Researchers capture first 'image' of a dark matter web that connects galaxies

April 12, 2017, Royal Astronomical Society
Dark matter filaments bridge the space between galaxies in this false colour map. The locations of bright galaxies are shown by the white regions and the presence of a dark matter filament bridging the galaxies is shown in red. Credit: S. Epps & M. Hudson / University of Waterloo

Researchers at the University of Waterloo have been able to capture the first composite image of a dark matter bridge that connects galaxies together. The scientists publish their work in a new paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The composite image, which combines a number of individual images, confirms predictions that across the universe are tied together through a connected by dark matter that has until now remained unobservable.

Dark matter, a mysterious substance that comprises around 25 per cent of the universe, doesn't shine, absorb or reflect light, which has traditionally made it largely undetectable, except through gravity.

"For decades, researchers have been predicting the existence of dark-matter filaments between galaxies that act like a web-like superstructure connecting galaxies together," said Mike Hudson, a professor of astronomy at the University of Waterloo. "This image moves us beyond predictions to something we can see and measure."

As part of their research, Hudson and co-author Seth Epps, a master's student at the University of Waterloo at the time, used a technique called weak gravitational lensing, an effect that causes the images of distant galaxies to warp slightly under the influence of an unseen mass such as a planet, a black hole, or in this case, dark matter. The effect was measured in images from a multi-year sky survey at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope.

They combined lensing images from more than 23,000 galaxy pairs located 4.5 billion light-years away to create a or map that shows the presence of dark matter between the two galaxies. Results show the dark matter filament bridge is strongest between systems less than 40 million light years apart.

"By using this technique, we're not only able to see that these filaments in the universe exist, we're able to see the extent to which these filaments connect galaxies together," said Epps.

Explore further: Team puts dark matter on the map

More information: Seth D. Epps et al. The weak-lensing masses of filaments between luminous red galaxies, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx517

Related Stories

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

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

Dark matter less influential in galaxies in early universe

March 15, 2017

New observations indicate that massive, star-forming galaxies during the peak epoch of galaxy formation, 10 billion years ago, were dominated by baryonic or 'normal' matter. This is in stark contrast to present-day galaxies, ...

Image: Hubble sees spiral in Serpens

September 8, 2014

(Phys.org) —This new NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows a beautiful spiral galaxy known as PGC 54493, located in the constellation of Serpens (The Serpent). This galaxy is part of a galaxy cluster that has been ...

Recommended for you

229 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rogerdallas
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2017
I don't see any way to account for such an observation with any sort of modified gravity theory. At least, not with a modified gravity theory that isn't very weird. Maybe dark matter is the simpler hypothesis.
bschott
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 12, 2017
Researchers capture first 'image' of a dark matter web that connects galaxies---

But
Dark matter, a mysterious substance that comprises around 25 per cent of the universe, doesn't shine, absorb or reflect light

How did you "make" an image that isn't there...?
"This image moves us beyond predictions to something we can see and measure.

But you made the image, you didn't RECORD the image
By using this technique, we're not only able to see that these dark matter filaments in the universe exist, we're able to see the extent to which these filaments connect galaxies together,"

The level of insanity is reaching a fever pitch....implosion imminent. But what is really going on?
https://phys.org/...ics.html
Read the first line, use your freaking intellects as to why light bends in space...not an assumed fairy tale. (although the rest of that article is eloquently worded mathematical guesswork).
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (12) Apr 12, 2017
Re: "For decades, researchers have been predicting the existence of dark-matter filaments between galaxies that act like a web-like superstructure connecting galaxies together"

Imagine my dismay when I found that the paper cited does not even apparently cite a single source for this decades of "prediction". Can anybody point me to these predictions?
Shootist
3.8 / 5 (16) Apr 12, 2017
How did you "make" an image that isn't there...?


didn't read the article did you, chum? 'cause it's plain as day what they imaged.

For this much lensing to occur there must be THIS much mass. Mass that apparently doesn't interact with photons or matter (hence the DARK park), but does interact with space-time..
Shootist
3 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
How did you "make" an image that isn't there...?


didn't read the article did you, chum? 'cause it's plain as day what they imaged.

For this much lensing to occur there must be THIS much mass. Mass that apparently doesn't interact with photons or matter (hence the DARK park), but does interact with space-time, making it visible for those with eyes to see..

bschott
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2017

didn't read the article did you, chum? 'cause it's plain as day what they imaged.

For this much lensing to occur there must be THIS much mass.

Uh...yeah...I did
But what is really going on?
https://phys.org/...ics.html
Read the first line, use your freaking intellects as to why light bends in space...not an assumed fairy tale.

That magnetic fields affect light is PROVEN every day in countless ways, "gravity bends light" is a hypothesis....given the presence of galactic magnetic fields...a painfully weak one.
RNP
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 12, 2017
@bschott
That magnetic fields affect light is PROVEN every day in countless ways, "gravity bends light" is a hypothesis....given the presence of galactic magnetic fields...a painfully weak one.


WOW! Have you really managed to remain this ignorant of the physics that you so frequently comment on? I find it difficult to believe that you can even suggest such things! But, just in case you are so confused;

- The bending of light by gravity was first observed by Eddington in 1919 (e.g. https://www.earth...lativity ) - the first observation to confirm the predictions of General Relativity. The observation has been experimentally confirmed literally hundreds of times.

- On the other hand, magnetic fields do NOT bend light and certainly could not produce the gravitational lensing effects described in the paper. I defy you to provide a single reference suggesting how they could.
El_Nose
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
@HannesAlfven - i gave you a 1

1) the sentence you references above is a quote that was spoken aloud
2) it is fully backed by the introduction of the paper ( first 8 - 10 paragraphs ) where they site too many works to list there going back to the late 90's
Link to paper:
https://academic....s/stx517

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
How did you "make" an image that isn't there...?
@bs
please show me where exactly the wind is in this picture:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TAEmWG87udU/S6rPKej4COI/AAAAAAAAAo0/5rey-Z5k3Qw/s1600/20080619095031_blowing_wind.jpg

But you made the image, you didn't RECORD the image
any multiple exposure picture is "made"
would you contest the following under the same argument?
https://upload.wi...ield.jpg
El_Nose
4 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
@bschott

1) http://hypertextb...rg.shtml
random online reference -- average magnetic field strengths of galxies ( spiral ) about 0.1 nano Tesla. Your finger has a stronger magnetic field. Your cell phone has a stronger magnetic field. Earth has a stronger magnetic field than the average galaxy.

2) photons are neutral, meaning magnetic fields don't effect them.

3) -but what about changing magnetic fields cause those create EM waves and that effects photons -- right? No, or the effect is so small it doesn't matter... radios would not work on Earth.

4) but Delbrück scattering is real -- yeah it is ... and it also retransmits the photon along the same path -- or so close to that path we can't distinguish it's vector due to relative error
https://en.wikipe...attering

i think i covered most angles on this one
bschott
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2017
@El Nose -
average magnetic field strengths of galaxies

Site magnometer readings confirming the strength please, also state location in the galaxy for said "measurement", is that the strength of the field that is accelerating the polar jets we witness?
2) photons are neutral

Please site experiment measuring photons for "charge"
, meaning magnetic fields don't effect them.

Paraphrasing this statement - Once a photon is created, it is never deflected, absorbed, red shifted or diffracted....most ridiculous statement ever.
Delbrück scattering

Mentions "vacuum polarization" twice in the definition...why?
i think i covered most angles on this one

Only to justify your own beliefs my friend...
Chris_Reeve
Apr 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult promoter
Does anybody know where this prediction originated? Where was it first published?

https://scholar.g...dt=0%2C4

The reason I ask is because tracking down the first date of publication for the claim is a first step towards identifying whether this was in fact a PRE-diction or a POST-diction
calling BS on this one

historically you have included any number of reasons for attempting to distract away from a point or sound science

considering you call yourself a researcher and educated but you can't find or utilise empirical evidence and reputable peer reviewed studies for your claims while choosing to follow and believe a known debunked refuted pseudoscience, then your true motivation stands questioned in light of historical actions and evidence
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
@Chris_Reeve/HannesAlfven
There is no citation offered for any of the claims of the first paragraph. Does anybody know where this prediction originated? Where was it first published?


I can not comment on the first theoretical work that referred to DM filaments, but the introduction of the paper DOES give a VERY comprehensive reference for these predictions ( https://arxiv.org...6665.pdf ). Did you miss it? Or did you actually not look at it?

Besides, all you have to do is look at maps produced by models such as the Millennium Simulation ( https://wwwmpa.mp...lennium/ ) to see that the models predict low density DM filaments connecting almost ALL neighboring high mass aggregations (i.e. galaxy clusters).
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
Re: "Did you miss it? Or did you actually not look at it?"

This paper does not help me to identify if this is a prediction or postdiction.

Let me show you what I have so far on this topic ...

https://books.goo...;f=false

"The suggestion that the universe be filamentary and cellular was generally disregarded until the 1980s, when a series of unexpected observations showed filamentary structure on the Galactic, intergalactic, and supergalactic scale."

https://en.wikipe...filament

"Discovery of structures larger than superclusters began in the late-1980s."

