A hydrogen-rich, passive galaxy

November 11, 2016, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
A deep optical image of the gas-rich galaxy GASS 3505 which in at radio wavelengths shows a ring of neutral hydrogen gas, probably a result of accretion (there is a faint streamer seen to the left in this image). Astronomers conclude that the star formation in this object is very weak, less than about 0.1 solar-masses per year. Credit: Gereb et al. 2016

Cold gas in the form of neutral hydrogen atoms provides the reservoir for star formation in galaxies from the distant to the nearby Universe. Understanding how it accretes onto galaxies is of crucial importance because fresh supplies of gas fuel the ongoing star-forming. In the most popular version, accretion onto the galaxy occurs along cosmic filaments, and at least in more massive galaxies is heated by shocks in the process; in smaller galaxies the infalling material stays relatively cool. Since galaxies in the early universe are smaller, it is thought that this cold process of growth is more typical for them as well.

Astronomers studying accretion need to look at nearby both because they are brighter and because they have distinguishable spatial features such as tails, bridges, ringlike structures, warped discs, or lopsidedness that could result from accumulating gas. The GALEX Arecibo SDSS Survey (GASS) is a multi-wavelength, deep survey designed specifically to search for galaxies rich in atomic hydrogen. CfA astronomer Sean Moran and five colleagues searched GASS to select one object, GASS 3505, that has nearly ten billion solar-masses of and a round, relatively unstructured appearance in the optical. The team followed up with deep radio maps of the hydrogen emission using the Jansky Very Large Array.

The astronomers found that the is distributed in a ring around the galaxy about one hundred and sixty thousand light-years in diameter, within which extremely inefficient is happening (about ten times less than the Milky Way's value). The ring, it turns out, is connected to a complex stream of material that is a signature for infall and accretion; the stream is a reminder of how important faint morphological features are in understanding a galaxy's evolution. The scientists, among other analysis, perform computer simulations of a merger that helps to explain the activity of GASS 3505, with slight discrepancies identifying the possible presence of some additional activity still to be confirmed and identified. Future surveys with a new generation of radio telescopes will be able to study these gas rich systems at cosmological distances.

Explore further: Neutral hydrogen gas in galaxy clusters

More information: GASS 3505: the prototype of HI-excess, passive galaxies: arxiv.org/abs/1607.01446

Related Stories

Neutral hydrogen gas in galaxy clusters

September 9, 2015

Most galaxies are members of a cluster, a grouping of several to thousands of galaxies. Our Milky Way, for example, is a member of the "Local Group," a set of about fifty galaxies whose other large member is the Andromeda ...

Hubble uncovers a galaxy pair coming in from the wilderness

August 11, 2016

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered two tiny dwarf galaxies that have wandered from a vast cosmic wilderness into a nearby "big city" packed with galaxies. After being quiescent for billions of years, they are ready ...

Minor mergers are major drivers of star formation

June 28, 2016

Around half of the star formation in the local Universe arises from minor mergers between galaxies, according to data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The patch of sky called Stripe 82 is observed repeatedly to produce ...

Hubble catches the moment the lights went out

February 6, 2013

(Phys.org)—The further away you look, the further back in time you see. Astronomers use this fact to study the evolution of the Universe by looking at nearby and more distant galaxies and comparing their features. Hubble ...

Recommended for you

InSight lander 'hears' Martian winds

December 7, 2018

NASA's Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport InSight lander, which touched down on Mars just 10 days ago, has provided the first ever "sounds" of Martian winds on the Red Planet. A ...

An exoplanet loses its atmosphere in the form of a tail

December 6, 2018

A new study led by scientists from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) reveals that the giant exoplanet WASP-69b carries a comet-like tail made up of helium particles escaping from its gravitational field and ...

82 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
Take note of this admission ...

http://www.aanda....9-15.pdf

"The discovery by Heiles (1997) that the Orion A filament (the largest nearby star-forming structure of this kind) is enveloped in a helical magnetic field greatly clarified the nature of these filaments. The observations (their Fig. 24) show magnetic field lines changing direction as they cross the filament, first into then out of the plane of the sky. Since these are one-dimensional (1D) projections of an intrinsically 3D field structure, they cannot be uniquely interpreted by themselves. However, given that circular (or more generally, helical) fields, which would be generated primarily by currents moving along the filaments, are the form that is necessary to confine filaments of approximately uniform thickness, the Heiles (1997) observations constituted a 'smoking gun' ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
(cont'd)

"... Moreover, polarization measurements by Matthews & Wilson (2000) provide information in a second dimension that confirms this picture. That is, under the assumption that this polarization arises from dust grains aligned by either paramagnetic inclusions or radiative torques, the field lines pass over the filament perpendicular to its axis. See their Fig. 1. Subsequent observations confirm these results (Poidevin et al. 2010, 2011). See also Pillai et al. (2015) for dust polarization examples in more distant and massive clouds ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2016
(cont'd)

"... It is possible to counter that if there were strong toroidal fields, then these would have prevented formation of the filament in the first place by blocking infall. Our answer: subcritical magnetic fields are there. Heiles (1997) measured their amplitude 20 yr ago and we have now shown they are subcritical by measuring the potential. Such high field strengths are naturally explained by magnetic compression of gas due to currents. That is, the material gets to its current position not by crossing field lines but by compressing them. It may be objected that this process would lead to pinching instabilities. Our answer: yes, pinching instabilities are expected and this is exactly what leads to cluster formation."

To be clear, Stutz & Gould are in no manner affiliated with the Thunderbolts Group.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 12, 2016
Hi Phys1, HannesAlfven. :)
Take note of this admission ...

http://www.aanda....9-15.pdf

"The discovery by Heiles (1997) that the Orion A filament (the largest nearby star-forming structure of this kind) is enveloped in a helical magnetic field greatly clarified the nature of these filaments.

You should realise the difference in scale of a factor of 1000 or so.
I was just reading your posts.

@ Phys1: Can you elaborate on your reply to Hannes re the scale factor; insofar as you imply that it diminishes in some way what Hannes pointed out? If only to clarify my own proper and objective understanding of the scientific aspects/differences in your exchange. Thanks. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2016

Sure. HA equates two structures, one that measures 60.000 and another perhaps 5 parsec. That is like saying a mouse and a bacterium are the same.

