Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy

March 30, 2017 by Dr Robert Massey, Royal Astronomical Society
A still from an animation that shows the expansion of the universe in the standard 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter' cosmology, which includes dark energy (top left panel, red), the new Avera model, that considers the structure of the universe and eliminates the need for dark energy (top middle panel, blue), and the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology, the original model without dark energy (top right panel, green). The panel at the bottom shows the increase of the 'scale factor' (an indication of the size) as a function of time, where 1Gya is 1 billion years. The growth of structure can also be seen in the top panels. One dot roughly represents an entire galaxy cluster. Units of scale are in Megaparsecs (Mpc), where 1 Mpc is around 3 million million million km. Credit: István Csabai et al

Enigmatic 'dark energy', thought to make up 68% of the universe, may not exist at all, according to a Hungarian-American team. The researchers believe that standard models of the universe fail to take account of its changing structure, but that once this is done the need for dark energy disappears. The team publish their results in a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Our universe was formed in the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. The key piece of evidence for this expansion is Hubble's law, based on observations of galaxies, which states that on average, the speed with which a galaxy moves away from us is proportional to its distance.

Astronomers measure this velocity of recession by looking at lines in the spectrum of a galaxy, which shift more towards red the faster the galaxy is moving away. From the 1920s, mapping the velocities of galaxies led scientists to conclude that the whole universe is expanding, and that it began life as a vanishingly small point.

In the second half of the twentieth century, astronomers found evidence for unseen '' by observing that something extra was needed to explain the motion of stars within galaxies. Dark is now thought to make up 27% of the content of universe (in contrast 'ordinary' matter amounts to only 5%).

Observations of the explosions of white dwarf stars in binary systems, so-called Type Ia supernovae, in the 1990s then led scientists to the conclusion that a third component, , made up 68% of the cosmos, and is responsible for driving an acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

In the new work, the researchers, led by Phd student Gábor Rácz of Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, question the existence of dark energy and suggest an alternative explanation. They argue that conventional models of cosmology (the study of the origin and evolution of the universe), rely on approximations that ignore its structure, and where matter is assumed to have a uniform density.

A short animation that shows the expansion of the universe in the standard 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter' cosmology, which includes dark energy (top left panel red), the new Avera model, that considers the structure of the universe and eliminates the need for dark energy (top middle panel, blue), and the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology, the original model without dark energy (top right, green). The panel at the bottom shows the increase of the 'scale factor' (an indication of the size) as a function of time. The growth of structure can also be seen in the top panels. One dot roughly represents an entire galaxy cluster. Units of scale are in Megaparsecs (Mpc), where 1 Mpc is around 3 million million million km. Credit: István Csabai et al

"Einstein's equations of that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically, that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found. We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein's equations which may introduce serious side-effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data." explains Dr László Dobos, co-author of the paper, also at Eötvös Loránd University.

In practice, normal and dark matter appear to fill the universe with a foam-like structure, where are located on the thin walls between bubbles, and are grouped into superclusters. The insides of the bubbles are in contrast almost empty of both kinds of matter.

Using a computer simulation to the effect of gravity on the distribution of millions of particles of dark matter, the scientists reconstructed the evolution of the universe, including the early clumping of matter, and the formation of large scale structure.

Unlike conventional simulations with a smoothly expanding universe, taking the into account led to a model where different regions of the cosmos expand at different rate. The average expansion rate though is consistent with present observations, which suggest an overall acceleration.

Dr Dobos adds: "The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves. We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy."

If this finding is upheld, it could have a significant impact on models of the and the direction of research in physics. For the past 20 years, astronomers and theoretical physicists have speculated on the nature of dark energy, but it remains an unsolved mystery. With the new model, Csabai and his collaborators expect at the very least to start a lively debate.

Explore further: Team puts dark matter on the map

More information: Concordance cosmology without dark energy. arxiv.org/abs/1607.08797

Related Stories

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

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 ...

Astronomers measure weight of galaxies, expansion of universe

July 30, 2014

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

Reconciling dwarf galaxies with dark matter

September 7, 2016

Dwarf galaxies are enigmas wrapped in riddles. Although they are the smallest galaxies, they represent some of the biggest mysteries about our universe. While many dwarf galaxies surround our own Milky Way, there seem to ...

Recommended for you

Solar-powered rover approaching 5,000th Martian dawn

February 16, 2018

The sun will rise on NASA's solar-powered Mars rover Opportunity for the 5,000th time on Saturday, sending rays of energy to a golf-cart-size robotic field geologist that continues to provide revelations about the Red Planet.

Hubble sees Neptune's mysterious shrinking storm

February 15, 2018

Three billion miles away on the farthest known major planet in our solar system, an ominous, dark storm - once big enough to stretch across the Atlantic Ocean from Boston to Portugal - is shrinking out of existence as seen ...

Kepler scientists discover almost 100 new exoplanets

February 15, 2018

Based on data from NASA's K2 mission, an international team of scientists has confirmed nearly 100 new exoplanets. This brings the total number of new exoplanets found with the K2 mission up to almost 300.

631 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Steelwolf
5 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2017
No doubt a VERY Lively Debate.
F111F
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
It would be a lively debate indeed...Hope they can provide experiment/observation solutions to their proposal. IMHO, it would be nice to do away with the requirement for "dark" matter and energy.
kylesta
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2017
dark energy =time?
In a void almost no gravity: in presence of gravity time compresses-slows, is the opposite true?
Since it is (space-time) the an incremental increase in time would make a difference in expansion rate. Add in the stress on the web created by massive gravity sources it seems there are plenty of sources of energy to account for it... not that I am an expert.
EyeNStein
3.1 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2017
We still need dark matter. The inferred 'lumpy' distribution of mass holding rotating galaxies together demands it.

However, if they can make a realistic computer model of a universe look and evolve like ours without Invoking dark energy that would leave one less mystery to solve.
ikihi
Mar 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2017
We still need dark matter. The inferred 'lumpy' distribution of mass holding rotating galaxies together demands it.


No, YOU need it. It's the methodology by which you rationalize never dealing with your BMI.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 30, 2017
Even the Dark Ages ended eventually, so too will the "Dark" Ages of astrophysics.
We still need dark matter. The inferred 'lumpy' distribution of mass holding rotating galaxies together demands it.

Not hardly. Electric and magnetic fields fill the bill where failed understandings of the plasma that pervades the Universe led to dark faerie dust.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 30, 2017
The claim of the universe accelerating is an example of dullard "science" devotees not realizing when they're being lied to.
Perlmutter's technique was to look at a distant galaxy, obtain its spectrum, derive its speed of recession by the Doppler shift, calculate the distance by Hubble's Constant, then examine light from a Type !a supernova in it. He claims the light is dimmer than it should be, meaning the galaxy is moving faster than it should be. Faster than its Doppler shift? The Doppler shift already showed how fast the galaxy was moving! How could it be moving faster?
And, consider, if the universe is accelerating even now, the Hubble value would not be constant! Type Ia supernova close in would also, every single one of them, be further away than they should be. But they're not!
Hat1208
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2017
@ikihi

Science theories usually are wrong until someone figures out the truth. Just look at the theory of global warming: total fantasy.

Just like ikihi thinking he knows something, total fantasy. BTW climate change is based on science not theory. Granted there is an argument for what is the cause but there is no argument that it is happening.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Here's a wild thought:

Take the balloon analogy of the expansion of space. As the balloon inflates, the distances between the points along its surface move apart - the surface area of the balloon increases.

Now consider a different analogy that takes into account gravity which distorts space. Imagine the balloon has constant volume - it doesn't expand or shrink per se - but each bit of mass on its surface pokes a little divot - the deeper the heavier the object.

Now what happens? If all mass is spread evenly, the balloon is spherical and has minimum surface area. When the matter clumps up in places, the surface becomes dimpled like a golf ball , but since we specified that the volume of the balloon is conserved, the surface area between the masses must increase - so it appears space is expanding.
PowerMax
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2017
why you people are commenting?! if you don't know anything about the subject just shut up!
Zzzzzzzz
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2017
Science theories usually are wrong until someone figures out the truth. Just look at the theory of global warming: total fantasy.

Just what are you doing here? You quite obviously do not belong here. This is not the place to practice your fecal regurgitation.
Zzzzzzzz
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Here's a wild thought:

Take the balloon analogy of the expansion of space. As the balloon inflates, the distances between the points along its surface move apart - the surface area of the balloon increases.

Now consider a different analogy that takes into account gravity which distorts space. Imagine the balloon has constant volume - it doesn't expand or shrink per se - but each bit of mass on its surface pokes a little divot - the deeper the heavier the object.

Now what happens? If all mass is spread evenly, the balloon is spherical and has minimum surface area. When the matter clumps up in places, the surface becomes dimpled like a golf ball , but since we specified that the volume of the balloon is conserved, the surface area between the masses must increase - so it appears space is expanding.

Interesting thought, but in that scenario the clumps of matter aren't moving away from each other, they are forcing the air in a balloon to move somewhere.
Eikka
5 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2017
He claims the light is dimmer than it should be, meaning the galaxy is moving faster than it should be. Faster than its Doppler shift? The Doppler shift already showed how fast the galaxy was moving! How could it be moving faster?


It seems you're combining and confusing some information there.

Brightness is not used for measuring the speed of galaxies. The brightness is not affected by their speed.

Certain types of supernovae happen in certain conditions which causes them to have more or less equal brightness - and so these stars are used for estimating relative distance, knowing that the intensity of radiation from a more distant object diminishes proportionally.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Interesting thought, but in that scenario the clumps of matter aren't moving away from each other, they are forcing the air in a balloon to move somewhere.


Indeed, but as the surface of the balloon represents our 3D space, it would seem from everyone's point of view that they're getting further and further away - while in reality they're getting closer and closer to each other along an extra dimension represented here by the normal of the sphere surface.

You can simplify it even further into a 2D case with a circle. Suppose the radius is 1 so the area is pi and circumference is pi, if you pinch the circle into two smaller circles by conserving the area, the total circumference grows from pi to 4.443~ and so if your imaginary 1D creature is forced to move along the perimeter, they would conclude that space has grown bigger.

Suppose matter falling into singularities is actually falling to the center - and how? Well, objects in free fall accelerate.
Zzzzzzzz
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Indeed, but as the surface of the balloon represents our 3D space, it would seem from everyone's point of view that they're getting further and further away - while in reality they're getting closer and closer to each other along an extra dimension represented here by the normal of the sphere surface.

You can simplify it even further into a 2D case with a circle. Suppose the radius is 1 so the area is pi and circumference is pi, if you pinch the circle into two smaller circles by conserving the area, the total circumference grows from pi to 4.443~ and so if your imaginary 1D creature is forced to move along the perimeter, they would conclude that space has grown bigger.

Suppose matter falling into singularities is actually falling to the center - and how? Well, objects in free fall accelerate.

I see what you're getting at. The dark matter requirement to support observations might grow considerably in this scenerio.....?
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Sorry, circumference is 2 pi, and it would grow from ~ 6.3 -> 8.9 or about 41% increase in "space"

The dark matter requirement to support observations might grow considerably in this scenerio.....?


I don't know. I suspect it can be tuned by adjusting how much stuff there is to the conserved volume of space, and again how it is distributed.

The dynamics of such a bubble is that all matter will eventually clump up together - some of the bulges grow faster than others and all matter "slips" to one side of the balloon, which presumably then causes a new big bang and throws all matter all over the surface of the balloon again.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
Of course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.

tblakely1357
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
Dark matter and dark energy has struck me as a kludge solution much like the need for aether to explain light transmission.
xinhangshen
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2017
Please be aware that relativity theory has already been disproved both logically and experimentally. Our physical time measured with physical clocks is not the same time defined by Lorentz Transformation. Our physical time measured as the status of a periodical physical process is absolute i.e. invariant of inertial reference frames no matter whether you use classical mechanics or relativistic mechanics (if you don't mix up the clock time with the relativistic time). Therefore, relativistic time is just a variable defined by a mathematical function without physical meanings, nothing to do with our physical time. It is a mistake to mix up the physical time with relativistic time, which produces many so-called relativistic effects. Actually all predictions of special relativity and other relativistic spacetime based theories are irrelevant to the physical world. See "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1, 2016 Physics Essays for more details.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
@Eikka
Of course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.

As far as we can see it is presumably flat. The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light. There could be this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.
......below:

The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity;

Part 3 Considerations on the Universe as a Whole- Albert Einstein

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Hat1208
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
@tblakely1357
Dark matter and dark energy has struck me as a kludge solution much like the need for aether to explain light transmission.

You are right they are kludges as placeholders for that which we do not understand. Since we do not know how gravity works or what exactly gravity is kludges seem appropriate.
RZ49
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Of course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.


Imagine;
Pressure combined with ongoing forces of an 2d outburst (big bang) which carries a pull (gravity) with it, considering the volume of the balloon (the one without a shroud) could increase absorbing the +-= environment;
The surface, especially in 2d increases exponential and therefore the absorption rate and the pull keeps increasing too.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
@Eikka
Of course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.

As far as we can see it is presumably flat. The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light. There could be this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature.


If you read the post I made 3 posts above this one, it states just about what you concluded, that: "this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature", all we really see is a short arc length of the perimeter.
Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2017
The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light.


It is already assumed to be so. The upper limit for the possible curvature of the universe given present knowledge is something on the order of 1 part in 10^62 so if it makes a loop around itself, it is very much bigger than anything we observe or will ever be able to observe until all the stars have burned out.

There are of course alternatives, such as the brane idea which posits that there are multiple flat universes very close to each other.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
The upper limit for the possible curvature of the universe given present knowledge is something on the order of 1 part in 10^62


Where did you see this? Doesn't sound unreasonable, I just don't recall ever seeing this before.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Also notice that the universe being flat has other consequences. If the universe curves in on itself, everything is actually a little bit closer and the force of gravity between things is stronger - so the universe would have collapsed back in on itself very soon after the big bang before galaxies and stars were formed.

The alternative where the universe does not curve on itself but instead forms a kind of saddle shape, things get further away from each other faster over distance and the force of gravity falls off faster, and everything flies apart so not even atoms can form.

So the universe as we know it is only possible over a very narrow range of parameters for flatness, and that range gets narrower as more time goes by.

If the accelerating expansion of space was due to the geometry of space, it would be rather more sensible to assume that the universe was ever so slightly saddle shaped rather than spherical.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
Where did you see this? Doesn't sound unreasonable, I just don't recall ever seeing this before.


https://en.wikipe..._problem

It follows from the present estimate that omega is within 1% of exactly 1 which would mean the universe is flat. If you extrapolate that back to the beginning of time, it means that omega had to be within 1:10^62 of 1 or else we would not see the density of matter we do in the present universe.

It would all have either clumped up together, or flown apart. See my point about the bubble universe: imagine trying to pinch a soap bubble - it slips out from between your fingers. In the same way, matter would slip to one side of the bubble the faster the smaller the bubble is.
creativeone
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
it means that omega had to be within 1:10^62 of 1 or else we would not see the density of matter we do in the present universe.


OK, I see what you're referring to now, i didn't realize DENSITY was what you were referring to. I was trying to perceive some manner of curvature over observable distance, something along the idea of measuring Rise over Run as you look out to the horizon.
Eikka
not rated yet Mar 30, 2017
Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?


Relative to what?

If the space between two points is expanding faster than light, then light from one point never reaches the other, so they basically become two separate universes - what happens in one cannot have any effect in the other.

At some distant time in the future, we'll hit a point where looking further out into the universe, you'll see just blankness.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?


It can never reach speed of light because MATTER is governed by the law of kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv² whereby v in the equation is the velocity of the mass being accelerated & can never be equal to light speed.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?


It can never reach speed of light because MATTER is governed by the law of kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv² whereby v in the equation is the velocity of the mass being accelerated & can never be equal to light speed.

Yeah but...
How bout space, itself?
IMO, matter is just slowed down energy causing it to "lump" as it gets slower and slower. And space is faster than light energy...
It's the Einstein equivalence thing...
(and - good call with that quote of his)
And I am inclined to think Eikka's 10 to the neg 62 is probably about right...
Eikka, we're not on a surface exactly, we're more in a layer inside the balloon filling it... (think 3d)
The Great Attractor is a relative "local" represention of a "center" .
Everything is in rotation, not expansion.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
Edit;
Eikka, we're not on a surface exactly, we're more in a layer inside the balloon filling it... (think 3d)

Actually, EVERYTHING inside is just one big layer.
Notice how the big bang is everywhere we look?
We are doing the observing, so we're looking from the INSIDE to our furthest limit, 13.4bn years (so far).
JWT is SO gonna expand that...:-)
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
IMO, matter is just slowed down energy causing it to "lump" as it gets slower and slower


Nope, ENERGY has a single velocity, lightspeed, it can never propagate below that speed for any reason, this is vastly different than a particle of matter governed by the law for Kinetic Energy= 1/2mv².

By contrast calculating energy for Electromagnetic waves, Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
Everything is in rotation, not expansion.


An interesting point because it could explain why some galaxies are moving in a direction toward us as well as away from us.

Looking at the orbital patterns of planets within the solar system, one may be able to discern a similar pattern from Earth depending on if we are looking at a planet that is reaching it's closest approach to Earth or when it is receding & approaching blue-shift turns suddenly to receding red-shift.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2017
With respect to Eikka's challenging of what I said about relating dimness with speed, and the two who felt Eikka's challenge was valid, note, first of all, Phys Org only allows so many characters, so explanations have to be short. Perlmutter claimed the Type Ia supernovae were dimmer than should be the case in galaxies at the distance indicated by relating recession speed to the Hubble value. He claimed that that means the distant galaxies must be moving away faster than would be expected. If they were moving slower, they wouldn't be that far away. So Perlmutter was relating dimness with recession velocity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
IMO, matter is just slowed down energy causing it to "lump" as it gets slower and slower


ENERGY has a single velocity, lightspeed, it can never propagate below that speed for any reason. ...

In a vacuum, yes. But when encountering mass, the abortion and re-emission of a photon is subject to the half spin lag time of EACH of those atoms, giving light the APPEARANCE of traveling at less than c, even thought it is still travelling at c - BETWEEN - photon exchange events.
(I use a "spherical spin" metaphor to aid in my visualization.)

By contrast calculating energy for Electromagnetic waves, Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.

Isn't c2 the actual constant used...?
This would seem to imply Einstein felt c is variable (by powers, at the very least...)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
... the abortion and re-emission of a photon ...

oops - ABSORPTION...
Benni
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2017
In a vacuum, yes. But when encountering mass, the abortion and re-emission of a photon is subject to the half spin lag time of EACH of those atoms, giving light the APPEARANCE of traveling at less than c, even thought it is still travelling at c - BETWEEN - photon exchange events.


.......yeah, it sorta sounds like you have right. The distance between any atom is a vacuum, then when it encounters an atom it can go through absorption by the atom raising the energy of the electron shell to a higher level.

When the electron shell gives up energy when electrons settle back to a lower orbital position, the emitted photon may or may not be of the same frequency of the photon that was absorbed, no matter this takes time because the kinetic energy involved in electron movement occurs at a velocity that is less than lightspeed, this because electron movement cannot occur at the speed of light, therefore you see time lapse.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2017
.......yeah, it sorta sounds like you have right. The distance between any atom is a vacuum, then when it encounters an atom it can go through absorption by the atom raising the energy of the electron shell to a higher level.
When the electron shell gives up energy when electrons settle back to a lower orbital position, the emitted photon may or may not be of the same frequency of the photon that was absorbed, no matter this takes time because the kinetic energy involved in electron movement occurs at a velocity that is less than lightspeed, this because electron movement cannot occur at the speed of light, therefore you see time lapse.

Exactly. You see why I like to use "spin"? It's very useful in it's geometric "calculability". If used right, it could handle a "many-body" solution.
And - thanks...:-)
PhysicsMatter
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2017
The assumption made by authors that universe expansion may be variable, different in different locations and time from big bang as a self-consistent result of locally formed structures, is clearly not inconsistent with general relativity but may as well violate principle of special relativity like total inertial frame equivalence and constancy of speed of light, since if universe expands in different speeds means some speeds were different than speed of light as we know it, or speed of light was changing as universe expanded.

There is widely ignored alternative to dark matter/energy based explanation of apparent expansion of universe, based on asserting a preferred frame of reference and variable speed of light, feature compatible with inhomogeneous expansion model:

Implications of an Absolute Simultaneity
Theory for Cosmology and Universe
Acceleration
Edward T. Kipreos*
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States of America
Published at PLOS;

Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2017
You see why I like to use "spin"? It's very useful in it's geometric "calculability". If used right, it could handle a "many-body" solution.
......no, I don't get this.

At first I thought you might have been referring to where the position of the orbit an electron could be found in before & after absorption of a photon, but I was unable to make that connection from the context of what you wrote.

Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2017
if universe expands in different speeds means some speeds were different than speed of light as we know it, or speed of light was changing as universe expanded.


No, the speed of light was not changing. What was changing is the change in distance over which that photon had to travel to reach a moving goalpost. It's no different than the length of time required to travel at a constant of 50 miles at 50 mph which would require one hour's time or traveling at twice the distance of 100 miles at 50 mph which would require twice the amount of time.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 30, 2017
You see why I like to use "spin"? It's very useful in it's geometric "calculability". If used right, it could handle a "many-body" solution.

......no, I don't get this.
At first I thought you might have been referring to where the position of the orbit an electron could be found in before & after absorption of a photon, but I was unable to make that connection from the context of what you wrote.

I did mean that. However, the absorption point doesn't matter. Just it's angular relativity to the emission point. (Which I add up as "spin")
Remember. Just an artist kicking a can down the street, here, so my explanations may not be as clear as they could be if i was trained in "the Arcane Art of Nuclear Physics"...:-)
But the pic is in my head...:-) and I'm workin' on it...:-)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking? Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
Universe is NOW. See special issue of AJMP. Insuficiency pf Big Bang Cosmology.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
Fascinating, so in previous models it turns out that observed Λ is actually an artifact of averaging the matter density across filaments and voids. It's good that they were able to find some differences between their model and the concordance model; this will let astronomers check both models to see which one agrees better with observations, and that makes this a full-fledged hypothesis. I'll be watching this with a great deal of interest.

A good question is, how does this affect the time evolution of the universe in the future? I read the arXiv copy of the paper, and found that their *overall* prediction is that expansion will continue to accelerate as voids increasingly dominate, but it is not clear to me that the filaments will eventually tear apart due to this, and they don't comment on it.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
[contd]
I think we need to wait for more exact surveys to confirm or deny their model, as they say in the paper, but I did find the concurrence of their model with observed Type Ia supernova data locally being better (see figure 3 in the paper) than the current ΛCDM prediction pretty interesting. This tends to indicate that their approach using the conjecture that defining "local universes" as a basis for construction of cosmological models has merit.

Finally, it should be noted that while this appears from a naive understanding to "overturn" ΛCDM (by removing Λ from strong consideration), in fact it does not; what it does show is that simulations of lower detail can contain artifacts introduced by the lack of detail. The predictions of ΛCDM and these guys' AvERA are so close together that even the best current observations can only begin to show detectable differences in their predictions. Nor does this "deny" dark matter.
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
creativeone asked, "Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?"

Ignorance + questions does not require an excuse. Only ignorance + certainty does.

Benni barfed up his ignorance + certain answer: "(the mass being accelerated) can never be equal to light speed."

Swing and a miss, on three counts.

One, the question concerns an expanding *universe.* Nothing in GR rules out *spacetime* expanding faster than light, and indeed, a prominent theory in cosmology *requires* that spacetime expanded faster than light in the early universe (inflation).

Two, accelerating an object doesn't change its mass in relation to itself. It only changes it relative to an observer moving differently.

There will also be time dilation between the observer and the accelerated object. That's an important point to keep in mind.
Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Three, accelerating expansion of the universe *will* put some parts of it into an unobservable state relative to any observer in any particular location. In fact, if the universe is accelerating as it appears to be, physicists are confident in making the prediction that with the passage of enough time, nothing but the local group of galaxies will be observable at all. The light from more distant objects will never reach us. You can think of this phenomenon as a kind of event horizon, beyond which we cannot observe anything at all. As time passes, more of the universe's matter is escaping beyond that horizon relative to any particular observer.

This cuts to the heart of creativeone's question. He wants to understand what an accelerating universe will do.

It's going to get a lot more lonely.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Very good start. Back to Einstein! We don't need any more dark energy "epicycle" ad hoc theorizing.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2017
Back to Einstein!

If it turns out to be the way they describe in the article:
Upside: re-confirming our current model is great.
Downside: The search for new physics just got a lot harder.
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2017
The universe is accelerating because light is not constant speed and is decelerating.

Thankfully the variable speed of light cancels out the variable rate of acceleration of the universe, so we don't have to worry about either,
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Nothing in GR rules out *spacetime* expanding faster than light


OK, so quote the section of General Relativity that proves this point. Maybe you can point to a Partial Differential Equation Einstein left behind leaving his thesis open to this concept of "spacetime"?

I Copied & Pasted a small section above that came right out of Einstein's GR as evidence for what Einstein concluded is the Structure of the Universe. There is nothing in that section by which anyone could ever in the remotest fashion conclude that anything moves FTL relative to anything else anywhere in the Universe. Maybe you can Copy & Paste a section here showing us something different?

I mean, Copy & Paste is not hard, maybe it's finding the section in GR supporting your claim that is hard? If you can't quote the text from GR supporting the FTL claim you make, then the whole concept is just a lot of hot air because you don't know what else to say & you would have been better off not saying it.
IMP-9
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2017
Very good start. Back to Einstein!


The standard model explanation for dark energy is the cosmological constant, a constant of integration in Einstein's field equations that was there from the beginning. It's not epicycles, it's a single number. Einstein used it to try and make the universe static and then it was forgotten about for a while, there is absolutely nothing in GR to say it should be zero, it's not ad hoc.

He claimed that that means the distant galaxies must be moving away faster than would be expected


No, SN-1a probe the luminosity distance. Not velocity.
SlartiBartfast
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2017
Nothing in GR rules out *spacetime* expanding faster than light


OK, so quote the section of General Relativity that proves this point. [...snip mindless obsession about differential equations...]


1) No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why GR prohibits faster-than-light expansion of spacetime. After all, there's nothing in GR about how you like to molest sheep, but I'd be hard pressed to back that up from the literature.

2) Why are you so obsessed with Einstein's original paper? Most of what's known about GR is not in there.

3) Stop trolling, and get a life.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
Most of what's known about GR is not in there.
......how do you know that if Einstein never included "most of what's known about GR is not in there"?

Stop trolling & actually study GR & find out what's in there rather than assuming most of it is like Dark Matter in the Universe, where what you believe about GR is 80-95% missing from the text.
SlartiBartfast
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 31, 2017
Most of what's known about GR is not in there.
......how do you know that if Einstein never included "most of what's known about GR is not in there"?


Parse error. And I'm not just being nitpicky; I really can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. Maybe this will help explain it though: https://en.wikipe...f_giants

Stop trolling


No, you're the troll. I know this. You know this. Everyone knows this. There's no point in pretending otherwise.

& actually study GR & find out what's in there rather than assuming most of it is [like Dark Matter in the Universe, where what you believe about GR is 80-95% missing from the text.


There's nothing in GR about neutrinos, yet they're quite real. Nor is GR (the original papers or the much larger body of subsequent work) the final word on anything. Why do you keep venerating it as if it were some sort of holy text?

TL;DR: Obvious troll is obvious.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Parse error. And I'm not just being nitpicky; I really can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say.


.......well of course you can't figure out what I'm "trying to say", you've never studied the text of General Relativity, so how would you know?

Nor is GR (the original papers or the much larger body of subsequent work) the final word on anything.
........very true, nothing in it about how to make chocolate cake, or make pizza, but when I want to know how to calculate gravitational lensing I don't look up instructions for how to bake a chocolate cake or make pizza.

SlartiBartfast
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2017
Parse error. And I'm not just being nitpicky; I really can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say.


.......well of course you can't figure out what I'm "trying to say", you've never studied the text of General Relativity, so how would you know?


No, I can't figure out what you're trying to say because you've failed to put your thoughts (such as they are) into words coherently. Stop acting like a five year old. If someone asks for clarification, you clarify; you don't call them stupid.

---

Keep in mind, all of this started when you denied that spacetime can expand faster than light. You have yet to back this up with even one shred of evidence. Instead you keep changing the subject. This is the tactic of the creationist.

---

Obvious troll is obvious.
LegalEagle
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2017
The conclusion that the universe is expanding was based on Hubble's discovery that the light from distant galaxies was shifted to the red in proportion to distance. Though counter-intuitive, the light from distant galaxies in a universe contracting around a cosmic singularity like a massive black hole would also be shifted to the red in proportion to distance just as Hubble observed. Moreover, the contracting model uses the gravitational pull of the cosmic singularity to explain the exaggerated red shifts attributed to Dark Energy, Dark Matter and other phenomena. For a concise explanation, see bigcrunchuniverse dot com.
Hat1208
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2017
@SlartiBartfast

Benni never backs up anything he says because there is no evidence to support his claims. Hitting the ignore button is really the only way to deal with a three year old, I think five years old is giving it way to much credit.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2017
No, I can't figure out what you're trying to say because you've failed to put your thoughts (such as they are) into words coherently. Stop acting like a five year old. If someone asks for clarification, you clarify; you don't call them stupid


Try a better come-back.

Maybe you can come up with a more cogent ad hoc extension for GR in one of your chocolate cake recipes & claim it's valid for use in General Relativity simply because "most of what's known about GR is not in there".

Get your salivating tongue off the road & stop imagining how much you know about things that are only inferred to exist.

Benni never backs up anything he says because there is no evidence to support his claims
Einstein already did it, didn't need any help from me.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2017
@julianpenrod
...And, consider, if the universe is accelerating even now, the Hubble value would not be constant!
Exponential expansion is accelerating expansion where the exponent (in our case the Hubble constant) really is constant. So it mystifies me why people should get so excited about the accelerating expansion.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@Eikka
...the surface area between the masses...
Doesn't compute if I try to relate a mass to an object. For example given any two objects, give me the surface area between them please.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@Hat1208
As far as we can see it is presumably flat. The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light. There could be this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature.
Toying with the idea that the U we observe is info collected from a flat 2-d hologram would be supported by this flat U idea. This would also make the idea of parallel holograms forming one universe seem plausible. Like one for matter and the other for antimatter. Connected mechanically in such a way that as space falls into black holes with matter in one U it pops up in the parallel U in the form of a white hole. This could actually be causing what we think is expanding spacetime which is actually. So the space within galaxies is sucked up in black holes and redistributed as space between galaxies, leading us to think spacetime is expanding. Sort of like a cruel joke.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
cont
let's make that: what we think is expanding spacetime is actually space within galaxies being sucked up in black holes and redistributed as space between galaxies driven by white holes, leading us to think spacetime is expanding. Cruel indeed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
Hi IMP-9, antialias, Benni et al. :)

CONSIDER:

- "Inflation" hypothesis 'blown' by Prof Paul Steinhardt, saying it NEVER had tenable objective/observational evidence/support! So please stop assuming anything based on now-discarded hypothesis of Inflation (and by extension, "Expansion").

- When GR theorists say "space-time is expanding", they are invoking ABSTRACT geometrical/maths MAPPING CONCEPT; and NOT "space" itself! So careful to NOT CONFLATE real 'energy-space' with abstract 'space-time' in discussions.

- COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked due to a MISTAKEN BELIEF that the Universe had OTHER THAN Infinite/flat overall extent/geometry. At one stage it was thought the Universe consisted of MW galaxy and Local Group! So careful to NOT use OLD/MISTAKEN 'views' and ABSTRACT 'unreal' so-called 'dimensions/spacetime' (NOTE: 'spacetime' CAN vary as a COMPOSITE VARIABLE in ABSTRACT maths/geometry graphs/models).

Just some of the things to be aware of! :)
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2017
Hi IMP-9, antialias, Benni et al. :)

CONSIDER:


No. Next.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2017
"Inflation" hypothesis 'blown' by Prof Paul Steinhardt, saying it NEVER had tenable objective/observational evidence/support!


Inflation predicted the scalar spectral index was less than 1, as was confirmed by Planck at 4 sigma. I wouldn't call that nothing. Inflation is certainly not the same thing as expansion in general, that's a cheap attempt at guilt by association.

COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked


As a constant of integration in the Einstein field equations. Einstein used it to make the universe static and then after that it was forgotten about for a while up until Peebles. Setting it to zero in GR is an assumption.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
Hi SlartiBartFast. :)
Hi IMP-9, antialias, Benni et al. :)

CONSIDER:


No. Next.
I see you are another of those 'scientists' who have made up their own self-serving 'expedient version' of a 'scientific method'; to wit, "The SlartiBartFast Method":
No! [I won't look at the evidence/logic because it may teach me something; and I prefer to remain ignorant rather than listen to someone I want to hate/troll because my ego tells me to!]


Wake up, mate. Just try looking, listening and learning for a change, irrespective of the person/source; you may get to like becoming less ignorant, more humble and less of a troll, hey! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2017
Hi IMP-9. :)
"Inflation" hypothesis 'blown' by Prof Paul Steinhardt, saying it NEVER had tenable objective/observational evidence/support!


Inflation predicted the scalar spectral index was less than 1, as was confirmed by Planck at 4 sigma. I wouldn't call that nothing.
Mate! You really have to start NOT just going along with CIRCUITOUS arguments/hypotheses/logics! Your Inflation-dependent "scalar spectral index" hypotheses/claims PRESUPPOSE that "inflation" occurred! Just read this:

https://en.wikipe...tuations

Just read the interminably LONG string of assumptions and beliefs which depend a priori on there being an "inflationary" epoch!

Planck only glimpsed 'tip of iceberg' re what affects that which we 'see' NOW from distant past/distant reaches all around. The local 'tip' killed off Bicep2 claims!

We are now discovering/realizing huge scale/variety of dust/gas/plasma etc constituents, processes, dynamics. Mixmaster!

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
@IMP-9 cont:
Inflation is certainly not the same thing as expansion in general, that's a cheap attempt at guilt by association.
They're CONNECTED. All to do with REAL 'energy-space' concepts/consequences versus ABSTRACT 'space-time' concept/misunderstandings. Don't conflate the two and you will soon lose all those UNREAL CIRCUITOUS ASSUMPTIONS and claims which you just read off the 'official version' based on the BELIEF that INFLATION 'actually happened'!
COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked
As a constant of integration in the Einstein field equations. Einstein used it to make the universe static and then after that it was forgotten about for a while up until Peebles. Setting it to zero in GR is an assumption.
Why try to do that 'maths kludge'? Because abstractions/beliefs misled into thinking it NEEDED his "my greatest blunder". It only 'needed' it because they thought universe was finite/not 'flat'. Not 'needed' now. :)

SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2017
I see you are another of those 'scientists'


I'm not a scientist (with or without the scare quotes); I'm a mathematician.

who have made up their own self-serving 'expedient version' of a 'scientific method'; to wit, "The SlartiBartFast Method":
No! [I won't look at the evidence/logic because it may teach me something; and I prefer to remain ignorant rather than listen to someone I want to hate/troll because my ego tells me to!]


Wake up, mate. Just try looking, listening and learning for a change, irrespective of the person/source; you may get to like becoming less ignorant, more humble and less of a troll, hey! :)


You post nothing but meaningless drivel. Is it possible that your meaningless drivel might contain something of value from time to time? Sure. Am I going to sift through all the meaningless drivel in order to check? No.
Seeker2
not rated yet Mar 31, 2017
@Eikka
There are of course alternatives, such as the brane idea which posits that there are multiple flat universes very close to each other.
Where the branes could be 2 dimensional holograms as I was suggesting.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
Hi Slarti. :)
I see you are another of those 'scientists'
I'm not a scientist (with or without the scare quotes); I'm a mathematician.
That explains it! :)
who have made up their own self-serving 'expedient version' of a 'scientific method'..."The SlartiBartFast Method":
No! [I won't look at the evidence/logic because it may teach me something; and I prefer to remain ignorant rather than listen to someone I want to hate/troll because my ego tells me to!]
You post nothing but meaningless drivel.
A bit rich, isn't it? You're a mathematician; 'comfortable' living with "drivel" (ie, undefineds; unreal/philosophical 'notions' like 'dimensionless point'; and zero/nothing (Big Bang etc) suddenly having structure/existence/effect/relevance in reality.physics). :)

So, a mathematician; too 'snobby' to actually read countering evidence/logics; because he doesn't 'like' a person/source. With that attitude/bias you will never be a scientist. Sad.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@creativeone
Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?
Interesting. Intergalactive light travel stops. The photons are still there but they don't move. That is the universe outside the observers galaxy appears static.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@Eikka
If the space between two points is expanding faster than light, then light from one point never reaches the other, so they basically become two separate universes - what happens in one cannot have any effect in the other.
That might be an overstatement. Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (8) Mar 31, 2017
A bit rich, isn't it? You're a mathematician; 'comfortable' living with "drivel" (ie, undefineds; unreal/philosophical 'notions' like 'dimensionless point'; and zero/nothing (Big Bang etc) suddenly having structure/existence/effect/relevance in reality.physics). :)


You seem to know as little about mathematics as you do about physics.

So, a mathematician; too 'snobby' to actually read countering evidence/logics; because he doesn't 'like' a person/source. With that attitude/bias you will never be a scientist. Sad.


Except you never present any countering evidence. And I don't consider what you have to say -- not because I don't like you (and I don't; you're rude, condescending, and dishonest), but because you've never presented anything intelligent or insightful.

There's only so much nonsense one can hear from a person before one tunes that person out. There's nothing wrong with that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Hi Slarti. :)

See how your 'method' is working out...not! :)

You are woefully miss-informed about me; even so far as to not know I have long been pointing out the inadequacies of conventional maths constructs/axioms when it comes to completing the consistent universal physical theory. It is because of all those undefined, 'dimensionless' point and something-from-nothing UNREAL and/or PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS that infest conventional maths. I have long been working on a REALITY-based maths construct/axioms set which is based on real universal phenomena/context, so it will be able to complete a consistent universal physics theory. So your ignorance/malice towards me regarding BOTH my physics AND maths work/observations/suggestions/cautions for YEARS now on this/other forum, is YOUR problem, not mine, mate. :)

Perhaps, had you NOT been so one-eyed, egotistical, non-objective, snobby mathematician, and instead been a true scientist, you might have been better informed. :)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@Benni
Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?
It can never reach speed of light because MATTER is governed by the law of kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv² whereby v in the equation is the velocity of the mass being accelerated & can never be equal to light speed.
Velocity is measured relative to the expanding spacetime (velocity is called a local variable). So you can be sitting there minding your own business and suddenly the lights go out.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2017
You are woefully miss-informed [sic] about me; even so far as to not know I have long been pointing out the inadequacies of conventional maths constructs/axioms when it comes to [...snip word salad...]


Nothing you've posted gives any indication that you know anything about modern mathematics. Indeed, it tends to lead one to think you know nothing about it.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 31, 2017
You seem to know as little about mathematics as you do about physics.
It's worse than that Cher. This is Really-Skippy's interweb page where he explains his version of the universe,,,,, [url]http://earthlingclub.com/[/url]

Except you never present any countering evidence.
It's because he is writing a book about his toes and everything and he doesn't want anybody to steal his ideas. But you can get the preview here,,,,, [url]http://earthlingclub.com/[/url]

I'm not joking either, Really-Skippy really did write that stuff and for years was proud of it.

There's only so much nonsense one can hear from a person before one tunes that person out.
That's where I come in. As a service to the humans and scientists I fix things so if you keep your karma bar slider set to 2.0 or 2.5 they don't have to be bothered with Really-Skippy's foolishment. Non, I don't get paid, I volunteer my time for the sake of humans and scientists for free.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
@Benni
By contrast calculating energy for Electromagnetic waves, Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.
So you're saying the internal energy of a particle of mass m consists of electromagnetic waves traveling around inside the particle. Maybe like a Higgs boson?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Hi Slarti. :)
You are woefully miss-informed [sic] about me; even so far as to not know I have long been pointing out the inadequacies of conventional maths constructs/axioms when it comes to [...snip word salad...]


Nothing you've posted gives any indication that you know anything about modern mathematics. Indeed, it tends to lead one to think you know nothing about it.
BUT...BUT...How would you lnpw, mate! You just admitted to NOT reading what I post! Multiply that by the YEARS long posts on both maths (and physical cosmology/astrophysics and quantum/plasmoic etc etc physics), and you've MISSECD A LOT, mate. :)

Add to that missed info, the fact recent mainstream cosmo/astro and quantum/plasmonics discoveries/reviews are increasingly confirming ME correct all along, and you have a LOT to catch up on! Your INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE and MALICE of/towards me/my cogent correct contributions to objective sciemaths/physics discourse has made you irrelevant now. Sad.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2017
It's worse than that Cher. This is Really-Skippy's interweb page where he explains his version of the universe,,,,, http://earthlingclub.com/

I'm not joking either, Really-Skippy really did write that stuff and for years was proud of it.


From http://rationalwi...%27s_Law
If a website still runs on Netscape, there is a high probability it was designed by a crazy person.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2017
PS @ Slarti: The fact that the resident bot-voting ignoramus troll has come to your 'defense' with even more ignorance and malice, demonstrates your ill informed posts are 'relevant' only to trolls and bot-voting ignoramuses; who can't stand it when their preferred-Skippies 'buddies' are exposed for their lack of objectivity and knowledge...because they employ their now-infamous method of "I won't look at evidence/ideas from those who I don't like!" in order to 'justify to themselves' why they are intentionally choosing to remain ignorant, malicious and irrelevant losers/trolls on the net. Sad choice, mate. Yep; you're no scientist alright;as you have admitted already. Apparently never will be. What a waste of intellect. Sad.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2017
Everything is in rotation, not expansion.
Anyway galaxies are in rotation. I don't think expansion. Expansion is between galaxies. Possibly everything in galaxies is being eaten up by the black holes and spit out as white holes between galaxies.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

I don't have a lot of time to fool around with you tonight so you can go back to playing scientist without me distracting you more.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: Don't forget to lock-up the Earthman Playhouse when you get done playing for evening and leave the silly looking pointy cap and labcoat for the next couyon who wants to play scientist and humans.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2017
Hi Forum. :)

As you can objectively observe for yourself, the trolls and intentional ignoramuses are trying to 'bury' the points made to IMP-9 under their usual heap of 'troll-shite' which they bring and dump on the floor to distract from science/logic discourse on the topic. In this instance the two trolls were: an ill informed 'mathematician' boasting he does NOT read countering evidence/points from posters he doesn't like; and an ever sadder irrelevance, ie a bot-voting ignoramus who still doesn't realize he doesn't understand in any real depth/subtlety the complex maths/physics issues being discussed. I wonder if IMP-9 is happy or sad that our exchange has been 'buried' as usual by those who would prefer him and well as themselves to remain in ignorance and circuitous /unreal 'world' of their own? How about it, IMP-9? I respinded to your reply. Have you now understood where you were going wrong 'just believing' questionable 'orthodoxy' claims and assumptions etc? :)
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2017
@Benni
Everything is in rotation, not expansion.
An interesting point because it could explain why some galaxies are moving in a direction toward us as well as away from us.
Note that galaxies do attract each other gravitationally as evidenced by the filaments between galaxies. Overcoming the forces of expansion, perhaps meaning no white holes or few wormholes between the approaching galaxies.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2017

@Urgelt
Two, accelerating an object doesn't change its mass in relation to itself. It only changes it relative to an observer moving differently.
It changes its internal energy relative to any observer.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
I'm just gonna thank IMP-9 Urgelt and SlartiBartfast for their knowledge, WG, Eikka, S2 and aa for their input, and Benni and RC for the entertainment.
(Just spent 10 minutes looking for some initials...)

The idea that unmodelled clumpiness could help explain expansion appeals to me, like most, I await higher res data :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2017
Hi ZergSurfer. :)
I'm just gonna thank IMP-9 Urgelt and SlartiBartfast for their knowledge, WG, Eikka, S2 and aa for their input, and Benni and RC for the entertainment.
(Just spent 10 minutes looking for some initials...)

The idea that unmodelled clumpiness could help explain expansion appeals to me, like most, I await higher res data :)
Take care to re-examine your list and your categories correlations. It may be you are falling into the trap which all skimming/uninformed people fall into so often....because they did not do proper due diligence of actually looking at all the evidence/context before kneejerking to simplistic/biased opinions which are irrelevant and misleading.

The fact you have not even considered/commented on the points I made to IMP-9 (and which he has yet to properly counter objectively and not circuitously based on incorrect orthodoxy assumptions/interpretations etc) before making your listing/correlations, is a worry, 'newbie'. Do better. :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2017
My categories and correlations are fine thanks. You seem to be using less /'s these days, that's good :)
I know you RC. My name may be new, but I'm an old hand here.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking?


That it's direction and velocity is entirely dependent on the force I kick it with + the angle from which the toe of my boot hits it + WHERE the toe of that boot hits it's surface.
(We're not even gonna talk about the car window it cracked on one of those kicks...;-))
Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.

Analogous, yes. But only ever so. There will always be that pesky 1 (to whatever power up or down) ...:-)
Making "t=0" just another "singularity" type math artifact that can never quite be reached...:-)
Remember, space is never "0". Put enough of it together and Bam!" - you got something...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
Seeker@
... Connected mechanically in such a way that as space falls into black holes with matter in one U it pops up in the parallel U in the form of a white hole...

Yeah, but...
... in the case of a black hole, space is being "squeezed out" as the density of matter increases.
Not to mention, the electron charge being "squeezed out" (to the surface), as well...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@Eikka
If the space between two points is expanding faster than light, then light from one point never reaches the other, so they basically become two separate universes - what happens in one cannot have any effect in the other.
That might be an overstatement.
{Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.}

Only in a perfect vacuum.
The only thing separating them is Distance. Making Time a function of of distance and velocity.
We're not traveling as fast as light...:-)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@WG
... in the case of a black hole, space is being "squeezed out" as the density of matter increases.
Right. Squeezed out of the black hole into some white hole through wormholes. Note the white holes would be contributing to the expansion of space between galaxies. So space is getting the squeeze into galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart. Sort of mind-boggling.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@WG
{Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.}
Only in a perfect vacuum.
The only thing separating them is Distance. Making Time a function of of distance and velocity.
We're not traveling as fast as light...:-)
You're talking about local variables. Cause and effect occurs on a global scale - meaning the U considered as a single particle.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@WG
So space is getting the squeeze into galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart. Sort of mind-boggling.
Not quite actually. Space is getting the squeeze in galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart outside of galaxies. This has been observed as separate from normal expansion around invisible white holes where the wormholes are pushing space into the white holes.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
cont
at least that's my interpretation of why some galaxy clusters appear to be getting blown apart around what I would guess is a white hole.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
Your Inflation-dependent "scalar spectral index" hypotheses/claims PRESUPPOSE that "inflation" occurred!


It's called a hypothesis. It's not circular.

Not 'needed' now.


I feel you're not actually reading anything that is being said to you. Setting it to zero is an assumption, a baseless one. You cannot just delete it from the field equations.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Hi ZergSurfer. :)
My categories and correlations are fine thanks. You seem to be using less /'s these days, that's good :)
I know you RC. My name may be new, but I'm an old hand here.
So "ZergSurfer" is a sockpuppet? What is/are your other name(s) here, since you say you're "an old hand"?

Anyhow, if you are "an old hand here", and you've been reading my posts over years, then you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct all along on the science/logics on many fronts/issues, yes? In which case, your exclusion of me from the "Knowledge" category/listing whom you "thanked for their knowledge", was an oversight ?....although I have on occasion provided some 'entertainment' in those instances when I was responding to and exposing trolls, stalkers and bot-voting ignoramus/malicious 'gangs'! Perhaps you should include a COMPOSITE category just for me: "knowledgeably entertaining". :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Hi IMP-9. :)
Your Inflation-dependent "scalar spectral index" hypotheses/claims PRESUPPOSE that "inflation" occurred!
It's called a hypothesis. It's not circular.
No, mate; that wasn't the point. The point was: your claims re scalar spectral index somehow 'supporting' Inflation was circular....as your interpretation is based on assumption Inflation is 'real' (which it isn't, as Prof Paul Steinhardt explained). Hence any observations/claims based on Inflation 'interpretation' is/are circular; and not objectively tenable scientifically (reminds of the Bicep2 claims/interpretations which were based on In-built assumptions which had no basis in objectively tenable scientific fact).
Not 'needed' now.
Setting it to zero is an assumption.... You cannot just delete it from the field equations.
No. Since Inflation (and by extension also Expansion) is NOT 'real', then it's up to YOU et al to justify its inclusion at all; let alone, 'value'.

Didn't YOU read? :)
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@WG
Space is getting the squeeze in galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart outside of galaxies. This has been observed as separate from normal expansion around invisible white holes where the wormholes are pushing space into the white holes.
Clarification: This has been observed as separate from normal expansion caused by what I think is the exponential growth of spacetime.

This has been observed as appearing to blow galaxy clusters apart which I'm saying is due to a white hole only visible by the effect it has on surrounding galaxies. Sort of like dark matter.

OBTW if I haven't mentioned it here exponential expansion is accelerated expansion as you can find by expanding the exponential function by its Taylor series. So why people get excited about accelerated expansion seems strange to me.

Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@RC
No. Since Inflation (and by extension also Expansion) is NOT 'real', then it's up to YOU et al to justify its inclusion at all; let alone, 'value'.

Didn't YOU read?
I guess I missed that class too.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Seeker2. :)

Some things you may have missed (my first post above):
CONSIDER:
- "Inflation" hypothesis 'blown' by Prof Paul Steinhardt, saying it NEVER had tenable objective/observational evidence/support! So please stop assuming anything based on now-discarded hypothesis of Inflation (and by extension, "Expansion").
- When GR theorists say "space-time is expanding", they are invoking ABSTRACT geometrical/maths MAPPING CONCEPT; and NOT "space" itself! So careful to NOT CONFLATE real 'energy-space' with abstract 'space-time' in discussions.
- COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked due to a MISTAKEN BELIEF that the Universe had OTHER THAN Infinite/flat overall extent/geometry. At one stage it was thought the Universe consisted of MW galaxy and Local Group! So careful to NOT use OLD/MISTAKEN 'views' and ABSTRACT 'unreal' so-called 'dimensions/spacetime' (NOTE: 'spacetime' CAN vary as a COMPOSITE VARIABLE in ABSTRACT maths/geometry graphs/models).


OK? :)
Dingbone
Apr 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@RC
Some things...
Did I miss another class?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@DB
The term 'concordance' is used in cosmology to indicate the currently accepted and most commonly used cosmological model.
I.E., the party line. Right? :)
I understand the party who has all the answers also has all the questions. And mine might not be one of them. So I guess I'm just SOL.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking?


That it's direction and velocity is entirely dependent on the force I kick it with + the angle from which the toe of my boot hits it + WHERE the toe of that boot hits it's surface.
(We're not even gonna talk about the car window it cracked on one of those kicks...;-))
Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.

Analogous, yes. But only ever so. There will always be that pesky 1 (to whatever power up or down) ...:-)
Making "t=0" just another "singularity" type math artifact that can never quite be reached...:-)
Remember, space is never "0". Put enough of it together and Bam!" - you got something...:-)

Like it! Do you think our 'universe' might 'crack a window', analogously that is?
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@Benni
By contrast calculating energy for Electromagnetic waves, Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.


So you're saying the internal energy of a particle of mass m consists of electromagnetic waves traveling around inside the particle. Maybe like a Higgs boson?
.............No, TRANSFORMATION must occur, it's not as if there are a bunch of photons trapped inside a perfect lightbox just looking for a crack to escape through.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@Benni


Everything is in rotation, not expansion.


An interesting point because it could explain why some galaxies are moving in a direction toward us as well as away from us.


Note that galaxies do attract each other gravitationally as evidenced by the filaments between galaxies. Overcoming the forces of expansion, perhaps meaning no white holes or few wormholes between the approaching galaxies.


The "filaments" are the tell tale evidence of how everything is connected to everything else in the Universe via gravity & electro-magnetic radiation. The shapes of these structures are classic patterns of the random nature of ENTROPY, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, exactly what Einstein wrote about in Part 3 of General Relativity. concerning the structure of space & the universe.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
Nothing you've posted gives any indication that you know anything about modern mathematics. Indeed, it tends to lead one to think you know nothing about it.
@Slarti
absolutely true - hence the wording on the earthling pseudoscience site of... and let me quote this one
articles which will use a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics
or, IOW, non-predictable, non-testable and completely based in personal belief

which is the exact same TOE that is used by every religion on the planet, BTW...
LOL
Perhaps, had you NOT been so one-eyed, egotistical, non-objective, snobby mathematician, and instead been a true scientist
only the idiots RC and liar-kam would get pissed off about people who are demonstrably more intellectual than they are trying to help them

LMFAO

.

@ZergSurfer
welcome back - it's worse now.
KBK
5 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
Science theories usually are wrong until someone figures out the truth. Just look at the theory of global warming: total fantasy.


I always try to remember that the same companies that were hired to dismiss and ridicule and eventually stall understanding that cigarettes/tobacco cause cancer..are the exact same companies that the energy companies hired to convince the public to dismiss global warming.

They muddied the waters in the whole tobacco-cancer scenario..for many decades.

No joke, spend a few minutes looking it up.

It is literally the same publicity companies and their nefarious ways of interference that are involved in attempting to muddy and slow down the clarity of global warming research and the connected results.

So when I see this sort of crap injected in a given conversation, I logically wonder if it is a bot, a paid shill, or a severely misinformed wishful thinker that's been converted by said mechanism.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
The "filaments" are the tell tale evidence of how everything is connected to everything else in the Universe via gravity & electro-magnetic radiation.

Exactly... Note the "&" part of that equation. One other part we're missing to complete the picture. What other thing do we need to compare it to...?
The shapes of these structures are classic patterns of the random nature of ENTROPY, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, exactly what Einstein wrote about in Part 3 of General Relativity. concerning the structure of space & the universe.

With one exception - it ain't random...:-)
KBK
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
Of course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.


The benefit is that it begins to fit quantum mechanics and that entire irreconcilable package.

And possibly be a better fit for the newly proposed holographic origins model.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
Right. Squeezed out of the black hole into some white hole through wormholes. Note the white holes would be contributing to the expansion of space between galaxies. So space is getting the squeeze into galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart. Sort of mind-boggling.

Good, but not quite...
Space (and electron charge,BTW) are being squeezed to the surface of the surface of the mass as it increases density...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
@WG
{Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.}
Only in a perfect vacuum.
The only thing separating them is Distance. Making Time a function of of distance and velocity.
We're not traveling as fast as light...:-)
You're talking about local variables. Cause and effect occurs on a global scale - meaning the U considered as a single particle.

Ergo a "quantum" that we are INSIDE of...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
Everything is in rotation, not expansion.
Anyway galaxies are in rotation. I don't think expansion. Expansion is between galaxies. Possibly everything in galaxies is being eaten up by the black holes and spit out as white holes between galaxies.

And (groups of) galaxies are also in rotation. Albeit, in a much bigger loop...:-)
Space is just - there, shifting itself around to make room for moving mass ...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2017
@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking?


That it's direction and velocity is entirely dependent on the force I kick it with + the angle from which the toe of my boot hits it + WHERE the toe of that boot hits it's surface.
(We're not even gonna talk about the car window it cracked on one of those kicks...;-))
Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.

Analogous, yes. But only ever so. There will always be that pesky 1 (to whatever power up or down) ...:-)
Making "t=0" just another "singularity" type math artifact that can never quite be reached...:-)
Remember, space is never "0". Put enough of it together and Bam!" - you got something...:-)

Like it! Do you think our 'universe' might 'crack a window', analogously that is?

There's a whole lot of them cracked - to differing degrees.
Analogously speaking, of course...:-)
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
The "filaments" are the tell tale evidence of how everything is connected to everything else in the Universe via gravity & electro-magnetic radiation.


Exactly... Note the "&" part of that equation. One other part we're missing to complete the picture. What other thing do we need to compare it to...?
Both have lightspeed velocity which is the reason I mentioned both of them in the same sentence with one immediately following the other.

The shapes of these structures are classic patterns of the random nature of ENTROPY, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, exactly what Einstein wrote about in Part 3 of General Relativity. concerning the structure of space & the universe


With one exception - it ain't random


Yes, it is "random", the proven model of the nature of ENTROPY........ The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes the motion of particles upon expansion from a point source as random. This is what Einstein was describing in Part 3 of General Relativity.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2017
WG..........when ENTROPY is referred to as being "random", this does not mean a "haphazard" pathway in which mass moves, but rather to the UNCERTAINTY as to exactly where it will be located at a specified point in time due to forces of friction, gravity, etc, that a specific particulate may encounter within its pathway.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Dingbone. :)
From preprint abstract: "According to the separate universe conjecture, spherically symmetric sub-regions in an isotropic universe behave like mini-universes with their own cosmological parameters" This is an excellent approximation in both Newtonian and general relativistic theories. Except that it isn't "concordant model", but steady-state Universe model in disguise - i.e. exactly the opposite of the concordance model.. :-) The term 'concordance' is used in cosmology to indicate the currently accepted and most commonly used cosmological model.
A very astute observation, mate. Yes, it increasingly appears that all the recent mainstream astro/cosmo/quantum discoveries/reviews are inexorably leading back to Ocam's Razor Universal Physical Processes, ie: "Eternal", "Infinite" and "Energy-Space Recycling" type of "Steady-State-like" phenomena set. Kudos to you for pointing out this now-unavoidable conclusion for the Forum at large, Dingbone. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Forum.

Some people never learn/get honest. If it wasn't for such people posting misleading assertions/insinuations, I wouldn't have to post in my defense. But there, the lying bot-voting venedetta-merchant troll persists!

Eg, this mendacious drivel from Stump:
IOW, non-predictable, non-testable and completely based in personal belief

which is the exact same TOE that is used by every religion on the planet,
What the Stump conveniently 'left out' was that not only is my TOE based on Reality-phenomena/hypothesis from the outset, I am finalizing a Reality-based maths/axioms to replace the UN-reality-based conventional maths/axioms.

And this:
only the idiots RC and liar-kam would get pissed off about people who are demonstrably more intellectual than they are trying to help them
The Stump has left out where it has been ME who has "helped them" [Stump's 'buddies'] when they GOT IT WRONG on MANY occasions (Bicep2 etc).

The Stump is LYING TO YOU again, folks! Sad.
Starchaser
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Just a pedantic point (which may have been made above amongst the many comments) without getting into the meat of the discussion: one megaparsec is ~ 30 million trillion km, not 3 million trillion.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Forum.

Some people never learn/get honest. If it wasn't for such people posting misleading assertions/insinuations, I wouldn't have to post in my defense. But there, the lying bot-voting venedetta-merchant troll persists!

What the Stump conveniently 'left out' was that not only is my TOE based on Reality-phenomena/hypothesis from the outset, I am finalizing a Reality-based maths/axioms to replace the UN-reality-based conventional maths/axioms.

And this:
only the idiots RC and liar-kam would get pissed off about people who are demonstrably more intellectual than they are trying to help them
The Stump has left out where it has been ME who has "helped them" [Stump's 'buddies'] when they GOT IT WRONG on MANY occasions (Bicep2 etc).

The Stump is LYING TO YOU again, folks! Sad.

You just don't know when to quit, do ya...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
You just don't know when to quit, do ya...
Should the bot-voting trolls, stalkers, liars and personality-vendetta merchants be left to run riot over others' right to self-defense against their atrocious betrayal of all decent science and humanity principles and ethics....on a SCIENCE discourse site no less?

Perhaps you would be better employed asking your above question of the perpetrator(s) instead of their victims(s), hey, Whyde? Good luck with that; you may become their next 'target' for bullying and lying about! It will take courage and fortitude of character and objectivity to do that, mate. Try it and see what happens. To satisfy your 'scientific curiosity' re 'consequences of bravery'; or even 'just for the hell of it!', hey? Cheers. :)
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2017
@Benni
...Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.
Mass of a photon? I've heard of frequency before but not mass.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2017
@Seeker, @Lenni's a little fuzzy on the difference between mass and momentum. Not to mention a great deal of other physics.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience earthling-club crackpot sam
The Stump has left out where it has been ME who has "helped them" [Stump's 'buddies'] when they GOT IT WRONG on MANY occasions (Bicep2 etc).

The Stump is LYING TO YOU again, folks!
then it should be easy for you to demonstrate this with links and references to the 4 fatal flaws you claim to have seen in the BICEP2 papers

that is all it will take

to date, you've made 6,328 posts on PO alone about this topic and you have never once been able to justify or support your claim of the 4 fatal flaws, let alone the additional 4 flaws on top of that you claim to have seen

until you can post that link then you are a chronic trolling liar seeking attention

Kron
5 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2017
Perhaps you would be better employed asking your above question of the perpetrator(s) instead of their victims(s), hey, Whyde?

Persecutory delusion.
you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct

Grandiose delusion.
@RealityCheck
If you are not medicating with prescription/non-prescription drugs, your manner of communicating is indicative of a serious psychiatric disorder. If you are not, I recommend for you to see a mental health professional in your region.

Please take no offense, I have people in my life that are dealing with mental health issues, I say this out of genuine concern. You seem to be a somewhat intelligent individual, which is actually an impedance when diagnosing certain disorders. Disorganized thoughts which are prevalent in certain conditions are not so evident in higher IQ individuals, same with other negative symptoms.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2017
@RC
you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct
I can't recall anything about that. Could you fill me in?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
...Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.
Mass of a photon? I've heard of frequency before but not mass.


It appears you, like Schneibo, comprehend very little about Special Relativity, that PHOTONS are the ENERGY in E=mc².

Oh, just dawned on me why you misconstrue PHOTONS (Electro-magnetic Waves) with MASS, thus leading to your inability to comprehend the appropriate application of E=mc² vs. KE=1/2mv².......it's because you view PHOTONS as PARTICLES as opposed to PACKETS of ENERGY always subject to E=mc² & NEVER KE=1/2mv².

RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
Your lack of understanding of the subjects that you argue about so vehemently is BREATHTAKING.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
Your lack of understanding of the subjects that you argue about so vehemently is BREATHTAKING.


To you as a Journalist, your inability to comprehend the application of E=mc² versus the application of KE=1/2mv² is not surprising. It's high school physics, but how would you know that?
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
OK. Exhibit your understanding.

Explain how Einstein's equation: E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² applies to both photons and massive particles and how KE=mv²/2 can be derived from it.

Benni
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
OK. Exhibit your understanding.

Explain how Einstein's equation: E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² applies to both photons and massive particles and how KE=mv²/2 can be derived from it.


Only a Journalist would ask a question like this. You don't even know what's wrong with the statement you made.

All you need to do is read everything I have posted in this thread & you'd have the answer, but I guess high school physics is just so tough for Journalists that name calling binges are much easier for you & Schneibo. So, no, I'm not rewriting everything I posted above.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
LOL. No answers then?