The prediction followed the observation.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
Not Even Trying: The Corruption of Real Science
Bruce G Charlton
(p73-77)

"[M]odern technological advances are not imposed problems; they are instead examples of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

The joke of the Texas Sharpshooter is that he fires his gun many times into a barn door, then draws a target over the bullet holes, with the bulls-eye over the closest cluster of bullet holes.

In other words, the Texas Sharpshooter makes it look as if he had been aiming at the bulls-eye and had hit it, when in fact he drew the bulls-eye only after he took the shots.

Modern science and engineering is like that. People do research and development, and then proclaim triumphantly that whatever they have done is a breakthrough. They have achieved whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D; and then they spin, hype and market whatever-happens-to-come-out-of-R&D as if it were a major breakthrough."
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
@hannes/reeve multi-socks of the eu pseudoscience cult
This paper does not help me to identify if this is a prediction or postdiction
my link provided all the information you needed

so where is the predictability of the eu cult ??

and why are you ignoring that they have zero predictability and the bulk of their claims are "postdiction" events that aren't even correct 90% of the time?

(being generous with the low 90% number simply because i've not seen 100% of their postdictions)

the eu is the very definition of the "texas sharpshooter" fallacy, so why aren't you publicizing that?

(hint: it's called a cognitive bias)
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
@hannes/reeve multi-socks of the eu pseudoscience cult cont'd
Let me show you what I have so far on this topic ...
here is the problem we have with your "collection of evidence"
in the above link i found references to 1984 that spell out filaments in CDM - GR Blumenthal, SM Faber, JR Primack, MJ Rees - 1984

other references include: White, Frenk, Davis et al, 1987
Jordi Miralda-Escudé, Renyue Cen, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, and Michael Rauch 1996

all of those in my link to you - but you want everyone to believe that this is postdiction because your electric looneyverse wants you to promote their bullsh*t

this is why when you state you're a researcher, no one takes you seriously (except other pseudoscience idiots)

you want to produce the controversy for others to learn the "facts" - start learning how to research first

then learn why the constraints put on science lead to factual conclusions while your eu unicorn poo theorists lead only to stupidity or ignorance
HannesAlfven
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2017
Re: "my link provided all the information you needed"

Guys, show me that you are even mildly critical of the press releases you are reading ...

(1) None of the dates in the search you've posted predate the 80's. So, how can any of them "predict" the filamentary structure of the large-scale universe, which was not observed until the 80's?

(2) I'm betting that a number of you here already know that dark matter filaments were post-dicted, based upon observations, and yet there is nobody pointing out the sloppy journalism -- leaving those who do NOT know this to assume the validity of it.

(3) An example of a prediction, as in BEFORE observation:

Cosmical Electrodynamics (1950)
Hannes Alfven

"Hence medium-density plasmas (and perhaps also low-density plasmas) seem very often to be strongly inhomogeneous, exhibiting a filamentary structure which often may be parallel to the magnetic field."
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
@hannes/reeve multi-socks of the eu pseudoscience cult
Guys, show me that you are even mildly critical of the press releases you are reading
why?
you haven't produced equivalent evidence that refutes anything
(1) None of the dates in the search you've posted predate the 80's
so?
i only did a cursory search
i took a whopping 4 seconds to refute your filamentary claim, so now you want to push the goal posts?
really?

HC Ford, H Butcher 1979
Iskol'dsky, Kim, Koval'chuk, Kokshenev - 1977

so what's your next goalpost movement?
(2) I'm betting that a number of you here already know that dark matter filaments were post-dicted
the physical evidence says: you're illiterate
see above
(3) An example of a prediction, as in BEFORE observation
you mean like 1977 or 1979, per your constrained dates?
there is plasma physics papers listed in my link too... maybe you should read a few
bschott
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
my link provided all the information you needed

You provided a link to 1 480 000 articles containing the words "Dark Matter" in the title. Did you expect him to read every one or were you going to point out the one you had in mind? I chose this one from 1984.
FORMATION OF GALAXIES AND LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE WITH COLD DARK MATTER'

GR Blumenthal, SM Faber, JR Primack, MJ Rees - 1984 - books.google.com

Oddly enough in 1984 a peer reviewed paper on DM and its influence forming galaxies and large scale structure made no mention of DM Filaments...you must have meant a different paper.
so where is the predictability of the eu cult

LMAO...says the supporter of the model that predicts the key structural components of the universe are all invisible other than their effects....just like a magnetic field...go figure.
(hint: it's called a cognitive bias)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2017
You provided a link to 1 480 000 articles containing the words "Dark Matter" in the title. Did you expect him to read every one or were you going to point out the one you had in mind?
@bs
1- he claims to be a researcher - his claim wasn't substantiated by evidence, therefore it was not necessary to provide anything other than a cursory refute

2- any idiot knows that you can choose to constrain the results in that link by adding relevant search parameters... like i did specifically to refute his claims about postdiction

it's not surprising you don't know that
no mention of DM Filaments
correct: it called out CDM filaments and the paper was specific to CDM
LMAO...says the supporter of
ROTFLMFAO
says the supporter of the super magnet cancer killer hoax

nice to see that you are still the pseudoscience crank you proved to be with regard to medicine

where is that scientific evidence you said i would see this year?
is it approved by the FDA yet?

LMFAO
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2017
Skepticism which is specifically directed outwards is simply a form of ideology. It is on occasion -- properly -- called pseudo-skepticism because it is not in the spirit of protecting yourself from misleading or malformed claims (which of course can come from any ideology).

It should be apparent that to the extent that nobody here actually cares about the meaning of terms like "prediction", it opens the door for historical revisionism.

To those who have a basic idea of the history, they already know the importance of the concept of homogeneity to the Big Bang premise. Dark matter filamentation was only proposed once large-scale filaments were observed.

The paper which the author cites does not actually use this term "predict". The science journalist has taken it upon themselves to use that term, and if it is to retain some sort of meaning, we should all reject his usage of it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2017
(Actually, the paper does use the term -- but uses it without any actual citation)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
(Actually, the paper does use the term -- but uses it without any actual citation)

you mean like this?
The cold DM scenario avoids this latter problem ...There are good reasons to believe that ancakes, filaments, and voids would indeed form, and preliminary indications from N-body simulations suggest that they do
under superclusters and voids
references: Davis, Efstathiou, Frenk and White
Melott, Einasto, Saar, Suisalu, Klypin, and Shandarin

maybe the problem is your refusal to acknowledge evidence that directly refutes your claims
for starters, there is a plethora of CDM and DM papers out there that predict filaments
in point of fact, i found About 2,370 results

would you prefer the 2,370 results be listed in the above paper as a "reference"?

most logical thinking people will simply accept the wording -there is no need to seek specific references because those with an IQ at least above 70 will do homework to check facts unless they're in a cult
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult idiot cont'd
It should be apparent that to the extent that nobody here actually cares about the meaning of terms like "prediction", it opens the door for historical revisionism
except i just proved you wrong on that
scientists have specific meanings for prediction and you just blatantly lied to promote pseudoscience
Dark matter filamentation was only proposed once large-scale filaments were observed
and again - just because you're illiterate doesn't mean everyone else is too

quit spreading misinformation and blatant lies unless you can provide evidence

the one thing you still haven't done is provide evidence for your claims

i can see why you downrated everything above - it provided evidence proving you're a liar and ignoring evidence for the sake of a belief in a pseudoscience cult

FOAD and learn to read
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2017
^Stupidity aside

What we could really use is a video of this dark matter. A still image helps no one understand anything.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2017
@vacuum
^Stupidity aside
What we could really use is a video of this dark matter. A still image helps no one understand anything.
WTF?

you're saying we need a video that can track the movements of dark matter?
really?

lets see: for that we would need a video that takes time lapse pics of the galaxy over a galactic year, or at least long enough to establish movement of DM over said galaxy - so lets just say 1/4th of a galactic year

if that is 225 to 250 million terrestrial years ( http://hypertextb...ng.shtml ) then we need "video" of 62.5 milion years

sure... lets just run out and get some footage!
sounds perfectly logical
[sarc]
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2017
As with every finding, sighting, picture or other constructed claim of seeing dark matter, the construction is formed by a computer based on gravitational lensing.

Yes, there is gravitational lensing of light. Such lensing is evidence of gravity, it is not evidence and certainly not proof of invisible matter.
SKULLTRAP
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2017
Image looks legit. The soul of dark matter is being uncloaked.
richk
not rated yet Apr 12, 2017
They combined lensing images from more than 23,000 galaxy pairs located 4.5 billion light-years away to create a composite image or map that shows the presence of dark matter between the two galaxies. Results show the dark matter filament bridge is strongest between systems less than 40 million light years apart.

i'm/no/clear/on/how/to/visualize.Are/there/23,000/galaxies/behind/the/bridge/that/appear/as
pairs/above/and/below.that/would/seem/improbable.
Dingbone
Apr 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2017
"Yes, there is gravitational lensing of light. Such lensing is evidence of gravity, it is not evidence and certainly not proof of invisible matter."

