RC
My, you are a tryer! Can't you see that the only TOE Irate/Cap'n Strumpo/Fizz/etc. can ever consider, besides the establishment line found in "publications", is wiggling at them on the end of their foot? That's the other foot, not the one they keep in their mouths.
Anyway, when you eventually do publish, they will rubbish it and insult you without ever reading it, never mind actually trying to understand it, as per my noble effort which they admit they have never read. They seem impervious to the fact that this makes them total pricks to any sane observer.
Ah well, keep on if you must. You seem to have gained a follower in your footsteps with Gkam, may he be the first of many. More power to your elbow, though I fear you will never convert Stupo et al.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2016
Hey 'mate'
Anyway, the ":)" is just a way to convey to normal, intelligent, polite, scientist/layperson readers that I bring no personal animus. So 'dislike' of ":)" by a troll (you) is just sad
How often do you wash your hands 'mate'? Are your shoes tied? Is your front door locked? Maybe you should check (again).

'Mate'.

I'm just funnin' with ya.

But seriously maybe you should check.

Just to be sure.

:)
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2016
"You seem to have gained a follower in your footsteps with Gkam"
-----------------------------

I respect his actions of standing up to the bullies here. I do not know of his TOE. I probably do not have the math background to understand it.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2016
"You seem to have gained a follower in your footsteps with Gkam"
-----------------------------

I respect his actions of standing up to the bullies here. I do not know of his TOE. I probably do not have the math background to understand it.

@gkam
I admire your principles.
Re understanding TOEs, if it can't be explained without PhD level maths, its probably not worth bothering with anyway.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2016
Hi Ghost. :)
How often do you wash your hands 'mate'? Are your shoes tied? Is your front door locked? Maybe you should check (again).... :)
That's ok, mate; "just funnin'" is ok....in moderation (and not maliciously intended and/or a ploy to troll and waste others' time etc). :)

Seriously though, if you ever embark on a lifelong effort to complete a reality-based toe (and to also re-do maths construct to reflect reality-axioms instead of the conventional maths unreality-axioms etc I itemized/explained more than once over the years), then "Check and re-Check" wouldn't be a bad habit to get into, hey?

Also, being polite, thorough and objective irrespective of source/person, and at every step checking your ideas/insights against reality, can't hurt either, hey!

Cheers. :)

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.