What a pathetic attempt at misdirection and obfuscation. You are loosing your touch!!!
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2017
LOL. No answers then?


Not only is math & high school physics tough for you, so are plainly spoken words:

All you need to do is read everything I have posted in this thread & you'd have the answer,


What a pathetic attempt at misdirection and obfuscation. You are loosing your touch!!!


Well of course you would find math & high school physics "misdirection", they're incomprehensible to you.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2017
@Lenni, the thing about claiming to be able to do math is that when someone presents some you have to actually do it or everyone laughs at you.

For grins, since we know that a photon has energy but does not have mass, @RNP's equation (direct from SRT, by the way) reduces to:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²
E² = (pc)² + (0 x c²)²
E² = (pc)² + 0
E² = (pc)²
E = pc
which indicates that photons have momentum. This is the simplest possible algebra. Your attempt to weasel your way out of it is transparent to a child in school. I conclude you can't do math.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
For grins, since we know that a photon has energy but does not have mass reduces to:


......well of course you think this, it's why you have so many problems comprehending Special & General Relativity, nothing like admitting it

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2017
@Lenni, please show where relativity says photons have mass. Please show any experiment which shows photons have mass.

And you didn't post the derivation of the KE equation. I say you can't.

That is all.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2017
Very well done, @RNP, it's not possible to search out the derivation of KE from relativity using the Google. So @Lenni can't cheat, he's got to actually know the math and physics to do it, and you've very nicely demonstrated he doesn't.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2017
WG..........when ENTROPY is referred to as being "random", this does not mean a "haphazard" pathway in which mass moves, but rather to the UNCERTAINTY as to exactly where it will be located at a specified point in time due to forces of friction, gravity, etc, that a specific particulate may encounter within its pathway.

What if -
you could calculate those differences...?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2017
For grins, since we know that a photon has energy but does not have mass reduces to:

Yeah, but...
Since (E)nergy= (M)ass x (C)onstant^2,
Wouldn't it mean that E divided by C^2 = some measure of mass? Even if only the very tiniest bit?
Guess I'll have to figure out that darn derivation, I guess...:-(
(I hate numbers..)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2017
The equation you're referring to only applies to matter, @Whyde. And at that, only to matter at rest.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
Hi Seeker2. :)
@RC
you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct
I can't recall anything about that. Could you fill me in?
Sure. Since my many decades-long observations pointing out the circuitous naivete/fallacies on which many of the longstanding mainstream hypotheses/theories/models/interpretations etc were based. In recent years, due to improving telescopes and more objective reviews etc by mainstream, the astro/cosmo and quantum/plasmonic discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along.

Eg:

(1) The 'Cosmic Ladder' methodologies for distance estimates has been flawed, due to the local/intervening dust/gas/plasma constituents/processes which 'mixmaster' the em radiations eventually detected/seen 'here'; also the TypeIa Supernova parameter assumptions were demonstrated wrong, due to (there) local variations in mass/distribution/dynamics etc etc.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
@Seeker2 cont....

(2) Big Bang itself passed by mainstream peer review into the literature, and for DECADES been treated/cited/used as 'fact' for further hypotheses/claims etc which depended on Inflation/Expansion etc, and so passed mainstream peer review into literature; thus building into subsequent mainstream claims/exercises FALSE hypotheses. How do we know it was false all along? I pointed out many logical/physical inconsistencies/fantasies in it; but ignored by those pushing the BB/Inflation/Expansion/Singularities/Wormholes etc etc UNREAL and unscientific fantasies)....UNTIL Professor Paul Steinhardt (who was one of the earliest proponents of Inflation etc) blew the lid off the mainstream fantasists' box of false claims; he finally admitted/showed how Inflation had NEVER HAD ANH TENABLE scientific/logical evidence supporting it (and neither, by extension, Expansion/Accelerated Expansion). So much for publish-or-perish HACKS exploiting BB 'industry'.

cont further...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
cont further @Seeker2:

(3) I long pointed out the TWO-SLIT (and modifications like slit-and-groove etc etc) experimental results/phenomena were due to PLASMONIC 'sea' which surrounds all surfaces of bulk/atomic material; and that the incident photons/electrons or whatever hitting the BARRIER surfaces produces WAVWS in that plasmonic 'sea', which waves propagate to the edges/surfaces where they concentrate the energies, which eventually go through the slits (re-radiating' whatever quantum of energy is commensurate withy the system being employed...and that is what hits the SCREEN of the detector(s). Recent PO articles describing mainstream experimenters employing/confirming this PLASMONIC 'surfaces/edges' demonstrates that I was right all along on that too!

(4) The Planck experiment showed I was right to caution re Bicep2 exercise/claims; poor Stumpy, antialias et al disn't listen; insulted/attacked me instead. They STILL cannot accept/forgive that I was right all along! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2017
Anyhow, Seeker2, these are just some of the insights got from my Reality-based theorizing process. There are many more I cannot divulge at this time because it would be too time-consuming and laborious to explain it all here. Better to divulge it complete and consistent in my ToE publication when I finalize the Reality-based maths/axioms set for modeling my Reality-based TOE. Because of publication constraints I have had to drastically reduce my posting in detail my insights/explanations. I have given reminders, clues and cautions which the INTELLIGENT READERS will no doubt put to good use for their own ponderings/works. Those unintelligent types who lie, bot-vote, attack, insult and sabotage interesting polite science/logics discussions will no doubt either ignore or attack without clue-one of what it's all about! You and the Forum at large will have noted them when insulted/disrespected and 'troll cluttered/buried' by those unintelligent/malignant types, hey?

Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience POS trolling earthling-club cult
poor Stumpy, antialias et al disn't listen; insulted/attacked me instead. They STILL cannot accept/forgive that I was right all along
wrong again mr chronic liar

the facts:
i asked you to produce the 4 fatal flaws from your specific comment about BICEP2

to date you have made more than 6,332 posts and you still have not been able to point to the "4 fatal" and "4 other" flaws you claimed to have seen in said BICEP papers

that means instead of simply linking someone elses already open access papers and pointing to a specific point as "a fatal flaw" you have chosen to lie, misrepresent the situation and completely randomly redirect to absolutely off-topic pseudoscience bullsh*t

as you still refuse to simply link those posts where you show at least the 4 fatal flaws - reported for pseudoscience, lying, trolling and being f*cking stupid enough to think you could lie on the internet and it would disappear
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2017
@RC
@Seeker2 cont....
...Inflation had NEVER HAD ANH TENABLE scientific/logical evidence supporting it (and neither, by extension, Expansion/Accelerated Expansion).
I see your point re inflation and the BB but I should think the Steinhardt cyclic model requires expansion. OBTW exponential expansion is accelerated expansion as you can show by expanding the Taylor series for the exponential function. Why that seemed to be such a surprise mystifies me.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Stump. :)

Been there. Done that. Too many times already. You just missed it all due to your Stump Detective Agency "method", and I quote:
TL ; DR (ie, "Too Long ; Didn't Read")


Moreover you are still wiping egg off your face for falling hook line and sinker for that Bicep2 crap.

And moreover still, I already told you many times I am no longer at liberty to go into further details on that or anything else until I publish the consistent reality-based ToE and reality-based maths to model the complete universal physics.

So, Stumps, be a good little bot-voting troll and stop poisoning/cluttering interesting and polite science/logics discussions/threads with your nasty and irrelevant noise please. Listen politely and Learn objectively; instead of being such a nasty poisonous person on the net. Be better. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Seeker2. :)
I see your point re inflation and the BB but I should think the Steinhardt cyclic model requires expansion. OBTW exponential expansion is accelerated expansion as you can show by expanding the Taylor series for the exponential function.....
All 'explanations' and 'models' requiring Inflation/Expansion/Accelerated Expansion (and/or any one or more of the rest of the unreal items I listed earlier) are ipso facto NOT 'real' scientific hypotheses/theories, but merely 'abstract' speculations/fantasies which all fall down, and that includes any 'cyclic' model relying on those UNreal things. Re your exponential Taylor Series observation: I remind you that conventional maths is infested with UNreal things like the 'zero/nothing', singularity and 'dimensionless' point etc, which is why the conventioinal maths inadequate (it 'blows up' if applied to real universal phenomena). Hence ONLY reality-based maths/axioms construct can consistentlmodel the reality. :)
BubbaNicholson
4 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2017
The less phlogiston, the better.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2017
@RC
Re your exponential Taylor Series observation: I remind you that conventional maths is infested with UNreal things like the 'zero/nothing', singularity and 'dimensionless' point etc, which is why the conventioinal maths inadequate (it 'blows up' if applied to real universal phenomena). Hence ONLY reality-based maths/axioms construct can consistentlmodel the reality. :)
Reality-based? Does that include addition, multiplication, and division by non-zero integers? If so try that on the Taylor series for a few values and see what you get. If not reality-based bring me up-to-date on your reality-based maths. Maybe it's like alternative facts. Only now it's alternative reality. Thanks. OBTW do you do your own taxes, or just throw out the standard forms for a more reality-based form?
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2017
@RC
..I remind you...
Oh yes. Tax day is coming up this month. Thanks for the reminder. I believe you would call that reality-based, right?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Stump
hi insipid idiot pseudoscience spamming troll
Been there. Done that. Too many times already
then why can't you link it even once?

you've made this claim for 6,000 posts at least - where is the evidence?

so again - you're backpedaling and attempting to redirect the conversation

considering you can't actually produce evidence ...
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Stump. :)

"Insipid idiot" now? Oh well, at least you are toning down your personal insults-----but beware, Ghost may sue you for plagiarizing his work!

Anyhow, The first few dozen times was enough; no more time to waste on your 'personal problems', mate; you'll have to work through them yourself now (but it won't do you much good unless you stop that hate-based bot-voting 'partnership' with that other bot-voting buddy of yours because you are 'bad influence on each other, and it only reinforces the 'problem' you both have. Good luck, mate! :)

PS: BTW, have you learned the lessons from that Bicep2 fiasco yet? Are you now more objective and polite to dissenting views based on correct science/logics like mine?-----oh, and have you finally objectively noted how recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have been confirming me correct all along on many fronts? Cheers. :)

Stay safe, mate.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2017
@lying POS trolling pseudoscience idiot
The first few dozen times was enough
you can't produce a single link to validate that you ever addressed this even once, but you are going to now state you produced your 4 fatal flaws a dozen times?

if that is the case, why can't you provide links or references to those posts here on PO?

reported for blatant lies

PS - have you learned that nothing dies on the net? not even your lies. not even your BS pseudoscience you tried to hide.

FOAD
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Seeker2.

He he, good one. :)

Conventional maths is ok AS an ABSTRACTIONS maths. But frank mathematical physical theorists themselves will admit the axiomatic/unreal nature of the 'construct' is proving problematic/inadequate when applied to reality modeling of universal nature/processes/entities of "energy-space" in the Quantum Regime (sure the maths works ok for 'calculations', but the 'explanatory' power is limited to abstractions/calculation without actual explanation (much like SR is). Which is why the Renormalization, Limits etc 'techniques have had to be imposed onto the basic maths construct, so that it can give at least some sensible results. But a reality-based maths/axioms set/construct would be complete and consistent from the start and throughout, not requiring such overlain techniques. Besides, you yourself have reverse-recognized that the singularity 'division by zero' etc is inadequate to represent what is actually 'there' in the quantum scales. OK? :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2017
@ Really-Skippy.

Cher quit disrespecting the humans and scientists. Until you get a science education and a real science laboratory to work in, all you can be is a pretend scientist with a pretend school to teach in. l thought that is what your Earthman Playhouse was for?

So knock it off. You are not a reality based scientist and you don't have a reality based theory. You got a reality challenged mental condition.

Seek help, do diligence better, for the humans and the scientists. Alrighty Matey? ("o")
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Stump. :)

Mate, mate! How many times did I do just that, only for you to respond, and I quote:
TL : DR (ie, "Too Long, Didn't Read")


Followed usually by your juvenile 'parting salutation', and I quote:
FOAD (ie, F*ck Off And Die")


Too late now. It's your own fault if you missed it all, not mine. I haven't time to go back through all that again. You should have been less 'deaf' and more objective. I note that you have improved a little in your tone lately. Keep it up! Anyhow, good luck for the future, mate. Sincerely-----or as some may characterize it: "insipid"?

Cheers anyway. I look forward to reading more constructive, polite, original ideas and/or known-science/logics contributions to the discourse here from you, mate! :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
PS: @Seeker2, Stumpy et al. :)

I again remind you all that I am not at liberty to discuss further in much detail until I publish my reality-based work consistent and complete. I only have time for reminders, clues and cautions...as I said before. Good luck in your own endeavors, everyone. :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Stump. :)

Mate, mate! How many times did I do just that, only for you to respond, and I quote:
TL : DR (ie, "Too Long, Didn't Read")


Followed usually by your juvenile 'parting salutation', and I quote:
FOAD (ie, F*ck Off And Die")


Too late now. It's your own fault if you missed it all, not mine. I haven't time to go back through all that again. You should have been less 'deaf' and more objectively receptive/polite. I note that you have improved a little in your tone lately. Keep it up! Anyhow, good luck for the future, mate. Sincerely-----or as some may characterize it: "insipid"?

Cheers anyway. I look forward to reading more constructive, polite, original ideas and/or known-science/logics contributions to the discourse here from you, mate! :)



It was just as stupid as the first time you posted him.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Ira. :)
Cher quit disrespecting the humans and scientists.
But a trolling, lying bot-voting ignoramus, such as you have self-demonstrated/admitted to being, is neither of those things, mate. The rest of your bot-noises is as stale as it is lame. Get a new 'Schtick', Ira...this one is worn out from self-abuse. Good luck. :)

It was just as stupid as the first time you posted him.
You seeing double now, bot? And since a demonstrably stupid bot-voting ignoramus like you is neither scientist, you don't have the wherewithal to judge others on that score, mate. Do better, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2017
Get a new 'Schtick', Ira...this one is worn out from self-abuse.
Non Cher, he is not worn out non, he is stout hickory and has a lot of good skewering left in him. And if you don't want another whack with the Cajun Stick you better start being a little more respectful.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: "How you like me now grand couyon? Huh? Now what?")
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Ira. :)

If your "Cajun Schtick" is as 'inflexible' as the "bot-voting program" with which you have replaced your 'brain' (I apply the term 'brain' very loosely in your case, since a bot-voting ignoramus is neither scientist nor human), then no wonder your performance has become just so much "dead wood" for some time now. Time to "re-boot and re-program" your increasingly obsolete and useless bot-troll 'box', mate!

Yep, Ira, "Laissez les bons temps rouler!" indeed. I am being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by mainstream discovery/reviews; while you and your bot-voting trolling 'buddies' are being left behind in both the science and the humanity. So no "bons temps" for you, mate. Never mind, you have your dead wood "Schtick" to 'amuse' yourselves with. Careful though, or you may go 'blind'-er than you have been for too long already. Take it easy, Ira, hear? :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Kron. :)
Perhaps you would be better employed asking your above question of the perpetrator(s) instead of their victims(s), hey, Whyde?

Persecutory delusion.
That's a bit unfair, isn't it, mate? Especially as your opinion flies in the face of the record across many years now?

And as for your attributing "persecutory delusion" to victim(s), are you aware that was precisely the "defense" when sexual child abuse perpetrators/enablers were finally accused? And in that case too (as our Recent Royal Commission finally found), the victims weren't the 'deluded' ones...it was the perpetrators/enablers that were deluded they were 'innocent' while accusing their victim(s) of lying.
Grandiose delusion.
Again, it's a bit unfair, isn't it, mate? I have been increasingly confirmed correct all along by mainstream discovery/reviews of late (it's all in PO articles). So it may be you under the sad delusion your opinion is 'informed' even though it is patently not so. :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2017
Oh bloody hell, now I have trawl through years of your posts just to find where you were " confirmed correct all along by mainstream discovery/reviews of late (it's all in PO articles)."
Oh wait, no I don't. Because you were not, and it is not.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience POS trolling earthling-club cult
How many times did I do just that
absolutely zero times

and i can prove it with a single link: https://www.googl...rg&*

4,160 results
threads galore
absolutely zero actual "fatal flaws" listed by you

you can also request a copy of the data set that includes every one of your posts for the last few years from PO and it shows the exact same thing

not one post mentions even the "4 fatal flaws" let alone all 8 flaws in BICEP2

that means you are lying and anyone can take the same amount of time i have to validate it

it's the reason you were banhammered yet again from sciforums (and other sites)

it is the reason you can't provide evidence to link in this thread, or any other where i've requested these 4 fatal flaws proving you're correct

you're a fraud - and it's all in black and white here on PO and the net

check and mate
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi ZergSurfer. :)
Oh bloody hell, now I have trawl through years of your posts just to find where you were " confirmed correct all along by mainstream discovery/reviews of late (it's all in PO articles)."
Oh wait, no I don't. Because you were not, and it is not.
So, you, an admitted sockpuppet of "an old hand here" refuses to look before making opinions/accusations etc? Where have I seen that version of "Scientific Investigative Method" before? Oh yes, it was introduced into PO by the Stump. Look up his 'method" of "TL ; DR" and "FOAD" salutations to boot! Yeah, a real objective/genuine search for the truth there, ZergSurfer! No wonder you missed it all; just like the Stump (poor sod still can't find it all, and links to google as if that will do the 'due diligence' FOR him!). You, Stumpy and SlartiBartFast are either one and the same, or you swallowed whole Stumpy's 'method' of IGNORING/AVOIDING 'finding' the truth. What a gaggle of internet-bot losers! Sad, really.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2017
Hi Stump. :)
it's the reason you were banhammered yet again from sciforums (and other sites)
You wish! My Internet Experiments exposed the reason I was banned there; it was due to troll-mods COLLUSION and ABSUSE of power. Only you will never 'see' the proof because you "can't find it" with your biased/fraudulent "Investigative Method" which involves "TL ; DR" and "FOAD" as primary 'principles/ethics'. Poor Stump, that's the same 'method" Trump and his "advisers' use to deny the facts and instead replace them with their 'alternative facts' issuing form their own "TL ; DR" and "FOAD" investigative 'method/principles/ethics. Do you STILL 'evade' the truth that the 'paddoboy' troll who was instrumental in my banning is now 'gone' because even the mods/admin realize how damaging/sabotaging/lying etc he was? There was an earlier troll who colluded with the mods to ban me, called "Trout"; he went the same way as paddoboy did now. They damaged the site. I won't return there. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
RC,
Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.
Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
RC,
Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.
Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?

You haven't noticed that it's posts from others, like your above, that have necessitated my posting as much as I have in self-defense against such.

You will also note that my first post was on-science and on-topic insofar as reminding everyone the up-to-date situation as opposed to all the old stuff which everyone was arguing over while missing the recent developments which make those arguments moot now.

So, Whyde, instead of joining those who post clutter and noise which requires me to respond to THEM, how about telling THOSE trolls/attackers to cease and desist in their attempts to 'bury' anything posted on the science/topic? Or do you still not know what courage and integrity feels like? Do you still crave the '5's from bot-voting perpetrators; or are you just scared?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
You haven't noticed that it's posts from others, like your above, that have necessitated my posting as much as I have in self-defense against such.

You will also note that my first post was on-science and on-topic insofar as reminding everyone the up-to-date situation as opposed to all the old stuff which everyone was arguing over while missing the recent developments which make those arguments moot now.

So, Whyde, instead of joining those who post clutter and noise which requires me to respond to THEM, how about telling THOSE trolls/attackers to cease and desist in their attempts to 'bury' anything posted on the science/topic? Or do you still not know what courage and integrity feels like? Do you still crave the '5's from bot-voting perpetrators; or are you just scared?

I rest my case, your Honor...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
I rest my case, your Honor...
What 'case, mate? So far the only 'case' has been you joining in with those who posted to/about me in order to bury the science posts made. Did you bother to count the posts from the perpetrators? My reply posts number pproximately proportionately. As you would logically expect, and would obviously have noticed, if you weren't so busy attacking the victim because of your own bias/fear; preferring to excuse/enable the perpetrators and joining in the 'clutter and noise' THEY (and now you) have been guilty of in this thread. Yes, indeed:
I rest my case, your honor
Be better/braver, Whyde; the '5's from your bot-voting buddies are not worth the slow but inexorable decay of your honor/integrity, mate. Please then cease and desist making excuses/enabling them; and so adding to the clutter and noise. Keep to the science and all will be ok, IF you can summon up the guts to ask your bot-voting '5' buddies to cease/desist too.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Whyde. :What 'case, mate? So far the only 'case' has been you joining in with those who posted to/about me in order to bury the science posts made.

Yeah, but... You don't make science posts. Just - "Oh, oh, oh - you may not be right!" posts...
Do better - shut up until you can provide the math to verify your points.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience POS trolling earthling-club cult
Only you will never 'see' the proof because you "can't find it" with your biased/fraudulent "Investigative Method"
ok

so prove me wrong: link the thread where you state the 4 fatal flaws

it aint rocket surgery, you idiot

either i am correct or i am not

if i am wrong then it should be very easy for you to provide a link to a thread where you state all 4 fatal flaws

it really is that simple

i can make a prediction:
you will not be able to provide a single link to any thread where you state what the 4 fatal flaws are

then you will continue to post and complain about how you're targeted by people who never read what you write, but denigrate you for pseudoscience

you will talk about trolls, bots and distract with everything - including mentioning your historical proof... except you will not be able to provide a shred of evidence proving any of it

feel free to continue - it only makes you look worse
LOL
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Whyde.:)
Yeah, but... You don't make science posts. Just - "Oh, oh, oh - you may not be right!" posts...
Do better - shut up until you can provide the math to verify your points.
What? Didn't you get the point(s) made at all by my reminders/cautions? They make clear that those UNFOUNDED hypotheses in question are being revised/falsified by mainstream ITSELF via new/recent discovery/reviews (Prof Paul Spteinhardt's was but one admission re one item: Inflation being unsupported by any scientific evidence for DECADES)!

Re other UNFOUNDED mainstream hypotheses based on equally UNREAL claims/interpretations, 'abstract maths' speculations/models etc: AGAIN, they TOO are being inexorable falsified by mainstream discoveries/reviews of late; so I have no NEED to "provide the maths" for that, since mainstream itself is falsifying the whole BASIS for them in the first place, be it mistaken assumotions and/or unreal maths fantasies on which many of the modeling was done! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2017
PS: @ Whyde.

Please ask your '5' bot-vote buddies to cease and desist their clutter and noise now that we are speaking about the science not their 'problems' arising from their long-time addiction to their own "TL : DR" method of 'investigating'.

And if they stop the clutter and noise posts I won't need to self-defense post in return, will I? See how that works? Good luck, Whyde. :)
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
@RC
"energy-space" in the Quantum Regime
What???
Besides, you yourself have reverse-recognized that the singularity 'division by zero' etc is inadequate to represent what is actually 'there' in the quantum scales. OK? :)
reverse what? let me guess. denied. let's get to the meat of it. I have no idea what you're going on about here, matey. One thing I can say is zero doesn't fit well in quantum mechanics because it's an absolute concept which violates the uncertainty principle. Singularities certainly do occur in GR. I believe there are something like 2 or 3 exact solutions to the EFEs, separated by these singularities. But not in the quantum realm that I know of.

Question. Have you ever done a physics experiment? Or taken part in doing one? Or written a report on one? Actually, ever even been in a physics lab? Cheers.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Seeker2. :)
energy-space in Quantum Regime
What?
Alludes to universal physical spatial extent; and ground/excited-states of energy content/dynamics in Quantum Vacuum concept in/of that self-same universal energy-space extent/dynamics.
One thing I can say is zero doesn't fit well in quantum mechanics because it's an absolute concept which violates the uncertainty principle.
Yes, as I intimated; and more.
Singularities.....occur in GR....But not in the quantum realm....
Again, yes; that's what I have been pointing out. Moreover, UNreal 'singularity' etc arises when GR-maths is extended to UNphysical "r=0" etc.
Have you ever done a physics experiment? Or taken part in doing one? Or written a report on one? Actually, ever even been in a physics lab?
Yes. In chemistry/physics (especially quantum two-slit etc experiments and plasmonics). That's how I came by plasmonic insights recently confirmed correct by recent mainstream two-slit etc experiments.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
PS @Seeker2.

As for the astrophysical/astronomical/cosmological observations/data, I, like most theorists, and because I am strictly independent objective researcher/theorist, have had to utilize the results/reports etc of the various publicly/privately funded/constructed telescope/detector observational data and analyses. And for my Reality-based maths, I have used my initial uni-level maths understandings to seek out the chinks in the conventional maths construct/axioms, and then proceeded to cogitate and explore possible alternative maths/axioms set for modeling the reality-based ToE (which conventional maths is patently failing to do at present...as the state of the 'partial' conventional theory demonstrates).

Anyhow, I trust that jn answering your questions and responding as above, I have not fallen foul of the 'bot-voting' gang who will accuse me of something or other in order to bury it, as usual? Let's see. Cheers, mate. :)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2017
RC,
Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.
Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?


@Whydening Gyre Sorry, we're all losing here...Why?
'...That's how I came by plasmonic insights recently confirmed correct by recent mainstream two-slit etc experiments.'
This guy has 'insights'...he's a prophet. As a mere layman I'm going back to my dwelling and meditate for another 40 days....zzzzzzzz
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2017
@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one. By replying to it, you encourage it. The best policy is for everyone to ignore it. Second best is to respond as most of us are, making it clear to it that no one actually believes anything it says. Worst is to encourage it, ever, by agreeing with it.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
@DS
Well let's say @RC is computer-assisted. That is you feed your text into a program which looks up all synonyms for big words. Or you may maintain a database of your favorite synonyms. It then gets out its slashes and appends those synonyms to the original big words. Then you submit your post. Possibly other automated obfuscation techniques also. Just haven't figured those ones out yet. Possibly hijacked from automated spell checking software.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2017
Well let's say @RC is computer-assisted.
@seeker
it's not
he is a real person - just a nut case troll
Possibly other automated obfuscation techniques also. Just haven't figured those ones out yet. Possibly hijacked from automated spell checking software
nope
rc is technologically incompetent

this has been demonstrated quite a few times in various threads on PO or on SciForums

if you're interested in research, open an account at SciForums and read all posts by "realitycheck" and "undefined" or ask MIT if they would be willing to release data collected during their psychological studies (which won't happen due to HIPA and other similar PPA laws)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2017
RC,
Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.
Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?


@Whydening Gyre Sorry, we're all losing here...Why?
'...That's how I came by plasmonic insights recently confirmed correct by recent mainstream two-slit etc experiments.'
This guy has 'insights'...he's a prophet. As a mere layman I'm going back to my dwelling and meditate for another 40 days....zzzzzzzz

The King of "/".
"/" also means divide.
The Universe only adds...
(really, really fast)
And what about the 3 slit experiments?
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2017
PS: @ Whyde.

Please ask your '5' bot-vote buddies to cease and desist their clutter and noise now that we are speaking about the science not their 'problems' arising from their long-time addiction to their own "TL : DR" method of 'investigating'.

And if they stop the clutter and noise posts I won't need to self-defense post in return, will I? See how that works? Good luck, Whyde. :)

The "clutter & noise" is 99% unidirectional - from you. And induces other, more patient, action to dispel its level of shrill.
See how that works?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2017
@CS
Well let's say @RC is computer-assisted.
@seeker
it's not
he is a real person - just a nut case troll
Probably true but irrelevant to your quote.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2017
@CS
Possibly other automated obfuscation techniques also. Just haven't figured those ones out yet. Possibly hijacked from automated spell checking software
nope
rc is technologically incompetent
Not with computer software, however. Computer genius with hidden agenda to discredit science for his own purposes (or whoever his client is) - dangerous, especially when mixed with occasional flashes of technological competence.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2017
@CS
@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one.
Well not exactly. A smart predator does not destroy its prey - just keeps it around for his own purposes. Otherwise, as they say, the prey is wasted.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2017
cont
I had a dog at one time who loved to capture mice but he wouldn't kill them. He just took them apart piece by piece to watch them suffer, I guess. My uncle had a cat who would always drag its prey up to the front door and leave it there for everyone to see what a great predator he was, apparently.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Forum. :)

Well, there you have ii folks, the perfect demonstration of bot-voting trolling mendacious behavior driven by ego/gang mentality. If anyone was seriously asking what has held science and humanity back for so long, then they have their answer right there above. That behavior of denial, ego driven lies, insults and abuse of genuine posters is like something straight out of TRUMP/GOP business/politics 'playbook'. And these people wonder why they are giving science and humanity a bad rep? Go figure! The denial, self-delusions and ego-tripping stupidity that lets them behave so must be of 'industrial strength' grade.

Let's summarize:

- Despite my urgings to check it for themselves, they fell hook line and sinker for Bicep2 crap, yet they attack me for their stupidity? Hells bells, that really takes some industrial strength hypocrisy-and-denial syndrome!

- Mainstream discovery/review confirms me correct, while the trolls prefer to be wrong! What's with that?

cont
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

denial, self-delusions and ego-tripping stupidity
It's good to see you getting more aware of your problems. Keep up the good work and maybe the humans and scientists will stop ridiculing and making the fun with you. Now that we got if confirmed you have the serious mental condition, the next step is to get you in for some therapy.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
@Forum cont:

- They characterize scientific insight gained from hard, objective research and cogitation of observables and consistent logics as somehow 'unworthy' of a SCIENTIST human intellect following the Scientific Method principles. Now is that a sick ego-driven way to characterize insights scientists through the ages worked to get/hand down to future generations for THEM to build on, or what?!

- Recent mainstream discoveries/reviews keep confirming me correct on cosmic ladder, Supernovae, 'exotic' DM, quantum/plasmonic physics etc etc etc; yet the above 'gang' prefer to deny and ridicule me instead of learning and getting up to date with both mainstream and my insights got from hard work/cogitation in the various fields! Does their behavior remind you of the stupidity/malice of a "TRUMP" like gang of self-serving imbeciles, or what?!

- All the above mockers/trolls, without exception, have not brought any original/correct/consistent work/idea to science.

Sad day.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
Hi trolls, ask yourselves what you're burying/sabotaging under your piles of baiting, trolling, bot-voting stupidity. Never mind, you are a gang of twits more interested in ego-tripping and entertainment at other's expense than you ever were in science and humanity discourse. No wonder you have been wrong all along; your 'method' is straight out of the Internet Losers Handbook. The damage done by the likes of you to Sciforum and the old physorg/physforums is irreparable. the "Trout" and "paddoboy" losers in particular did great damage before they were finally told to piss off by the mods/admin who had been perfectly willing to use them for their own nefarious ego-tripping ends....until they could no longer claim "plausible deniability" because the Trout and paddoboy outrages became so self-evident to even their most 'ardent' erstwhile 'followers' and fellow gangmembers.

It seems that the 'gang' here are trying to match their stupidity and damaging sabotage. Sad day. Sad.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
Hi Ira. :)
denial, self-delusions and ego-tripping stupidity
It's good to see you getting more aware of your problems. Keep up the good work and maybe the humans and scientists will stop ridiculing and making the fun with you. Now that we got if confirmed you have the serious mental condition, the next step is to get you in for some therapy.
In case your 'case manager' is monitoring your internet access:

- it is an unmistakable sign of a weak mind to employ a bot-voting program to skew the rating metrics on a science site;

- it is an unmistakable sign of a troubled mind to gratuitously insult strangers on the internet;

- it is an unmistakable sign of an imbecilic mind to ridicule that which it doesn't understand;

- it is an unmistakable sign of a bankrupt mind to willfully sabotage science/humanity discourse just for "funs";

- all of the above are unmistakable signs of a dangerously malignant mind requiring better monitoring/medication.