Who said it's invisible? Just because your eyes can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. You can't see the bones in your finger, but x-rays can. You can't see in the dark, but a bat can. Mantis shrimps see UV, visible and polarized light. https://en.wikipe...s_shrimp
Imagine if you had those eyes.
gculpex
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2017
They combined lensing images from more than 23,000 galaxy pairs located 4.5 billion light-years away to create a composite image or map that shows the presence of dark matter between the two galaxies. Results show the dark matter filament bridge is strongest between systems less than 40 million light years apart.

i'm/no/clear/on/how/to/visualize.Are/there/23,000/galaxies/behind/the/bridge/that/appear/as
pairs/above/and/below.that/would/seem/improbable.

it's all fake, the astro-boys know that it is just plasma.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2017
Something is causing gravitational lensing in an area where there is no visible bright matter. The location seeming to form a bridge or filament between two galaxy clusters seems inconsistent with MOND, and consistent with CDM (cred to @rogerdallas- good point). It's also consistent with filamentarian CDM cosmological models.

Whether it's "first" or not is somewhat questionable as @Dingbone has pointed out; but whether it's there or not is pretty clear given lensed images of background galaxies.

As for "theories" of lensing due to electromagnetic fields, this is risible given that photons are uncharged. More EUdiocy.
genesgalore
5 / 5 (4) Apr 12, 2017
very cool. it would not surprise me one bit if "dark matter" come in more than one flavor.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2017
^Stupidity aside

What we could really use is a video of this dark matter. A still image helps no one understand anything.
Check out some videos of cosmological simulations. Here's one: https://www.youtu...DoExbu_Q
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2017
- he claims to be a researcher

LMAO...so do you....out of the two of you he is clearly more well read in all avenues of science, philosophy, and applies logic far more efficiently than you are close to being capable of.
- his claim wasn't substantiated by evidence

Again...LMAO...neither is any claim made in this article regarding DM. Just what is inferred by people reading photons. It's both a shame and a joke you can't comprehend this.
any idiot knows that ...

Only idiots like you who use it because you believe they support valid science.
As to the rest of your off topic remarks...the year is young, and the FDA approves drugs...that kill people....for profit. Not a surprise a psycho like yourself would be their poster boy.
Now I am sure you are salivating at the imminent attack on one of the people whom you stalk here....try not to look as inept as:
https://phys.org/...rth.html
LMAO...CD85 is smarter than you.

IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2017
i'm/no/clear/on/how/to/visualize.Are/there/23,000/galaxies/behind/the/bridge/that/appear/as
pairs/above/and/below.that/would/seem/improbable.


No. What they did was stack the lensing signal from 23,000 pairs. Each pair has background galaxies seen around it, those background galaxies are used to measuring the lensing but for a single pair it's very noisy so they stack the signal. Each pair is rotated and scaled so all the pairs line up on top of each other. The lensing signal is then stacked giving what you see. The two peaks in the image are where the first and second galaxies of each pair were stacked. It's just like stacking any astronomical image, you line up all the frames and then you stack, the only difference here is that you're stacking different objects.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 13, 2017
@full-of-bs
neither is any claim made in this article regarding DM. Just what is inferred by people reading photons. It's both a shame and a joke you can't comprehend this
ROTFLMFAO
right
watching the effects or influences of something invisible is absolutely no way to learn anything about it

so tell me... where, exactly, is the wind in this picture?
http://www.newsre...nd-9.jpg

.the year is young, and the FDA approves drugs...that kill people....for profit
so, why can't you get approval for your super magneto machine?
please explain that with your "logic" so everyone can understand
CD85 is smarter than you
so then why can't he substantiate his claims with peer reviewed studies?
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2017
so then why can't he substantiate his claims with peer reviewed studies?

that is no measure of intelligence or understanding...understandably you actually believe you doing this is a measure of your intelligence...ROFLMAO
watching the effects or influences of something invisible is absolutely no way to learn anything about it

You can't learn about it when you claim to know what it is and how it works already. Clearly why they haven't "learned" anything yet...
why can't you get approval for your super magneto machine?

Complete FDA approvals for this machine will cost about 10 million to test as they demand in order to say what it does to market it... The money isn't there. At this point, everyone who has one knows what it does...and they approve quite staunchly. Why do you keep appealing to an authority as corrupt as the FDA? Oh, yeah...your entire existence is appeals to authorities as corrupt as the FDA.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2017
that is no measure of intelligence or understanding
@full of bs
really?
so, comprehending the subject matter enough to provide relevant scientific material is not a measure of intelligence?
huh...
You can't learn about it when you claim to know what it is and how it works already. Clearly why they haven't "learned" anything yet...
stupidest claim i've ever heard
sorry - forgot who i was talking to
you've never heard of validation... or maybe your magnetic cancer killer fried a few too many circuits?
Complete FDA approvals for this machine will cost about 10 million to test as they demand in order to say what it does to market it... The money isn't there
bullsh*t
i already provided you the links that refute that claim - the $$ aren't there because the makers know they can't waste their hard-conned cash on a test that will obviously prove them wrong, losing more cash from conned idiots investing due to pseudoscience

lies don't work
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2017
@full of bs cont'd
At this point, everyone who has one knows what it does...and they approve quite staunchly
yep
just like everyone who is at westboro knows ...

this is my point: you do not know anything
you are making an ASSumption

there is absolutely no objective or scientific evidence that proves your machine has done anything more than make you feel good about spending the money to purchase it
Why do you keep appealing to an authority as corrupt as the FDA?
because they have some of the least stringent requirements for approval using the scientific method
considering what *has* been approved and the subsequent horrible side effects, that speaks volumes about your machine and the credibility of your claims
your entire existence is appeals to authorities as corrupt as the FDA
if you could prove that you would be the hero of the deniers movement

and i don't appeal to authority
i appeal to evidence produced by the scientific method
nikola_milovic_378
Apr 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Apr 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Al
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
Milgrom acceleration not dark matter for Tully-Fisher galactic rotation versus radius. Big Bang baryogenesis' 0.61 ppb matter bias, hadrons less antihadrons versus photons re Sakharov conditions. Space has ppb chiral anisotropic background selective to hadrons.

Noether's theorems couple exact spatial isotropy with exact angular momentum conservation. 0.12 ppb m/s² Milgrom is Noetherean leakage given ppb chiral anisotropic background. Dark matter? Bench top test spacetime geometry with geometry for ppb chiral anisotropy,

www (dot) mazepath (dot) com (slash) uncleal (slash) ChiralVac (dot) pdf
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2017
this is my point: you do not know anything
you are making an ASSumption


This is a perfect representation of how "Stump logic" works. We are talking about machines I own and people I have direct contact with...yet he believes everything he says is informed point of view and I am the one making assumptions.
there is absolutely no objective or scientific evidence that proves your machine has done anything

Makes this statement of fact again, without even knowing what one looks like, how many there are, who has them and what they have been used for....It's like debating a senior citizen with runaway dementia.
so, comprehending the subject matter enough to provide relevant scientific material is not a measure of intelligence?

Supporting science behind an article in one thread and then calling the same science lies in another is a perfect demonstration of your intelligence...want the links?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 13, 2017
yet he believes everything he says is informed point of view and I am the one making assumptions
@full of bs
ok - please show me the link where you provided:
-your medical records to validate your diagnosis
-the objective evidence that demonstrates the machine in question is the source of the change
Makes this statement of fact again, without even knowing what one looks like, how many there are, who has them and what they have been used for
then why didn't you take your own challenge (bet)?
all i asked for was that your own results met the same criteria that the scientific method would require... you know, the classical meanings of falsifiability, facts, measurement and Theory

you're stalling and attempting to distract from your epic failure - why? [rhetorical]
want the links?
so long as you are willing to meet your own bet/challenge you yourself issued here:
http://phys.org/n...ant.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2017
arXiv version of the paper: https://arxiv.org...02.08485

@IMP-9, they also were able to use some parameters to characterize some pairs as "physical," that is, actually close enough to show a filament between them, and others as "non-physical," meaning they are actually too far apart to have a connecting filament because they are at different distances from us. This was important to constrain the signal-to-noise ratio by constraining the pairs to "physical" pairs.

The secondary filtering applied to determine physical vs. non-physical pairs was delta z; that is, how different the redshifts were for the two galaxies in a pair.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2017
@IMP-9 (& DA Schneib if he is reading this).

A post from me to DS in:

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

Re redshift/distances:
"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."
...from here: https://phys.org/...ast.html
See the IMPORTANT implication(s), DS? If they have been doing that; and CONFUSING even NEARBY SN populations data/parameters, then HOW ON EARTH can you STILL claim it has only a MINOR import when SN data/conclusion EVEN MORE UNreliable for cosmically FAR distant SNs?
See? Even mainstream is realizing ALL 'redshift' based exercises/claims are HIGHLY unreliable.

Also recall, IMP-9, distant-object 'images' are 'built up' photon-by-photon.

So, 'stacking' such 'images' must INCREASE 'false artifacts' likelihood. Bad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2017
To amplify my most recent comment, I will use an analogy: double stars.

Some double stars are actually close enough together to interact gravitationally; others are merely "apparent" doubles, where they are actually far apart in distance from us, but appear to be close together when looking from here (from Earth). The difference can be discerned by examining their vectors, which in turn can be determined from their spectra.