Orion A is 50 parsec or so. what larger structure are you referring to?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2016
The stream in the picture above, it is 60 kpc long and the Orion A filament perhaps 5 or 10.

Ah, ok.
Since it is neutral hydrogen, that kinda removes the "plasma conduit" aspect, doesn't it? A lot less electromagnetism in cold neutral stuff, more loosely dispensed than Orion A.
Which leaves - gravitational effect to explain it's "filament" configuration...
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2016
The problem with arguing while learning is that when people do this, they will tend to miss many important details.

In the case of interstellar HI hydrogen -- which is oftentimes said in sweeping terms to be neutral -- is that there is some very basic electrodynamics and plasma physics observations -- namely, the Lorentz force and Marklund convection -- which can explain why it is that the HI hydrogen appears neutral.

I explain that in depth here:

The Lorentz Force and Marklund Convection: The Alternative to Gravitational Accretion
https://plus.goog...RHtgS2mB

The important thing to know here is that not only does this explain why the HI at the center of these filaments is neutral, but it also explains why it must be cold -- because there is a process of recombination at play after the ion sump, critical ionization velocity and molecular sorting has occurred.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2016
I explain that in depth here:
@hannes/reeve
linking to a pseudoscience explanation that is self-written while offering absolutely no empirical evidence nor valid physics is how religion does things, not how science does it

care to revise your post with actual source material from valid reputable journals of peer reviewed studies?

or is it that there isn't any actual science to support your claims, hence your link to your own blog opinion about the science?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Hannes. :)

In addition to your explanation re the inner streamline material being effectively 'neutral' in effect, it is also possible that that 'neutrality' is like any 'neutral' plasma containing effectively equally numbers of nucleonic ions and the commensurate number of free electrons; just like most natural 'neutral' plasmas. The 'surface' effects in any 'cloud/stream' topology will reflect any 'excess charge' (like in a charged sphere, for example, where interior is 'neutral' but exterior surfaces exhibit the overall charge 'excess' which givs it its charged sphere condition).

Moreover, even throughout the cloud/stream itself, any strong in coming/transiting ionizing radiation can also ionize individual nucleons to transiently create internal imbalances/flows within (along and/or across) the cloud/stream 'structure/current.

It's not as simple as naive interpretations (yours or mainstream's) would have us believe; neither naive 'explanation' reflect the reality. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
Hi CS. :)

In your response to Hannes:
...offering absolutely no empirical evidence nor valid physics is how religion does things, not how science does it


Speaking of such, it may be advisable for ALL HERE to take note of the MESSAGE about that very same thing contained in the following interview and video by Prof PAUL STEINHARDT:

https://blogs.sci...nceive/#
http://vms.fnal.g...=1944338

Especially watch the video of his talk to the very end, including to the very last Q&A exchange; it will be an eye-opener for everyone who may not be on firm ground themselves when accusing others of 'pseudoscience' , 'lack of evidence', etc etc etc.

The new dicoveries/reviews by mainstreamers are finaly catching up to what I have been pointing out all along for years now....to accusations of 'troll', 'crank', 'pseudoscience', 'no evidence' etc etc etc.

Enjoy, CS, everyone. :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Have you seen the above linked video where Prof Paul Steinhardt (one of those very "smart skippys" you 'prefer' as your 'source') practically reads the riot act to his fellow professional physicists; chastising them for introducing/promulgating 'pseudoscience' and 'contradictory' assumptions/arguments/interpretations into the standard cosmology theory/literature for much too long?

He, like many in mainstream now, is effectively confirming me correct on what I have also been pointing out about the 'cosmological standard model'; especially the pseudoscientific, un-evidenced, inconsistent etc "Inflation" and "expansion" adhoc 'fixes' to the equally pseudoscientific Big Bang cosmology model assumptions, interpretations and so-called 'supporting evidence' for BB-related claims allegedly 'found' in the CMB etc observational data.

Enjoy the video, Ira; and make sure you view every second of it right to its Q&A conclusion! Karma is good when one is correct all along. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2016
In addition to your explanation re the inner streamline material being effectively 'neutral' in effect, it is also possible that that 'neutrality' is like any 'neutral' plasma containing effectively equally numbers ... The 'surface' effects in any 'cloud/stream' topology will reflect any 'excess charge' (like in a charged sphere, for example, where interior is 'neutral' but exterior surfaces exhibit the overall charge 'excess' which givs it its charged sphere condition).

Moreover, even throughout the cloud/stream itself, any strong in coming/transiting ionizing radiation can also ionize individual nucleons to transiently create internal imbalances/flows within (along and/or across) the cloud/stream 'structure/current.

It's not as simple as naive interpretations (yours or mainstream's) would have us believe; neither naive 'explanation' reflect the reality. :)

A little vague, there, RC. Can you simplify?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me and thanks for asking.

He, like many in mainstream now, is effectively confirming me correct
If he is confirming you correct he is not doing it very effectively. I don't think he even mentioned you once. Other than that, it was a pretty interesting video.

@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are too podna? I am good as I can be.

Can you simplify?
I see you still got the sense of humor, eh?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Only the science has to be mentioned. It confirms what I have been posting for many years now. Only you are more interested in personality than science. So you missed everything worth noting. So your own personal opinion is worthless when it comes to the science issues which I have been posting about and is increasingly being confirmed correct all along by the newer mainstreamer discoveries/reviews. Which should by now have become obvious to all except bot-voting ignoramuses such as yourself. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2016
So you missed everything worth noting.
Non Cher, I did not miss that part. I noted all the good stuffs.

Problem is, Steinhardt-Skippy missed the part you wanted him to put in there, that you was correct all along. For some unexplained reason he left that part out. But don't worry, he might get around to it in Part 2. Maybe you should send him a reminder, eh?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

If you know the charged sphere phenomena as I mentioned; and also the plasma flows and ionizing phenomena involved, then you will 'get' what I said above. If not, then you haven't the necessary familiarity which is required to understand the complexities/subtleties involved...ijn which case further 'simplification' may mislead rather than enlighten/clarify for you. Better that you study up more on the subject matters involved. Then you will 'get' what I said above (as I trust Hannes would have already 'got' because he is pretty au-fait with the various physics/phenomena involved). Cheers, WG. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2016
@ Whydening-Skippy. How you are too podna? I am good as I can be.