Help him! :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
PS @Ira.

Just in case you/the gang of like-weakminded twits ever have a lucid logical 'moment' to read and understand something properly for a change:

- it is NOT a crime to be RIGHT all along on the science and the humanity;

- it is NOT a bad thing for a scientific, objective human intellect to acquire INSIGHTS into the scientific/humanity issues facing us all;

- it is NOT a good thing to RIDICULE the 'getting of wisdom' via acquiring intellectual/empirical insights by dint of hard work and cogitation on the reality observations which all scientists and humans throughout history have had to ponder objectively for your, and all of humanity's, eventual benefit;

- it is NOT a bad thing to urge you/all to THINK for yourselves and not be distracted by irrelevancies like person/source and your own ego-tripping 'needs' and malicious intents;

- it is NOT a bad thing to CAUTION and/or INFORM those who are not up-to-date or are wrong, be that task ever so thankless.

Try. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2017
Everyone. :)

Now can you all get back to the science/logics of the thread topic and related matters? Thanks. Good luck in your polite and cogent discourse contributions in future. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2017
Everyone. :)

Now can you all get back to the science/logics of the thread topic and related matters? Thanks. Good luck in your polite and cogent discourse contributions in future. :)

Jeez, RC. Quit making it all about you...
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2017
In case your 'case manager' is monitoring your internet access:
- it is an unmistakable sign of a weak mind to employ a bot-voting program to skew the rating metrics on a science site;

You actually believe that crap?
- it is an unmistakable sign of a troubled mind to gratuitously insult strangers on the internet;

You do it without gratuity.
- it is an unmistakable sign of an imbecilic mind to ridicule that which it doesn't understand;

Unfortunately, you only think you do.
- it is an unmistakable sign of a bankrupt mind to willfully sabotage science/humanity discourse just for "funs";

You don't even appear to be having fun at it...
- all of the above are unmistakable signs of a dangerously malignant mind requiring better monitoring/medication.

Yep.
Help him! :)

No extra comment really needed here...
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2017
You actually believe that crap?
@Whyde
yeah, he probably does... hence my point to seeker about him being technologically incompetent

of course, i called it right on the nose too... predicted his reaction
and he just couldn't help it...
just had to validate me

did you notice that one?
LOL

funniest thing about that last post you tear apart: the hypocrisy of it
6, 352 posts with absolutely no evidence
but said troll is attempting to caution and inform?
ROTFLMFAO

like you said, Whyde
No extra comment really needed here...
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2017
@seeker
Probably true but irrelevant to your quote
not really
Not with computer software, however. Computer genius with hidden agenda to discredit science for his own purposes (or whoever his client is) - dangerous, especially when mixed with occasional flashes of technological competence
he is incompetent even with software
that is apparent by his history - but that would take too long etc
@CS
@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one
Well not exactly. A smart predator does not destroy its prey
1- i didn't say that quote

2- nonsensical- a predator eats their prey
what you meant likely dealt with smart sociopaths maybe - but it's painfully obvious that rc isn't that intelligent
and not sociopathic all that much either - he craves attention, true, but that is due to victim-martyr complex

see also: http://www.earthlingclub.com

but use a proxy or TOR for safety
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)

Have you given up on objective, contextual reading, mate? It was Ira keeps attributing "mental conditions". My response merely showed how he is 'projecting' his own "mental conditions". Surely, if that easily discernible obviousness was missed by you, then there is no hope left for you. You obviously have been too long 'buddies' and 'enabler' of/with that 'gang'; who keep derailing threads, bot-voting against even correct science posts. Stop being worse that them, mate; because you should know better! And why keep cluttering the thread and encouraging the trolls/bot-voting gang by yet another rubbish post like that, Whyde? Wasn't it you who was so against that sort of thing? Remember, my first posts were on science/topic and the rest merely in response to the trolls whom YOU are still enabling/encouraging by your own 'noise' post above? If your wife is watching, she should give you a clip round the ear and tell you to stop your own continuing troll 'noise'. :)
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2017
@CS
...it's painfully obvious that rc isn't that intelligent
So why worry? Somehow I just can't feel your pain.
and not sociopathic all that much either - he craves attention, true, but that is due to victim-martyr complex
Spare us the psychological bull crap. He knows exactly what he's doing. Or she.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2017
cont
Probably the best talent available at what he does. Or at least the best I've encountered.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
Hi Whyde. :)
Everyone. :)

Now can you all get back to the science/logics of the thread topic and related matters? Thanks. Good luck in your polite and cogent discourse contributions in future. :)

Jeez, RC. Quit making it all about you...
Come again? Please explain how asking everyone to get back to science/topic is "making it all about me"? It may have escaped your blindly-biased 'one eye' that it is YOU/your troll/bot-voting gang buddies "making it all about me"; instead of sticking to science/topic. Speaking of which, is your subsequent postings your idea of "getting back to science/topic"? Seriously, Whyde, you need to stop sculpting in metal requiring a torch/welder...the fumes are having a detrimental effect on your ethics and judgement, if your latest hypocritical clutter-tripe is any guide. Be more careful. Get some fresh air instead of sitting there enabling/excusing gangs of bot-voting ignoramuses and saboteurs of this site. Snap out of it, man! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2017
@RC, the problem is you never talk about the actual science, just about how everyone's being mean to you.

Like @Whyde says, it's all about you. Not about science.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC, the problem is you never talk about the actual science, just about how everyone's being mean to you.

Like @Whyde says, it's all about you. Not about science.
Mate, that is demonstrably untrue, and you know it. My first posts were on the science/logics/topic; and my subsequent posts were against the trolls who attacked me instead of sticking to the science. Why do you 'need' to keep making such blunders in judgement/assertions, mate? Is it because you have been wrong and me correct all along in many instances where you have had to admit you were wrong while making similarly untrue assertions/insults? Have you learned nothing from the hubristic and unscientific fiasco that was Bicep2; which I cautioned all to check out for themselves instead of just believing it all because it was from a 'source/team' you 'approved' of despite them being obviously wrong from go to whoa? What does it take, mate? Rethink it.

Stick to the thread science/logics topic. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2017
@RC, you're so unpleasant that I don't really care how true you claim it is or is not. And if it's not, it's only by the skin of your teeth, one post that actually makes some science claim, generally specious, ill considered, contrary to known observation and experiment, and fifteen posts of whining, self-aggrandizement, and insults. It's not worth my time. And you aren't.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC, you're so unpleasant that I don't really care how true you claim it is or is not. And if it's not, it's only by the skin of your teeth, one post that actually makes some science claim, generally specious, ill considered, contrary to known observation and experiment, and fifteen posts of whining, self-aggrandizement, and insults. It's not worth my time. And you aren't.
Let's see: you have been wrong many times and I have been correct all along on many fronts, as recent mainstream discovery/reviews keep confirming. I bring ORIGINAL and CORRECT scientific ideas, observations and insights for your benefit, despite your insufferable nastiness while being wrong all along (have you conveniently 'forgotten' your own longstanding 'unpleasantness'?).

So: you wrong; me correct; on many fronts; and now you (a longstanding 'unpleasant' insulter and unprovoked attacker) declare me 'unpleasant'; because you can't stand me being correct? Great logic. Not. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
PS @Da Schneib: Please stop "making it about me"; get back to the science/logics of the thread topic; that way I don't have to post in my defense against your trolling unpleasantness and demonstrably erroneous 'version' of what transpired. This sort of personally motivated ego-tripping and lying attacks undermine whatever good you are doing at other times. Learn. Keep it on science not person. That's the scientific method principle you should learn urgently. Good luck....and do get back to the science, mate. Thanks. :)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one. By replying to it, you encourage it. The best policy is for everyone to ignore it. Second best is to respond as most of us are, making it clear to it that no one actually believes anything it says. Worst is to encourage it, ever, by agreeing with it.


@RC, you're so unpleasant that I don't really care how true you claim it is or is not. And if it's not, it's only by the skin of your teeth, one post that actually makes some science claim, generally specious, ill considered, contrary to known observation and experiment, and fifteen posts of whining, self-aggrandizement, and insults. It's not worth my time. And you aren't.


I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.
imfromcanada
5 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2017
@RealityCheck

Couple things:
1. Don't bring Trumpisms ("Sad") into a conversation where science is even remotely related. Doing that immediately makes me (hence my 1 votes on those replies) want to dismiss any claims to science you write. Simply put, using a word related to probably the most anti-intellectual, anti-science person in charge of anything ever is not helpful.

2. You keep talking about 4 fatal flaws. I took the time to search your history on phys.org and the earliest comment you talk about it is a March 17, 2014 article about gravitational waves being detected. In it you specifically state that "Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves."

You clearly haven't posted it anywhere. I don't understand your need to obfuscate this. If you have proof it's wrong, post it so it can be confirmed/refuted. That's science.
billpress11
not rated yet Apr 05, 2017
Just a thought. Wrong conclusions may have been drawn from facts that could have other explanations. For example, what if there was another explanation for the observed red shifting of light we observe from the distant universe? Wouldn't that not only make our distance measurements wrong as well as make the acceleration of the universe just a mirage?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Mimath.

Your turning a blind eye to the gang's behaviour is damning of your own ego-bias/cowardice in the face of a bully gang of trolls who begin the trolling posts stream of attacks and then whine when the victim defends against them. Why do this, when you know the history of internet experiments which exposed/proved their anti-science/anti-humanity trolling/sabotage across many forums? Are you even cognizant that these gangs have been active across the net for years? They got control of some sites and damaged them beyond retrieval. Sciforums and old physog/physforums were ruined by such. The 'Trout" and 'paddoboy' types had carte blanche by the mods/admin until they too couldn't deny their malice and finally put a stop to them after it was proven by objective experiments what was happening. The full story will in due course be in a book about these mod-troll gangs and their disgraces against all good science/humanity ethics. Your cowardice/complicity is noted. Not good.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
Hi imfromcanada. :)

Did you note where I said I wasn't at liberty to say more due to publishing constraints re complete works? Did you note that I elaborated further re the flaws in side-discussions in subsequent threads/discussions not connected directly with original thread? Did you note that the troll campaign was launched by the troll gang who fell hook line and sinker for the Bicep2 crap despite my cautions to check it all out for themselves? Did you note the way said troll gang preferred to ignore the scientific method objectivity principle so long as it was convenient for them to continue 'bashing cranks' with such obviously flawed 'work' because they 'approved' of the team/source instead of approving of scientific objectivity/caution? And since you brought up '1' votes: did you note that the gang BOT-VOTE irrespective of the correctness in science of their target's posts; and continue to sabotage/bury otherwise interesting/important discussions? Re-do, @canada. :)
Dingbone
Apr 05, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@billpress11. :)
Wrong conclusions may have been drawn from facts that could have other explanations.....
Yes, newer crop of mainstream astronomy/astrophysics discoveries utilizing telescopes/instruments/reviews are recently finding out and admitting the many variability factors now making previously 'standard supernava' assumptions and interpretations 'iffy'. Much variability across Supernova types/sub-types due to local/intervening conditions/dynamics and processes make what we 'see from here' open to much error unless we know exactly the set of conditions ap-plying 'there'. The newly realized variability in Intrinsic Brightness and perceived brightness to, means previous 'Cosmic Distance Ladder' construct of old is no longer reliable, even for intermediate distances let alone for extreme distances of Billions of Lightyears. Many PO articles over last few years (and even weeks/days ago) have reported on SN 'variability'. Even wiki now reflects this). Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Dingbone. :)
Is dark energy an illusion?
Exotic DMs are 'old' erroneous assumptions/interpretations-based hypothesis being increasingly falsified by recent astronomical/cosmological mainstream discovery/review. Many PO articles of recent years/weeks report the HUGE quantities being found within, around, between galaxies and in deep space between galaxy clusters----ALL of it NORMAL low-luminosity etc type matter (not 'exotic' type DM) which previously was 'undetectable' by older telescopes/instruments. Added to that, recent mainsttream observations report that the motions of stars and other visible features closely 'track' and 'correlate to' NORMAL MATTER distributions/features; so IF 'exotic' DM supposed to be 85% of galactic mass which tracked along with normal matter observed, THEN galactic GR dynamics/motions should be MUCH more EXTREME than observed. So 'exotic' DM fantasy has had its day; time to go back to reality-based hypotheses. Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
you have been wrong many times and I have been correct all along
Self aggrandizement on display for everyone to see.

And with no scientific content whatsoever, this is one of those fifteen posts of whining I spoke of.

You stand convicted by your own fingers.

Tsk tsk, @RC. Try not to make your lack of ability to introspect quite so obvious.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.
Heh, actually I baited it and as predicted it rose to the bait. Just playing with its mind a little. And using the second best method; it's not going to make much if any difference if I don't reply, since everyone else does. >shrug< Sue me.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Dingbone, maybe, maybe not. The interesting thing about this is that they have been able to nail down some actual observations that we can do to differentiate their model from ΛCDM and they're not things that are impossible to check. If it's making enough kerfuffle to stimulate such an article in Science someone will probably take up the gauntlet. Also, the main source for the article appears to have missed the fact that the nearby universe SN1a data matches this new AvERA model closer than ΛCDM models.

Like this source, I remain skeptical; but that doesn't mean I'm saying AvERA is silly, misconceived, or obviously wrong. I'll wait to see how it tests out.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
@canada,
Don't bring Trumpisms ("Sad") into a conversation where science is even remotely related.
I think Trump learned that crap from @RC, not the other way 'round!

Kidding, but not by much.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.
Heh, actually I baited it and as predicted it rose to the bait. Just playing with its mind a little. And using the second best method; it's not going to make much if any difference if I don't reply, since everyone else does. >shrug< Sue me.

I guess DS is drinking some "Grumpy Old Bastard" beer, tonite...;-)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
Actually, no, it's a weeknight and I'm drinking a glass of Clos Pegase pinot noir, and I'll only have one; gotta work tomorrow. Just having a little fun.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Whyde.
I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.
Heh, actually I baited it and as predicted it rose to the bait. Just playing with its mind a little. And using the second best method; it's not going to make much if any difference if I don't reply, since everyone else does. >shrug< Sue me.
I guess DS is drinking some "Grumpy Old Bastard" beer, tonite.)
That explains his all-over-the-shop inconsistent and erroneous premature insensible crowing and insults 'spew' over in thread:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

His equally drunk-with-power-of-whisky 'spew' in this present thread is more face-saving attempts using his drunkards 'version' of what is transpiring under his drink-induced gouty-red-nose: his obsolete, now-increasingly falsified by mainstream, claims are wrong/irrelevant. Sad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
drunkards
Heh, and now we have an actual insult.

Boy, you're really melting down tonight, @RC. Try not to have a stroke.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Actually, no, it's a weeknight and I'm drinking a glass of Clos Pegase pinot noir, and I'll only have one; gotta work tomorrow. Just having a little fun.
About sums up your 'spews' based on a drunkard's-and-joker's 'attitude' to scientific method objectivity and resepctful discourse on SCIENCE not persons/source you 'don't like' in your drunken stupor induced insensible lies, denials and accusations while being wrong all along. Pitiable. I had greater hopes yu would become a true objective scientist and observer/discourser one day; that day in patently not here yet (perhaps because you care more for drinking/ganging than you do for science and humanity ethics on a science site (where you condone/join malignant bot-voting ignoramus troll gangs because you enjoy their '5' EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN DISASTROUSLY WRONG ALL ALONG while insulting those who were right all along. Do MUCH better if you aspire to scientific integrity (instead of 'dutch courage'), mate.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
'spews'
And another insult,
drunkard's-and-joker's
and another.

It must be Flailsday where you are, @RC.

And you must have run out of spurious science claims after they all got shot down.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.
drunkards
Heh, and now we have an actual insult.

Boy, you're really melting down tonight, @RC.
DS, that is observation based on posted evidence from your own lips over many threads,including this one. Your denial/hypocrisy (and other 'projections' of your own flaws) in unseemly, patently clumsy attempts to mischaracterize me because you were wrong and me right all along, on the science and humanity, on many fronts. I feel pity for drunkard/bot-voting trolls who are having 'the rug pulled out from under them' by recent mainstream discovery/reviews. It must be even more galling than having to be corrected by someone who cautioned you about that Bicep2 crap...which you preferred' anyway, attacking the messenger instead. Your gang's drinking/drugging/ganging proclivities make it all clear now what is driving y'all to such insensibly malignant lengths to insult, twist/deny facts/record to suit your ego-tripping/sabotaging 'needs'. Sad. Pity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
As usual, @RC, you are becoming boring, and your attempts at self-aggrandizement, insults, and other typical content lacking any scientific discussion at all are dominating your discourse because you've been proven wrong yet again and have no reply.

A couple more of these and I'll go read a book instead. Hint: try making a reply that's got some integrity when someone points out the flaws in your reasoning instead of trying to double down.

We're talking here about a hypothesis that questions dark energy. I'd think you'd be all over that; instead, you're whining again. Pretty transparent, matey.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.

No amount of disjointed (drunk-writing) one liners/hypocritical in-denial face saving attempts will get you out of the self-dug hole you're in. Your posts have included unprovoked attacks, insults and unfounded claims patently in contradiction with the recorded facts and recent mainstream discovery/reviews.

The forum notes how you are 'burying'; and avoiding explaining why your claims are against new evidence; and why you keep insulting, crowing while being so wrong? It's the sign of a egomaniac to 'project' your too-many human failings onto others, mate. It is become lame and not a little sad and pitiable. What a waste of an otherwise good intellect; lost to drink, ego and repetitive old-orthodoxy 'fantasies' based on old and increasingly falsified (by mainstream itself) hypotheses/claims which now are OBVIOUSLY wrong (like Bicep2; but you didn't listen/learn then either).

Get back to science, DS. Stop drink-posting; it's dangerous/unseemly. Do and be better.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
@RC, sorry you interpret someone telling you you're wrong as an "insult," but I'm not responsible for your paranoid delusions.

Awaiting your science. Judging by your contributions to this thread so far you don't have any.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.
sorry you interpret someone telling you you're wrong as an "insult," but I'm not responsible for your paranoid delusions.
The insensibility, hypocrisy and in-denial 'stupor' you demonstrate there is breathtaking in its irony and only equaled by the 'stupor' induced by your admitted drinking. How many times have you had to be corrected, and you jumped in all insulting, ego-raging, while being wrong all along? Too many. It's all there. I even alluded to some of them in various defensive posts against your obsessive (now understood as drunken) campaign of mindlessly attacking the messenger because you didn't like the message which was proving you wrong.

How can otherwise intelligent humans sink so low in integrity, objectivity?

The answer is staring back at you, DS; from the bottom of that bottle you are emptying while posting 'pissed'.

The science was in my first posts; and all over; for years. You miss it all due to your insensible ego, drink, ignoring.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2017
Still no science. Boring. I'm going to go read. I'll see if you've posted any science later, @RC, and if you have, I'll see whether it's more of your pseudoscientific claptrap or an actual serious comment on a subject that should, if you're telling the truth, actually interest you.

I think that what you post next will be very revealing. I don't think you can stop yourself from whining. I don't think you have the integrity or self discipline.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Still no science.
How insensibly in denial can you be, mate? The science in my posts has been there all along (buried by you and your bot-voting troll gang's shite while blaming the victim of your troll-shiting campaign).

Below is the science question/logics you've been avoiding; can you now get back to the science and answer the question/logics I posed here and in the other thread:
MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features. So IF 'exotic' DM added 85% EXTRA matter, then gravitational profiles/motions/strengths would be MORE EXTREME than observed. So, your "busted" etc claims are PREMATURE....as always when you open your big mouth to insult/lie instead of actually CHECKING THE LATEST developments/discoveries etc from MAINSTREAM itself.
Your response (if you've finished stonewalling, denying, insulting)?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
Ah, but that's not on this thread.

You're trying to cheat, @RC.

And on the thread where you posted that, I *did* answer it.

So you're lying, too, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, @RC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2017
Oh, and even being a quote from that thread doesn't make your quote on-topic in this one; the quote is about dark *matter*, not dark *energy*. So it appears you also don't know the difference between these two topics, and still don't have anything relevant to say on either thread. Did you even read the *title* of this thread, @RC? Because it doesn't seem as if you did, or if you did as if you understood it. And you certainly didn't read the article, much less the real paper that the article author provided a nice open access arXiv link for.

You might want to actually read what you're commenting on *before* you start commenting on it.

And you fail yet again, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, @RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Still at it? Your twisting, weaseling is only prolonging your agony and loss of integrity. Employing tactics to avoid answering scientific questions is lame; you are avoiding.

And in that other thread I responded to your initial reply, in which you ignored the recent developments even RNP is familiar with in this 'exotic' DM in the galaxy issue.

So not only was your initial 'answer' missing the relevant facts, you admitted you still don't KNOW the facts' and keep asking for links to stuff any competent discourser on the 'exotic' DM subject should already be appraised of.

RNP saw that article, and MANY side-discussions have cropped up on many threads since....so your pretense of 'not knowing' and 'asking for link' is lame, dishonest evasion tactics.

Moreover still, your lame 'chastizing' re 'reading article' of this thread is demonstrating the lengths you will go to to evade: since SIDE-DISCUSSIONS are a common occurrence/allowed.

Stop stalling, DS. Give.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2017
@RC, this thread is about dark energy, not dark matter.

@RC, the other thread is about black holes, not a "galaxy issue," and not dark matter either.

@RC, you're lying again.

If you're going to lie, why should we accept your bare word for anything at all ever? You still haven't provided any links on either thread to any reputable source for your claims.

And you're still off-topic.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, @RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.

So now, in order to try and weasel out from the mess you made for yourself, you are claiming that SIDE-DISCUSSIONS NEVER ARISE in a thread? And even when a side-issue is raised/discussed by others I am not allowed to participate with relevant contribution on the science/logics?

DS, you are now obviously 'drunk-writing your own rules' here so that you can avoid honest discourse from your end?

Stop with the troll-shite clutter and evasions...answer the points made or admit you are ill informed and so irrelevant and just wasting everybody's time and making an ever bigger fool of yourself than ever. Stop drink-posting; stop troll-shiting; either answer honestly to the science/logics points posed to you/RNP re 'exotic' DM in galaxy etc....or shut your big mouth and stop insulting others while YOU are being so wrong ignorant and lying (again). Do you ever learn, mate? Is this what they taught you at science/humanity classes? You bring shame upon REAL scientists.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2017
The point, @RC, is not about side discussions. It's about you making a false claim. And now here you are trying to change the subject, while you accuse me of "weaseling."

Cute, but transparent.

You're weaseling, @RC, and accusing others of your own faults.

And you still haven't provided any link to support your claims on either thread, and you still haven't answered my very plain and simple argument making the falsity of your claim clear on the other thread either.

Tsk tsk, @RC. Meltdown city.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
The point, @RC, is not about side discussions. It's about you making a false claim. And now here you are trying to change the subject, while you accuse me of "weaseling."

Cute, but transparent.

You're weaseling, @RC, and accusing others of your own faults.

And you still haven't provided any link to support your claims on either thread, and you still haven't answered my very plain and simple argument making the falsity of your claim clear on the other thread either.

Tsk tsk, @RC. Meltdown city.
For someone who accuses others of lying, ignorance etc etc at the drop of a hat, you are pretty phenomenal at being/doing what you accuse others of. Or haven't you even realized/remembered your past (and present) transgressions in that area?

I made NO claim; merely put the logical physical implications in an observation/query for RNP and now YOU to explain how those are consistent with YOUR repeated claims which want it both ways. Got it straight now, DS?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
I made NO claim


You claimed you posted about dark matter on this thread, quoting a post from another thread. Says so right up there.

You're lying again, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2017
@DS
You claimed you posted about dark matter on this thread, quoting a post from another thread. Says so right up there.
But he did, in response to a question about dark energy. No quote from another thread in that response, however.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I made NO claim


You claimed you posted about dark matter on this thread, quoting a post from another thread. Says so right up there.

You're lying again, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.
What the hell, mate! How lame is that, switching the 'claims' angle to refer to a post rather than the scientific claim of 'exotic' DM. You still haven't clue-one what the side-discussion with RNP-bschott is about, do you, DS? That is why you are lost in your own twisted maze of 'tactical' crap, DS. Mate, stop insulting while you are drowning in your own troll-shite which started because you (again) jumped to the attack while being NOT UP TO SPEED with what's going on either in the relevant science or in the relevant discussion. Why keep 'bombing' others' discussions and ruining them with your misapprehended troll-shite posts and insults and lies based on your own CONFUSIONS, DS? Take a breather; stop the drinking; start the thinking with objectivity instead of ego. Try.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2017
@Seeker, please look again. The quote @RC provided when claiming he was talking about scientific content was provided on the black hole thread, not this thread. You appear to have allowed him to confuse you. That was his intent.

@RC, you're the one who wanted to talk about process (and you always do, when your content arguments get owned, it's your go-to strategem); I was content to stick to content. But if you're going to bring it up you can expect to get hammered on it. If you don't want to talk about process, then leave it out and we'll talk about the content. Not that I expect you're capable of that.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2017
@DS
@Seeker, please look again. The quote @RC provided when claiming he was talking about scientific content was provided on the black hole thread, not this thread. You appear to have allowed him to confuse you. That was his intent.
You're doing quite well in that regard. I'm talking about a quote about dark matter in response to a question about dark energy, not literally about scientific content.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2017
Oh, and continuing right along, @RC, a conversation about dark matter is still off-topic on a thread about an article on dark energy, and you still don't appear to know the difference between them, even if you'd posted your argument on the right thread in the first place.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Stop the evasion tactics, mate. Cut to the crux of the matter. Answer the inescapable logical implications of what the new mainstream discovery has for the INTERIOR of galaxy motions and your claims that the 'exotic' DM is outside the galaxy.

Have you asked RNP to inform you of what the relevant article and side-discussion is about?

You seem to be talking while missing half the facts in evidence on this science point side-issue re 'exotic' DM etc.

Ask RNP to fill you in. Then talk. Ok?
imfromcanada
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2017
Hey RealityCheck,

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anywhere that added to what you originally said about not telling anyone and they should find it out themselves. I checked the update article, and you merely reposted and reaffirmed that you felt it was a waste of your time to continue. I checked several other articles where your name and "fatal flaws" came up in phys.org, but was unable to find one that actually mentions your findings. It's all searchable, regardless of voting, unless a moderator has removed (highly unlikely) the post itself.

To me this means I have searched for what I feel was a reasonable amount of time to find your scientific proof against a paper that is/was up for peer review, yet could find nothing. If you have posted it somewhere, perhaps it's time to repost in order to allow science to take it's course? If you can't post the whole thing, a snippet would be a good start to allowing genuine discussion to take place prior to any book publishing. Perhaps one flaw?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2017
Hey RealityCheck,

I'm sorry, ... To me this means I have searched for what I feel was a reasonable amount of time to find your scientific proof against a paper that is/was up for peer review, yet could find nothing. If you have posted it somewhere, perhaps it's time to repost in order to allow science to take it's course? If you can't post the whole thing, a snippet would be a good start to allowing genuine discussion to take place prior to any book publishing. Perhaps one flaw?.

To me that means RC just wasted of bunch of YOUR valuable time on fruitless (un)due diligence...
Welcome to Phys.Org comments section, where RC is king of "/" - and very little else....:-)
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 06, 2017
@kylesta
dark energy =time?
I don't think so. I see time as a ratio of changes in spacetime configuration. I don't understand the concept of a 4th dimension. Time seems to be perfectly understood as changes in 3d spatial configuration. That's why Einstein treated time similar to space. You have to do it that way. I'd say dark energy feeds the expansion (or growth) of spacetime which I think causes gravity.
Since it is (space-time) the an incremental increase in time would make a difference in expansion rate.
Exponential growth means the more growth the more there is to grow so the expansion rate increases. Like runaway inflation. Question is, is there anything that can stop it? Maybe the dark energy runs out after the lights go out. But if the growth powers gravity, then after growth no more gravity. However growth may also involve stretching, and when the limit of elasticity is reached, compression begins and the cyclical U continues. Your guess is as good as mine.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 06, 2017
@RC
...the inescapable logical implications of what the new mainstream discovery has for the INTERIOR of galaxy motions and your claims that the 'exotic' DM is outside the galaxy.
Spacetime growth (gravity) is stronger outside of galaxies. Galaxies are where spacetime gets pushed into black holes to re-emerge outside galaxies in the form of white holes pushing galaxies even further apart as has been observed but probably not interpreted like that. Yet anyway. All processes being fueled by the dark energy. This has been observed as flattening the spirals around the outside regions of spiral galaxies.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@Whyde.

The responsible, objective researcher waits until the right of reply has been exhausted before concluding anything about the issue. Your latest above demonstrates you are neither responsible nor objective. Hence irrelevant troll noise issuing from a ego-tripping and unscientific 'mind' badly affected by whatever it is that is causing you to default to such cheap and nasty shots from a cowardly position of pandering to the bully gangs and bot-voting ignoramuses instead of just listening and learning objectively, honestly...and bravely. If your wife is still watching, she should give you another clip round the ear and tell you to stop bringing such 'trolling internet loser' shame on her and the rest of your family. Be better than this, Whyde; science and humanity need you to be; goodness knows the world is already replete with such malice and ignorance as you/your 'gang' bring here to PO; we don't need more of it but less. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2017
@imfromcanada.

Subsequent side-discussions occurring in unconnected threads not prefaced with the 'tag' of "fatal flaws", but were posted impromptu in other discussions re CMB etc.

As for my initial posts in original/subsequent 'update thread', I said I was not at liberty to discuss specifically or in detail because the info formed part of my complete works to be published when ready. NEVERTHELESS, I categorized the flaws.

In subsequent discussions elsewhere I even mentioned a most telling spurious/illogical assumption(s) on which Bicep2 (and ALL exercises/models for PRIMORDIAL Gravitational Waves 'detection/interpretations') rely:

- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;

- Inflation itself is 'bogus' (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has since admitted).

Thanks.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2017
This happens sometimes, RC falls off his or her meds, fixates on a thread and feels compelled to reply to almost every post. Keep them occupied here, they'll probably not get too involved in any other threads :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2017
- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;
- Inflation itself is 'bogus' (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has since admitted).
Thanks.

RC,
You are not the first to posit steady state. Not by a long shot. Nor are you the last.
Hell, I'm even on board,some.
I'd even go so far as to say we are in a 13.4bn yr radius resolution bubble (our resolution limit for now) corkscrewing our way thru a MUCH larger expanse.
However, crowing "I told you so" every time, looks and sounds downright sophomoric (If not Freshman-ish)
Therefore, quit claiming credit for all things that indicate so. And implying those who've spent years studying this have no idea what they are talking about, is about as insulting as you can possibly get.
Makes you sound like my Grandmother... Sheesh...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@ZergSurfer.
This happens sometimes, RC falls off his or her meds, fixates on a thread and feels compelled to reply to almost every post. Keep them occupied here, they'll probably not get too involved in any other threads :)
More btroll shite from you, on top of that you left behind on the floor in thread:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

For starters, I only post to defend against crap-attacks from trolling losers (like you seem determined to be on the internet forums); and I post when I feel it may help to improve the decorum and efficacy of science/logics on topic discourse here between people who want to do so without bot-voting and insensible trolling idiots like you are fast becoming here. Either be fair and constructive and respectful, or just remain what you seem not to be able to improve on....a trolling internet loser, even in a science site! Be/Do better, ZergSurfer. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2017
@Whyde.
- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;
- Inflation itself is 'bogus' (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has since admitted).
You are not the first to posit steady state. Not by a long shot. Nor are you the last.
Hell, I'm even on board,some
That was in reply to questions from @imfromcanada. And where did I claim to be "first" re 'Steady State'? Never did. You're on a non-sequitur there.
Therefore, quit claiming credit for all things that indicate so. And implying those who've spent years studying this have no idea what they are talking about, is about as insulting as you can possibly get.
Never claimed credit for those; merely REMINDED everyone of all those as indicated, including OCAM'S RAZOR views; my original ToE insights only add to it all.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2017
@RC
...until I publish the consistent reality-based ToE and reality-based maths to model the complete universal physics.
Ever publish anything?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2017
perhaps it's time to repost in order to allow science to take it's course?