In the analogous way, the vectors of the two members of a galaxy pair can be determined from their spectra. Once this is done, then two populations can be distinguished; those which share spectral characteristics (i.e. redshifts) and those which do not. When this is taken into account, it is found that the ones that share spectral characteristics have strong indications of filaments between then, and the ones that have divergent spectral characteristics do not. This can be seen in Figure 3 of the paper.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2017
As a further note, astronomers often refer to stars that appear close together in x and y (right ascension and declination) but are far separated in z (distance) as "optical doubles" and to stars that are actually close together and gravitationally bound to orbit one another as "binaries," or higher multiples if there are more than two stars so bound.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2017
@RC, not even reading it. You might as well not bother. Your impolite insinuations, constant self-aggrandizement, continuous use of FUD, and constant denigration of all others to boost your self-esteem make you impossible to have a polite conversation with.

Go away. Or learn to do better. This is me rubbing the puppy's nose in it after it widdled in the corner.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2017
@DA Schneib.
@RC, not even reading it. You might as well not bother.
And there it is again, folks! The Stumpy Method of intentionally ignoring and missing stuff so you can blithely lie and deny it ever happened! Sad.

Way to go, DS; you've just 'graduated' from the "Stump Academy for NOT BEING INFORMED or UP TO DATE". You've 'passed with Honours', DS.

I just reminded of/pointed out some crucial aspects creating the problems for such exercises as these, and YOU just ignore it! Like you ignored my doing the same for the Bicep2 problems.

Let's face it, DS; you are a 'hack' pretending to know things but actually just 'reading up on wiki' for the ORTHODOXY 'spiel' to regurgitate here to impress your gang friends who also 'prefer' to hear the 'comfortable blather' of OLD orthodoxy rather than listen and update yourselves on new info/insights from me AND mainstream which is increasingly FALSIFYING that OLD orthodoxy and confirming me correct all along on many fronts. Sad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2017
@RC, again, not reading it. Doubtless another whining session. Puppies don't like having their noses rubbed in their widdle. Nobody cares. Get over it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2017
Obvious troll is obvious. Quit trolling, @RC. The worst thing about you is that you obviously know better but can't stop yourself. It's frankly embarrassing to watch.

Nobody can possibly miss it unless they are as immature as you. That you think anyone who matters does is an indication of your own immaturity.

All you ever had to do was stop and take a look at how you look to yourself. It's called "introspection" and it's an important discovery that every child makes during their maturation. It's a shame that you seem never to have discovered this, but it's not my shame, nor anyone else's but your own.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2017
Any concept derived as a "fudge factor" to help maintain expansion theory's explanation of the background red shift is suspect.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, again, not reading it. Doubtless another whining session. Puppies don't like having their noses rubbed in their widdle.
That's exactly what is happening on your side, DS. I already exampled instances where you did that; while I taught you what your 'ignore and deny' method made you miss; eg, re:

- plasmoids-jets, flux tube processes in solar photosphere/corona processes;

- NON-Keplerian matter distribution and Orbital Regimes in/around spiral galaxies;

- problems with all Bicep2/Other 'exercises' relying on wrong/naive CMB/Redshift assumptions;

- plasmonic energy/waves at two-slit etc barriers;

- not to mention inadequacies of 'conventional' maths.

So, DS, how can anyone take you seriously and give you '5', when you 'ignore then deny' info posted for your education?

You are more interested in making 'gang friends' (ie, your "Nobody cares." bot-voting gang who give you '5'), than you are in actually updating re the science NOW.

LOOK, DS!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2017
So, @RC, got anything to say about the filaments or the dark matter web?

I haven't even read your post and I know you don't.

And that's pitiful.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
So, @RC, got anything to say about the filaments or the dark matter web?
Already have, in thread:

https://phys.org/...rgy.html

The visible'gravitating/lensing NORMAL matter is now being found EVERYWHERe; not only in 'filaments' but ALSO in previously MISLABELED 'voids'. Get up to date, DS.

I haven't even read your post and I know you don't.
Which makes your continuing self-inflicted ignorance-in-denial state even more pitiful than ever, DS.

And that's pitiful.
Indeed!

PS: DS, it may help you to look less of a prat if you opened your eyes and read what is being posted, instead of opening your big mouth without reading what is being posted. Pitiful.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2017
Still denying SDSS and BOSS.

Now you're just making stuff up, @RC, which was predictable given your history.

What a complete waste of time you are.

Here's a fairly current (AUG 2016) article on study of cosmic voids: https://astronomy...niverse/

Here's a report of the actual announcement: http://www.slate....ons.html I'll note that's Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself.

Here's the paper on arXiv for open access: https://arxiv.org...02.01784

You're lying again, @RC. You're busted again, @RC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2017
See, this is why you're worthless, @RC. You always lie when you're backed into a corner. I only have to watch to see when someone else's post puts your back against the wall and shows you're wrong and read your response to see if you're still lying. And you always do. Every time. Like clockwork.

Please show where anyone claimed there is absolutely no matter in the voids. They didn't; and instead of acknowledging that they're not and never were claimed to be absolutely empty of all matter whatsoever, you made up another lie. You're lying again, @RC.

Shirt: cookie crumbs.
Step stool: under feet.
Cookie jar: on the floor broken.
@RC: claiming he didn't raid the cookie jar.

Give it up. You're like a 3-year-old.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
By the way, that's actually a pretty good article, and very apropos of the article on the guys who have worked out a new simulation regime that shows that it's the difference in expansion between the voids and the filaments that creates the effect of dark energy. I'll make sure to update that article with this paper.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2017
I'll note that's Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself.

Bad astronomer and a pitiful "scientist" to boot. Meaningless blather from yet another plasma ignoramus.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@cantthink69, Phil's got more astronomy in his left little toe than you have in your entire body. As usual, you slander those you cannot prove wrong.

Noted that you have no comment on the actual scholarly article by a real scientist and resort to slandering popular science writers who understand the scholarly article in a way you can not do and never will be able to due to your retarded state.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2017
@RC's lie about cosmic voids is now spread across three threads, and this is @Schneib making sure everyone knows it and sees it. This individual is dishonest, making up lies when confronted with evidence it cannot answer. No one who values their reputation on this site should bother interacting with this individual until it decides it will always be caught when it lies and stops lying. Only in this manner will this puppy learn not to widdle on the carpet. I say this for the good of this site.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib. You finished? Good. Listen and learn. The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed. Got that, DS? Moreover, any articles/exercises which a-priori ASSUME 'Exotic DM' and that 'Dark Energy' (and Inflation, Expansion and Accelerating Expansion) are from the get-go FLAWED and circuitous exercises. Just as Bicep2 was! Have you learned nothing from that fiasco, DS? Further still, the fact that the great expanses of space regions are cold and contain LOW luminosity and STILL undetectable material because our scopes are still unable to actually detect the EM signal so diffused and diffracted etc on its long journey to our present telescopes, is the reason that the 'filaments' stand out more than the so-called 'void' regions. Its circuitous assumptions/exercises, DS. Ok?
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@RC, no, I ain't finished until you apologize to this site for lying for self-promotion.

Sniff the widdle, puppy, until you learn better. The only way to deal with a baby dog is be consistent and keep rubbing their nose in the widdle until they stop. Obviously nothing else works with you.

There aren't any HUGE quantities inside cosmic voids. You're lying again, @RC. Sniff the widdle on the carpet, @RC. You did it, @RC. Don't do it any more, @RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2017
@Da Schneib.
There aren't any HUGE quantities inside cosmic voids. You're lying again, @RC. Sniff the widdle on the carpet, @RC. You did it, @RC. Don't do it any more, @RC.
There it is again: so "certain" yet so ill informed re the new discovery/reviews by mainstream itself. It's self-satisfied ego-maniacs big mouths who DON'T READ up to date and who think they knew it all and nothing has changed to rock the big bang etc 'boat', who have been filling the literature with 'publish-or-perish' CRAPOLA based on nothing more than fantasy and unreal 'things' which had no tenable scientific support from the get-go! If you still in denial, you probably missed where Prof Paul Steinhardt admitted INFLATION was NEVER a scientifically tenable hypothesis, only a FANTASY based on more fantasy going back into the 'papers' assumptions/literature for DECADES!

DS, remember: you were also "certain" that there were "no flux tubes or plasmoid process in the sun's dynamics"? WRONG!

Learn!
RNP
5 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2017
@RealityCheck
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed. Got that, DS?


AGAIN, YOU LIE! There are NO such "discoveries".

AGAIN, I challenge you to produce a SINGLE reference for such "HUGE quantities" of matter. Recall you need quantities of more than 500 BILLION solar masses in galaxies such as the Milky Way and hundreds of TRILLIONS of solar masses in galaxy groups or clusters.

AGAIN, I tell you that you are completely deluded if you think ANY papers, recent or not, have FOUND this much previously hidden baryonic matter, and challenge you to PROVE otherwise by providing appropriate links (and not some hand-wavy "done if before" BS).

So, AGAIN... Put up or shut up.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2017
@RC has one paper, and it's the one I linked: https://arxiv.org...02.01784 It doesn't understand it. It thinks that to be a "void," a cosmological void has to have absolutely no matter in it. It doesn't understand that there are bound to be a few scattered galaxies in it, nor even if it did would it understand how those galaxies probe the properties of such a void.