Can you simplify?
I see you still got the sense of humor, eh?

Guess I should keep my day job, eh...? :-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
So you missed everything worth noting.
Non Cher, I did not miss that part. I noted all the good stuffs.

Problem is, Steinhardt-Skippy missed the part you wanted him to put in there, that you was correct all along. For some unexplained reason he left that part out. But don't worry, he might get around to it in Part 2. Maybe you should send him a reminder, eh?
What he said effectively agrees with what I have been saying for years (you must have missed it all).

Anyway, what have you concluded about the science itself, Ira? Do you now understand why and what I have been pointing out for so long now: that "Inflation" etc was 'pseudoscience', not real science? :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2016
And what have you concluded about the science itself, Ira?
I conclude that Steinhardt-Skippy is a lot better at discussing the science stuffs than you are.

Do you now understand why and what I have been pointing out for so long now: that "inflation" was 'pseudoscience' not real science? :)
Non, I don't, now or ever before. Nobody has ever understood the things you pointed out. And I still have yet to see even one person say you was correct all along. Out of all the peoples in the whole wide world, you are the only who understands the things you point out. And out of all the peoples in the whole wide world, you are the only one who has ever said you were correct all along.

About the physics and astrostuffs I mean. You do pretty good on environments stuffs.

Anyhoo, I have some work that I got do so maybe someone else will come around to fool around with you. Don't forget to tell them you been correct all along.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)

If you know the charged sphere phenomena as I mentioned; and also the plasma flows and ionizing phenomena involved, then you will 'get' what I said above. If not, then you haven't the necessary familiarity which is required to understand the complexities/subtleties involved..

I'm familiar enough... to understand that it applies to charges within a fixed geometry.
jn which case further 'simplification' may mislead rather than enlighten/clarify for you. Better that you study up more on the subject matters involved. Then you will 'get' what I said above ... Cheers, WG. :)

Not enuff time - I ain't retired...
Simplification would just indicate YOU had a better handle on it. Think Helix...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
I conclude that Steinhardt-Skippy is a lot better at discussing the science stuffs than you are.
I have been pointing all that (and much more) out for many years now. I'm glad he and other serious scientists/thinkers are finally catching up. :)

Non, I don't, now or ever before. Nobody has ever understood the things you pointed out. And I still have yet to see even one person say you was correct all along.....
But I have pointed it all out over the years, just as Prof Steinhardt (and other mainstreamers, on many frionts) are doing now. It's not my fault that mod-troll gangs and bot-voting ignoramuses have ignored/trolled/buried and otherwise denied it all for all that time while they preferred' their "smart skippys" sources which were INCORRECT all along, as Steinhardt just confirmed. Blame yourselves. :)
About the physics and astrostuffs I mean. You do pretty good on environments stuffs.
I bring the same objectivity etc to both/all sciences. :)
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2016
Re: "These plasma people are really FUBAR."

The reason why I posted the quote -- the reason why it is remarkable -- is that the authors are not "plasma people". These are ordinary astrophysicists, from what I can tell.

You've got a pair of astrophysicists reasoning through their observations and coming to the conclusion that clusters of stars are forming due to pinching instabilities.

Ordinarily, it would be considered a confirmation to have a completely separate group come to agreement on what is being observed.

The fact that the original claims stem from laboratory observations, to begin with, should mean something.

This is not in the same ballpark as a string theorist sitting at a desk imagining what the universe should be like.

This is people using their understanding of laboratory phenomena to infer causes for astronomical observations.

It doesn't deserve the hostility on display.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2016
These are ordinary astrophysicists, from what I can tell
@hannes/reeve
if they're ordinary astrophysicists, then you should be linking the quoted material from a source that is reliable and not subject to pseudoscience

your link was to your personal blog - that in itself means very specifically that you are promoting your opinion

as noted to others - when you mix science with non-science, pseudoscience, religion or non-factual information that is refuted by the evidence (IOW- false claims) then it is not science
It doesn't deserve the hostility on display
i beg to differ
you don't see scientists going to x-tian churches kicking in their doors attempting to get them to teach Buddhist or faerie lore in the sunday schools...

interjection of pseudoscience in an evidence based argument (or science argument) is the height of not only poor manners, but indicative of your inability to produce a factual argument for discourse
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2016
@not based in reality fodera-head
Hi CS
if you're not going to read the premise of the argument, thus interject with your opinion sans evidence, then you will be ignored
are finaly catching up to what I have been pointing out all along for years
no, it isn't

you have yet to provide actual content that can be verified or validated

case in point: BICEP2

to date you have made lots of claims about it (5000 plus posts), but you still haven't actually added any material that will allow your claims (4 fatal flaws, 4 other flaws) to be validated

IOW - you would have been better to state "it's wrong" and then kept your mouth shut
why?
because when you make a claim of specifics, but then can't actually validate with specific information, then it demonstrated your lack of integrity as well as blatant roll-the-dice lie

simply put: links or STFU
prove it, with empirical evidence, or post to someone else
RNP
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 14, 2016
@RealityCheck
I have been pointing all that (and much more) out for many years now. I'm glad he and other serious scientists/thinkers are finally catching up. :)


You do not seem to understand how ridiculous such claims make you appear to readers of this site. You NEVER make any definitive scientific statements that you can support with evidence and yet you claim to always be right. This makes you seem either a fool or a liar.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2016
Hi RNP. :)
I have been pointing all that (and much more) out for many years now. I'm glad he and other serious scientists/thinkers are finally catching up. :)
You do not seem to understand how ridiculous such claims make you appear to readers of this site. You NEVER make any definitive scientific statements that you can support with evidence and yet you claim to always be right. This makes you seem either a fool or a liar.
What's ridiculous about pointing out mainstream scientists are now increasingly confirming (by their recent discoveries/reviews) what I have been pointing out to everyone for ages across a few forums? If you missed it all, it's not my problem. I just get on with my work and leave the politicking/personal disparagement to the trolls; and to those not fully informed re all the background going back decades now. Anyhow, Prof Steinhardt's review/assessments 'video' re Inflation etc agree with what I have been pointing out to IMP-9 et al. Nice. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2016
@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
I have been pointing out to everyone for ages across a few forums?
i said it already to you once, i will say it again

you make the claim, you validate the claim with evidence

since you're simply spreading your own personal delusion on every astrophysics thread, i need only point out that you have YET to actually validate this claim (above, or go here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html )

i can prove you lie (see any BICEP thread on PO alone - almost 6,000 posts to date and still not one shred of evidence, which should be easy considering the length of time you've had to read the studies)

.