Sorta ridiculous of RC to even tink that science is influenced by what is in effect a twitter conversation.

This is a comment section ABOUT PR articles ABOUT scientific papers. That's pretty far removed from science itself.

RC is essentially screaming at football trading cards expecting the head coach of the leading football team to take notice.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2017
@antialias_physorg.

Seriously, do you 'listen to yourself' as you make those keyboard strokes? Your attitude belongs in the long dead past and 'closed shop' of religionistic gangs; when their approved 'anointed ones' were the only 'authorities' that should be listened to/believed; when their selected 'sacrosanct churches' were the only 'approved venues' for the masses to congregate and 'hear and obey the word' of their religious 'beliefs'.

Mate, realize that you are NOW in the INTERNET AGE/VENUE. :)

Where discussion and ideas are COMMON PROPERTY for OPEN DISCUSSION untrammeled by 'elitist' and/or 'orthodoxy' restrictions as to what and/or where people can discuss and contribute to the 'science and humanity' zeitgeist, according to OBJECTIVE MERITS (or falsification).

Only anti-science/anti-humanity types would try to CENSOR and/or CONTROL ideas/venues.

As for your dismissive remarks/characterization of PO Forum, you'd be surprised who is reading here!

Get real, mate.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2017
@RC
"and I post when I feel it may help to improve the decorum and efficacy of science/logics on topic discourse"
No, you post to feed your narcissistic need for attention. You have never added any value to any thread you have invaded. You are noise.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 07, 2017
@Zerg.
@RC
"and I post when I feel it may help to improve the decorum and efficacy of science/logics on topic discourse"
No, you post to feed your narcissistic need for attention. You have never added any value to any thread you have invaded. You are noise.

BS try, mate. The record says different. And your troll-shiting while "chuckling", on a science site, tells the Forum all they need to know to make their own decisions about that. You didn't even get your 'story' straight when accused me of "following you to another thread"...where in fact it was YOU who posted unprovoked and specious insulting remarks about me which necessitated a response accordingly. Your troll-shiting-while-chuckling is no substitute for competence and honesty, Zerg. Re-think it, mate; then re-register and start afresh under a new username...this one is covered in your own troll-shite and may be irreparably soiled beyond hope of getting clean again. Do/Be better next time round, "old hand".
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2017
@RC
" You didn't even get your 'story' straight when accused me of "following you to another thread"...where in fact it was YOU who posted unprovoked and specious insulting remarks about me which necessitated a response accordingly."
Oh dear. Clear evidence of delusions I'm afraid.
In response to a comment by Chris Alfven, my comment was;-
"So, instead of looking to observations of filamentation in plasmas which anybody can see occurs in a novelty plasma globe"
What. The. Actual. F**k.
...Literally no words..."
https://phys.org/...ter.html
I don't see your name there. Or in any of the comments.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2017
@Zerg.

Your troll-shite re HannesAlfven's (not Chris Alfven) comment in that OTHER thread...

https://phys.org/...ter.html

...met with my response because yours came up while I was ALREADY READING the comments therein. So I was not "following you" THERE.

Then your comments in THIS PRESENT thread got my attention because I was reading through here as well and your unprovoked insulting and disparaging remarks about ME were in contradiction to the recorded post history. Hence I didn't 'follow you" HERE either.

Get it? It was YOUR troll-shite THERE, and then HERE, which I saw while I was reading the threads, that prompted my posts in response in both threads. You only had yourself to blame, mate.

Don't you and 'the other guys' ever learn? YOU are as much a 'problem' here as those whom you personally/unscientifically/unfairly attack irrespective of whether their post contained correct science/logics or not? You demean science/humanity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
Let's bring this back around to reality.

What the people who proposed this hypothesis said is that proposed dark energy, the Λ in ΛCDM, is not actually necessary to explain accelerating expansion (and we already know from observation that accelerating expansion is an observed feature of the universe). They're not claiming there's no accelerating expansion; they're claiming that the existence of large voids with higher expansion factors can account for the acceleration.

Who agrees or disagrees with this, and what is their evidence for this agreement or disagreement?
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 09, 2017
Damn, @DS. I was going to dig dandelions and then watch the Masters.

They're not claiming there's no accelerating expansion; they're claiming that the existence of large voids with higher expansion factors can account for the acceleration.

Who agrees or disagrees with this, and what is their evidence for this agreement or disagreement?

I don't think so. Partly because of your discussion about decaying DM. Which I think is due to natural mixing of different spacetime densities. But that's because of my opinion about what DM is. Similar to gravity, the existence of low density spacetime, coming from, initially, primordial vacuum fluctuations. But these different densities should normally decay, which certainly wouldn't support accelerated expansion. I think there's a driving force driving the expansion between galaxies, namely white holes, simultaneously driving spacetime into black holes, dragging matter along with it. Currently, all driven by the Λ in ΛCDM.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.
(and we already know from observation that accelerating expansion is an observed feature of the universe)
Above article, and your own comment above, takes for granted, as 'a scientifically established fact', that "Expansion" is 'actually physically happening'. Consider further your own and other mainstream 'understandings/explanations' re Expansion: that, apart from PROPER MOTIONAL relative velocities ACROSS space, any gravitating mass/emitter is 'effectively stationary' LOCALLY with respect to the space volume it occupies.

Question arises: If alleged 'expansion' does NOT 'shift' spectrum of emitted EM radiation/photons (because, according to above 'understanding', the local imperceptible 'alleged expansion' has NO effect on locally radiated photons), then what is supposed to effect the claimed 'expansion related shift' component in detected photons traveling cosmological distances to 'here'?

Try to answer that; and then see the dilemma: Inconsistent.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2017
PS @Da Scneib.

In the interests of forestalling potential attacks based on indignant reaction to such 'temerity' and 'blasphemy' against whatever orthodoxy my interlocutor(s) may be currently 'enamored' with, I will remind now of the recent 'blasphemy' and 'temerity' of Prof Paul Steinhardt's expose of the bogus INFLATION ' notion' which was 'treated as fact' by mainstream researchers and paper-writers for DECADES, despite it having NO actual objective scientifically tenable evidence (only assumptions and interpretations based on modeling using those assumptions) to support it!

Likewise, 'evidence in support' so far claimed FOR "Expansion (accelerating or otherwise) is equally assumptional/interpretational/modeling based, and NOT actual tenable objective scientific/logics based!

So pause before kneejerking to attack based only on your 'beliefs' in what currently treated as 'fact', but which IN FACT have NO actual objective scientifically tenable support at all. Good luck.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
@RC, it's a matter of physical fact established by SN1a data that the universe is expanding. Furthermore, it's also established from that same data that the rate of expansion is increasing over time and started doing so about 7 billion years ago, when the universe was half its current age.

There are two "tricks" involved with this. One is that the light curve of a Type 1a supernova (SN1a) is highly characteristic. This means that a SN1a explosion can be "fingerprinted" by watching how the light varies over time. The second "trick" is that the velocity of an object can be found from observing the shift of spectral lines, which are also a "fingerprint," because specific elements give out specific lines, and even if they're shifted these patterns of lines remain the same, just at a different frequency. This means that we know both the distance and the velocity of a SN1a at the same time.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
[contd]
Given both distance and velocity, it's trivial to determine how velocity changes over time, by observing many SN1as. When we do the math, we find that up until about 7 billion years ago, the universe's rate of expansion was decelerating; then it leveled off, and started accelerating.

This is observation, not theory. Observations are physical facts, and contradicting them is delusional. This is not brand-new, either; we've known it since the late 1990s. Three separate surveys-- The Supernova Cosmology Project, the High-Z Supernova Search Team, and the Supernova Legacy Survey-- have all found the same data. The Hi-Z and SCP team leaders shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery.

Your ongoing claims that this represents some sort of "orthodoxy" are unfounded. The brightness curves are what they are, and the spectra are what they are, and those are physical facts. There is nowhere to hide.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
Even the article we're discussing here doesn't question that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. All it questions is the reason for the expansion.

In the Standard Model of Cosmology, called the ΛCDM model, a particular term in the left side of the Einstein Field Equations, called the "cosmological term," is theorized to account for this expansion. Since this factor, called Λ, is a direct property of spacetime, as spacetime grows, the amount of this factor increases. Some folks called this "dark energy," but it's really not a very good term for it. Others call it "negative gravity" or "antigravity," but those aren't really good terms either.

Note that the value of Λ does not change; it's the growth in the amount of spacetime due to expansion that increases its influence. Because gravity opposes Λ, empty spaces have more Λ than spaces filled with matter, like galaxy clusters and so forth.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
[contd]
Let's digress a moment. Galaxy surveys have shown that the universe is composed of filaments of matter, surrounded and separated by large voids empty of matter. The matter has clustered, and this is due to gravity. Galaxy clusters define these filaments, and make them visible to us. The Hubble has done a lot of work that has led to this finding, and there have been several very large galaxy surveys that have done a lot more. SDSS comes immediately to mind, as does the ongoing GAMA survey being conducted at some of the most advanced and powerful facilities in the world.

In ΛCDM, then, it is obvious that most of the expansion has to take place in the voids, where Λ is not opposed by the gravitation of matter. A lot of wild speculation has been made about the implications of ΛCDM, including eventual dissociation of galaxy clusters and even galaxies under the influence of Λ; I think this is footless.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
[contd]
I think that the influence of gravity on the filaments means that while the filaments may grow further apart over time, they will also concentrate due to the mass in them, and because of this the amount of void space in them will decrease. Instead of the Milky Way, or even the Solar System, separating from everything else, it will be the Virgo Supercluster, or perhaps the Laniakea Supercluster (which is not well defined at this time), which are the two hierarchically containing superclusters of which our Local Group centered on the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy is a member, which will separate from everything else.

I may be wrong; but at worst I think that the Milky Way will remain, and probably the Local Group.

So we can see that the paper we're discussing here actually falls in with my views fairly well. You will note however that I am not crowing about it or making any claims in advance of evidence.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2017
@Da Schneib.

I'm called away by off-line matters for the time being, so I must for the moment leave your above polite, erudite replies for answering later/tomorrow. Until then I would suggest you acquaint yourself with all the recent-years/weeks of PO articles reporting on the previously-unsuspected variability across types (and even sub-types!) of SNs previously used in 'standard candle' parts of the Cosmic Distance Ladder construct/methodologies for estimating distances which naively applied 'Intrinsic Brightness' interpretations when the actual Intrinsic Brightness was far from what was assumed in the various models and the various presumptions as to what 'type' of SN was actually being 'observed' and used as part of the "Expanding Universe" so-called discovery of "Acceleration" of same. Again, I merely remind of what may be being missed by some when it comes to on-going discovery/review by mainstream ITSELF on these and many other fronts/issues.

Until then, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2017
@RC, the distance ladders don't matter.

As far as the different populations of SN1a are concerned, I am aware of these results, but you apparently are not aware that the difference is insufficient to account for all of the acceleration. Even accounting for these two different populations of SN1a, the acceleration can still be seen to be occurring. It's just a matter of reducing Λ a bit. Here's some evidence: https://www.eurek...1015.php You'll find a link to the scholarly paper at the end of that article, and it's complete, not just the abstract. Pretty much open access.

Interestingly, the effect on the light curves of these two populations is controlled by the metallicity of the progenitor white dwarfs; and this was also a problem with Cepheid variables, which are used for distance estimates at ranges within our supercluster.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2017
[contd]
What we see is that more recently formed stars, with higher metallicity because there has been more time to cook up heavy elements that were incorporated into them, form one population, and older stars, formed when there were not so many heavy elements, form the other. In other words, there are Population I and Population II white dwarfs, and when each forms a SN1a, they have slightly different light curves. This also turned out to be the case with Cepheid variables, and resulted in changes to our estimates of distances to galaxies within our supercluster, the Virgo Supercluster.

However, as I've noted above, even allowing for these different populations, we still see strong evidence of accelerating expansion. So this is insufficient evidence to claim that there is no accelerating expansion, as you are apparently claiming.

If you are aware of other sources I'd be willing to take a look.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2017
@DS
Since this factor, called Λ, is a direct property of spacetime, as spacetime grows, the amount of this factor increases.
I'm thinking this factor is the constant in the expression for exponential expansion, ie, e^(Λt). This factor grows in time, linearly at first but then the higher order terms of the Taylor expansion kick in. Result is accelerating expansion, no change in Λ required for exponential growth.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 10, 2017
@DS
I think that the influence of gravity on the filaments means that while the filaments may grow further apart over time, they will also concentrate due to the mass in them, and because of this the amount of void space in them will decrease.
I don't think the mass in them is relevant. The filaments are merely warped, or in this case stretched, spacetime. Stretched by the force of gravity between galaxies. Certainly the amount of void space between galaxies will decrease as the galaxies move further apart because the force of gravity between the galaxies will decrease. Note the difference in spacetime density in the voids vs outside the voids means the refractive index of light is changed leading to lensing. Which is how we know the filaments are there. The mass difference inside and outside filaments having nothing to do with lensing. I can elaborate if desired.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2017
cont
Interesting thought. Compare the number of neurons in the human brain to the number of filaments between galaxies. I wonder if there's a message there.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2017
@DS
I may be wrong; but at worst I think that the Milky Way will remain, and probably the Local Group.
I thought we were on a collision course with Andromeda.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 10, 2017
@DS
Because gravity opposes Λ, empty spaces have more Λ than spaces filled with matter, like galaxy clusters and so forth.
Note matter displaces growing spacetime. Therefore the growth rate in regions of matter is less than that outside of matter. Matter gets sort of squeezed out as I see it. So gravity.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2017
@DS
Because gravity opposes Λ, empty spaces have more Λ than spaces filled with matter, like galaxy clusters and so forth.
I'm not sure about your reason, but I think the statement is true. I would say an implication of this is that the force of gravity outside of galaxies is greater than that inside galaxies, leading to the suppression of the spiral arms around the outside of spiral galaxies (flattening). People get upset about this thinking there must something wrong with the theory of gravity. I don't thinking there's anything wrong with the theory. It's just that the gravitational constant G is greater outside galaxies.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
the distance ladders don't matter.
Surprising claim! Tell that to the mainstream astronomers/theorists who have been trying to come up with some reliable means of telling distances to objects/events even at 100 thousands lightyears, let alone billions of lightyears. The problem which afflicts current distance ladder methodologies/models (especially for billion+ lightyear distances, is that it is all so circuitous and naive, both in assumptions and interpretations built into the modeling therefrom (I also pointed out many of the technical/observational problems as well for IMP-9 some time back).

Anyway, back to the SN data/interpretations/modeling/assumptions etc methodology/dependency, which has a whole slew of problems re naivete' and unreliability all on its own.

I am heartened you (and I can only hope/trust IMP-9, RNP et al also) have taken my suggestion seriously; and started to update yourselves re the new discoveries/reviews over recent years.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2017
cont @ DS.

However, you seem not to have caught up yet; or have missed full import/implications of what I have been keeping abreast of re SN variability problems/discoveries reported for a decade and more recently in PO articles.

Consider: Intrinsic Brightness is now a problem to determine via the old assumed 'standard model' for such observations. The 'observed' Brightness has been found to differ not only intrinsically due to local conditions/geometry/dust etc variables, but also due to SNs themselves varying as to 'type', and 'mimicking' what may be assumed to be the 'expected type' when observations/spectrometry etc analysis is done and interpreted/modeled accordingly. So you see, your naive trust that all the problems and variability factors and their interpretatiions as to what eactly is being observed, shows that you have only skimmed the surface in your latest to 'catch up' reading. That is why you seem to only repeat a still-simplistic 'overview'.

again cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2017
again cont @DS.

Re "Light Curve": old certainties and standard modeling expectations have flown out the window! New observations/discoveries/reviews found 'mimicking' of 'light curves' also occurs between more than just the obvious candidate 'types' expected. So, again, previous assumptions and claims are open to question. This only ADDS to all the preceding aspects which keep bringing the 'accelerated expansion' models/claims relying on distances, brightness, redness etc into serious doubt.

And speaking of redness, it is now beyond denying that 'naivete' rather than 'logic' has been the 'method'...until now! I quote...
"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."
...from here:

https://phys.org/...ast.html

And that is only the tip of the naivete' iceberg!

yet again cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2017
yet again cont @DS.

There has also been recent article pointing out that even the Lyman alpha radiation spectrum/shift etc (on which many past (and still) interpretations of observed light data analysis/models, claims etc rely), rae also able to be mimicked by other than the relevant Hydrogen! Atoms and molecules, under certain high energy-sctivated conditions/states can produce similar radiation and 'lines' observed 'here' so far away without actual real knowledge of what produced it at, either at source or in intervening high-energy processes/interactions etc. So, gain, yet another 'naive' assumption/interpretation based on unreliably based models relying on assumed 'standard/exclusive source of emissions etc, bites the dust.

Re my questioning 'orthodoxy': I allude to 'orthodoxy' of assumptions, interpretations, modeling/claims per se. The actual observed light data collected by our instruments is what it is. It is Expanding Spacetime 'orthodoxy' that is questioned. Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2017
PS @ DS.

I am glad to read that you recognize now the fact that all those papers/claims regarding 'expanding spacetime' causes etc ALREADY ASSUME a-priori for their arguments and exercise and claims/logics that such "Expansion/Accelerated Expansion" is 'fact'.

Which make them all suspect from the get-go. Since, as the above posts from me (reflecting the findings/implications of a decade of new astro/cosmo discovery/review by mainstream ITSELF now) indicate, there is serious question as to Expansion, let alone Accelerated Expansion taking place in reality at all.

What is the 'take away insight' from all this? Well, when we combine the above serious questions re various 'standard modeling' assumptions etc etc, there may be NO actual supporting scientifically tenable evidence FOR Expansion/Accelerated Expansion AT ALL (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has also finally admitted was the case for DECADES re INFLATION claims; and he said so to his professional cosmology theorist peers).
RNP
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2017
@RealityCheck
I am heartened you (and I can only hope/trust IMP-9, RNP et al also) have taken my suggestion seriously; and started to update yourselves re the new discoveries/reviews over recent years.


I, for one, most certainly do NOT take anything you say seriously. Virtually every claim you make on this site is unsupported and easily refuted. Consequently, your overblown description of your contributions here must be viewed as either fraudulent or delusional. That is why, for the most part, I ignore you.

This recent (again unsupported) garbage that you have been spouting about the distance ladder is just another case in point. If you have evidence for this claim SUPPLY IT. If not, I suggest then keep you poorly informed opinions to yourself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2017
@RNP.
I am heartened you (and I can only hope/trust IMP-9, RNP et al also) have taken my suggestion seriously; and started to update yourselves re the new discoveries/reviews over recent years.
I, for one, most certainly do NOT take anything you say seriously. Virtually every claim you make on this site is unsupported and easily refuted. Consequently, your overblown description of your contributions here must be viewed as either fraudulent or delusional. That is why, for the most part, I ignore you. If you have evidence for this claim SUPPLY IT.
I have alluded to a LOT of that already in my posts to DS and before that for a long time, RNP. Out of personal pride/spite you chose to IGNORE; and STILL choose to. But be aware: 'ignore' breeds 'ignorance'; a fatal flaw in any would-be scientists/cosmologist, as it leads to missing the latest evidence, even that from mainstream research/review itself, on many fronts. Your 'ignore' approach is dooming you to 'beliefs'.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2017
@DS
Well let's say @RC is computer-assisted. That is you feed your text into a program which looks up all synonyms for big words. Or you may maintain a database of your favorite synonyms. It then gets out its slashes and appends those synonyms to the original big words. Then you submit your post. Possibly other automated obfuscation techniques also. Just haven't figured those ones out yet. Possibly hijacked from automated spell checking software.
I know a science fiction writer who used to get paid a penny per word. Nowadays it's probably a penny a character. So run your slasher software and get bonus points.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2017
@Seeker2.

How many Bots and SciFi hacks do you know that post on the science forums; and do so motivated by such profit considerations and/or publish-or-perish etc imperatives, as you allude to?

PS: Have any of them been confirmed correct all along like I have been, by new mainstream discovery/reviews, and on many fronts? That would be an interesting 'statistic' if it were valid, hey? Cheers.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2017
@RC, a couple things.

First, I already addressed the paper underlying the phys.org article you linked. As I said above, it does not show that there is no accelerating expansion. The full paper is available from the publisher, and you should probably read it. The astronomer who wrote it is very careful to indicate that it does not in any way overturn the SN1a results that show there is accelerating expansion; it merely requires that the rate of expansion be turned down a bit to take the difference in the populations into account.

Second, there are no "papers," apparently, except the one you linked. If there are, please link them.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2017
[contd]
Third, the distance ladders don't matter because we can see SN1a here in our own galaxy, and see that they must be within short distances because they are within our galaxy. Thus, even using only their peak brightness, and the redshifts of SN1a in other galaxies, compared with the redshifts of those galaxies, we can get approximate results. These results make it clear that there is accelerating expansion, even without the distance ladder components.

Back to the second point, you really do need to be prepared to back up your assertions with links to real science; and back to the first, you need to avoid making claims that are overblown given the evidence you present. These are bad habits and they make you less credible.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
@DaSchneib.

What are you MISSING, DS? Yep, the most important implication, that's what. Here it is again for you to READ CAREFULLY and not kneejerk to your pre-prepared 'orthodoxy' based WRONG assumnptions again:
And speaking of redness, it is now beyond denying that 'naivete' rather than 'logic' has been the 'method'...until now! I quote...
"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."
..from here:

https://phys.org/...ast.html

See the IMPORTANT implication(s)? If they have been doing that; and CONFUSING even NEARBY SN populations data/parameters, then HOW ON EARTH can you STILL claim it is only a MINOR matter?! If SN data/conclusion is EVEN MORE UNreliable for cosmically FAR distant SNs, then how can you STILL 'believe' it is 'tenable support' for Expansion?! Duh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Third, the distance ladders don't matter because we can see SN1a here in our own galaxy, and see that they must be within short distances because they are within our galaxy. Thus, even using only their peak brightness, and the redshifts of SN1a in other galaxies, compared with the redshifts of those galaxies, we can get approximate results. These results make it clear that there is accelerating expansion, even without the distance ladder components.

Back to the second point, you really do need to be prepared to back up your assertions with links to real science; and back to the first, you need to avoid making claims that are overblown given the evidence you present. These are bad habits and they make you less credible.
All, that, plus your 'ignore-and-deny-evade' tactics, is to cover up/distract from fact YOU are NOT YET 'up to speed' with ALL the latest discoveries/reviews. Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2017
@RC
Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.
How could you be so cruel?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2017
@RC
@Seeker2.

How many Bots and SciFi hacks do you know that post on the science forums; and do so motivated by such profit considerations and/or publish-or-perish etc imperatives, as you allude to?
They seem to follow me around. Enough to make one paranoid. They don't seem to publish however.


PS: Have any of them been confirmed correct all along like I have been, by new mainstream discovery/reviews, and on many fronts? That would be an interesting 'statistic' if it were valid, hey? Cheers.
Oh yes. They're all infallible.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
@Seeker2.
Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.
How could you be so cruel?
Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves re the latest mainstream discoveries/reviews which is injcreasibgly falsifying and otherwise bringing into serious question certain previously held 'orthodoxy' in cosmology theory/understandings?
They seem to follow me around. Enough to make one paranoid. They don't seem to publish however.
How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.
Have any of them been confirmed correct all along like I have been, by new mainstream discovery/reviews, and on many fronts? That would be an interesting 'statistic' if it were valid, hey? Cheers.
Oh yes. They're all infallible.
One can be correct on an issue, or even many issues, but that is just being correct on the issue(s). The "infallible" is just your opinio
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
@Seeker2.
Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.
How could you be so cruel?
Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves re the latest mainstream discoveries/reviews which is injcreasibgly falsifying and otherwise bringing into serious question certain previously held 'orthodoxy' in cosmology theory/understandings?
They seem to follow me around. Enough to make one paranoid. They don't seem to publish however.
How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.
Have any of them been confirmed correct all along like I have been, by new mainstream discovery/reviews, and on many fronts? That would be an interesting 'statistic' if it were valid, hey? Cheers.
Oh yes. They're all infallible.
One can be correct on an issue, or even many issues, but that is just being correct on the issue(s); the "infallible" is just your opinion.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
Oops, double posted instead of edit. Apologies.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
@RC
Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves
Maybe insinuating would be a better word.
How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.
The world anxiously awaits your magnum opus while you fritter away your time berating people on PO.
,,,the "infallible" is just your opinion.
The pope would love that one!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@Seeker2.
Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves
Maybe insinuating would be a better word.
You 'insinuating' something? lol

I explicitly encourage objective and impartial science discourse. A thankless task, as objective and impartial science discourse seems to be a subject for ridicule for 'the gang' here, apparently.
How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.
The world anxiously awaits your magnum opus while you fritter away your time berating people on PO.
Not "frittering". Just 'soundboarding', discussing/checking recent science discovery/reviews results which may form part of the supporting evidence for what my novel consistent ToE theorizing process has come up with objectively. It's called 'keeping up to date and in touch' while finalizing the reality-maths.
the "infallible" is just your opinion.
The pope would love that one! I'm Atheist. He's not. l
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@Seeker2.
Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves
Maybe insinuating would be a better word.
You 'insinuating' something? lol

I explicitly encourage objective/impartial science/discourse. A thankless task, as objective/impartial science/discourse seems to be a subject for ridicule for 'the gang' here, apparently.
How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.
The world anxiously awaits your magnum opus while you fritter away your time berating people on PO.
Not "frittering". Just 'soundboarding', discussing/checking recent science discovery/reviews results which may form part of the supporting evidence for what my novel consistent ToE theorizing process has come up with objectively. It's called 'keeping up to date and in touch' while finalizing the reality-maths.
the "infallible" is just your opinion.
The pope would love that one!
I'm Atheist. He's not. lol
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
@RC
the "infallible" is just your opinion.
The pope would love that one!
I'm Atheist. He's not. lol
Very good. I'm a Believer. Not quite sure what though.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
cont
Keeping my options open. Just a Seeker.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
@RC
Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves
Maybe insinuating would be a better word.
You 'insinuating' something? lol
Only suggesting. Don't take it personally. Lighten up, Larry! :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@RC
I explicitly encourage objective/impartial science/discourse. A thankless task, as objective/impartial science/discourse seems to be a subject for ridicule for 'the gang' here, apparently.
A thankless task trying to parse your sentence structures. :(
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@Seeker2.
Don't take it personally. Lighten up, Larry! :)
I have been trying that for years. The troll-shiters still troll-shite and insult and sabotage and just plain ruin things for all members who want to discuss science/logics on objective merits in discussion not 'personal/ego' imposed by a bot-voting bullying ignoramuses 'gang' who bring shame on all true scientists and science ethics/discourse. Oh, and leave Larry out of this! :)

A thankless task trying to parse your sentence structures. :(
Why should anyone thank you for what you should be doing to inform yourself; by looking for the insights wherever they may be found and in whatever form they come in? That is what true "Seekers" do; irrespective of language/format (even a text-limited 'comment box'). Relax; and read more closely/carefully, and don't be put off by the "/"s or the " :)"s or etc! :)

Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
@RC
Don't take it personally. Lighten up, Larry! :)
...Oh, and leave Larry out of this! :)
My apologies. I didn't know there was a Larry in your life.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
@RC
Why should anyone thank you for what you should be doing to inform yourself;...Relax; and read more closely/carefully, and don't be put off by the "/"s or the " :)"s or etc! :)
I'm trying. Honestly. And the more I try the more I get confused about your advice concerning informing myself. Can anyone help me out here?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
cont
Again, your advice does seem insinuating. Maybe I'm the one taking it personally. Maybe we all are. Maybe, just maybe, we could hold off on the advice?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
@RC
Can anyone help me out here?
I get it. You're insinuating I don't inform myself. Call it selective ignorance. Could be just as well.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
Can anyone help me out here?
I get it. You're insinuating I don't inform myself. Call it selective ignorance. Could be just as well.
Are you feeling ok there, Larry? :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
@WG
... in the case of a black hole, space is being "squeezed out" as the density of matter increases.
Note: atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty space, so it would take a lot of matter to displace any significant amount of space. I see it as space is being pumped into black holes as the dark energy (the Λ in ΛCDM, or the driving force behind gravity) pumps space into black holes. Note that because of the power of the dark energy it doesn't take much of a gradient to drive gravity. So a very small amount of matter can affect a strong driving force of space. Hence black holes.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 14, 2017
cont
Anyway I bring this up reading about supervoids in late-time gravitational lensing. Late time meaning driven by the dark energy Λ. It would appear that these supervoids are the white holes where space is being pumped into through wormholes from the black holes. Just a lucky guess?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2017
@Seeker no explanation for voids is necessary other than to note that filaments are all moving apart and filaments contain all the matter.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 14, 2017
@DS You lost me on the filaments containing matter. Which I'm sure there must be some there somewhere. Anyway gravitational lensing, which I believe is how we know the filaments are there, is caused by warped spacetime, as I understand. The warping is caused by the presence of large objects containing matter, at least in the orthodox interpretation, also as I understand. The matter is in the large objects causing the warping, not in the spacetime itself being warped, or so it seems. Which is not to say there is no matter in the warped spacetime other than the object doing the warping. In politics they would call it incidental matter. Anyway it seems there must be warpage connecting galaxies because the galaxies contain matter. So I presume this is the warpage detected as the filaments. No incidental stuff would be required. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2017
@Seeker, and what's that got to do with where voids come from?
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 14, 2017
@DS Can't think of anything except the note in your previous post.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2017
I'll let that stand then.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@Seeker no explanation for voids is necessary other than to note that filaments are all moving apart and filaments contain all the matter.
Why are you so averse to updating yourself on what mainstream is DISCOVERING IN the so-called 'voids' NOW?

They are NOT 'empty' of matter. They are replete with LOW-LUMINOSITY NORMAL-MATTER gaseous/aggregate features/objects at all scales.

The LABEL of 'voids' was a MISTAKEN assumption due to material therein being PREVIOUSLY undetectable by telescopes when that 'label' of 'void' was 'coined' many decades ago.

DS, LEARN before you open your mouth about things which you are STILL IGNORANT OF because you don't look/update before you REGURGITATE OLD ORTHODOXY assumptions/interpretations being falsified as we speak...BY MAINSTREAM ITSELF!

DS, drop the Stumpy Method of "Ignore and Deny"; it makes you come across as an ignorant 'believer' in OLD orthodoxy instead of a genuine up to date objective observer.