If anyone doubts it, read this article: https://www.insid...mic-void

Here's the salient quote:
But between the filaments and walls of this cosmic web are vast cosmic voids. There are stray galaxies here and there, but overall, these bubble-like voids are about 80 percent less dense than the cosmic average. There can even be voids within a void, producing a nested structure.


[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2017
[contd]
So from a couple of misunderstood and poorly read popular science articles, @RC has constructed a fantasy in which dark matter is unnecessary, without even properly understanding that for these voids to exist, dark matter is required.

Without understanding that for galaxy clusters of the size we see to exist in a universe as young as ours, with as little bright matter as our universe has, dark matter is unavoidable.

Without understanding that for filaments linking galaxies to be seen by the gravitational lensing of background galaxies, as we see them, there must be dark matter there. If there were bright matter there we'd be able to see it.

I think this is over. The facts are there. The observations are clear and well documented. The supposed evidence against it doesn't exist; it's a fantasy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@RNP.

You're kidding, right? Either that, or you're in denial of recorded recent mainstream astronomy/cosmology discoveries/reviews of many times the old normal matter 'estimates' previously naively, unsuspectingly based only on visible matter which our telescopes at the time were not able to 'see' beyond. Since then a series of telescope/instrument developments and less 'naive' review of new AND older data is leading to a new understanding of just how much MORE massive/extensive galaxies really are; just how MUCH more previously 'unseen' ordinary matter exists in deep space between galaxies/clusters. They are STILL finding MORE ionized material (of which the ionized Hydrogen component is an indicator of even greater amounts of material in other forms (organic compounds, dust, ices, bodies etc) and various 'energetic' states (protons, electrons, kaons, pions, quark-gluon plasma etc).

So, RNP, you are working from naive models/interpretations, denying newer info. Read up.
RNP
5 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2017
@RealityCheck
Pathetic!!!! NO references. Just more unsubstantiated claims and obfuscation.

Sooner or later you are going to have to realize that every rational person following your posts KNOWS that you are a fraud because you refuse to provide references for your claims. The only possible explanation for which is that you CAN NOT.

You are therefore a despicable fraud. Fortunately, an utterly transparent, despicable fraud.

BTW. I KNOW about ALL the recent discoveries that you VAGUELY make reference to in your rambling nonsense and, almost certainly, many more besides. However, NONE of them are significant on the scale I outlined above and neither is all of of them combined.

So, if you truly want to talk science, give a reference (or two, or....) that proves me wrong!

GO ON, I DARE YOU TO TRY.

Unless you do I am going to start ignoring you again.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@DA Schneib.
@RC has one paper, and it's the one I linked: ttps://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01784
It doesn't understand it. It thinks that to be a "void," a cosmological void has to have absolutely no matter in it. It doesn't understand that there are bound to be a few scattered galaxies in it,
Some things you don't know/realize:

- that is a maths/models exercise based on many assumptions and techniques open to many 'artifacts' and wrong conclusions, not actual reality;

- mainstream astronomers are finding orders of magnitude MORE galaxies there, not just a 'few', and there is much MORE not yet 'seen' because it is not luminous enough to detect with present telescopes;

- you are the one naively 'believing' incorrect 'exercises' and twisting the facts (I said the 'voids' are NOT 'empty; that is YOUR 'belief' still, as follows...

continued....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
continued @Da Schneib.
If anyone doubts it, read this article: https://arxiv.org...02.01784 Here's the salient quote:
But between the filaments and walls of this cosmic web are vast cosmic voids. There are stray galaxies here and there, but overall, these bubble-like voids are about 80 percent less dense than the cosmic average. There can even be voids within a void, producing a nested structure.
And you again read with confirmation bias, DS. They still treat/assume 'voids' are only 20% density compared to overall universal space. They still assume that matter has been traveling towards the 'walls/filaments' for BILLIONS of years; they still assume Big Bang scenarios and all the naive estimates from the OLD and increasingly being falsified hypotheses re EXOTIC DM and DE and all the misleading interpretations as to motions and densities/distributions.

See? Your own reference shows just how BIASED and NAIVE and UNREAL the 'exercises' are. Get up to date.
RNP
5 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2017
@RealityCheck
PLEASE!!! For everybody's sake please, stop this BS. You are convincing no-one and we are ALL bored with it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@RNP.

How can you stand there pretending you are up to date with ALL mainstream has been discovering/reviewing and confirming me correct in all along? You and your 'gang' buddies BOAST about NOT READING the facts, before you open your mouths and just regurgitate/defend OLD beliefs created when naive/simplistic 'models' and interpretations of observations was rampant. You ignore then deny. You have been infected by the STUMP METHOD for NOT getting informed. You keep insulting and accusing me of whatever, but fail to realize it's you being NOT UP TO DATE. And I am not here to wipe your nose and clean up your troll-shite. You and your gang buddies have been assiduously avoiding reading new info while insulting me. Too bad. Your problem. Don't come crying for me to go back through years of posts/mainstream discovery/reviews you intentionally/biasedly MISSED/IGNORED the implications/falsifications for OLD 'naive and unreal' BB (Including INFLATION), DE, Exotic DM etc. Read up.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2017
So, if you truly want to talk science, give a reference (or two, or....) that proves me wrong!

GO ON, I DARE YOU TO TRY.


What the hell do REFERENCES have to do with anything? The only references you ever post are from one BIAS to the next BIAS, and mostly never anything about science, just your funny farm pseudo-science fantasies of cosmic fairy dust.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
PLEASE!!! For everybody's sake please, stop this BS
@RNP
as a sociopath, it is incapable of feeling empathy or sympathy
then there is this... read it
https://en.wikipe..._complex

there are only a few ways to deal with said type of idiot:
1- moderation (this always leads to banning - as evidenced by rc's socks at SciForum and other sites)

2- ignore it (report the OT or false claim posts)

unless you want to poke the stupid, there aint much else you can do - it wants to be targeted

there is no such thing as negative attention - it's a masochist
it thrives on anything it can get

it will appeal to the forum, talk about bots and skewed metrics, tell everyone how "correct" it is, and throw out ad hominem, but it will never, ever be able to discuss reputable science as that requires evidence and occasionally being wrong
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@Forum.

Enter inventor of 'Stump Method for Ignoring, Denying, Insulting'! And totally irrelevant/hostile to polite, objective science/logics discourse without bias or ego-tripping malice. Note he NO LONGER denies the BOT-voting to unconscionably 'skew' ratings metric on a science site; and to 'hide' his 'enemy's' posts from mid-set reading filter. He is afraid that readers will see what he is trying to hide/deny. Ask yourselves, folks, what original and/or important work/insights has The Stump and his "TL;DR" Method offered science discourse here or any other science forum? That's right! None! He and his bot-voting, trolling gang buddies have been fouling these sites for years now with personal malice trolling and 'feuds'. Like the 'paddoboy' troll who sabotaged Sciforums for so long; until even his 'friends and protectors' among the mods/admin/gang could no longer deny paddoboy's poisonous, ignorant, baiting, trolling, sabotaging and 'framing-for-banning' tactics. Sad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2017
Still waiting for the evidence from @RC of all this bright matter we can't see on this thread, too. Not to mention the one where @RC thinks philosophy is as good even as math, never mind science. Yes, really: https://phys.org/...ole.html

Dudebro doesn't understand A = A, doesn't understand infinity, doesn't understand zero, and demonstrates complete innumeracy. Basically, when talking about science or math, @RC obviously doesn't understand either one and its capering and whining can be dismissed out of hand with little effort.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking. I had to take 7 or 6 days off from the physorg, did you miss me?

Hooyeei, I get back and look over what you been up to for the last week Cher. Not much new but you make up for not-original with the volume, eh?

Anyhoo, all I wanted to say is I finally make it back. Oh yeah, also that you should be a little nicer to DaSchneib-Skippy and Whydening-Skippy. And the Captain-Skippy too. If it won't for them, you would not have anybody to fool around with when you come here. Everybody else has put you on the ignore. Or if they don't know you yet, they still don't get to see your deranged deludings because of the service I provide for peoples who set their karma slider over 2.0..

Try to be a little nicer because when they get you on ignore, then all you will have left is Ol-Ira-Skippy. Unless you just want to talk to your self, is that part of your mental conditions too?
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
I can't believe no-one picked up on " and various 'energetic' states (protons, electrons, kaons, pions, quark-gluon plasma etc) "
Well, kaons and pions are shortlived decay products, lifetime of a few nanoseconds, hard to see how they could affect the mass deficit. Quark-gluon plasmas may be present at the core of neutron stars, but that would not change the behavior of the observed object. Electrons and protons? Pfft.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
Ira, you got a lot of reading, been busy he has.
Enjoy the trip :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2017
Ira, you got a lot of reading, been busy he has.
Enjoy the trip :)


After all the years I been fooling around with Really-Skippy it don't really take too much time. He sorta HELPS me/you/us/them/him/her/everybody BY saying the SAME stuffs over and over and some more "OVERS".
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2017
Hey @Ira, yeah, it's been interesting. I actually got @RC to be polite for almost a whole day. But of course the next day, back he slid.

In the current conversation he's managed to lie about supposed "current research" on cosmic voids that no one else can see and he can't provide any links to, and provide convincing evidence that he's innumerate by not knowing that A = A, how infinity works, and denying the existence of zero. Pretty amusing stuff. The conversation has ranged across about five threads, and scattered amongst it you'll find some fairly interesting cosmology, if you can unwind it from @RC's capering and whining.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@DA Schneib.