.

your claim, you validate it

links or STFU and stop your "RealityCheck four-thousand-three-hundred and ninety-thrice bemoaned" whining

and don't post back unless you have links and references or i will just report it and ignore you
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2016
Re: "if they're ordinary astrophysicists, then you should be linking the quoted material from a source that is reliable and not subject to pseudoscience"

To be clear, the link came from http://www.aanda....-15.pdf, which is a journal titled Astronomy & Astrophysics.

These people have nothing to do with the Thunderbolts Group -- a fact which I believe everybody here but you has realized.

The quote itself indicates surprise -- which would make little sense if it was the EU group making the claim.

It's a confirmation of the claim that a significant mistake in how we model cosmic plasmas has been made.

In fact, your rants sound pretty desperate, as there is no attempt at all to address the points made by Stutz & Gould.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2016
@hannes/reeve TROLL
To be clear, the link came from http://www.aanda
no, it didn't
your link was to "+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken", which is not aanda
if you wanted to argue the aanda link, you should have used it
using your personal site introduces your *opinion* and subjective material, and as you've demonstrated, this is heavily influenced by your pseudoscience advocacy (especially the eu)

so by including pseudoscience presented as fact, by definition your site doesn't' adhere to the scientific method
which is, by definition, pseudoscience
These people have nothing to do with the Thunderbolts Group -- a fact which I believe everybody here but you has realized
then you should stick with that site and not refer people to your personal delusional beliefs, which *do* support thunderdolts

In fact, your rants sound pretty desperate, as there is no attempt at all to address the points made by the linked study, just your pseudoscience beliefs
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2016
@reeve/alfven cont'd
a fact which I believe everybody here but you has realized.
and perhaps you should actually read my post and reference above?
i quoted your comment verbatim which should have directed any semi-literate person to the specific post it referenced... can i help it that you're illiterate?
nope
so again, feel free to re-read my post, your quote, and the specifics of the argument, none of which actually have to do with your attempted strawman redirection
The quote itself indicates surprise
per your *opinion*
It's a confirmation of the claim that a significant mistake in how we model cosmic plasmas has been made
a singular study is a point of impact or interest - not a definitive scientific truth
for that, validation is required

get it yet?

that is also how science works... if there is a mistake, it will be validated and *then* corrected (or the relevant part corrected)

there is a reason the scientific method is so successful
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2016
Re: "if you wanted to argue the aanda link, you should have used it"

Once again, no response in all of that to Stutz & Gould's remark ...

"Our answer: yes, pinching instabilities are expected and this is exactly what leads to cluster formation."
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2016
@hannes/reeveTROLL
Once again, no response in all of that to Stutz & Gould's remark
i made a very specific point about a very specific post that caused you to intentionally deflected and redirect to a strawman argument that has no relevance to my post (still), nor does it provide empirical evidence supporting your claims (still)

so... why is that?

.

you do realise that your Stutz & Gould redirect and strawman also completely undermines your own historical stance of astrophysicists not knowing plasma physics... right?

LOL

HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 16, 2016
Re: "It is a real possibility that HA really does not know the difference between gas nebulae like in Orion and galaxies."

Spoken like a true specialist ... So busy cataloguing the differences that the similarities are not noticed or emphasized.

Specialization, btw, is not a worldview. It's simply a way for a group of people working on a problem to work more efficiently. But at the end of the day, there is still a need to tie all of these fragments of information together into a meaningful whole. Specialization, for that reason, cannot be the end of the analysis -- and anybody who believes it is so will never create anything new. They will simply regurgitate the old theories, and they will use these categorization schemes they've been taught to bin the new in with the wrong.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
They will simply regurgitate the old theories
@hannes/reeveTROLL
but...
you just proved this was not the case

you just posted a link to a pair of astrophysicists that you claim are making statements that are (paraphrased by me) revolutionary to the astrophysical view

i state that they are, like all scientists, simply attempting to define the world around them with the utmost of clarity using a simple methodical system (the scientific method)

you, yourself, just validated me

.

you, yourself, demonstrate the logical fallacy of "simply regurgitate[-ing] the old theories" above (actually, in your eu case, the old "beliefs") by posting sans scientific evidence and linking a *blog*

your making what is called a "false claim" as defined here
http://www.auburn...ion.html
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2016
Re: "you, yourself, demonstrate the logical fallacy of "simply regurgitate[-ing] the old theories" above (actually, in your eu case, the old "beliefs") by posting sans scientific evidence and linking a *blog*"

To clarify, what I do is I document scientific controversies. My goal is to take the research out of controversies.

There is no scientific journal which does this today. Thus, there is no single authority which has methodically mapped out controversies.

By your own logic, since the experts refuse to document controversies, then we must assume that there ARE no true controversies -- since we cannot go anywhere to easily see them.

This is the old approach.

It assumes we can move forward in the sciences by ignoring what we do not know.

The new approach which I will introduce is that we can formulate a generalist understanding of science by studying ALL controversies that we can find.

Not just the EU.
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2016
What I will show in due time is that we can formulate expertise in scientific controversies.

We can do this by learning what they all are; by tracking down the best critiques of conventional science we can get our hands onto; and by listening to the claims of academic whistleblowers.

What we are talking about here is a shift of control over a person's own personal worldview from experts to the individual.

With this approach, we give individuals the information they require to formulate a meaningful opinion about the claims of modern science -- for themselves.

That's the kind of world that I want to live in.