LEARN!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
@RC, I actually read one of your comments- and all you can do is deny the results of the SDSS and BOSS. This is silliness. You're capering and hoping someone notices you.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
@pseudoscience sam the idiot crackpot seeking attention
drop the Stumpy Method of "Ignore and Deny"
except i gave you every opportunity to prove your point with evidence here, per your own request for polite scientific discourse
It's ALL about the science and discourse on that science by polite and respectful members who only want to keep it on the science
https://phys.org/...ter.html

i read every post and even gave you plenty of time to substantiate your claims

you only had to substantiate your claims using the original free, open access journal studies

or

link the post you stated you made with the requisite evidence

i am not the only one who can't find your 4 fatal flaws claim either

the MODS can't find it
the ADMIN can't find it
no user on PO has ever found it
Google can't find it

hell - you couldn't even find it

so... there is only one thing left to do, since you can't even abide by your own request
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
While doing research into @RC's claims that the voids aren't completely empty (risible in and of itself, no one ever claimed they are completely empty, just empty of features like filaments and large galaxy clusters-- @RC is lying again), I found a pretty interesting article published late last year on a study of the voids that adds some evidence to substantiate the AvERA model from the article we're commenting on here: https://arxiv.org...02.01784

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself, wrote an article on this in his Bad Astronomy blog on Slate magazine last December: http://www.slate....ons.html

Note that Phil shows yet again that @RC is lying about GRT and slandering Einstein.

(Readers should note that by "bad" I mean "extremely good," which probably dates me.)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
If anyone but @RC and me are still reading these comments, and would like to know exactly how these results from Sutter at OSU relate to the current article speak up and I'll explain it.

Meanwhile, news flash: @RC is lying again, and busted again.

Which all goes to show, @RC, that you should keep your stinking pie hole shut on your lies, because you brought this on yourself by lying; I only found this because I was checking on your lies. And it makes you look even stupider than you already did. Hoist by your own petard, I believe they call that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
@Stumpy. You are a waste of time, Stump. You can't even find where in this very thread, in my reply to @imfromcanada, I mentioned one most telling flaw of Bicep2 'exercise' from the get-go! If you can't find that 'under your very nose', then what hope have you of finding all the stuff you went out of your way to IGNORE and then DENY because you employ your Stump Method of 'looking': "TL ; DR" (ie, too long, didn't read). Leave off, Stumpy; you're a joke now. Be quiet and stop your time-wasting challenges for stuff you will again just ignore and deny, just as you have done too many times already...and I told you I am not going to waste my time looking through all the relevant threads/discussions just because you failed to do it for yourself all along. Stay ignorant and in denial, Stumpy....you made that bed now you lie in it. Maybe now you will not ignore instead of looking before you deny. Some hope!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2017
@RC posts again after having been proven to be lying for personal self-aggrandizement on this site. Shame on you, @RC. Apologize to the site before you widdle any more.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.

All you have done is be selective in what you 'find'; missing all the most important new discoveries/reviews which make all those claims/models MOOT. Because the huge quantities of ordinary matter in both filaments AND so-called 'voids' regions implies all those exotic DM and dark energy "fudges" were UNNECESSARY and wrong from both a logics and physics perspective. Only 'theorists' believing in UNreal things like BB, Inflation/Expansion/Accelerating-Expansion etc are the ones still HOPING to write more 'papers' to fill the literature with more PUBLISH-OR-PERISH 'hack crap' (just as the Bicep2 'team' tried but failed because observers like me were onto it like a shot while 'mainstream peers' were pussyfooting around and trying to put a brave face on that fiasco.

As for "keeping your pie hole shut", it was the advice I gave you, based on the many instances when you were wrong all along yet still accused me of lying etc. You 'conveniently forget'; so never learn.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2017
@RC, as long as you keep posting here without apologizing for your self-aggrandizing lies, I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in it just like a puppy who requires consistent discipline before they learn anything.

Quite simply, you have no response to the paper I found and you know it and I know it and the proof is you keep trying to make this about process instead of about the facts. Sniff the widdle, @RC. You're lying again, @RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC posts again after having been proven to be lying for personal self-aggrandizement on this site. Shame on you, @RC. Apologize to the site before you widdle any more.
Posters who boast about NOT READING what is posted to them, and then open their big mouth in more self-inflicted ignorance, are just the types which made for the Bicep2 fiasco and all the Inflation crap that has infested the literature for decades. If Da Schneib had been a scientist/physicist he would have fit right in with that Bicep2 'team'; so enamoured with their own 'superiority' while regurgitating BAD (really bad) OLD and INCORRECT orthodoxy assumptions/models and interpretations, that they failed to notice where they were going WRONG from the get-go! Da Schneib, it is your studied self-inflicted ignorant, arrogant disregard for ALL the new info that makes you so silly pretending to be in any way objective or informed in the NEW state of affairs in astrophysics/cosmology. Learn, DS.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 15, 2017
@RC
Are you feeling ok there, Larry? :)
Come on over sometime and we can talk about it. You can play with my rubber ducky! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
Sorry, @RC, you made the widdle on the carpet, now you gotta sniff it because you've proven over and over that nothing else works with you.

You lied about voids, and the evidence needs to be posted in response to everything you say, and will be until you admit to it and apologize to the site for lying for your own self-aggrandizement.

The paper that shows @RC is lying is available here: https://arxiv.org...02.01784

Research into cosmic voids is ongoing. No one has disproven them. You're lying again, @RC. Sniff the widdle, puppy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
@Seeker
@RC
Are you feeling ok there, Larry? :)
Come over sometime and we'll talk about it. You can play with my rubber ducky!
Is it a 'real' rubber ducky or an 'abstract/metaphorical' rubber ducky, Seeker2? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
@RC, you have lied here for your own personal self-aggrandizement, and are trying to distract from it. You are dishonest, @RC. You are dishonorable, @RC. You are lying again, @RC. Sniff the widdle, puppy. Sorry folks but this is the only way they learn. Otherwise they'll widdle on the carpet and you get to clean it up over and over again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You've tried that tactics before, DS. You came a cropper every time, when you finally found you had been wrong all along and me correct, while you insulted etc like above. You don't read, yet post totally non sequitur comments and attempts to save face and pretend it's me not you behind the times re the new mainstream state of affairs re astrophysics, cosmology and even quantum physics. Boast about not reading, then open your big self-created ignorant mouth. The Stump Method (TL ;DR, plus insults in ignorance) is 'strong in you', DS. Poor sod.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2017
@RC
Are you feeling ok there, Larry? :)
Come on over sometime and we'll talk about it. You can play with my rubber ducky!
Is it a 'real' rubber ducky or an 'abstract/metaphorical' rubber ducky, Seeker2? :)
It seems real enough. But it speaks in tongues.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
@RC, you have no real research to point to. You've been challenged to provide it and have nothing but your process BS. You don't understand the meaning of A = A; how can you pretend to understand galaxy clusters, cosmic voids, the filamentary structure of the universe, dark matter, and dark energy? Why would you think anyone would believe you if you don't get A = A?

Seriously.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
@DA Schneib.
@RC, you have no real research to point to. You've been challenged to provide it and have nothing but your process BS.
I have been posting on it for years now. You and your gang buddies have been so arrogant and insulting and intentionally IGNORING and NOT READING it; instead employing the STUMPY METHOD FOR NOT informing yourselves all along. That is why there have been so many instances where you attacked me but then found that you were wrong and me correct all along. You never learn, DS; thanks to your 'convenient amnesia' about your wrongheadedness while insulting. Your forgetful-ego allows you to delude yourself that Bicep2 fiasco 'never happened'; and that Prof Paul Steinhardt 'never admitted' INFLATION had been unscientifically 'built into the literature' for decades!
Why would you think anyone would believe you if you don't get A = A?
Take a look at my post in: https://phys.org/...ole.html

Shock!
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 15, 2017
@RC
Your forgetful-ego allows you to delude yourself that ...Prof Paul Steinhardt 'never admitted' INFLATION had been unscientifically 'built into the literature' for decades!
I cannot parse this sentence. So perhaps you could tell us how does Penrose feel about this, O Mightly Maharishi? Just wondering. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
Still waiting for @RC to post these supposed research results being published that prove there aren't any cosmic voids.

>crickets
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
Your forgetful-ego allows you to delude yourself that ...Prof Paul Steinhardt 'never admitted' INFLATION had been unscientifically 'built into the literature' for decades!
I cannot parse this sentence. So perhaps you could tell us how does Penrose feel about this, O Mightly Maharishi? Just wondering. :)
If you're looking for a Maharishi, you've come to the wrong site, Seeker2. I'm a objective observer using the Scientific Method not Religion or Philosophy.

Re "what Sir Roger Penrose thinks": Have you yet encountered his 'change of opinion' re the question, "What came before the big bang?" He finally had to admit it WAS a valid question to anyone hypothesizing an abstraction like a Big Bang scenario 'beginning'. He/other mainstream cosmologists who promulgated BB used to dismiss that question as 'meaningless because there was no before'. He has since admitted that was a WEASELY EVASION.

Now Steinhardt admits NO INFLATION!

Slowly, REALITY sinks in.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Still waiting for @RC to post these supposed research results being published that prove there aren't any cosmic voids.

>crickets
Keep twisting and denying, DS. That's all you've been doing. Just like all those times before when you were wrong yet attacked and insulted in ignorance, only to eventually find you WERE ignorant and not up to speed with the reality under your nose which even mainstream are slowly, finally, discovering/reviewing and confirming me correct on many fronts. While you play your STUMP METHOD games of ignoring, denying and insulting while being all-kinds-of-WRONG. Do you ever listen and learn, DS; or is your ego so tied up with the 'games' you play that you cannot 'afford' to lose else your whole ego-tripping 'house of cards' comes crashing down around your deaf ears? Seems like it, judging from the resort to ignore, deny, insult tactics of longstanding.

DS, take a long break. Catch up on your CORRECT reading/understanding. Learn.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
No research results.

You lied, @RC, and there's nothing else to be said.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You tried that tactic before, DS; too many times now; it failed every time; because you attacked/insulted while being wrong all along. Have you 'forgotten' those instances, DS? Easy, to do that, for someone who has 'convenient amnesia' and a big insulting mouth to go with it...and a 'talent' for being wrong as he insults those who know/understand more than you.

Learn, DS.

Take a break and read up on the correct science/logics and REAL things instead of being lost in your abstracts-parroting old-orthodoxy regurgitator's 'world' where reality never intrudes. Take care, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
No links, @RC. You're lying and doubling down.

It's over, @RC. There isn't any process argument you can make when you lied.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@RC, there are no links because there is no research. You lied. You got caught. It's over.
RealityCheck
Apr 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@RC, you lied. You know you lied. There is no place to hide. Everyone can see it, and they will because I'll be including the link to it in every response I make to you from now on. The more you post, the more people will see it.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html
RealityCheck
Apr 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.


Challenged multiple times to produce links to this supposed research, @RC has so far failed to show such links, show such research, or admit it doesn't exist.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You missed it all, intentionally, while you boasted about not reading or even trying to get up to date with recent mainstream discovery/reviews. Your tactics are stale and failed many times before. Remember? I am not responsible for your own negligence and self-inflicted ignorance, DS. Stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@RC, there isn't anything I missed. You lied, @RC. It's all there in black and white.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
Da Schneib.

Still digging, DS? You remember what happened all those other times you tried these tactics while being wrong all along? Don't you ever learn, DS? Stop digging!
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@RC
Re "what Sir Roger Penrose thinks": Have you yet encountered his 'change of opinion' re the question, "What came before the big bang?" He finally had to admit it WAS a valid question to anyone hypothesizing an abstraction like a Big Bang scenario 'beginning'. He/other mainstream cosmologists who promulgated BB used to dismiss that question as 'meaningless because there was no before'. He has since admitted that was a WEASELY EVASION.
So we all admit there was something before the BB. And somehow this implies no inflation?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Seeker2.

The point was to demonstrate a 'timeline' of how BB and related hypotheses/fixes are being falsified/denied, albeit ever so slowly, by the very people who were instrumental in the early days of establishing such UNreal things into the literature for so long. First came the admission that BB was NOT a 'beginning'; and hence became just another hypothesized stage in an ETERNAL and INFINITE universal process. That was the first mainstream recognition that REALITY explanations require more than just those old abstract philosophical/metaphysical notions/maths. Then came Prof Paul Steinhardt's admission that INFLATION (a previously 'necessary' fix to make BB 'fit' with observed 'flatness' of space on the cosmic scale) was also NOT a REAL thing, but an equally abstract philosophical/metaphysical notion/maths without a shred of tenable scientific support for it; yet was built into all BB-related and CMB/DM/DE type 'explanations' just as UNREAL as what went before. Ok?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
No, @RC, I remember all those other times you lied. That's what I remember.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
...INFLATION (a previously 'necessary' fix to make BB 'fit' with observed 'flatness' of space on the cosmic scale) was also NOT a REAL thing, but an equally abstract philosophical/metaphysical notion/maths without a shred of tenable scientific support for it; yet was built into all BB-related and CMB/DM/DE type 'explanations' just as UNREAL as what went before. Ok?
So what went before was unreal. What would that be? What should it be, if anything?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@pseudoscience sam the idiot crackpot seeking attention
I'm a objective observer using the Scientific Method not Religion or Philosophy
[sic]
LOL
so then why can't you substantiate your claims with links or references?

if you used the scientific method, you would be able to do this

to date, you've posted 6,471 times without validating your 4 fatal flawsvfor BICEP2 alone

(and before you bring up your singular point to imfrimcanada, a single point without substantiation or references is still just a claim based upon your beliefs - http://www.auburn...ion.html )

Hell, you can't even validate your claims in the above thread!

"Keep twisting and denying, rc. That's all you've been doing. Just like all those times before when you were wrong yet attacked and insulted in ignorance, only to eventually find you WERE ignorant and not up to speed with the reality under your nose" [sic]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
What it comes down to with the Big Bang is that it's necessary to explain the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and is the inevitable consequence of running the expansion of the universe backward.

The CMB is very uniform, which it could not be if it were not all generated at the same time. In order for the CMB to exist and have the character it does, there must have been a period of time in the past when the universe was radiation dominated; today it's matter dominated. The CMB comes from the time when it switched.

If we run the expansion of the universe backward, we can see that there was indeed such a time, so the CMB is explained (and was the first hard evidence of the Big Bang). We can also see that at a time about 13.6 billion years ago the density had to keep climbing to the point where we exceed the energies where we understand what physics says about what will happen.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
That time, 13.6 billion years ago, was when the Big Bang happened.

Cosmic inflation (according to current ΛCDM theory, the Standard Model of Cosmology) occurred before the Big Bang. In this theory, the universe starts as a vacuum fluctuation in an unknown pre-existing background space of unknown character. The only requirements for it are that it be capable of having vacuum fluctuations, and that those fluctuations be capable of having a cosmological constant. Whether it has time or not is unknown and may be unknowable; all our universe has come from that vacuum fluctuation, and only the cosmological constant of that fluctuation gives us any clue to the properties of that background.

This particular vacuum fluctuation had a high negative cosmological constant. It's conjectured that other fluctuations could occur that didn't; they would result in universes very different from ours.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
Relativity says that a space with a high enough cosmological constant would expand exponentially; that is, it would grow from the size of a quantum fluctuation to tens of billions of light years in an extremely short fraction of a second. The high cosmological constant, however, is unstable, and eventually decays (and that also happens in a very short fraction of a second, but not as fast as the expansion). This exponential expansion is cosmic inflation.

When the cosmological constant decays (a process called vacuum decay), all of its energy has to go somewhere; and it does. It's dumped into the space that's created by the inflation. This is the Big Bang, where the energy dumped from the inflaton (which is the name for the cosmological constant) appears in the universe.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
As with the original high cosmological constant potentially being different from the one in the vacuum fluctuation that created our universe, also, the amount of inflation that had occurred before the vacuum decay could also differ in other universes, and this would mean that other universes different from ours could form this way too. The vacuum decay occurs at a random time; much later or much earlier than ours did, and you get another, different universe.

People who hear about the Big Bang tend to visualize it as an event happening at a single point; this is incorrect. It happened all over all of space, at a particular time (according to the meaning of "time" in our universe). By the time the Big Bang occurred, space (in our universe) was already at least 40 billion light years across.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
[contd]
We know this because we can see it; if it weren't so then we'd be able to see galaxies that obey different physical laws, and their spectra would contain anomalous spectral lines. No such anomalous spectral lines have ever been detected. Ane we'd see them if they were there; we have spectra for literally millions of galaxies, and spectra of very distant galaxies are very carefully examined. They're the most interesting ones.

So to recap, what we know has to have happened (because we can see it both in telescopes and by measuring the CMB) is
vacuum fluctuation -> inflation -> vacuum decay -> Big Bang -> our universe

This is the ΛCDM theory.

Readers should note that the Wikipedia articles on this subject do not represent the consensus view of ΛCDM but instead present an alternative view where inflation occurs after the Big Bang. This is not the consensus view.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
Big Bang deniers (and inflation deniers too) generally misrepresent this theory in various creative ways in order to pretend there is uncertainty of some sort (this is called FUD). However, the evidence supporting this theory is very strong, and includes not only the existence of the CMB and the retrodiction of the Big Bang from universal expansion, but many other pieces of data including galaxy spectra, small deviations in the uniformity of the CMB, and our growing (and already extensive) understanding of particle physics.

Ultimately such denials either use philosophy (which is capable of "proving" that nothing exists) or deliberate misrepresentations of the data (indicating either dishonesty or incompetence).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Seeker2.
...INFLATION (a previously 'necessary' fix to make BB 'fit' with observed 'flatness' of space on the cosmic scale) was also NOT a REAL thing, but an equally abstract philosophical/metaphysical notion/maths without a shred of tenable scientific support for it; yet was built into all BB-related and CMB/DM/DE type 'explanations' just as UNREAL as what went before. Ok?
So what went before was unreal. What would that be? What should it be, if anything?
You misunderstand, Seeker2. Read it again, parsing better if you can. It is the BB-related and subsequent CMB/DM/DE 'explanations' which were all unreal due to the pseudoscience nature of the hypotheses on which these so-called 'explanations' were based. As Penrose and Steinhardt have finally admitted. Remember?

And since the BB is a furphie admitted by those that promulgated it in the early years, then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Why keep regurgitating what can be 'read off' wiki? That's all OLD now. Keep up with new mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews.

You keep sounding like all those other HACK 'science writers' regurgitating behind-the-times crapola being falsified by mainstream itself even as those hacks write!

It is apparent you do NOT keep up to date, DS; because you keep 'believing' in INFLATION and other crocks DESPITE Prof Paul Steinhardt's ADMISSION that INFLATION has NO tenable scientific support; NEVER HAD for the DECADES it has been built into the literature as 'accepted, scientific'. It NEVER WAS such.

As for the rest of your BB 'spiel', it's all conjecture; especially the now FALSIFIED OLD claims that: "only BB/Inflation can explain CMB".

DS, seek help/cure for your PARROTING SYNDROME; it's painful as well as embarrassing to watch you regurgitate so much.

Start updating yourself on ACTUAL REAL knowledge, lose those BB 'acolyte' beliefs!

And stop digging!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
@RC has been proven to lie.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.


I wouldn't believe anything @RC says. @RC lies for personal aggrandizement without shame.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
You missed something, DS.

Read it.

And then, stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
@RC you're still playing process games. There aren't any more process games to play. You lied. All you have to do is produce the links. No links = you lied. Perhaps that's an equation you can figure out.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

It's all in your head, DS. You have been constructing your own 'version' of the reality of what has transpired over years now. If you keep this up in the face of such overwhelming evidence of your failure to keep up, then you are irretrievably lost to reason, DS. Not good. Get up to date with the actual real stuff mainstream is recently discovering/reviewing. Do it, CS. Stop using those old tactics; they failed you for too long now. Time to face the reality as it is not as you believed it to be based on old BB etc unrealities. Learn. Get up to speed on reality.

And....stop digging!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, non complaints.

Skippy if you have not treed that critter yet, it's time to get a new dog or find something else to hunt. You ain't going to catch him Cher.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@RC
...then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?
So in reality what happened 13.8 billion years ago. Anything significant?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, non complaints.

Skippy if you have not treed that critter yet, it's time to get a new dog or find something else to hunt. You ain't going to catch him Cher.
Not trying to "catch him"; he 'caught himself' long ago. His unconscious 'twitches' are painful to watch. Hopefully he will recover from that and do better next time.

Glad to hear you and yours are ok. Try to keep out of (serious) trouble, ok? Regards to Mrs Skippy and family.

PS; Have you any (serious) observations to make re the science/logics of the article topic?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
PS; Have you any (serious) observations to make re the science/logics of the article topic?


You mean more than the usual observations of your (serious) mental conditions? Non, you got it covered real good.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC
..then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?
So in reality what happened 13.8 billion years ago. Anything significant?
Who is it that claims "something happened 13.8 billion years ago", Seeker2.?

Not me!

Ask the hypothesizers of 'unreal events' to scientifically support their claims that something happened 13.8 billion years ago. But be careful; the 'assumptions and explanations' so far have been increasingly found to be based on philosophical/metaphysical 'notions' having no real scientific basis for support (especially recall Penrose and Steinhardt's recent backpedalling re BB and Inflation 'unreal' claims).

In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings' except for sub/local energy-space regions/processes. That is all we can observe and study at present. Further logical extensions based on real not unreal conjectures/extrapolations now needed. Ok?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
Steinhardt's recent
You sure you want to be dragging him into this Cher? After his recent comments about you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Steinhardt's recent
You sure you want to be dragging him into this Cher? After his recent comments about you?
Have you missed what he said about Inflation? That is what counts on a science discourse site. Your Uncle Ira's 'imaginary dialogue in a bot-voting ignoramus's so-called mind' is neither here nor there.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings'


I got to ask Cher. Since you have made such a big deal about it with DaSchneib-Skippy for a long time now. I thought you got some a toe that does away with Eternal/Infinite/Zeros/Infinites? Have you changed your mind about the Infinities you said doesn't exist (in the last 20 minutes)?

If you got "NO 'beginnings'", that makes your 1st Principle Infinity. Axiom your way out of that one Cher.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
Your Uncle Ira's 'imaginary dialogue in a bot-voting ignoramus's so-called mind' is neither here nor there.
You can call me names if you want, it don't hurt my feelings none at all. But the Stienhardt-Skippy is not a bot-vote ignoramus, he is a real scientist like you are not. He also said your "insights"/"observations"/"gobbledygook" was demented. Demented was his word, not mine.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings'
I thought you got some a toe that does away with Eternal/Infinite/Zeros/Infinites? Have you changed your mind about the Infinities you said doesn't exist (in the last 20 minutes)?
You missed the point of that exchange. His "infinity(s)" were ABSTRACT mathematical/philosophical/metaphysical 'objects'; not THE ACTUAL universal infinity of REALITY. There is no 'abstract substitute' for that ONE REAL INFINITY....ie THE UNIVERSE. Ok?

Your Uncle Ira's 'imaginary dialogue in a bot-voting ignoramus's so-called mind' is neither here nor there.
But the Stienhardt-Skippy is not a bot-vote ignoramus,... He also said your "insights"/"observations"/"gobbledygook" was demented.
It was his professional theorist peers who have been "demented"; else he wouldn't have had to set them straight re the INFLATION 'beliefs' having no scientific support. He never mentioned me, Ira.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
REPOST to CORRECT ADDRESSEE:

@Seeker2.
then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?
So in reality what happened 13.8 billion years ago. Anything significant?
Who is it that claims "something happened 13.8 billion years ago"?

Not me!

Ask hypothesizers of 'unreal events' to scientifically support their claims 'something happened 13.8 billion years ago'. But be careful; the 'assumptions and explanations' so far have been increasingly found to be based on philosophical/metaphysical 'notions' having no real scientific basis for support (especially recall Penrose and Steinhardt's recent backpedalling re BB and Inflation 'unreal' claims).

In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings' except for sub/local energy-space regions/processes. That is all we can observe and study at present. Further logical extensions based on real not unreal conjectures/extrapolations now needed. Ok?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
He never mentioned me, Ira.
You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. He is one of the nice scientists that actually answers email questions, even from couyons like me after he realized I was not just goofing around with him because I talk funny.

He does not say what you think he says about the cosmologists and astrophysicists. I asked him particular. I even showed him excerpts of your gobbledygook here about what he says. And he said he could not tell what in the world you were trying to say, that you sounded demented. AND he had great big fun like everybody else with your username.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
He never mentioned me, Ira.
You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. He is one of the nice scientists that actually answers email questions, even from couyons like me after he realized I was not just goofing around with him because I talk funny. .....I asked him particular. I even showed him excerpts of your gobbledygook here about what he says. And he said he could not tell what in the world you were trying to say, that you sounded demented.
He responded to incomplete version and your own misunderstandings/misrepresentations out of context (over YEARS). Your 'demented' and admitted bot-voting and ignorant claims is well known, Ira. Don't add to that bad rep by playing games with serious matters you have no comprehension of.

Steinhardt admitted to his peers: "Inflation NOT real/supported scientifically".

Effectively AGREEING with my LONGSTANDING scientific/logical observations re that.

In light of that REAL FACT, Ira, your personal games irrelevant.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
Well if believing that kind of stuffs gets you through your day, it's harmless enough. But just remember, it's all in your head and you are the only one that is enlightened enough to know it.

Anyhoo, I am going to watch two or one of my Leverage videos before I start my watch. Try not to be so disrespectful to the real scientists while you are fooling around on the physorg (I though you started the Earthman Club for playing scientist, is it closed for repairs?)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Well if believing that kind of stuffs gets you through your day, it's harmless enough. But just remember, it's all in your head and you are the only one that is enlightened enough to know it.
In truly objective science method, science discourse (as I strictly adhere to the principles of) there's NO room for 'beliefs', Ira.

The fact is recorded history; of internet science forum posts I've made for years before Penrose/Steinhardt admitted the un-reality of what they had been proposing/promulgating for so long despite there being no actual objective scientifically tenable evidence for it all, only naive/simplistic/wrong assumptions/models/interpretations 'passed' by a BROKEN 'Peer Review' system.

Obviously; else they wouldn't have taken so long to SELF-CORRECT, would they?

So Ira... FACT: I was correct all along!

Being self-enlightened by one's own hard work often results in being correct, Ira.

PS: Don't fall asleep or fall overboard, Ira. Take care.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@RC
Further logical extensions based on real not unreal conjectures/extrapolations now needed. Ok?
Could be. So no BB, no inflation. Any expansion?
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@RC
Who is it that claims "something happened 13.8 billion years ago", Seeker2.?

Not me!
Not me either. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
@RC
Ask the hypothesizers of 'unreal events' to scientifically support their claims that something happened 13.8 billion years ago.,,,Ok?
Ok. Who might these hypothesizers be?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
@Seeker2.

I recently reminded of what mainstream researchers are finding out about the previous Supernovae assumptions, claims, models for estimating distances based on redshift etc. Mainstream is coming round to what I have been observing for years: redshift and SN 'distance ladder' techniques/extrapolations FLAWED; models circuitous; interpretations naive/wrong. Most telling admission being that nearby SN can be mistaken for distant SN because redshift values were assumed to increase with the distance; but not so! Basically, all previous SN/Redshift based models/interpretations (ie, so-called 'expansion' and 'accelerated expansion') are now highly suspect; and as such can no longer be treated as 'fact'.

IN SUMMARY:

- Penrose admits BIG BANG not scientifically supported;

- Steinhardt admits INFLATION not scientifically supported;

- Mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews finding SUPERNOVA/DISTANCE LADDER techniques UNFIT for concluding 'expansion' etc.

Good luck.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
@RC, no, it's not "all in my head." It's all in the science papers, which you are incompetent to understand because you're innumerate, and because you make up lies.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
@RC, you're lying again. Stop citing Steinhardt; he called your weirdo philosophical pseudo science "demented."

As for Steinhardt's objections to inflation, he is an iconoclast: that rare, valuable scientist who goes against the mainstream. He is not some demented goon who makes up lies and claims to be able to do physics when he is innumerate; in fact, Steinhardt is an accomplished mathematician, as all who are accomplished theorists must be.

It has been difficult for physicists to accept that quantum mechanics is only deterministic stochastically; it is difficult for Steinhardt to accept that cosmology may also be stochastic. This does not mean he is right; it does not mean he is wrong. Ultimately the physics community has had to accept that QM can only predict outcomes over an ensemble; for now, the cosmology community accepts the same for universes.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
[contd]
I disagree with Steinhardt; I think he's missed a very important point, which is that the universe we see is there for us to see it because it is not inimical to the formation of us. I think inflation is the one big idea that makes what we see actually work, and I think he makes a mistake not to accept it. But I do not think he is lying, I do not think he is trivially wrong, and I do not think he is incompetent or deluded. Answering his objections is important to gaining further understanding of cosmology, and his work is valuable because it asks the hard questions.

What I object to is you using him in your demented innumerate fantasies. Apparently he does as well. I'd stop using him as a stalking horse if I were you; @Ira may actually convince him to come on here and denounce you in person. It depends I suppose on how important he thinks it is, and I wouldn't care to predict that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
Congratulations to @Ira for actually contacting Steinhardt directly to ask whether @RC is lying or not; I can't imagine the real Steinhardt is pleased at being used as a stalking horse by a psychotic. I respect your persistence in convincing the man that you were not a crank, just trying to deal with one. It can't have been easy.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
@RC
- Mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews finding SUPERNOVA/DISTANCE LADDER techniques UNFIT for concluding 'expansion' etc.

Good luck.
I'm thinking if the ladder techniques are unfit for measuring the Hubble constant, then you're saying no expansion. Right? So the number of red-shifted galaxies should pretty well match the number of blue-shifted galaxies. Right?
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
@DS
...I can't imagine the real Steinhardt is pleased at being used as a stalking horse by a psychotic.
Maybe just by the Flat Earth Society, perhaps?
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
So the number of red-shifted galaxies should pretty well match the number of blue-shifted galaxies. Right?
Just wondering. Could this number be used to calculate some kind of a statistical estimate of the Hubble constant? Actually you would have to look at the actual distribution of red/blue shifts.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
If the universe is expanding, the number of red-shifted galaxies should far outnumber the number of blue shifted galaxies.

They do.

Just sayin'.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 17, 2017
Actually you would have to look at the actual distribution of red/blue shifts.
The idea being for any given Hubble constant, calculate the expected distribution, and continue until you find the best match to the actual data. Assuming you can calculate an expected distribution for any given Hubble constant.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
Congratulations to @Ira for actually contacting Steinhardt directly to ask whether @RC is lying or not; I can't imagine the real Steinhardt is pleased at being used as a stalking horse by a psychotic. I respect your persistence in convincing the man that you were not a crank, just trying to deal with one. It can't have been easy.


Yeah, Really-Skippy tried that before. A couple of years back he got into his head that he would impress people with throwing around Sean-Carrol-Skippy. He spent months trying to tell us that Carrol-Skippy finally got smart by reading Really-Skippy on the interweb.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Forum.

Wow! The 'gang' of bot-voting ignpramuses is 'active' in their ignorance/lies based 'chatter'. Who would have thought that trolls ignorant of just about every important development/implication in the last ten years could be so 'certain' and 'loud' in attacking me, who has had to teach them what they missed all for years, while they were busy 'enjoying' gang-based bot-voting, trolling while being so irretrievably ignorant, malignant to science and scientific discourse?

Consider 'gang' in question....

