Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy

Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy
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
Citation: Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy (2017, March 30) retrieved 15 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-03-expansion-universe-dark-energy.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
3042 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 30, 2017
No doubt a VERY Lively Debate.

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.

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.

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.

Mar 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Mar 30, 2017
why you people are commenting?! if you don't know anything about the subject just shut up!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...:-)

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.

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.

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.

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...)


Mar 30, 2017
... the abortion and re-emission of a photon ...

oops - ABSORPTION...

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.


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...:-)

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;


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.


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.

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...:-)

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.

Mar 31, 2017
Universe is NOW. See special issue of AJMP. Insuficiency pf Big Bang Cosmology.

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]

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.

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.

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.

Mar 31, 2017
Very good start. Back to Einstein! We don't need any more dark energy "epicycle" ad hoc theorizing.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! :)

Mar 31, 2017
Hi IMP-9, antialias, Benni et al. :)

CONSIDER:


No. Next.

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.


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! :)

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...

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. :)


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.)

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? :)

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.

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.

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 :)

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. :)

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.

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...:-)

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...

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...:-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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". :)

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? :)

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.


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.

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? :)

Apr 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 01, 2017
@RC
Some things...
Did I miss another class?

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.

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?

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.

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.


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
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.

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
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.

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...

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...

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 ...

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...:-)

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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...

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. :)

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.

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.

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


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.

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?

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
Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
Your lack of understanding of the subjects that you argue about so vehemently is BREATHTAKING.

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
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.


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
Apr 02, 2017
@Benni
LOL. No answers then?

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

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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...?

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..)

Apr 02, 2017
The equation you're referring to only applies to matter, @Whyde. And at that, only to matter at rest.

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...

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...

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! :)

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. :)

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

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.

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. :)

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. :)

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?

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?

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 ...

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.

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

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? :)

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")

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! :)

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. :)

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.

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. :)

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?")

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? :)

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. :)

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.

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

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.

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. :)

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....?


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?

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...

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.

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.

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

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! :)

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. :)

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.

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.

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. :)

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

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.

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.

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)

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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! :)

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. :)

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. :)

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...

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...

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...

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

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