Stop lying and twisting. I am the one saying that you and the conventional maths/axioms construct are the ones treating philosophical/metaphysical notions as 'real' when they are obviously not, as per my observations to you which you are now lying about and twisting to diametrically opposed meaning. This is demonstrated in thread: https://phys.org/...ole.html

where YOU equate abstract notions with reality; attempting to use the abstract convention A-A - 0, which does NOT reflect REALITY case, since UNIVERSE- UNIVERSE can NOT be 0 (ie, there is no such thing in reality as 'nothingness').

And it was ME got you to be 'polite' for a few posts until you ah=gain were LOSING the argument and resorted to insults and evasions which you are still persisting in despite you being wrong all along and me correct. Your 'convenient amnesia' is quick-acting now, making you 'forget' what you just erred in, again.

Get up to speed. Learn.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@Zerg.
I can't believe no-one picked up on " and various 'energetic' states (protons, electrons, kaons, pions, quark-gluon plasma etc) "
Well, kaons and pions are shortlived decay products, lifetime of a few nanoseconds, hard to see how they could affect the mass deficit. Quark-gluon plasmas may be present at the core of neutron stars, but that would not change the behavior of the observed object.
You appear to 'believe' that there is no dynamical processes going on continuously across the universal space, Zerg. The whole gamut of 'products' is a fluxing states/densities etc PROCESS where those that have decayed/reformed are replenished by newly deconstructed/energized material. Is your theory a 'frozen universe', Zerg? You seem to have no idea what's actually happening across the deep space reaches through which all sorts of high energy radiation/cosmic rays are traveling and interacting to produce even ORGANIC molecules and dust/plasma etc. Learn, Zerg.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2017
@RC, you've managed to lie about infinity, lie about zero, lie about A = A, and lie about cosmic void research that doesn't exist. To see @RC lying about math, see this thread: https://phys.org/...ole.html

There isn't any lying and twisting except yours. Stop making stuff up. It just won't work.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Don't keep digging! Your hole of ignorance, re what is real/correct and what is not, is already big enough to bury yourself and that gang of bot-voting ignoramuses egging you on with admiring '5's. The problem is they have no clue and neither do you, DS. Your gang is about as useful to objective polite science/logics discourse here as a boil on Stumpy's rump. You have adopted Stump's 'method' for ignoring, denying insulting and lying so that you can remain ignorant and troll maliciously and ruin proper discourse. You should all be ashamed of yourselves, remaining intentionally ignorant by that STUMP 'method', instead of actually facing reality and using the scientific method. Take a break, DS. You need it to recover from this latest debacle by your own big ignorant insulting mouth. Learn. Take care.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2017
@RC, still you provide no links. It's obvious to anyone that you're lying. You made up a story about research that you can't provide a link to and no one else can find. There isn't anywhere to hide. There isn't any way to justify it. I'll be pointing to this thread from now on every time I see you posting here.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You and 'the troll gang' boasted how you don't read what is posted and just proceed to deny and insult tactics.

Now you try to blame me for your ignorance as to what has been posted for years now?

Really?

Stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2017
@RC, you lied about current research, and when challenged you can't provide any links to it. It's over, @RC. There is no troll gang; there are a bunch of people who have watched you behave in the most immature fashion possible, whom you have repeatedly insulted, and repeatedly lied to and about, and they're tired of it.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
Da Schneib.

Yeah, "a bunch of people" who have been bot-voting and intentionally ignoring, then denying, and now crying for me to do for them what they should have been doing for themselves for years now. Recall the reaction from 'the gang' when I tried to caution about the Bicep2 crapola? No, you wouldn't because of your 'convenient amnesia'. Too bad. You have kept yourselves intentionally ignorant and attack the messenger (as per Stumpy's 'method' which you all have adopted in lieu of scientific method and human courtesy and respect). Your self-inflicted problem now. Go cry at the troll-moon which your "bunch of people" (who fell hook-line-and-sinker for Bicep2 crap and attacked me who was correct all along) has been baying at while ruining this site's and other site's discussions and feedback metrics. Shame on you and your nasty willfully ignorant and denialist "bunch". Stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2017
I can see this is going to take a while.

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

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


You lied, @RC. You lied deliberately, you lied knowing you lied, you can't produce any links to the research you claimed, and you knew you couldn't when you did it. You lied to mislead, and you lied for your own self-aggrandizement. It is your habit to lie like this anytime you feel like it. No one should believe a thing you say, particularly not if evidence that proves some statement you've made wrong.
db24921
not rated yet Apr 16, 2017
So cynically it turns out that Super-Geologist John Michell, who in his lifetime got to know Joseph Priestly (oxygen) and Henry Cavendish (hydrogen), who both came up with their ideas of microscale-molecules, not only discovered the macro (g)-scale Hydrogen-Atom(today:Black Hole), but also made it possible that we get to discover this macro-Helium-Atom by stacking myriads of myriads of digital images on each other - two centuries later.
We will certainly not be done with the quest for ellipsoidal (read:never round) constructs on n-fold diminishing rooted- and squared extremes of irreversible calculus orchestrated by random(read; anticipated) observations of coherence, as long as we can chase it.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Apr 16, 2017
popular science writers

Well, at least you label him what he really is. A pop-sci author.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
"...The whole gamut of 'products' is a fluxing states/densities etc PROCESS where those that have decayed/reformed are replenished by newly deconstructed/energized material..."
Gibberish. Possibly quoted from http://earthlingclub.com/
CBA to check.
"...all sorts of high energy radiation/cosmic rays are traveling and interacting to produce even ORGANIC molecules and dust/plasma etc..."
All of which we can see, and are accounted for.
We're looking for stuff we can't see.
"...Is your theory a 'frozen universe', Zerg?"
That's just silly.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
@Zerg.
whole gamut of 'products' is a fluxing states/densities etc PROCESS where those that have decayed/reformed are replenished by newly deconstructed/energized material
Gibberish
all sorts of high energy radiation/cosmic rays are traveling and interacting to produce even ORGANIC molecules and dust/plasma etc.
All of which we can see, and are accounted for. We're looking for stuff we can't see.
Where have you been, Zerg? You missed all that Quantum Vacuum 'news'. And all the Polar-Jets/other energetic processes 'news' re injection of vast quantities over billions of years into deep space regions which some STILL mislabel as 'voids'. You also missed the 'news' re whole range of ionizing radiation forming the COSMIC BACKGROUND AVERAGE flux which, when not ionizing deep space material, causes said material to aggregate/dissociate/disintegrate etc.

You seem so 'self-satisfied' there, Zerg; but careful, you seem to have missed a LOT while asleep!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
And all the Polar-Jets/other energetic processes 'news' re injection of vast quantities over billions of years into deep space regions which some STILL mislabel as 'voids'.
Still lying about the voids, I see, @RC. Where are all these papers about "injections of vast quantities over billions of years?" And I thought you said they were being "mislabeled as 'voids.'" I don't see any of those papers, either; in fact, the papers that have been presented on voids accept them as fact, since they have the BOSS and SDSS-II to rely on for mapping of the voids.

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

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

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Objective diagnosis re your 'problems' has resulted in the following conclusions, based on posts to date:

- too emotionally, ego-invested, for what should be objective, calm, rational discourse re latest science discovery/reviews;

- too personally malicious, attacks in drunken rage, despite being obviously wrong, many sad instances of such in recent years being on PO record for objective researchers to find for themselves;

- employs 'convenient amnesia' to help prevent reality from damaging his delusions he is doing anything more than indulging in self-aggrandizing for his 'admirers' who are themselves self-proven 'bot-voting gang' trolling and sabotaging anyone who brings respectful, objective contribution to science/logics discourse here;

- prefers OLD 'faith-based' philosophical/metaphysical 'beliefs' in UNREAL Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion, exotic DM and Dark Energy, and eschews all opportunities to update himself re REALITY.

Sad case. Very sad.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You don't "see them" because you haven't actually looked to update yourself as I suggested for YEARS now. You and that 'gang' of bot-voting ignoramus parroting trolls just enjoyed 'bashing cranks' with your OLD beliefs while the mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews by mainstream went on....and you missed it all; which is why you now whine for me to link to it all. Too late. No time or inclination to do for you what you should have been doing for yourselves all these years (as I suggested when that Bicep2 crap came out...but you preferred to attack me and to 'bash cranks' instead of checking it all out objectively as I did).

Listen, DS; you've only yourselves to blame for your intentionally cultivated ignorance while you spent your time 'parroting wiki', 'bashing cranks' using FLAWED 'work/science' which had been passed by a BROKEN 'peer review' system for DECADES.

Stop blaming your victim, DS. Get yourself up to speed for yourself.