Gangmember 1): Da Schneib; who until recently didn't know cosmic scale 'masering' features existed; or that plasmoids and flux tubes were part of sun's processes; or that Non-Keplerian matter/orbtal distributions/regimes existed in spiral galaxies; or that Carrol and Perlmutter agreed the universal extent is found to be flat-and-hence-infinite/eternal; or that Plasmonic surface/edge'slit/groove energy/processes are responsible for two-slit etc experiment results;

cont
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
cont reb Da Schneib:

; missed all the recent astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews re ORDINARY matter etc; missed all the long-known philosophical/metaphysical 'notions' that infested current maths/physics axioms/postulates set, and math/physics theories which are based on same; is totally ignorant of even the most basic understanding of ALL THE OBVIOUS FLAWS in the current distance ladder and redshift 'methodologies/interpretations of observations and who keeps attacking and insulting while deluded he 'knows' anything worth knowing abut the actual real situation evolving right under his nose while he maintains the 'faith' and 'spiels' of increasingly falsified/questionable OLD 'orthodoxy' which the MAINTSREAM is gradually discarding as we speak! THAT is the one accusing me of lies, ignorance, whatever else comes into his eg-tripping, face-saving attempts to 'impress his admirers' among the bot-voting ignoramus 'gang' who rate his posts '5' regardless of how WRONG he is!

cont
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
cont

Gangmember 2): Captain Stumpy; inventor and main practitioner of "STUMP METHOD FOR IGNORING DENYING, INSULTING WHILE REMAINING CLUELESS", his 'personal' substitute for the scientific method; and which has now infected many other bot-voing trolling 'gang' members (including DS above).

Gangmember 3), 4), 5): Uncle Ira, tooty, lite; who have been most assiduous bot-account users to skew ratings/feedback metrics on this site; a self-demonstrable dead loss all round there!

Assorted Other 'members' of that 'gang': who have at various stages, various threads, condoned that 'gang' behavior, and enjoyed the '5' garnered from same, irrespective of being NOT up to date and just plain WRONG on many fronts!

Now THESE ask YOU to 'believe' their lies about me and my correct work/posts, over the years to date. They have been demonstrated wrong by mainstream, and myself, so many times now that it borders on 'mass delusion' for that 'gang' to persist in their malignancy.

cont

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
cont

As for Penrose/Steinhardt ADMISSIONS re Big Bang/Inflation: How can the PO bot-voting ignoramus 'gangmembers' STILL be in denial of the obvious/serious implications for OLD hypotheses/claims built into the literature for decades as 'fact'; and so infecting all subsequent 'exercises'/interpretations based on such WRONG notions and metaphysics 'passed by peer review' into the supposedly scientific literature?

And how can anyone STILL pretend there is any 'truth/authority' value in any of their/others' comments, about MY work/insights etc; by gangs and/or professionals who have ADMITTEDLY demonstrably failed for DECADES now, to substantiate scientifically their philosophical/metaphysical NOTIONS being now gradually falsified by newer mainstream discovery/review?

Easy! They are ignoramus 'gang' or 'failed professionals'. Recall how 'certain' these PO 'gang' were, attacking me for suggesting they OBJECTIVELY check out obviously flawed Bicep2 'work/claims'!

Nuff said!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
Seeker2.
@RC
- Penrose admits BIG BANG not scientifically supported;

- Steinhardt admits INFLATION not scientifically supported;

- Mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews finding SUPERNOVA/DISTANCE LADDER techniques UNFIT for concluding 'expansion' etc.
I'm thinking if the ladder techniques are unfit for measuring the Hubble constant, then you're saying no expansion. Right? So the number of red-shifted galaxies should pretty well match the number of blue-shifted galaxies. Right?
Let the above observations/facts in their combined context/implications tell you what to conclude, Seeker2. That's what objective observers would do. Recall too, that Hubble HIMSELF was 'uncomfortable' about the naive/simplistic application/extrapolation by OTHERS of his redshift data in the ABSENCE of ACTUAL knowledge of the LOCAL conditions AT the sources being observed. Recently I quoted to Da Schneib mainstream admission that Redshift data can LUMP together NEAR AND FAR SNs!

cont
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Hey Cher, you hurt my feelings,,,,,

Gangmember 3), 4), 5): Uncle Ira, tooty, lite; who have been most assiduous bot-account users to skew ratings/feedback metrics on this site; a self-demonstrable dead loss all round there!


Why you not give me my own separate comment/section/paragraph/post like the DaSchnieb-Skippy and the Captain-Skippy. Why you crowd me in with the other two Skippys who don't even ever having anything to say?

Nuff said!
I hope you don't get upset or anything, but I for one do not believe that part. You always got something else to say, even if it is something you already said a 100 times already this month.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,,,,,

cont.
See there? I told you that you never ever saw the day where you said enough.

You remember that day you told me good bye about 30 or 25 times one night? If I am remembering it right, you did that to me for three or two days.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
cont @Seeker2.

Note that DS has AVOIDED mention of that mainstream fact; so denies that it ever happened; so he can continue to lie, mislead, not only himself, but the rest of the 'gang' whose critical objective faculties have been 'wanting' for too long now; thanks to their pitiful adherence to the "Stump Method" for ignoring, denying, insulting and remaining blissfully ignorant while sabotaging/skewing discussion/metrics on this science site!

Anyhow, point: IF near/far SNs 'redshift' data can be SO 'mixed up'; how can BILLIONS of lightyears DISTANT 'galaxies/cluster' redshift data be 'reliable' enough to use for models/ladders etc; without ALSO knowing what INTRINSIC LOCAL VARIABLES may be effecting dust/gravitational etc-caused redshifting having NOTHING TO DO WITH DISTANCE OR EXPANSION CLAIMS?...as for the SNs case (mainstream studies admiting near-and-far SN 'redshift' due to LOCAL conditions/variables 'at source' (system mass/dust/dynamics history etc).

Ok, Seeker2?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Hey Cher, you hurt my feelings,,,,,

Gangmember 3), 4), 5): Uncle Ira, tooty, lite; who have been most assiduous bot-account users to skew ratings/feedback metrics on this site; a self-demonstrable dead loss all round there!


Why you not give me my own separate comment/section/paragraph/post like the DaSchnieb-Skippy and the Captain-Skippy. Why you crowd me in with the other two Skippys who don't even ever having anything to say?
Because what you've had to say is 'commensurate' (in terms of 'uselessness' to science/humanity) with what they've have had to say, i: not anything of value except to fellow bot-voting ignoramuses doing bot-voting here and skewing the PO metrics.

Actually, Ira, your commentary/trolling/cluttering etc 'contribution' makes you WORSE than the other bot-voting trolls; because you ALSO SABOTAGE thread discussions, stalk, lie etc. Shame on you, Ira.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2017
Actually, Ira, your commentary/trolling/cluttering etc 'contribution' makes you WORSE than the other bot-voting trolls; because you ALSO SABOTAGE thread discussions, stalk, lie etc. Shame on you, Ira.
You tell the GREAT BIG LIE again Skippy. I did not ALSO SABOTAGE anything. Maybe your computer is acting up, or maybe you don't know how to use him, but that is something I did not have anything to do with.

I would rather be a bot-voter than a bot-gobbledygooker like you. Or a bot-liar like you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Actually, Ira, your commentary/trolling/cluttering etc 'contribution' makes you WORSE than the other bot-voting trolls; because you ALSO SABOTAGE thread discussions, stalk, lie etc. Shame on you, Ira.
You tell the GREAT BIG LIE again Skippy. I did not ALSO SABOTAGE anything....I would rather be a bot-voter than a bot-gobbledygooker like you. Or a bot-liar like you.
And there it is again, folks; admission Ira would rather be bot-voting ignoramus than do/learn anything of value to science/humanity advance/discourse.

Wow! The bot-voting ignoramus, too often snookered into admitting his lack of proper comprehension of subtle/complex matters being discussed on a science site, summons up YET STRONGER levels of insensibility, by pretending to characterize what he doesn't comprehend: "gobbledegook"!

Isn't the Universe astonishing, folks?

To manifest bot-voting insensibility at 'super duper strong' levels in a 'quantum vacuum' labeled "Uncle Ira"!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2017
Well that did not hurt my feeling Cher. How can you expect me to understand your "gobbledygook" when nobody else in the whole wide world does not either, eh? Even your current favorite scientist Steinhardt-Skippy said your stuff was demented ramblings (that means gobbledygook in case you did not know that.)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@ Really-Skippy

I'm off to watch some Leverage (or maybe one of the Blues Brothers, I got them too.) I will check with you tomorrow Cher.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

And yet they are now finally agreeing with what I have been posting here and elsewhere for years now. So that makes your ignorant bot-voting impressions and opinions about what is correct and what is 'gobbledegook' yet more bot-voting ignoramus clutter, useless to both science/humanity advance/discourse. Shame on you, Ira.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
@RC
INTRINSIC LOCAL VARIABLES may be effecting dust/gravitational etc-caused redshifting having NOTHING TO DO WITH DISTANCE OR EXPANSION CLAIMS?
The old tired light table thumpers. Local variables will not affect every line in the spectrum once the source has been identified. Pick the line with the least redshift and go with that data.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
@RC
...the universal extent is found to be flat-and-hence-infinite/eternal;...
So the universe is not folded back onto itself. Light just keeps going in straight lines forever and ever. This doesn't have anything to do with the universe being infinite because it hasn't been around forever and ever.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
INTRINSIC LOCAL VARIABLES may be effecting dust/gravitational etc-caused redshifting having NOTHING TO DO WITH DISTANCE OR EXPANSION CLAIMS?
The old tired light table thumpers.
Careful, Seeker2; you have conflated two totally different scenarios/hypotheses:

1) The "Tired Light" hypotheses is about the alleged loss of ENERGY by the radiation traveling across space over cosmic scale distances; whereas

2) RECENT recognition of LOCAL CONDITIONS at SNs/Galaxies/cluster etc AT 'emitting source' is NOW a mainstream realization which mainstream studies/papers have been done/written, and reported on by PO 'news item'.

Redshift due to LOCAL conditions at SN locations/dynamics/constituents etc VARY more than previous 'standard candle' assumptions implied. I quoted relevant mainstream comment re that NEW finding to DS in earlier exchanges (which he still avoids the implications of for assumptions re redshift of cosmically distant sources).

Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
...the universal extent is found to be flat-and-hence-infinite/eternal;...
So the universe is not folded back onto itself. Light just keeps going in straight lines forever and ever.
Eventually it must be 'recycled' via interactions with matter, wherein the energy may ionize atoms/molecules; promote chemical-type reactions to form organic and inorganic molecules (and in certain circumstances then dissociate/disintegrate same); and so on, as I already pointed out for Zerg's benefit.

This doesn't have anything to do with the universe being infinite because it hasn't been around forever and ever.
What objective, tenable, scientific evidence do you (or anyone else, including proponents of Big Bang type beginning/Expansion scenarios which have been lately admitted to be merely notional events in a universal phenomena set/process of infinite extent both in spatial and temporal terms) have for making such a declaration?

Beware OLD BB etc 'beliefs'.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 18, 2017
@RC
...it hasn't been around forever and ever.
What objective, tenable, scientific evidence do you ...have for making such a declaration?
If it was infinite light would be coming at you from every direction except under your feet. Other planets would also be illuminated I should think. Also moons. Could be no day or night.
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 18, 2017
cont
at least no night. Seems like it could get rather hot too. Would be impossible to search for other worlds in transit between us and their sun.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
@Seeker2.

You describe the 'expectations' that led to "Olbers's Paradox":

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

I have long since pointed out the MANY deep space contents/processes which, combined, explains it:

- deep space is replete with material which absorbs/attenuates or otherwise 'modifies' EM radiation flux across the whole spectrum (directly and/or via chemical reactions, aggregations/de-aggregations/re-radiations etc);

- much EM radiation is returned to Quantum Vacuum energy states via destructive interference over epochal time scales;

- many Extreme Gravitational features (BHs, NSs etc) REDSHIFT re-radiated energy previously falling onto their massive, gravitationally redshifting, surfaces/accretion discs; which continually occur, all over, at many scales, in an eternal/infinite universal process involving 'localized/extended recycling' of material AND 'attenuation of radiation' over vast deep space distances.

Ok?
Seeker2
not rated yet Apr 20, 2017
@RC
You describe the 'expectations' that led to "Olbers's Paradox":
Like I describe the expectations that lead to reality? Really? How so?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
You describe the 'expectations' that led to "Olbers's Paradox":
Like I describe the expectations that lead to reality? Really? How so?
Olbers's Paradox was NOT reality; since the 'expectation' on which it was based (ie, ALL light supposedly coming from infinity to 'here' would have been 'un-intercepted' and/or 'un-attenuated') was NOT reality; as I just pointed out why in my previous post.

PS: What do you mean by YOUR comment: "expectations that lead to reality", Seeker2; can you explain exactly what you meant by that please? Thanks.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
@RC Yes I expect reality which is how I see Olber's paradox. Else we have to have some intervening objects which block out (intercept or attenuate or whatever you call it) 99.???% of radiation completely while allowing us to observe the remainder. Call it black magic physics. More like religion than science, actually.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
cont
This supposedly paradox is discussed mathematically in Wikipedia. Looks real to me.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
cont
Does seem like a paradox. Intervening objects block out all radiation except that in our visible universe. Why us? Because we're special, I guess.

Note: 99.???% of an infinite amount is also an infinite amount so that should be changed to everything except what we observe.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
cont
Actually blocking out 99.???% of an infinite amount still leaves an infinite amount which is not what we observe. So that should be changed to everything less what we observe. Strange.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
cont
Another miracle - I don't believe we observe any gray regions in the visible universe. It's all or nothing. Right there in black and white or whatever spectrum it happens to be. Like radiation, red shifted or not, or no radiation. No gray radiation.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
cont
So we might say if we can detect it, it's there. Otherwise nothing. Zilch. Nada. Nichts.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
An important point made by Lawrence Krauss - We live in an age when people can see back to the dark ages before there were any visible objects. When the universe starts expanding again faster than the speed of light, people will no longer be able to see back to the dark ages, and won't know where they came from. Note that in the dark ages there certainly was radiation but no visible objects. No black and white.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
@Seeker2.
Yes I expect reality which is how I see Olber's paradox. Else we have to have some intervening objects which block out (intercept or attenuate or whatever you call it) 99.???% of radiation completely while allowing us to observe the remainder. Call it black magic physics. More like religion than science, actually.
Before you get carried away with abstract notions/unreal expectations, consider:

- Planck study found the dust even within our MW galaxy has a great effect on intensity/properties of light received by our telescopes/instruments;

- Some stars even within our MW galaxy are 'obscured' by the dusty 'birth nebulae' within and from which they formed, some stars were even invisible to us until better scopes came along;

- Extreme redshifting by bodies/processes we now know exist throughout our universe makes the observed 'light' so difficult to detect unless we have specialized instruments;

- now extrapolate above across BILLIONS of lightyears!

Ok?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
@RC
Extreme redshifting by bodies/processes we now know exist throughout our universe makes the observed 'light' so difficult to detect unless we have specialized instruments;
Extreme but limited by the time it's had to red shift from the dark ages. No limit about how much tired light would red shift after it's been around forever, however. Your specialized instruments would have to cover up to infinite wavelengths. Good luck.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2017
@Seeker, you've discerned a very important point: if the universe were steady-state and there was no expansion, and it had existed forever, then infinite energy would pour in from every direction. The inevitable conclusion is that the universe either cannot have existed for infinite time or is not expanding. We can see it's expanding. Therefore Big Bang. Simple as that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
@Da Schneib.
...if the universe were steady-state and there was no expansion, and it had existed forever, then infinite energy would pour in from every direction. The inevitable conclusion is that the universe either cannot have existed for infinite time or is not expanding. We can see it's expanding.
Your assertions are based on old assumptions now increasingly shown to have been naive/simplistic, and just plain wrong, by recent mainstream discovery/review which shows the universe if full of materials/processes at all scales/distances which effectively modify/attenuate etc the light from even near sources let alone from cosmically distant sources. Read what I have been pointing out for Seeker2, which effectively explains how and where your above assertions are old and obsolete/wrong, having no regard for the reality physics (recall that Planck confirmed even local attenuation by dust etc. Also, Penrose/Steinhartd admit NO scientific support for BB/Inflation/Expansion.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2017
@RC, not being able to count is a serious impediment to any claims you make on the science site. Believing that no one can have zero apples means you can't count.

I not only have zero apples, I also have zero watermelons, zero pears, zero cantaloupes, and zero persimmons. Not to mention I'm arguing with a zero on the science site.

Maybe someday, saved by zero,
I'll be more together.
Stretched by fewer thoughts that leave me.
Chasing after my dreams; disown me, loaded with danger.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Believing that no one can have zero apples means you can't count
I have zero apples right now, DS! So you are wrong on that as well, DS. :)

Abstract constructs are not the reality, DS; merely a repesentation in a number system/arithmetic conventions. Zero apples is an abstract computation, not the apples themselves (which may differ in mass and chemical proportions etc). Simplistic abstractions, DS. Understand yet?
Not to mention I'm arguing with a zero on the science site
That wasn't the point. You have had more than enough opportunities to realize the actual point. Why are you so stubborn, and also so nasty, when you are obviously wrong, DS?

Again:

Conventional unreal/abstractions based maths IS OK for treating/modeling such things as apple-counting etc.

It's NOT OK for treating/modeling a UNIVERSE...because conventional maths would treat/model Universes like Apples.

THERE IS NO REALITY in such maths as: Universe-Universe=0.

Learn, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2017
I hope you understand, @RC, that I am mocking you without ever actually reading what you say. I am reacting to the fact you posed, not what you posted.

I do not see a need to respond any more seriously to a person who not only can't count, but disparages counting.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@RC
...the universe if full of materials/processes at all scales/distances which effectively modify/attenuate etc the light from even near sources let alone from cosmically distant sources.
Note these materials or whatever will be absorbing an infinite amount of energy from every direction. And re-emitting it in the form of gamma rays. Bring your sun-tan lotion and sunglasses.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I am mocking you without ever actually reading what you say.
And there it is again, folks! The Da Schneib BOAST of NOT reading!

Is it any wonder REAL scientists are getting a bad rep due to ego-tripping types kneejeking NON-readers taking it upon themselves to 'defend science', yet break every rule of Objective, Balanced Scientific Method, Discourse!

DS don't you realize that, by your REFUSAL to read/understand, you are 'providing ammunition' to those looking for examples to cite when accusing 'scientists' of being biased ego-tripping hacks, preferring their OWN UN-reality instead of actually looking to see the reality and others' objective arguments for what they are, not what you 'strawmans' them into so you can continue ignoring, denying, insulting in self-imposed ignorance?

...a person who not only can't count, but disparages counting.
Untrue. You wouldn't know that, since you have NOT READ my rebuttals to that strawman of yours.

READ it ALL.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am just fine, thanks for asking.

Can you explain something for me about,,,,,
@Da Schneib.
I am mocking you without ever actually reading what you say.
And there it is again, folks! The Da Schneib BOAST of NOT reading!.


I usually read your all stuffs, they are great big fun for me. But not everybody has the time to fool around a lot like I have most days. If he only reads one or maybe two of your posts, out of, say, a 100,,, you got to admit Cher that he did not miss anything. You say the same stuffs over and over and over and over and never add anything that you have not already posted over and over and over and over before..

You been writing the exact same stuffs for years with nothing new. I know because I do read your stuffs, they are great big fun for me.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Add in a few more overs up there just to keep it honest.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@Seeker2.

Take a step back in the logic chain and see why your expectation/conclusion is a NON-sequitur.

Ok? Here we go...

FIRST LINK in the logic chain: ALL radiation starts out from some localised region of space involving an object/process producing radiation.

SECOND LINK: That radiation loses much to local/nearby dust, plasma, chemical reactions absorbing/redshifting its energy (producing complex chemicals, dissociating/disintegrating etc).

THIRD LINK: over VAST COSMIC distances, the losses mentioned in second link above have increased by many orders of magnitude by the time they arrive at YOUR locality for reception by instruments.

FOURTH LINK: Even within your LOCAL region dust etc continues to add to those losses (recall: Planck confirmed that IS the case, ok?).

See? Even before any radiation leaves local emission region, the energy losses/attenuations begin to mount; and by the time they arrive 'here' it is NOT "inifinitely bright".

Ok, Seeker2?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@ Really-Skippy.
Can you explain something for me about,,,
@Da Schneib.
I am mocking you without ever actually reading what you say.
And there it is again, folks! The Da Schneib BOAST of NOT reading!
I usually read your all stuffs, they are great big fun for me.
What does that matter, when you bot-vote and admit you don't understand any of it anyway? Hence why what you have chosen to do so far here is irrelevant/malignant to science/humanity advance/discourse.
You say the same stuffs over and over...and never add anything that you have not already posted over and over...
Would a self-condemned bot-voting ignoramus know/discern between what has been posted and any new additions to same? No.
You been writing the exact same stuffs for years...
You wouldn't know; since you're a demonstrable bot-voting ignoramus. And what I have been posting "for years", on many fronts, is being increasingly confirmed correct by mainstream, Ira. :)

Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@RC
You say the same stuffs over and over and over and over and never add anything that you have not already posted over and over and over and over before..
Like energy just doesn't go poof bye bye when it gets absorbed. It re-radiates else its temperature skyrockets. Maybe a learning disability?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@Seeker2.
Like energy just doesn't go poof bye bye when it gets absorbed. It re-radiates else its temperature skyrockets. Maybe a learning disability
Who said it "went bye bye". Not me!

Recall the CONVERSION aspect of matter-energy-matter cycles occurring at all scales! The CHEMICAL BONDING energies involved in making/breaking/changing complex organic/inorganic molecules/aggregations etc. Then there is the KINETIC energies of the impacted particles (protons, atoms, molecules etc, individually/en-masse' in nebulae/aggregates from/motions). Then think of all the 'intermediate state' products and excitations in which ordinary matter can be put into by light flux and energy-levels.

Anyhow, did you get the point re the local, intervening and receiving locality conditions which involve all that in even more severity when light travelled vast cosmic distances, affected at every step by all that 'attenuating', 'absorbing' etc stuff/processes I pointed out already? Cheers.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
You're lying again @RC. Apparently you don't understand Olbers' Paradox. The universe cannot have been around forever, and @Seeker has proven it, and all you've got is more lies.

Give it up, @RC. Everyone can see straight through your lies.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Apparently you don't understand Olbers' Paradox. The universe cannot have been around forever, and @Seeker has proven it, and all you've got is more lies.
See? This is what happens when you become desperate to save face at all costs, even to the detriment of objective science discourse. Your objectivity and intellectual integrity/capacity is plummeting to new depths now, DS; since it's obvious Seeker2 has NOT "proven" any such thing as you claim.

Consider (if you can stop your tactics) the COROLLARY situation re light from 'infinite' distances:

That same light would then impact on a BH Event Horizon SOMEWHERE between 'infinity and here'! Since, by the same Olbers's logic/argument, light trajectories must ALL 'end' on some BH or other at some stage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, yes?

So you see, DS, the same Olbers's Paradox contains obvious logical indications that it is NOT a paradox in reality. I already explained why.

Ok?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
@RC, I'm not the one desperately trying to cover up the lies. You are. Like I said, try to keep things straight, OK?

This is really simple: if the universe existed for infinite time, every point in it would be receiving infinite energy. They're not. QED.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I'm not the one desperately trying to cover up the lies. You are.
"Straight"?! You boast about refusing to read what is being posted; you refuse to update yourself on the known science and evolving mainstream discoveries/reviews which make your assertions/beliefs obsolete; yet you have the insensibility to claim I am the one lying instead of you lying in your self-imposed ignorance? Do you even 'listen to yourself' anymore, DS?
This is really simple: if the universe existed for infinite time, every point in it would be receiving infinite energy. They're not. QED.
NOT QED! That sort of naive/simplistic and just plain wrong yet arrogant kind of lazy thinking has infected the literature to the extent that Bicep2 can happen in the first place! And has allowed BB etc unscientific baloney to be 'passed by peer review' for decades before Penrose/Steinhardt began to blow the whistle on same.

READ what I posted above/earlier for YOUR benefit, DS!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
@RC, you're trying to change the subject again. More lying. Explain why if the universe has existed for infinite time each point in it would not be receiving infinite energy. It's really quite simple, but all you can do is hand-wave.

You're lying again, @RC.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you're trying to change the subject again. More lying. Explain why if the universe has existed for infinite time each point in it would not be receiving infinite energy.
Who is trying to change the subject? Not me. I merely gave you the LOGICAL COROLLARY CONSIDERATION based on the very SAME logics which Olbers's paradox relied on.

Can you see that, DS?

Can you see how the very same logic would have NO LIGHT AT ALL reaching 'here' from any great cosmic distances (even WITHOUT 'expansion' hypothesis)?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
Sorry, @RC, you're lying again. Explain why if the universe has existed for infinite time it would not be receiving infinite energy. Or admit you are flailing and STOP LYING.

The crumbs are on your shirt, the cookie jar is on the floor, and there you are standing on the stepstool claiming it was your sister. There is nowhere to hide, @RC. Mommy KNOWS.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Explain why if the universe has existed for infinite time it would not be receiving infinite energy.
Already done, to Seeker2 and you too. Read my relevant posts in this thread to Seeker2 and you. I even gave you the corollary Olbers's logics/perspective re ALL light from infinite distance inevitably hitting a BH and hence never getting 'here' IF the Olbers's paradox logics and expectations are taken literally without considering what I have been pointing out to Seeker2 and you for some time now but you seem to have refused to read so far. Read all of it now, and only then respond. Ok? Thanks.

PS: The gratuitous insults and trolling 'campaign' aren't helping your 'image' or your 'objectivity', DS. please just drop them. Ok? Thanks.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
@RC, you're lying again. Not already done, and neither of us thinks so. You've tried obfuscating, changing the subject, and claiming, but you have never actually responded.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you're lying again. Not already done, and neither of us thinks so. You've tried obfuscating, changing the subject, and claiming, but you have never actually
It's obvious that you either have not read it all; or that your reading confirmation bias is making you kneejerk to insult and mistakes, like many times before. If you are not going to bother actually reading/understanding fairly because you just want to satisfy your need to insult and accuse and misinform, then no amount of further explanation can get through to you, DS. A sad waste of time and intellect on your part, DS; spent on ego-tripping, trolling and gratuitous insults on the net.

Sad.

PS: Are you a sufferer of Tourette's Syndrome, DS; and all the obsessive-compulsive tendencies to irrational outbursts of offensive verbal ejaculations that can come with it? If so, you have my sincere sympathy; and my advice to not drink so much, especially on an empty stomach and/or when posting. Ok. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
About those BHs, @RC, don't they eventually evaporate, returning all their energy?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
Come all you good workers
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how the good old union
Has come in here to dwell

Which side are you on, boys?
Which side are you on?

Read more: Natalie Merchant - Which Side Are You On ? Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Thanks Pete.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
@RC, as usual you lie again, and try to change the subject again. You have not explained how a universe of infinite duration doesn't result in infinite energy being received at every point. This is not surprising, since you are innumerate and don't understand infinity.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
@Seeker, lots of good Woodie Guthrie out there. One of my favorites is "This Land Is Your Land." It's a pretty good response to "America the Beautiful's" Babble-thumping BS. It should get sung more often.

https://www.youtu...MrvDbq3s

Springsteen knows his roots.

Here's Bruce doing it with Pete Seeger at the first Obama inauguration:

https://www.youtu...H0k8TDgw
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You have not explained how a universe of infinite duration doesn't result in infinite energy being received at every point.
Can you be MORE obtuse, DS?

UNREAL MATHS 'abstract infinity', and REAL PHYSICAL 'Universal Infinity', are NOT THE SAME in concept OR effect. Ok?

DS, you boast/pride yourself on NOT READING properly (or at all) ALL that I wrote; you are a delusional-ignorant-in-denial.

DS, you purposely missed ALL the important implications of what I have been pointing out; and you don't even understand what the universal energy-space ground state and excited states INHERENT energy budget/densities are locally/cosmically.

So all your 'kneejerking' and 'insulting' is from ignorance; hence NOT in any position to opine/accuse me of whatever your delusional ego-tripping 'unreality world' has you 'believing' based on your ignorance, delusion, malice.

If you can't be objective, dispassionate, respectful, you are no use to science/humanity discourse, DS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Seeker2.
About those BHs, @RC, don't they eventually evaporate, returning all their energy?
In every FINITE (causally-connected) expanse of the universal infinity, this occurs after epochal stages of locally evolving states/distributions of the energy-space share entrained in said finite expanses.

As I earlier explained, local region phenomena/processes involve 'energy-space recycling' within that region, through all the possible states and scales of energy/spatial intermediate (transient) and stable (persistent) forms we label particles/solitonic-waveforms etc. The evolutionary trajectory for any region is complex and persists cross shorter/longer time scales depending on the spatiotemporal scle of the selected region/location under study.

Re your BH question: Yes. Eventually.

BUT meanwhile, OTHER local/intervening-distance transformings/recyclings are happening at all the time; so 'entraining' a LOT of EM radiation-energy from 'very far away', as explained.

Ok?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
Still having trouble with infinity I see, @RC. That's what comes of being innumerate.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Still having trouble with infinity I see, @RC. That's what comes of being innumerate.
DS, you are tacitly ADMITTING that you don't realize there is a whole raft of qualitative/quantitative differences between the:

- UNREAL/ABSTRACT mathematical/metaphysical "infinity" NOTION and TREATMENT; and

- REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL "infinity" spatiotemporal STATE and EFFECT!

DS, anyone who is so obtuse and lacking in insights as to the well known mathematical/physical DIVIDE already well understood by sane mathematicians and sane physicists, to wit...
The MAP is NOT the TERRITORY
...is seriously 'handicapped' both in intellect and education in all the things that matter in the field of cosmology theory and comprehension of the difference between abstraction and reality.

DS, do yourself and science/humanity a great favour: learn/comprehend that crucial difference; then catch up with the REAL evolving science being discovered/reviewed by mainstream NOW. Ok, DS? :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@RC Great word bombs, I don't know about your science though. I was just wondering what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC Great word bombs, I don't know about your science though. I was just wondering what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?
Nah. Just an Objective and resilient Atheist among some not-so-objective nasty Atheists/Religionists who seem to think a science site is fair game for trolls and malicious actors. So, I was merely RESPONDING to and DEFENDING against unprovoked attacks based on self-inflicted ignorance, denial and malignant states due to the attacker(s) boasting of not reading what is being posted and refusing to get himself up to speed with recent mainstream discovery/review which increasingly confirm me correct all along and him woefully left behind by his own own hand, preferring to insult instead of learning. I have tried reasoning and explaining what they obviously missed in their un-reasoning rampages through PO discussions; but its a thankless task since they keep attacking while ignorant.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
PS @Seeker2...

Re this specifically:
I was just wondering what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?
It's more a matter of reminding ourselves that:
No objective scientist (Irrespective of their personal beliefs/philosophy/politics etc) would just 'believe' in patently abstract mathematical/metaphysical/philosophical UNREALITY NOTIONS having no actual objective scientific support for them whatsoever as a scientific hypothesis let alone theory.
By the way, Seeker2, speaking of my/your science; can you please indicate whether or not you understand the important conceptual/effectiveness distinction which all good mathematicians and physicists make between..
- UNREAL/ABSTRACT mathematical/metaphysical "infinity" NOTION and TREATMENT; and

- REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL "infinity" spatiotemporal STATE and EFFECT.


I wouldn't trouble you about it if it wasn't crucial for your own cogitations upon the universe. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2017
@RC
,,,what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?
Nah. Just an Objective and resilient Atheist among some not-so-objective nasty Atheists/Religionists who seem to think a science site is fair game for trolls and malicious actors.
So you're ok with an objective or maybe an Objective and resilient Atheist believing in the BB provided he's in with those other undesirable Atheists/Religionists. But not ok if he isn't in with those other undesirables. I assume you're in with those undesirables, so the BB is ok with you. Glad to hear it but sorry about being in with those undesirables. Bottom line is you're really open minded. Good.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
...speaking of my/your science; can you please indicate whether or not you understand the important conceptual/effectiveness distinction which all good mathematicians and physicists make between.. -

UNREAL/ABSTRACT mathematical/metaphysical "infinity" NOTION and TREATMENT; and

- REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL "infinity" spatiotemporal STATE and EFFECT.