We can get there by studying controversies. That's what I will demonstrate.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
@hannes/reeve
what I do is I document scientific controversies
no, you don't
(IOW - false claim: see definition above)

if you consider the eu part of the "scientific controversies" then you need to re-educate yourself in literacy, reading, comprehension and definitions

- the eu does not follow the scientific method 100%, which is the primary requirement of science

some people have said that it has valid points
all pseudoscience starts off with what *they* consider a valid point (ignorance, etc)

the difference between science and pseudoscience, however, is the evidence and acceptance of new data over "simply regurgitate[-ing] the old beliefs"

this is the one glaring failure WRT your comments and posts as well

see also
http://www.huffin...642.html
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
By your own logic, since the experts refuse to document controversies, then we must assume that there ARE no true controversies
didn't say that, either
but you are introducing material that is not "controversial"

just because you, in ignorance or by religious, zealous or other faith, believe in something doesn't mean it is true

there is no controversy regarding the status of the eu - so what you should be considering is the actual status of what is known versus what is *not* known, and perhaps debate the actual controversies, like the definition of life (which is still a hotly debated and fiercely fought over topic)
The new approach which I will introduce ...studying ALL controversies that we can find
and you and i wouldn't have a problem at all if you actually produced SCIENTIFIC controversies

the eu is not science, therefore it is not a scientific controversy
it is pseudoscience
so it is suited to religious (or philo) debate
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
What I will show in due time is that we can formulate expertise in scientific controversies
not unless you actually post scientific controversies (like what constitutes "life" or how we can definitively call something "life")

the arguments you make are good... the problem is your ability to differentiate between science and belief

in the article i linked above, Dr. D deGrasse Tyson states
Science discovers objective truths. These are not established by any seated authority, nor by any single research paper
validation is required
more to the point - just because you read an article doesn't mean it holds the same veracity as a study or validated study...and this is where we differ the most
you accept articles as valid evidence whereas i don't

a blog can be written by anyone
and just because someone says something 30+ years ago doesn't mean it is still true today

basic research will demonstrate this - but that is another fail i see WRT you
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2016
"@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL"

" STFU "
--------------------------------------------

Why do we let these abusers into the forum? Can we just discuss science without the adolescent attacks?
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2016
Can we just discuss science without the adolescent attacks?
George, do you remember that day long ago, on the playground during recess when the other kids were picking on you, and an adult tried to teach you that it's the sticks and stones that break the bones? Put on your big-boy pants, George, you think it's bad now, the scientific community is about to face an Invasion of the Anti-Science Swamp Monsters, and censorship is one of their tools. Science and the prosperity, knowledge, and purpose it brings is the way forward; wars to make the rich richer wouldn't be possible with an informed, educated, knowledgeable, scientifically rational, civilized population.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2016
@Phys1 argued the point ...

"It is a real possibility that HA really does not know the difference between gas nebulae like in Orion and galaxies."

It's well worth noting that the mainstream explanation for spiral patterns observed for both protostars and galaxies is "spiral density waves".

It seems that the mainstream missed your memo that we must treat these two scales differently.

PROTOSTARS:

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

"The observed spirals in Elias 2-27 are the first direct evidence for the shocks of spiral density waves in a protoplanetary disk"

GALAXIES:

https://en.wikipe...e_theory

"... which are sections of the galactic disk that have greater mass density (about 10–20% greater) ..."
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2016
Re: "Why do we let these abusers into the forum? Can we just discuss science without the adolescent attacks?"

But, the pattern of hostility to new ideas is not merely an artifact of the responses which can so simply be removed. Our focus has an inordinate effect upon our beliefs: If a person decides that they know the truth, then they will of course stop seeking out alternatives.

What we should be seeking to do is to perform a survey of all of the challenges to our modern theories, and only after we have sought to understood as many as we can find should we permit ourselves to become invested.

Of course, that's not how academia works today.

The problem goes by ugly baby syndrome or village venus effect ...

The Village Venus Effect
https://plus.goog...YviP8nEX
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2016
the pattern of hostility to new ideas is
@hannes/reeve
i have no beef with new ideas
there isn't a scientists in the world who can exist that way -as noted in my above links
the whole of science and research exists on the edge of knowledge, therefore it is all "new ideas"
Of course, that's not how academia works today
and i just proved this to be a blatant false claim (AKA- LIE) above

more to the point - all of science is at the edge generating nothing but "new ideas" which directly contradicts your claim (try actually reading or listening to the links above)

repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
that is what cults, religions and pseudoscience does - when you can't prove it, repeat it ad nauseum and say it's true

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2016
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true
that is what cults, religions and pseudoscience does - when you can't prove it, repeat it ad nauseum and say it's true
.............so why do you keep doing it? (now back to Ignore)

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2016
Re: "the whole of science and research exists on the edge of knowledge, therefore it is all 'new ideas'"

All that you've done here is redefined your terms to exclude new ideas which question core assumptions or the starting point hypotheses. What is left are the "sanctioned" controversies which all assume that the settled science is correct.

Once a claim is considered settled, mainstream thinkers no longer revisit it.

But, over time, observations improve. It should be obvious that settled questions can suddenly become unsettled in the light of these improved observations.

This is a crucial mistake in process. A person need not even be clever to see it. All they need to do is learn the various scientific controversies, and track them over time.

What they will notice is that new observations commonly support "former" challenges to mainstream theory which are now considered "settled".
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2016
By constructing a database of scientific controversies, and then encouraging the public to map out the argumentation and track them over time, peoples' minds will start to turn back on.

They will start to understand that this mistake in process creates a peculiar situation where the experts can sometimes stop being the experts.

It will become clear that people must make a decision to be EITHER an expert or an ideologue. Today, we culturally pretend as though a person can be both. That's a mistake.

Most people today make that decision without any awareness that there actually ARE challenges to textbook theory out there.

Once many hundreds of scientific controversies are catalogued and aggregated into a central location, these same people will see that removing the research burden for the topic of controversies also removes the justification for confidence in consensus science.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2016
At the current rate, I will have catalogued around 200 controversies within another 2 years.

I'm also adding in the best critique of modern science, and breaking it all down into a taxonomy for the topic of scientific controversies -- for the purpose of enabling the teaching of critical thinking through this topic of controversies.

Educators will be free to construct their own curricula using this taxonomy. I'll also attempt to construct my own.

At a certain point, I will switch gears to constructing a social network that will be seeded with this content.

I'm a web developer by trade, and already work on a site which serves millions of pages per month. I already know how these systems work.

I'll then raise awareness amongst graduate students that scientific controversies can act as innovation blockers.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2016
To have an impact upon the world, it is necessary to diverge from established views of the world. And to create new ideas in the sciences, we must have a strong understanding of all of the parts of the textbooks which have been challenged.

Whether or not these controversies are "sanctioned" by the experts is a pretty useless distinction. It's truthfully circular logic.