And...stop digging!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
Stop blaming your victim, DS. Get yourself up to speed for yourself.
well hell... i called that one right on the nose!
https://phys.org/...rgy.html

LMFAO
RealityCheck
Apr 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
astra
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
Hi - I am new here and just want to get back to the original article for a moment.
Since the 2 galaxies are interacting gravitationally it would seem to me that the space along their axis of interaction would be curved which could explain the gravitational lensing effects.
I am a great fan of Alfven and once took courses from him a long time ago. I recall his web of magnetic fields linking the galaxies of the universe with plasma streaming along those lines. That plasma is mostly made up of electrons and protons which should radiate synchrotron energy as they move along the B lines. The problem is that none of that radiation is observed in those regions.
Also while mass density and electromagnetic energy are equivalent from the perspective of warping spacetime, the kind of magnetic field energy density required to cause space distortions that lens galaxies would be like that around neutron stars and not the inter-galactic magnetic fields.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
@astra.

Thank you for your on-topic post. A refreshing change which I and others interested in the science not the feuds appreciate sincerely.

Regarding your points/observations, I will briefly respond in order of occurrence:

Yes, there would be some effects from the gravitational bridge/counteracting grav. fields, such as a region where the two fields balance to create a region of 'flatness' accentuated by comparison to the nearer-sources curvatures.

Telescopes may not yet be sensitive enough to actually discern that synchrotron radiation from the overall BACKGROUND of synchro-radiation coming from all directions due to ubiquity of polar jets and other synchro-producing processes. That is also the problem in discerning the hypothesized 'primordial' CMB from the CMB produced NOW all over by on-going Polar-Jet, Black Hole and other extreme-redshifting processes/sources.

Distant lensing 'images' are built up photon-by-photon; hence 'artifacts' are a real bugbear.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
"...You also missed the 'news' re whole range of ionizing radiation forming the COSMIC BACKGROUND AVERAGE flux which, when not ionizing deep space material, causes said material to aggregate/dissociate/disintegrate etc..."
Oh good grief, how is said ionization not seen? Why, if it has been seen, would it matter?
It's part of the observable universe, a known quantity (within limits). Again, we're looking for stuff we can't see, the stuff that stops galaxies from flying apart like a catherine wheel.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
@Zerg.
You also missed the 'news' re whole range of ionizing radiation forming the COSMIC BACKGROUND AVERAGE flux which, when not ionizing deep space material, causes said material to aggregate/dissociate/disintegrate etc.
Oh good grief, how is said ionization not seen? Why, if it has been seen, would it matter? It's part of the observable universe, a known quantity (within limits). Again, ....the stuff that stops galaxies from flying apart like a catherine wheel.
Pay closer attention to what mainstream astro/cosmo discovery/review is finding, Zerg. Past assumptions, interpretations, models, and 'explanations' based on same, now highly suspect....precisely because we ARE now 'seeing' NORMAL matter all over the place! And what we can 'see' is also misleading if not treated properly, ie naively based on simplistic/wrong 'beliefs', 'hypotheses'.

The NORMAL GR and NORMAL MATTER/FORCES are OK; it was old/naive interpretations were flawed, created all the furphies. Ok?
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
@astra
"...the kind of magnetic field energy density required to cause space distortions that lens galaxies would be like that around neutron stars..."
And they're quite small and hard to see, but yeah, that's the only place I can think of that would mag lens. Hmm, a rapidly rotating black hole? Would that field be intrinsic?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@astra.
Yes, there would be some effects from the gravitational bridge/counteracting grav. fields, such as a region where the two fields balance to create a region of 'flatness' accentuated by comparison to the nearer-sources curvatures.

Telescopes may not yet be sensitive ... from all directions due to ubiquity of polar jets and other synchro-producing processes. That is also the problem in discerning the hypothesized 'primordial' CMB from the CMB produced NOW all over by on-going Polar-Jet, Black Hole, (etc)...

My thought is - do the polar jet have sufficient escape velocity or are they gravitationally bound to their source galaxy?
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2017
"...precisely because we ARE now 'seeing' NORMAL matter all over the place!..."
No, we are not. We are seeing at higher resolutions what we had already seen.
We used to say, "there is x amount of mass in y volume of space"
Now we can say "there is x amount of mass and it is distributed thus in y volume of space"
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
"My thought is - do the polar jet have sufficient escape velocity or are they gravitationally bound to their source galaxy?"
Does it matter? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Zerg.
"...precisely because we ARE now 'seeing' NORMAL matter all over the place!..."
No, we are not. We are seeing at higher resolutions what we had already seen.
We used to say, "there is x amount of mass in y volume of space"
Now we can say "there is x amount of mass and it is distributed thus in y volume of space"

That comment from you alone tells that you are not keeping abreast of mainstream discovery/reviews in this field. I cannot be expected to bring you up to speed on all of it. Do the research for yourself instead of repeating your beliefs as based on OLD info and assumptions that you already know about it all. You obviously don't, since the science literature 'papers' and PO articles are plentiful over recent years describing what you obviously missed. Try to look for yourself more thoroughly before again defaulting to old state of affairs. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2017
@Whyde.
Yes, there would be some effects from the gravitational bridge/counteracting grav. fields, such as a region where the two fields balance to create a region of 'flatness' accentuated by comparison to the nearer-sources curvatures. Telescopes may not yet be sensitive ... from all directions due to ubiquity of polar jets and other synchro-producing processes. That is also the problem in discerning the hypothesized 'primordial' CMB from the CMB produced NOW all over by on-going Polar-Jet, Black Hole, (etc)...

My thought is - do the polar jet have sufficient escape velocity or are they gravitationally bound to their source galaxy?
There have been recent mainstream astro/cosmo papers describing how the polar-jets from active galactic nuclei can 'shoot' MATTER, in all kinds of states/quantities for epochs, out to far-distant deep space regions.

Not to mention radiated energy of such polar-jet EM RADIATION PROCESSES can reach across 'observable' universe!

Ok?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 16, 2017
"My thought is - do the polar jet have sufficient escape velocity or are they gravitationally bound to their source galaxy?"
Does it matter? :)

yeah, actually... (to me, anyway)
But, I'm kinda gonna answer my own question - since we see x-ray and gamma rays from various sources - they do. At least some particles, anyway...
Just as I'm sure other particulate in a jet stream does not and is subsequently drawn back in.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2017
Well, my flippant comment meant to indicate that whether they do or not, they're just moving stuff about. And yeah, if it's moving fast enough, it's gone (but not forgotten :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
Well, my flippant comment meant to indicate that whether they do or not, they're just moving stuff about. And yeah, if it's moving fast enough, it's gone (but not forgotten :)

My next conjecture would be that with all that high energy stuff in it, there must be more than a few neutrons in the mix, un-associated with protons. Rapidly decaying into - protons... Or hooking up with protons to make - more hydrogen...
But - the majority of them moving into intergalactic space, decayed into ionized hydrogen....
(maybe I mean neutral...)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
Or hooking up with protons to make - more hydrogen...
But - the majority of them moving into intergalactic space, decayed into ionized hydrogen....
(maybe I mean neutral...)

Oops, I forgot - no neutrons in hydrogen, so - lots (and lots) of protons...
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
Or hooking up with protons to make - more hydrogen...
But - the majority of them moving into intergalactic space, decayed into ionized hydrogen....
(maybe I mean neutral...)

Oops, I forgot - no neutrons in hydrogen, so - lots (and lots) of protons...

Dang... and then there's that pesky deuterium....
(so relatively easy to break up when in the presence of other elemnts...)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@astra
"...the kind of magnetic field energy density required to cause space distortions that lens galaxies would be like that around neutron stars..."
And they're quite small and hard to see, but yeah, that's the only place I can think of that would mag lens. Hmm, a rapidly rotating black hole? Would that field be intrinsic?
@Zerg, it's important to note that no magnetic field has ever been observed to influence the paths of (uncharged) photons. One of the important things about photons and the EM force is that because photons are uncharged, they are not influenced by either the E or B fields. There can be no "mag lensing."

As for whether polar jets have escape velocity, that varies by the jet. Even if they do, however, jets from galaxies inside a cosmic void are quite literally spit in the ocean, if even that.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
@Whyde, most of the hydrogen in intergalactic space is ionized (i.e., free protons). If it weren't we'd be able to see neutral hydrogen absorbing and re-emitting CMB. In fact, the re-ionization of this hydrogen was a detectable event in the history of the universe, and resulted in it becoming transparent as we see it today rather than opaque as it was in the distant past. It's the electrons that absorb photons, and ionized hydrogen doesn't have them.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
@astra, @Whyde and @Zerg are steering you the right way; I just made a couple comments to make sure you and they were aware of the edge cases. Carry on; you're getting good answers (and good questions where there aren't answers, which is, I think, equally important). Also you asked a good question so 5 stars for you.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
I understand that scientists can interpret data in different ways. I understand that scientists have preferred theories, especially when fundamental views are challenged by observational and experimental evidence no one has seen before. I understand that discussions of how new and old theories piece together new and old data can become heated at times.

I do not understand how scientists can justify hurling insults at each other. I do not understand how scientists can substitute hatred of each other for discussions of how evidence fits into new and old theories. I do not understand how scientists can ignore evidence when they can't fit it into their preferred theoretical models.

The cosmos is what it is. Evidence of how the cosmos works is all around us. Theories and simulations must be discarded or modified when new data won't fit.