Think I missed that class. Apologies.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, there is no observed quantity or object in physics that is provably infinite. If you claim there is, show one.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Seeker2.
what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?
Nah. Just an Objective and resilient Atheist among some not-so-objective nasty Atheists/Religionists who seem to think a science site is fair game for trolls and malicious actors.
So you're ok with an objective or maybe an Objective and resilient Atheist believing in the BB provided he's in with those other undesirable Atheists/Religionists. But not ok if he isn't in with those other undesirables. I assume you're in with those undesirables, so the BB is ok with you. Glad to hear it but sorry about being in with those undesirables. Bottom line is you're really open minded. Good.
Your own self-categorization is your business, Seeker2. The only relevant consideration on a scientific site/discussion should be (whatever you self-identify as re personal philosophy etc) the scientific objectivity you can bring to the observations/discourse. That's it.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
there is no observed quantity or object in physics that is provably infinite. If you claim there is, show one.
DS, you are still making the unreal-maths etc mistake of treating THE UNIVERSE as if it is just some abstract maths 'object' (like your 'apple units', remember?).

As for THE UNIVERSE, the Occam's Razor assumption (that "Universe is infinite/eternal") is the starting point for all cosmology theory, as it requires LEAST NUMBER of ASSUMPTIONS.

So in fact, ONUS has always been on those who claim otherwise, to scientifically support any claim that "Universe is NOT infinite/eternal".

Unfortunately, Penrose/Steinhardt have blown the whistle on BB/Inflation.

PS: Do you NOW realize the crucial difference (which all good mathematicians and good physicists already do) between:

- UNREAL/ABSTRACT mathematical/metaphysical "infinity" NOTION and TREATMENT; and

- REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL "infinity" spatiotemporal STATE and EFFECT.

Let's hope so, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, you didn't show anything that is provably infinite. You're just lying again, like you always do.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.
Note how the most fuzzy stuff is emphasized. All in the cause of objectivity, I suppose.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
there is no observed quantity or object in physics that is provably infinite. If you claim there is, show one.
DS, you are still making the unreal-maths etc mistake of treating THE UNIVERSE as if it is just some abstract maths 'object' (like your 'apple units', remember?).
So you see @DS your problem is in perceiving finite concepts as real. :(
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@RC
Bottom line is you're really open minded. Good.
Your own self-categorization is your business, Seeker2. The only relevant consideration on a scientific site/discussion should be (whatever you self-identify as re personal philosophy etc) the scientific objectivity you can bring to the observations/discourse. That's it
Sorry if I was wrong. :(
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@Seeker, I cannot agree that @RC is in any way open-minded. @RC has a weird, idiosyncratic, and apparently unreal and non-physical conception of math that denies obvious features of reality. @RC will lie and has lied in order to defend this mashup, and furthermore protects it from contradiction by concealing it. This has nothing to do with open-mindedness, and everything to do with protection of a psychotic delusion or deliberate lie from criticism. People who are open-minded are open; people who are not open are not open-minded. This concealment and claims that are not substantiated due to concealment is denial of a basic principle of science: open methods and open results.

No one who knows anything about science could ever confuse or confound @RC with a scientist. It's a crank, and it doesn't matter whether it's having psychotic delusions or lying in order to sow FUD.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@Seeker, amusing quip:
So you see @DS your problem is in perceiving finite concepts as real.
Particularly concerning my well-documented possession of zero persimmons.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Seeker2.
From @RealityCheck to @Da Schneib: DS, you are still making the unreal-maths etc mistake of treating THE UNIVERSE as if it is just some abstract maths 'object' (like your 'apple units', remember?).
So you see @DS your problem is in perceiving finite concepts as real. :(
Careful, Seeker2; you've just conflated two distinctly different observations by me:

- the MATH/METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHICAL 'object' may be 'UN-real' in the way it is treated WITHIN that 'unreal maths' construct/convention (as I already highlighted);

- the REAL directly observed object(s) itself (apples) are REAL.

The issue is their treatment of said apples as UNDIFFERENTIATED 'apple units' in a NUMBER system/labels ABSTRACTIONS 'construct'.

This is discerned by considering QUANTUM SCALE: where NO TWO REAL apples are exactly identical; ie, differing aromatic compound proportions, individual mass).

See? Naive/simplistic ABSTRACT notions, analyses, conclusions usually UNREAL at root. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you didn't show anything that is provably infinite. You're just lying again, like you always do.
Who said I needed to, DS? You? I don't have to do any such thing. :)

DS, did you read my response invoking Occam's Razor Infinite/Eternal starting point for theorizing Universal nature and extent; and which requires LEAST number of assumptions; and hence the ONUS being on YOU to show otherwise if you claim different?

If not, please go back and read my relevant post to you 15 hours ago. Then see why your attack is misconceived and against the wrong person.

PS: DS, stop spamming your ignorance all over the place. Stop digging! :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
- the MATH/METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHICAL 'object' may be 'UN-real' in the way it is treated WITHIN that 'unreal maths' construct/convention (as I already highlighted);
Certainly does seem unreal. Probably best treated with psychiatry. Which, I believe, is a science.

See? Naive/simplistic ABSTRACT notions, analyses, conclusions usually UNREAL at root. :)
Sure seems like that would apply to your conflated abstract notions such as MATH/METAPHYSICS/PHILOSOPHICAL objects, naive, simplistic, or otherwise.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, you didn't show anything that is provably infinite.
Who said I needed to, DS? You? I don't have to do any such thing. :)
Sounds like a mystic. Doesn't have to prove anything he believes. Else you would put him out of business. APB: Mystic on the science sites? :(
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, you claimed there is some sort of real infinite something-or-other out there, but you can't give any examples of it. You lied again.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
Sounds like a mystic.
Did you even bother to read and understand the SCIENCE application of OCCAM"S RAZOR; and why all cosmological theory starts with that perspective because it STARTS with the least number of assumptions? It's known as "The Law Of Parsimony":

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

That 'law' has the SCIENTIFIC theorizing process START with the rational/minimalist assumption: "Universe is infinite/eternal".

It is THEN up to those, like yourself, DS (all proponents of NON-infinite/eternal universes), to make YOUR case with SCIENTIFICALLY TENABLE evidence.

Unfortunately, Pernrose/Steinhardt have 'blown the whistle' on UN-real BB/Inflation etc MYSTIC BELIEFS which you, DS etc 'believe in'.

So, Seeker2, since I am NOT a 'myths believer', but you/DS 'believe' in mythical BB/Inflation etc, the 'proof' ONUS is on you/DS to support YOUR claims.

PS: Seeker2, a true 'seeker' wouldn't 'just believe', hey! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Da Schneib.
you claimed there is some sort of real infinite something-or-other out there, but you can't give any examples of it. You lied again.
It's called THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, DS. That's what Occams Razor says; and it says the real physical universe all around you is infinite/eternal, DS. That perspective requires the least assumptions.

So, DS, the ONUS is actually ON YOU (and all who would propose otherwise) to PROVE it isn't real, infinite/eternal. Got that?

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.
You're only spamming your ignorance, heedless of the damage you are doing to your psyche, DS. Stop!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@DS I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@DS I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.
A true 'seeker' wouldn't make wildly erroneous speculations like that about anyone or anything. Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge gained by dint of hard cogitation and observation and then more hard cogitation----ON THE OBJECTIVE FACTS. If you haven't the objective facts then SEEK them out honestly or if you can't get them don't 'invent' them; and don't just 'believe' in your/others' 'make-believe'----otherwise known of late as "alternative facts"; as used by many political parties in America, but especially the Republican-Trump camps. Good luck being another Trump-like "alternative facts" guy, (NON true) Seeker2! :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
Did you even bother to read and understand the SCIENCE application of OCCAM"S RAZOR; and why all cosmological theory starts with that perspective because it STARTS with the least number of assumptions? It's known as "The Law Of Parsimony":

https://en.wikipe...able=yes
Yep. It starts with competing hypotheses. Yours just doesn't compete.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
@DS I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.
A true 'seeker' wouldn't make wildly erroneous speculations like that about anyone or anything.
So no doctorate in education? Some physics beyond high school? My apologies for such wild and erroneous speculation. A true 'seeker' would at least ask, wouldn't he? I think a true 'seeker' should also ask if there was any physics in high school. Call it wild speculation if you wish.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
Did you even bother to read and understand the SCIENCE application of OCCAM"S RAZOR; and why all cosmological theory starts with that perspective because it STARTS with the least number of assumptions? It's known as "The Law Of Parsimony":

https://en.wikipe...able=yes
Yep. It starts with competing hypotheses. Yours just doesn't compete.
You seem confused, Seeker2. It was the Occams Razor hypothesis, not mine, which starts it. The only "competing hypotheses" to that come from the BB etc unreal/metaphysical 'notions' which you/DS et al have 'believed in' for decades despite them having no tenable scientific support from the get-go (as Penrose/Steinhardt recently admitted).

So you/they are the ones whose hypotheses "doesn't compete" with Occams Razor hypothesis. Ok?

Maybe you should read back through for a while to get things straight as to who is saying what to whom before you proceed. Cheers. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
You seem confused, Seeker2. It was the Occams Razor hypothesis, not mine, which starts it.
So you/they are the ones whose hypotheses "doesn't compete" with Occams Razor hypothesis. Ok?
I don't think Occams Razor is a hypothesis. Please.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
to @DS: I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.
A true 'seeker' wouldn't make wildly erroneous speculations like that about anyone or anything.
So no doctorate in education? My apologies for such wild and erroneous speculation. A true 'seeker' would at least ask, wouldn't he?
He could. But in a SCIENCE discussion, the PERSON is irrelevant; the objective facts and the scientific method for drawing objective conclusions from same is all that matters.

Who was it?-----that originally wrote:
l'homme cest rien; l'ouvre cest tout.
Rough translation: "The man is nothing; the work everything."

So it is especially in science method practice and scientific discourse on the objective reality. Cheers. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
cont
Confusion between principle and hypothesis. Unfortunate.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
Rough translation: "The man is nothing; the work everything."
You're right. What really worries me is the work. Or perhaps the man with no science training expounding on his theory of science. Might give one pause.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
You seem confused, Seeker2. It was the Occams Razor hypothesis, not mine, which starts it.
So you/they are the ones whose hypotheses "doesn't compete" with Occams Razor hypothesis. Ok?
I don't think Occams Razor is a hypothesis. Please.
The Occams Razor (Law of Parsimony) indicates the starting hypothesis with the LEAST number of assumptions. Any other hypothesis proposed by anyone which has MORE than those Occams Razor approach assumptions needs to prove how it is superior to the one with less assumptions; by supporting the extra assumptions with objective tenable logical/scientific evidence. So far, no other hypothesis (BB etc etc) has such tenable scientific/logical evidence to support all its extra-to-Occams Razor number of assumptions. Ergo, Occams Razor approach starting hypothesis still standing unchallenged. Cheers.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
The Occams Razor (Law of Parsimony) indicates the starting hypothesis with the LEAST number of assumptions.
Basically leaving out two words - principle and competing. One more time please. You need COMPETING hypotheses. Sorry to have to raise my voice. :(
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
Rough translation: "The man is nothing; the work everything."
You're right. What really worries me is the work. Or perhaps the man with no science training expounding on his theory of science. Might give one pause.
Why worry? You are obviously not in any position to comprehend the full import of the work; let alone know the complete work before I do publish it complete. Until then, stop worrying, just relax, listen and learn as best you can. It will help you greatly in your 'seeking', and lead you more surely and closer to 'finding', if you spend less of your remaining time and intellect in composing cheap shots and evasive excuses to remain ignorant; or in misconstruing what is being told you for YOUR benefit as well as others in the wider science and humanity discourse here and elsewhere. Good luck. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
Why worry? You are obviously not in any position to comprehend the full import of the work; let alone know the complete work before I do publish it complete.
I appreciate all the effort you put into your doctorate. I know you can do it. But with no science training you may just be in over your head. But you do have guts. Have to give you credit for that. It's all in the family I guess.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
The Occams Razor (Law of Parsimony) indicates the starting hypothesis with the LEAST number of assumptions.
Basically leaving out two words - principle and competing. One more time please. You need COMPETING hypotheses. Sorry to have to raise my voice. :(
Not at all. You nee an observation (look around you and note the universe stretching out in all directions. Then apply Occams Razor "principle" and hey presto!, out comes the infinite/eternal hypothesis, having the least number of assumptions, practically unbidden (to the scientific mind, that is; to the religious/superstitious mind anything may come to mind!). All else is additional assumptions-laden speculation trying to form an hypothesis to compete/replace the Occams Razor principle-indicated hypothesis. So far, as Penrose/Steinhardt have admitted, the BB etc etc hypotheses haven't even 'competed' with let alone 'replaced' the Occams Razor indicated hypothesis. Too bad. C'est la vie in science! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
Why worry? You are obviously not in any position to comprehend the full import of the work; let alone know the complete work before I do publish it complete.
I appreciate all the effort you put into your doctorate. I know you can do it. But with no science training you may just be in over your head.
There you go 'fishing' again. :) As for you opining about my science training, you seem to be ill equipped on that front, as well as the maths/logics front. So you'll forgive me if I take your baiting 'fishing' and ill-informed 'opining' as just so much NON-seeker nonsense from an anonymous poster on the internet who has indicated he/she is more interested in cheap shots and his own well-cultivated ongoing ignorance than he is in either me or the science/logics being discussed. Good luck with that, mate; you'll need it if you are going to pretend you are 'seeking' anything except your own ego-tripping satisfaction 'needs' on the internet. That's sad, Seeker2.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
You nee an observation (look around you and note the universe stretching out in all directions. Then apply Occams Razor "principle" and hey presto!, out comes the infinite/eternal hypothesis,...
Stretching? Yes. Infinite/eternal? At least in your imagination, I guess. Sorry friends. Just a little family dispute here.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
As for you opining about my science training, you seem to be ill equipped on that front, as well as the maths/logics front...That's sad, Seeker2.
Sure is. Any particular problem with my science training? OBTW I must admit I did take logic and missed one point during the whole course. Can't all be perfect I guess.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
You nee an observation (look around you and note the universe stretching out in all directions. Then apply Occams Razor "principle" and hey presto!, out comes the infinite/eternal hypothesis,...
Stretching? Yes. Infinite/eternal? At least in your imagination, I guess. Sorry friends. Just a little family dispute here.
It's a well known figure of speech indicating 'extending along all radials from any and all locations'. Your reading confirmation bias immediately 'read' it to mean 'expanding universe', didn't it? See how easy it is for you to miss the objective extant reality because you immediately jump to your own 'preferred personal reality' due to your deeply inculcated/cultivated confirmation bias? Seeker2, if you really are on a 'seeking' quest for the objective extant reality, then first try hard, very hard, to disperse that heavy confirmation biased 'fog' which is demonstrably enshrouding your intellect at present. Good luck. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
cont
Oh and about the maths. I took differential equations but was dismissed from class along with another person during the remedial counseling sessions after one of the tests.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
As for you opining about my science training, you seem to be ill equipped on that front, as well as the maths/logics front...That's sad, Seeker2.
Sure is. Any particular problem with my science training?
If you are so blithely unaware of the many problems which your responses so far have indicated, then you'll need a whole remedial course just to get you to 'switch across' from your present 'track' and onto the true and correct science/logics square one! Maybe then you can start again with an objective and logical approach instead of the emotional and subjective approach which you seem to have suffering from to date. :) OBTW I must admit I did take logic and missed one point during the whole course. Can't all be perfect I guess. It's not whether you're 'perfect' or not; it's whether you are even trying to apply what you HAVE learned to the best of your ability; objectively/honestly, instead of squandering those precious opportunities you've had. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
Oh and about the maths. I took differential equations but was dismissed from class along with another person during the remedial counseling sessions after one of the tests.
Never mind, Seeker2. It's never too late to learn anew or to remediate any incorrect learning, for that matter. The point is to try your best for the sake of your intellect, opportunities and science/humanity in general. Once you can say you've done your best, no-one can take that away from you. Best regards and best wishes for your true 'seeking' quest, Seeker2. Cheers. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
Stretching? Yes. Infinite/eternal? At least in your imagination, I guess. Sorry friends. Just a little family dispute here.
It's a well known figure of speech indicating 'extending along all radials from any and all locations'. Your reading confirmation bias immediately 'read' it to mean 'expanding universe', didn't it?
No it meant extending. Your imagination out of control again?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
It's not whether you're 'perfect' or not; it's whether you are even trying to apply what you HAVE learned to the best of your ability; objectively/honestly, instead of squandering those precious opportunities you've had. :)
Very good. Now read what you just wrote.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
Stretching? Yes. Infinite/eternal? At least in your imagination, I guess. Sorry friends. Just a little family dispute here.
It's a well known figure of speech indicating 'extending along all radials from any and all locations'. Your reading confirmation bias immediately 'read' it to mean 'expanding universe', didn't it?
No it meant extending. Your imagination out of control again?
So you 'read' it as "extending", as I intended it as? Then great. No problem. My apologies if I misunderstood your two-word response: "Stretching? Yes.". So, Seeker2, does that mean you now agree that the Universe is NOT 'expanding' etc as per BB/INFLATION etc hypothesis claimed; which is now admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never been supported by scientific evidence at all?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
It's not whether you're 'perfect' or not; it's whether you are even trying to apply what you HAVE learned to the best of your ability; objectively/honestly, instead of squandering those precious opportunities you've had. :)
Very good. Now read what you just wrote.
The point of writing it was for you to read it and understanding how it was meant. If you are (as is obvious so far) not YET doing your best to honestly/objectively listen and learn, then you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
"Stretching? Yes.". So, Seeker2, does that mean you now agree that the Universe is NOT 'expanding' etc as per BB/INFLATION etc hypothesis claimed; which is now admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never been supported by scientific evidence at all?
So you mean stretching is not expanding?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
...you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.
Sorry about the cheap one-liners. They just seem so appropriate. Why belabor the point?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
"Stretching? Yes.". So, Seeker2, does that mean you now agree that the Universe is NOT 'expanding' etc as per BB/INFLATION etc hypothesis claimed; which is now admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never been supported by scientific evidence at all?
So you mean stretching is not expanding?
Careful, not to get yourself confused again, Seeker2. That "Stretching? Yes" was YOUR words in YOUR initial response to me. Your later said you agreed that I meant that figure of speech "Stretching in all directions" as in "Extending in all directions".

The point is: Universe is NOT expanding. BB/Inflation has been admitted to have had NO scientific evidence at all to support it since it was proposed as hypothesis. Ok now?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
...you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.
Sorry about the cheap one-liners.
Who you trying to kid, mate? :)

They just seem so appropriate.
To a juvenile audience maybe; but you are better than that, being a 'seeker' and all, hey? :)

Why belabor the point?
What point is that, exactly, Seeker2?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
...you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.
Why belabor the point?
What point is that, exactly, Seeker2?
Apparently my approach so far. Exactly.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
The point is: Universe is NOT expanding. BB/Inflation has been admitted to have had NO scientific evidence at all to support it since it was proposed as hypothesis. Ok now?
Really? I'd rather go with something more plausible.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@seeker2.
@RC
...you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.
Why belabor the point?
What point is that, exactly, Seeker2?
Apparently my approach so far. Exactly.
Your approach so far consists of, exactly:

- posting one liner cheap shots and self-confused responses; and

- refusing to learn anything objectively that would logically/scientifically require you abandon your preconceived 'beliefs' in patently unscientific notions (BB, Inflation etc) which even their earliest proponents/promulgators now admit never had any tenable scientific/logical support from the get-go.

Glad we cleared that up, exactly, Seeker2. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
- posting one liner cheap shots and self-confused responses; and

- refusing to learn anything objectively that would logically/scientifically require you abandon your preconceived 'beliefs' in patently unscientific notions (BB, Inflation etc)
Sounds like a cheap shot to me. Other than that you're right about learning anything objectively that would require me to give up more plausible 'beliefs'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
- posting one liner cheap shots and self-confused responses; and

- refusing to learn anything objectively that would logically/scientifically require you abandon your preconceived 'beliefs' in patently unscientific notions (BB, Inflation etc)
Sounds like a cheap shot to me. Other than that you're right about learning anything objectively that would require me to give up more plausible 'beliefs'.
What cheap shot, Seeker2? I expressly pointed out what your behavior/posts have come across as so far. If you disagree then it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

However, be aware that you won't be able to do that convincingly if you STILL harbor the 'beliefs' that BB, Inflation etc-----already admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never had any tenable scientific/logical supporting evidence at all-----are 'plausible', despite their admission.

Or was it some OTHER 'beliefs' of yours you are alluding to as being 'plausible', Seeker2?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@RC
However, be aware that you won't be able to do that convincingly if you STILL harbor the 'beliefs' that BB, Inflation etc-----already admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never had any tenable scientific/logical supporting evidence at all-----are 'plausible', despite their admission.

Or was it some OTHER 'beliefs' of yours you are alluding to as being 'plausible', Seeker2?
Surely Penrose/Steinhardt must have something better to offer than that snake oil stuff you're trying to push with Occam's razor.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Seeker2.
Surely Penrose/Steinhardt must have something better to offer than that snake oil stuff you're trying to push with Occam's razor.
You still seem confused as to what's what and who is saying what, Seeker2. It's like this:

BB/Inflation etc was 'professional' metaphysics/maths-based 'hypothesis'; got by naively/simplistically extrapolating BACKWARDS (from present assumed/interpreted Inflation-Expansion state/extent) to some equally assumed TIME=0 'singularity' of some undefined/unsupported nature.

All BB/Inflation etc stuff is finally being admitted/falsified by recent/new reviews/discoveries, as never having had real tenable scientific/logical evidence/support since first proposed.

So they were NEVER REALLY (scientifically/logically) in 'competition' at all with PRIOR Occams Razor-indicated perspective: "Universe is infinite/eternal".

So, BB etc "non-eternal/non-infinite universe" claims were bogus; and they had NO "Plan B"!

Hence all the fuss. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
"Universe is infinite/eternal".
We know that's snake-oil. So have anything better to push?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC Here's a site to broaden your perspective, perhaps:https://phys.org/...nwletter
" The observed 'enhanced production of strange particles' is a familiar feature of quark-gluon plasma, a very hot and dense state of matter that existed just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, and is commonly created in collisions of heavy nuclei."
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
It's called THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, DS.
Show it's infinite, @RC, or you're lying again.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Seeker2.
@RC
"Universe is infinite/eternal".
We know that's snake-oil. So have anything better to push?
That's Occamas Razor starting point for all scientific/logical theorizing, Seeker2. The "snake oil" entered the cosmology field when BB/Inflation etc was introduced into the science literature/discourse, and 'passed by peer review' for decades before finally lately being ADMITTED as "snake oil" by Penrose/Steinhardt, two of the earliest proponents/promulgators of that "snake oil". So you haven't even come close to making a cogent point/argument against that fact of BB/Inflation etc being BGUS all along, Seeker2.
@RC Here...

https://phys.org/...ons.html

So what, Seeker2? I have long pointed out to DS etc that Quark-Gluon Plasma states/material is ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere at various scales via extremely-high-energy processes like AGN/BH/Novae etc Polar jets).

No BB needed. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You still nor reading before insensibly spamming your ignorance and malice again, DS?

READ. The Occams Razor indicated scientific/logical perspective of "infinite/eternal universe" is the starting point for cosmology theorizing process. The onus is upon you/others, who would disagree with that starting premise, to provide scientifically/logically tenable real evidence in support of YOUR BB etc counterviews to Occams Razor view. But be sure to provide more tenable evidence in support than Penrose/Steinhardt finally admitted existed for BB/Inflation etc (ie NO tenable scientific/logical support at all since first proposed).

@Da Schneib, if you again spam your ignorance as above, then you will have confirmed for all the forum to see that you are NOT READING but SPAMMING in ignorance from your own preconceived ego-tripping trolling agendas. Good luck with that, DS.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
That's Occamas Razor starting point for all scientific/logical theorizing, Seeker2.
That makes about as much sense as your original infinite/eternal snake-oil.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
The onus is upon you/others, who would disagree with that starting premise, to provide scientifically/logically tenable real evidence in support of YOUR BB etc counterviews to Occams Razor view.
Occams Razor is not a view. Where do you come up with this crap?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Seeker2.

You keep misreading/misunderstanding what is being explained to you. The Occams Razor principles are what indicates the starting point view insofar as scientific/logical thinking/theorizing about the nature, origins and mechanics of the universe we observe around us in all directions without any obvious physical limits in spatial or temporal terms. Do you understand where you are conflating the principles with the view they indicate should be the starting point for cosmological theorizing which requires the least number of assumptions? If you are still confused, maybe you are too busy wanting it your way rather than just listening and reading further and learning how and why your way may be not as based in reality or least assumptions as possible. I suggest you read back over our exchange and see what you may have misconstrued in your eagerness to ignore/deny and otherwise decry any objective observations/implications/discoveries which threatens your 'beliefs'. Ok?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
I have long pointed out to DS etc that Quark-Gluon Plasma states/material is ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere at various scales via extremely-high-energy processes like AGN/BH/Novae etc Polar jets).

No BB needed. :)
Except to produce the polar jets. Oh I forgot. Those polar jets have been around forever and ever. They were begotten, not made, just like the Holy Spirit. Right?. OBTW real particle/antiparticle pairs are produced with lightning ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere. Well at least during thunderstorms. Precisely as in baryogenesis. But I guess there really was no baryogenesis, right? Those positrons and electrons actually have been around forever and ever. Just like the polar jets. No baryogenesis required. Right? We know that because electrons and positrons don't decay. Therefore they must have been around forever, right?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@RC, you claimed there is
REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL "infinity" spatiotemporal STATE and EFFECT.
You were challenged to provide an example of an observed physical phenomenon that is infinite. You have failed yet again to back your claims with evidence. I'll be adding this thread to the list of threads where you lied.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
cont
Houston, I think we may have a problem. Since electrons and positrons are ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere, space must be swamped with these charges. How can we find any air to breathe?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Seeker2.

What are you on about, mate? You seem to be trying hard to misconstrue in order to construct a Stawman-fueled 'Seeker2 world' of your own; rather than trying understanding what is being explained to you.

The universe exists. The polar jets are recycling processes in an existing universe having all sorts of processes going on all over the cosmos at various scales.

The Occams Razor principles applied to said observations indicate that THE objective Universe (as distinct from your Stawman-feuled 'Seeker2 World') and the recycling going on in it all over the place at various spatiotemporal evolutionary scales, is an infinite/eternal process/extent.

If your personal beliefs won't allow that objective observation, or Occams Razor application to same in order to obtain a scientific/logical starting premise requiring the least number of assumptions, then perhaps you should abandon your Strawman-fueled 'Seeker2 World' and join the reality-based world around us all. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
The Occams Razor principles
Please. There is only one Occams Razor principle. You don't get your choice. The choice you make are between the competing hypotheses (views, as you call it).
are what indicates the starting point view
Occams Razor has nothing to do with the starting point view or hypothesis. You need competing hypotheses before applying the principle. I would hope before you go throwing out opinions that your hypotheses are plausible. That helps make them competitive.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Da Schnein.
you claimed there is
REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL "infinity" spatiotemporal STATE and EFFECT.
You were challenged to provide an example of an observed physical phenomenon that is infinite.
What's the matter with you, DS! You missing EVERYTHING important happening in mainstream in recent years?

Re TEMPORAL status/claims from BB:

Prof Penrose admits there WAS a BEFORE-BB universal state; hence until you/other can prove that THE universe has some 'Beginning in/of Time' or 'Ending in/of Time', then ETERNAL UNIVERSE is DEFAULT Occams-Razor-indicated view!

Re SPATIAL status claims from Inflation (and hence BB etc):

Prof Steinhardt admits that NEVER had tenable scientific/logical support since first proposed; hence INFINITE spatial extent is again DEFAULT Occams Razor -indicated view!

PS: Also look for interviews/video a few years back, wherein Sean Carroll and Saul Perlmutter BOTH said CMB evidence/analysis ALSO indicates universe is infinite/eternal. :)
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
@Seeker2.

What are you on about, mate? You seem to be trying hard to misconstrue in order to construct a Stawman-fueled 'Seeker2 world' of your own; rather than trying understanding what is being explained to you.
Please. The only thing being explained to me is sweet-smelling snake oil using chopped word salad.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
.ETERNAL UNIVERSE is DEFAULT Occams-Razor-indicated view!
Occams Razor makes choices, not views.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@RC
PS: Also look for interviews/video a few years back, wherein Sean Carroll and Saul Perlmutter BOTH said CMB evidence/analysis ALSO indicates universe is infinite/eternal. :)
Good luck with that one, suckers!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Seeker2.
There is only one Occams Razor principle. You don't get your choice. The choice you make are between the competing hypotheses (views, as you call it).
are what indicates the starting point view
Occams Razor has nothing to do with the starting point view or hypothesis. You need competing hypotheses before applying the principle. I would hope before you go throwing out opinions that your hypotheses are plausible. That helps make them competitive.
The principles are: Least assumptions; and obvious reality based, not religious/superstitious based. You seem to prefer your 'personal beliefs' base, Seeker2.

Occams Razor principles CAN BE applied to an initial observation/set of observations, without any initial need to have an 'alternative' observation/set of observations at hand. If initial observation/set of observations indicates "Universe eternal/infinite" based on least number of assumptions, then that Occams Razor based DEFAULT view is starting point. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Seeker2.
Please. The only thing being explained to me is sweet-smelling snake oil using chopped word salad.
No, you have confused me/that with the BB, Inflation etc crowd/snake-oil about which Penrose and Steinhardt have given a wake-up-call to their professional colleagues recently. :)

@RC
.ETERNAL UNIVERSE is DEFAULT Occams-Razor-indicated view!
Occams Razor makes choices, not views.
Those choices, when boiled down to the minimum assumptions needed, indicate which 'view' most satisfies the Occams Razor application. Get the subtle distinction yet, Seeker2?

@RC
PS: Also look for interviews/video a few years back, wherein Sean Carroll and Saul Perlmutter BOTH said CMB evidence/analysis ALSO indicates universe is infinite/eternal. :)
Good luck with that one, suckers!
Are you calling Carroll and Perlmutter liars? Or those, who take their considered views based on their professional work into consideration, "suckers"? Not very nice, Seeker2.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
@RC attempts to substitute opinion for fact. The opinion is that the universe is infinite; the facts are we cannot substantiate the existence of anything beyond 100 billion light years. @RC is trying to use FUD again. And gets caught again.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
@RC
Occams Razor makes choices, not views.
Those choices, when boiled down to the minimum assumptions needed, indicate which 'view' most satisfies the Occams Razor application. Get the subtle distinction yet, Seeker2?
I'm sorry. What distinction? Too subtle for me I guess.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
@RC
PS: Also look for interviews/video a few years back, wherein Sean Carroll and Saul Perlmutter BOTH said CMB evidence/analysis ALSO indicates universe is infinite/eternal. :)
Good luck with that one, suckers!
Are you calling Carroll and Perlmutter liars?
Hardly.
Or those, who take their considered views based on their professional work into consideration, "suckers"? Not very nice, Seeker
The suckers are the ones who go looking for your interviews/video.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
@RC
Prof Penrose admits there WAS a BEFORE-BB universal state;
you have confused me/that with the BB, Inflation etc crowd/snake-oil about which Penrose and Steinhardt have given a wake-up-call to their professional colleagues recently.
So who said there was nothing before the BB? Certainly would deserve a wake-up call.
Da Schneib
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Seeker2.