I get great joy from the fact that nobody understands how important this work is.

I relish the fact that academia has overlooked it.

I consider each ridicule from the perspective of what these people will think in 10 years from now.

I'll have a social network which will attract the brightest scientific thinkers in the world.

They'll probably still be on a forum like this one, ridiculing people who are trying to make science innovative again ...

... It will take that for them to realize that to create something new, you have to diverge from the pack.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2016
@benji
absolutely no evidence - thanks for proving my point

.

Once a claim is considered settled, mainstream thinkers no longer revisit it
@chris/alfven
another false claim - it's not that they're not revisited, it's that in order to revisit it there must be compelling evidence (not claims; evidence) and validation

case in point: gravity
This is a crucial mistake in process. A person need not even be clever to see it. All they need to do is learn the various scientific controversies, and track them over time
the problem isn't the controversies part... it's that you don't know what constitutes a controversy versus what constitutes pseudoscience claims sans evidence

you've demonstrated acceptance of eu mantra, regurgitating various electric cult propaganda points while never once actually taking the time to do basic research on said points

so that isn't "controversy"... that is pseudoscience and religion

2Bcon'td
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2016
@alfven/reeve cont'd
By constructing a database of scientific controversies, and then encouraging the public to map out the argumentation and track them over time, peoples' minds will start to turn back on
there is merit in this approach if, and only if, you differentiate between science and pseudoscience

you wouldn't include flat-earth as a "controversy" because any idiot with binoculars and a beach nearby can watch ships or simply watch the shadow of earth on the moon, regardless of how popular it has become with idiots in music

why?
because there is overwhelming evidence proving it's not controversy, it's fact

this is the problem you have with the eu cult - they don't have an evidence based argument for their beliefs, otherwise it would be investigated (like MOND still is... hence my argument above re: gravity)

just because you, personally, haven't read it doesn't mean it aint being looked at
you need to learn to do basic research

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2016
@alfvie/reeve cont'd
At the current rate, I will have catalogued around 200 controversies within another 2 years
and i fully intend on reading said database or catalogue but only if it is published in a peer reviewed journal with evidence
why?
source material is important in science - and as i keep repeating but you keep ignoring: repeating the same mantra over and over doesn't make it suddenly more true

if the eu has evidence to challenge modern astrophysics, they should do exactly that in the journals like every other scientist doing research
I'm a web developer by trade, and already work on a site which serves millions of pages per month. I already know how these systems work
i highly recommend that you return to school (or go here: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm ) and revisit the scientific method before you do

if you're going to affect science, you must first learn the methodology

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2016
@hannes/reeve cont'd
making a claim isn't going to sway anyone but those willing to suspend belief for your authority or those who are ignoring evidence for the sake of social or other payoffs

science requires adherence to a far stricter code
To have an impact upon the world, it is necessary to diverge from established views of the world
not always
to diverge from knowledge and evidence based experimentation for the sake of forcing ignorance as a legitimate secondary path is like playing russian roulette with a loaded 1911
Whether or not these controversies are "sanctioned" by the experts is a pretty useless distinction
and i don't care what people think either
however, it's not about what people think - its about what you can prove
hence the adherence to the scientific method - and why pseudoscience is not a legitimate secondary path to knowledge

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2016
@chris/alfven cont'd
we must have a strong understanding of all of the parts of the textbooks which have been challenged
you do realise that you will always, always have fundamental religions challenging some scientific texts, right?

does that make them more correct and debunk things like: gravity? evolution? medicine?
if you accept any and all challenges as legitimate controversies to science then you must now remove science, technology and medicine from textbooks and start from scratch

i can't reiterate this enough - making a claim, repeating a claim and stating a claim is "controversy" isn't the same thing as being a controversy
nor is it truth, valid, reality or science

there is a method to contradict scientific advancements - simply adhere to the scientific method and prove it, with evidence and validation

period

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2016
alfven/reeves last post
I get great joy ...nobody understands how important this...
I relish t...academia has overlooked it...
I'll have a social network ...attract the brightest scientific thinkers in the world...
They'll probably still be on a forum like this one, ridiculing people who are trying to make science innovative again
1- scientists rarely visit forums like this (especially non-moderated sites) because trolls/pseudoscience like the eu and you

2- http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

3- your last post is Dunning Kruger, delusion, and narcissistic
good luck with your dream

4- you will never have an impact on the scientific community, nor attract "the brightest scientific thinkers in the world", if you can't understand or follow the scientific method or produce evidence

you will be another zeph posting rants and spam trolling sites with sock armies because you can't give evidence to science to prove anything you claim

period
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2016
"1- scientists rarely visit forums like this (especially non-moderated sites) because trolls/pseudoscience like the eu and you"
-------------------------------------------

Perhaps adolescent abuse like this is one reason:

"@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam"

"@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL"

" STFU "

Very professional.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Perhaps adolescent abuse like this is one reason
more likely it is because of blatant liars like yourself promoting a false claim as factual simply because you don't understand reality... case in point: cannabis, nuclear technology, radio, Green energy, PV engineering, EV's charging, etc etc etcetcetcetc

it's not like i haven't produced plenty of evidence demonstrating that you're a pathological liar and scientifically illiterate
Very professional
you mean i should just make posts like you?
Cannabis laws were written by Congressional alcoholics

the Family Values Republicans outed as perverts, slimers, pederasts, serial adulterers and guys who pay prostitutes to put them in diapers

Are they all out looking for "legitimate rapes"?
and when you're challenged with facts, links and references... you say
I contacted a lawyer, and am waiting for some action
yeah... very professional
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2016
Speaking of gassy: Outgrow it, Trumpy. You hate the fact I proved my service, while you did not serve, too scared to do so. Either that, or you are scared of me, as you cower in anonymity.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
while you did not serve, too scared to do so
1- apparently you can't read: http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

2- you "proved" nothing. you only made a claim. you can't produce any evidence at all, whatsoever
Either that, or you are scared of me
were i scared of you i wouldn't have sent you my physical address/location
i am still awaiting that summons to court from your lawyers... where is it?
you say i'm scared, but you haven't made good on your threat
why?
you cower in anonymity
i'm still not anonymous
ask otto, since you can't figure out how to use the internet

Speaking of gassy: Outgrow it, STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam. You hate the fact I proved my service, while you did not serve in combat, too scared to do so.
Either that, or you are scared of me, as you cower in pseudonymous idiocy.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2016
Just to get this back onto science not personal stuff, I repost my question(s) below from another thread:

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Hi CS, Phys1, RNP, antialias et al. :) What did you think of Prof. Paul Steinhardt's lecture explaining how and why "Inflation" is pseudoscience that has been contaminating the cosmology literature/thinking for far too long? Do you agree that BB hypothesis/interpretations etc etc which depend on such pseudoscience 'fixes' should be discarded asap and the alternatives re-considered properly without all the bias/false claims etc etc which have been built-into the 'science' and the 'modeling' etc for so long now? Will be back another day to see your reactions/comments on this (finally) honest, objective mainstream review of this flawed 'science' that has been allowed to contaminate proper science for so long. See you all when I next visit. Cheers. :)


Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2016
Just to get this back onto science not personal stuff, I repost my question(s) below from another thread:


answered, but no need to cross post: http://phys.org/n...tic.html

feel free to FOAD whenever you have some time!
if that isn't possible, try anhero!
:-)
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2016
Can we get rid of the troublesome malcontents which dog this place? Stumpy cannot discuss anything without getting personal and really nasty.

How do we stifle the anonymous snipers here to offend others?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Can we get rid of the troublesome malcontents which dog this place?
easily done:

if you leave, you will have effectively reduced the "troublesome malcontents which dog this place" by exactly one

so, per your request...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2016
Hi CS et al. :)

Please see my reply posted today to RNP in thread:

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

Thanks. Cheers. :)
RNP
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2016
@RealityCheck
You failed to mention my response to your post, where it was explained to you (not for the first time) that your claims are not credible, lacking as they do any support and demonstrating a failure to understand the scientific method,
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2016
Hi, RNP. :)

My reply in other thread:
Hi RNP. :) What else would you call it when the same arguments/evidence against "Inflation" was there all along, yet was ignored due to biased and flawed 'work' and claims of 'supporting evidence' by those who wanted desperately to save Big Bang model? It was pseudoscience. Like Bicep2 'exercise'. Flawed, biased 'work', 'claims' etc. Mate, the Big Bang fantasy has finally been tackled by brave mainstreamers who came to their senses and actually OBJECTIVELY looked at the flawed/biased 'science' and claims that were 'passed by peer review' into the cosmology literature as if it was science instead of pseudoscience fantasies which objective observers (like me) saw all along how flawed and biased fantasy/pseudoscience gobbledegook it was. Now Prof Paul Steinhardt has OBJECTIVELY agreed. Now you TOO can stop evading/denying, RNP. :)
The point is: Prof Paul Steinhardt has just sent an OBJECTIVE wake-up-call to his colleagues. Q.E.D. :)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2016
@not in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
answered here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

5,985 posts, wasting a whopping 5,985,000 characters (potentially - not all posts were all 1,000 char) taking a minimum of 299.25 hours to write, and you couldn't find any evidence in the BICEP2 papers to quote, direct from other people's work, the "4 fatal flaws" you say you spotted

i'm just gonna report any and all posts you make after this until you actually post the BICEP2 evidence, if that's ok with you... i mean... it's not like you aint had time, even with you saying you would save the world from warming and all (here: http://phys.org/n...fic.html )

feel free to FOAD whenever you have some time!
or try anhero!

thanks :-)

note that i adopted your smiley's- so there can't be anything false, wrong or non-factual in my post, per your historical examples
:-)
gkam
Nov 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam

please outgrow your chronic lies and need to denigrate real soldiers with your claims and your proven stolen valor

your are close to catching up with rc's gish-gallop

per your request
RNP
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2016
@RealityCheck
Hi, RNP. :)

My reply in other thread:

Hi RNP. :) What else would you call it when the same arguments/evidence against "Inflation" was there all along, yet was ignored due to biased and flawed 'work' and claims of 'supporting evidence' by those who wanted desperately to save Big Bang model? It was pseudoscience.......


Yep, there you go again. Yet more unsupported claims and a failure to understand the difference between (possibly) flawed science and pseudoscience.
Have a look at the following link, perhaps you can avoid such errors in future. http://www.quackw...udo.html
You will note that real science IS sometimes refuted by evidence etc. This does not make it pseudoscience.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, why the semantics, double standards, evasions and denial of the point at issue regarding Prof Paul Steinhardt's lecture showing how and why the 'evidence for Inflation' was bogus all along?

If you keep using such diversions in order to avoid facing reality and admitting that Inflation and all Big Bang related 'fixes' have been allowed to contaminate real cosmology science literature/theory/work/papers etc, then no wonder science is getting a bad rep. If you can't even face the reality when handed to you on a silver platter, then what impression/encouragement do you think that gives to those anti-science/religious types who note your denial, double standards, semantics and diversions to 'enable' your own 'religious attachment' to flawed ideas/theory just because its 'orthodoxy' and you don't like it when it is pointed out how wrong that orthodoxy has been for so long? You give 'ammunition' to those you dislike, who then use it against you!

Rethink it all :)
RNP
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2016
@RealityCheck
Mate, why the semantics, double standards, evasions and denial of the point at issue regarding Prof Paul Steinhardt's lecture showing how and why the 'evidence for Inflation' was bogus all along?


You have seen a completely different video to me. At NO point in the video did Prof Steinhardt say "the 'evidence for Inflation' was bogus all along". Indeed, he expained why he was one of the scientists involved in developing the theory in the first place.

He then explained that, when the ideas of quantum mechanics were incorporated into inflationary theory, and the idea of chaotic inflation arose, he (and others) began to feel something was wrong. This occurred ~10yr after the idea of inflation was originally proposed, showing your another of your repeated,unsupported claims, that the problems were known all along, is false. I am sure the Prof would disagree with you that he carried out pseudoscience.

I am going to ignore the rest of your nonsense.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, ignore/denial etc is CS's 'method'!

Why try to 'constrain' implications of all the Prof said and taken complete/extended logically/contextually back to the beginning of big bang etc hypotheses which were all flawed?

It's WHY the "Inflation" fix was NECESSARY to 'rescue' the BB nonsense (which was seen to BE nonsense from the start; else NO "Inflation" etc biased/pseudoscientific 'fixes' would have been necessary to 'fit' the observational data to BB pseudoscience 'model').

That is how/why REAL OBJECTIVELY viable alternatives got 'shut out' early on.

Because biased/flawed 'peer review' passed biased/flawed interpretations/papers which purported to 'support' BB; hence ignoring/denying alternatives which WERE viable IF the data was treated objectively, not 'twisted to fit BB' in order to automatically make BB the 'peer passed' orthodoxy; with which alternatives were unfairly SABOTAGED using bogus 'evidence for BB/Inflation' etc.

Ignore/Deny etc not good!
RNP
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
@RealityCheck
You are being highly hypocritical. You admonish me for saying that I am going to ignore something you wrote (after showing it to be false). Then you proceed to completely ignore the rest of my post and employ the crank's tactic of deflection - changing the subject when unable to respond to a critisism.

Even then you get it all wrong. You say:

.... the "Inflation" fix was NECESSARY to 'rescue' the BB nonsense ..."


Yet within the video that YOU linked Prof. Steinhardt clearly names two alternatives to inflation. At NO point does he even suggest that BB theory needs to be "rescued". This continuing insistence of ignoring the evidence presented against you and inventing false consequences of other peoples words clearly shows you to be a fool or a liar, probably both. If you hope to raise your reputation here above the level of irritating troll, then you had better mend your ways. It also means that it is completely pointless continuing this conversation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

When Big Bang first hypothesized, the ONLY TENABLE theory was Infinite, Eternal Universal extent with localized processes evolving what we see in each epoch. Period.

When observed relative isotropy at large scales showed Big Bang was seriously logically/physically FLAWED pseudoscience nonsense, Guth hypothesized "Inflation" to 'explain' relative isotropy. Period.

All BB 'fixes' came AFTER the BB hypothesis; BUT the ONLY logically/physically TENABLE theory was ALWAYS the ORIGINAL Infinite, Eternal universe with localized process evolving over epochs. Period.

All those 'alternatives' Prof Paul Steinhardt mentioned in passing are ALL SUBSEQUENT attempts to EITHER 'save' BB...OR 'replace' BB with even less tenable nonsense. Period.

Why bother?

We STILL HAVE Infinite, Eternal universe, evolving and producing observable phenomena via localized/regional recycling of energy/matter-space content, deconstructing/redistributing/reconstructing over epochs. Period. :)
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2016
as noted already: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

5993 posts wasted
5,993,000 potential characters wasted
minimum of 17,979 minutes, or 299.65 hours wasted in evasive distraction from the fact that you can't produce the 4 fatal flaws from the BICEP2 papers freely published

that is just one single scientific paper, published by others and freely accessible to everyone, that you made a claim about and still denigrate without evidence to date

12.48541 days wasted with still no evidence :-)

i can't be wrong - it's on google
and i am using smileys like sam fedora above

no content = pseudoscience
claims with no evidence in all that time = blatant lies

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2016
Hi CS. :)

As already responded to in thread: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

Stick to the science and stop your personal crap please, CS.

Have you a response on the science/logics/history posted in response to RNP? If so, please post it and leave out any more personal irrelevant crap.

Thanks. Cheers. :)

PS: Speaking of science/logics/history, you still haven't said whether or not you understand Prof Steinhardt's lecture in which he lambasted "Inflation" etc? Did you understand it all? Do you agree/disagree with his objective review and conclusion? Yes/No? :)

Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)
Stick to the science
funny, i've been telling you that for over 6000 posts now

over 6 million wasted characters on PO because you want to play like you know science but can't actually prove yourself with evidence

i'm gonna let you get in the last word, because you need to do that to think you "won" something, much like liar-kam and some others, so feel free to continue

one last point: so long as you keep trying to intimate that you somehow are objective, or that history has proven you correct, i will simply show where you made more than 6000 posts with absolutely no content, proof or evidence supporting your delusional claim

and it can be validated by anyone looking at your profile with google

you're a chronic liar with a need for attention, good or bad
you got it, liar-girl

reported
gkam
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2016
"Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)"

"you're a chronic liar with a need for attention, good or bad
you got it, liar-girl"
------------------------------------------------

This reminds me of "otto" whose psychopathy keeps making him call others psychopaths.
RNP
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2016
@RealityCheck
So let's see.

First we have a lot of obfuscating nonsense:
When Big Bang first hypothesized, the ONLY TENABLE theory was Infinite, ...... All BB 'fixes' came AFTER the BB hypothesis;.....


Followed by a completely unsupported claim.....
......We STILL HAVE Infinite, Eternal universe, evolving and producing observable phenomena via localized/regional recycling of energy/matter-space content, deconstructing/redistributing/reconstructing over epochs. Period. :)


Then we have mis-represnetation:
...Prof Steinhardt's lecture in which he lambasted "Inflation"....


Are you going for some kind of record in crankary?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, you're in denial mode! Snap out of it quick! As it's making you sound dumb and/or subjectively prejudice against the messenger in order to deny the message. You apparently don't know the full history of BB, related assumptions, interpretations, 'ad hoc fixes' etc.

What I pointed out is correct. :)

Ignoring/denying me/the message only leads to 'egg on face' for the ignorer/denier (as many found to their embarrassment that time they ignored/denied/attacked me because I pointed out Bicep2 'exercise' and 'clams' were flawed pseudoscience from 'reputable source' who failed to follow strict scientific method and unbiased objective logics/facts).

jonesdave got it right when he quoted that old truism: "THE TRUTH HURTS!".

In your case it must 'sting' your ego; else you wouldn't nitpick re semantics/messenger in order to ignore/deny FULL CONTEXTUAL RAMIFICATIONS of what Prof Steinhardt pointed out (finally) to his colleagues.

Snap out of it, mate. Quick! :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just as could as anybody could be, thanks for asking.

We STILL HAVE Infinite, Eternal universe, evolving and producing observable phenomena via localized/regional recycling of energy/matter-space content, deconstructing/redistributing/reconstructing over epochs. Period. :)


How does this "Infinite/bot/Eternal/mod/recycling/deconstructing/troll/redistributing/gang/reconstructing/mafia Period.:)" thing square up with the 2nd-Rule-Of-Dynamical-Thermal stuffs? Is that where the "Volumetrication" comes in?

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.