Argue using data. If you can't argue using data, remain silent until you can.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (3) Apr 17, 2017
A lyric from one of my favorite songs is, "When everyone's shouting, and no one is listening, how can we decide?"
astra
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
My point about magnetic fields affecting the paths of photons is just based on the equivalence of mass and energy with regards to distorting spacetime locally. So photons will follow geodesic paths on curved spacetime around regions of locally high energy/mass denisties and hence lensing is possible for regions of intense electromagnetic energy.
astra
1 / 5 (1) Apr 17, 2017
My point about magnetic fields affecting the paths of photons is just based on the equivalence of mass and energy with regards to distorting spacetime locally. So photons will follow geodesic paths on curved spacetime around regions of locally high energy/mass densities and hence lensing is possible for regions of intense electromagnetic energy.
astra
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
It might be interesting to look for microlensing around magnetars whose masses are fairly well known. Then the additional lensing component beyond just mass could be attributed to the magnetic field energy density from GR which could then be compared to direct magnetic field determinations for these neutron stars. But there are so many assumptions that go into lensing calculations.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
Unfortunately all the types of energy we know about move at the speed of light, so finding them concentrated in one place so they can create lensing is pretty unlikely. It's pretty much only mass that does that sort of thing. Your idea about a magnetar is interesting, but I'd have to think about it for a while to see whether there might be a problem with it.
astra
3 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
I was not referring to electromagnetic energy which does propagate at the speed of light as you say. Rather I was referring to magnetic flux lines which are frozen in stellar plasmas and get wound up as the star spins to create local magnetic field energy densities that in some cases can achieve values which could distort spacetime locally around the star. The GR field equations use a local mass-energy tensor for spacetime curvature effects so these distortions that could affect lensing can derive from both mass and energy. Maybe the place to look for this effect is spinning magnetized black holes! I will look into that. Thanks for your comments.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2017
I thought about it a bit, and the problem is that a magnetic or electric field is not energy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2017
@Da Schneib.

How can you keep pretending to advise others when you eschew actually getting up to speed with the new/evolving mainstream discoveries/reviews on many fronts, DS?

You deny what even recent mainstream papers/PO articles have reported on re polar jets ACTIVE for BILLIONS of years injecting humongous amounts of matter and energy into far distant reaches of intergalactic/inter-cluster space!

This alone tells you are NOT FIT to judge/advise others about the REAL things going on; instead you keep regurgitating all the UNreal notions and naive assumptions in now-OLD orthodoxy.

For science and humanity's sake, DS; pause your ego-tripping and gangmembers tactics, insults, denials etc, and get up to speed a.s.a.p. with mainstream developments recently/now/impending, ok?

Then maybe you might be able to contribute something original/substantial to science discourse trying to ADVANCE astro/cosmo theory and knowledge BEYOND early naive/simplistic crap. Thanks.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 17, 2017
"@Zerg, it's important to note that no magnetic field has ever been observed to influence the paths of (uncharged) photons."
Yeah, poor phrasing by me there.
Assuming we had sufficient resolution, could we measure a difference in warping/lensing between pole and equator? Thinking lobally here :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2017
"Then maybe you might be able to contribute something original/substantial to science discourse trying to ADVANCE astro/cosmo theory and knowledge BEYOND early naive/simplistic crap. Thanks."
What would be really great, is if you did the same. "For science and humanity's sake"
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2017
@Zerg.
"Then maybe you might be able to contribute something original/substantial to science discourse trying to ADVANCE astro/cosmo theory and knowledge BEYOND early naive/simplistic crap. Thanks."
What would be really great, is if you did the same. "For science and humanity's sake"
So, I have been correct and pointed out many things which neither you nor DS, nor the rest of your 'gang', knew, yet you still have the gall to pretend I am the one not pulling my weight re advancing science/humanity discourse?

That is industrial strength 'in denial' trolling. insulting worthy of all 'graduates' from the STUMP ACADEMY teaching the (patent pending) STUMP METHOD for ignoring, denying, insulting and remaining willfully ignorant and malignant to the interests of science discourse!

Show us your STUMP "diploma', Zerg. :)

Zerg, you really must learn to read and comprehend without personal bias if you are to keep up with the info being shot at you by me/mainstream. Catch up!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2017
This alone tells you are NOT FIT to judge/advise others about the REAL things going on; instead you keep regurgitating all the UNreal notions and naive assumptions in now-OLD orthodoxy.

And you magnanimously appointed yourself as judge to assess that opinion...
How out of character for someone so gracious, humble and knowledgeable...
And you did it in such a quiet and un-assuming manner...
So Liberace-like.
5 "/"s for you, RC. Thanks.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2017
@Whyde.
This alone tells you are NOT FIT to judge/advise others about the REAL things going on; instead you keep regurgitating all the UNreal notions and naive assumptions in now-OLD orthodoxy.
And you magnanimously appointed yourself as judge to assess that opinion...
What are you implying, Whyde? The FACTS are as previously recorded by the posts in question: I have pointed out important MAINSTREAM (as well as mine) stuff he missed/denied while insulting and trolling. That sort of behavior self-identifies what he is not fit for in a science discussion re matters he does not know about despite his bashing those who do know and are up to date.
How out of character for someone so gracious, humble and knowledgeable...
And you did it in such a quiet and un-assuming manner...
So Liberace-like.
5 "/"s for you, RC. Thanks.
Stop it. My tone was commensurate with his/gang's CONTINUING attacks despite me being correct and they incorrect. Why blame the victim, Whyde?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2017
@Whyde.
And you magnanimously appointed yourself as judge to assess that opinion...
What are you implying, Whyde? The FACTS are as previously recorded by the posts in question: I have pointed out important MAINSTREAM (as well as mine) stuff he missed/denied while insulting and trolling. That sort of behavior self-identifies what he is not fit for in a science discussion re matters he does not know about despite his bashing those who do know and are up to date.

Always - "I" did this or "I" said that. Not very "sciency.
You are; a Prima Donna Princess attention Whore..
Stop it. My tone was commensurate with his/gang's CONTINUING attacks despite me being correct and they incorrect. Why blame the victim, Whyde?

ALways the "me, me, me"...
Poor RC...
Why is everyone always pickin' on him?

YOU stop it, Mr. "Victim".
EnsignFlandry
4 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
Why are so many of the posts nothing but attacks on other posters? I would think PhysOrg would prohibit that.
Hint to management.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
Thank you, EnsignFlandry.

There is negative reason for personal attacks; they are worse than useless (stolen from a famous British broadcast SciFi series: credit due, credit given).

Point at the data, not at each other.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2017
Why are so many of the posts nothing but attacks on other posters? I would think PhysOrg would prohibit that.
Hint to management.

Because those "other" posters post very subtle attacks on the DATA...
They practically beg for negative response, so as to claim victimization.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
Point out their subtle attacks on the data. Their subtle attacks will then no longer be subtle, and your response will be viewed as very professional, even if it turns out to be wrong. In science, being wrong is no big deal if you're professional enough to admit it after all the data are considered. Even science "gods" have been wrong many times. It's embarrassing, but that's all it is; it's not unprofessional.

It is, for all practical purposes, impossible to get loud and angry people to admit they are wrong, so don't even try. Those professional enough to be swayed by data driven arguments will pay attention to you and ignore the shouting.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
@Whyde, most of the hydrogen in intergalactic space is ionized (i.e., free protons). If it weren't we'd be able to see neutral hydrogen absorbing and re-emitting CMB. In fact, the re-ionization of this hydrogen was a detectable event in the history of the universe, and resulted in it becoming transparent as we see it today rather than opaque as it was in the distant past. It's the electrons that absorb photons, and ionized hydrogen doesn't have them.

Yeah, but...
At what point does it GAIN them? I mean, what does it take to get a proton and an electron together..?
(No quantum porn jokes, please..:-))
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
@Whyde.
Because those "other" posters post very subtle attacks on the DATA...
They practically beg for negative response, so as to claim victimization.
No-one is attacking the DATA, Whyde. It is what it is.

It is the Interpretations and Assumptions employed in 'analysis' and conclusions of/from that DATA, that is the problem.

So, Whyde you/the 'gang' should attack the objective arguments made by those pointing out those problems; instead you/they keep attacking the messenger who points out those things.

Recall what happened when I was 'the messenger' in Bicep2 fiasco!

So please, Whyde, stop blaming the victim of continuing scurrilous, undignified, unscientific, trolling/bot-voting attacks from you/gang who fell hook-line-and-sinker for that BAD 'science' which I tried to warn you about ok?

OH, in case you missed it: it's YOU/THEY who keep making it all about the person (ie, me,your victim) instead of the science/logics issues I pointed out.

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
cont...@Whyde.

By the way, if you want those 'problems' demonstrated in a 'nutshell', just go and take a look at my science/logics response to RNP's "simplistic analysis" response to Benni, in thread:

https://phys.org/...los.html

It perfectly illustrates all I have been trying to warn you/gang about all these years; re using simplistic assumptions/maths without proper regard to the reality being 'analyzed' so naively and misleading a manner.

Do you understand the subtle arguments against RNP's "model and methodology" involved in his approach to the two regions (galaxy and Solar System), Whyde? And how his approach is fatally flawed from the outset; and why?

Think about it all, without bias or kneejerk based on personal animosities, ok? Then see all the many obvious logical/reality non-sequiturs/unreal modeling/analysis etc employed by the 'exotic' DM proponents/theorists/calculators etc. Thanks, Whyde.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
Think about it all, without bias or kneejerk based on personal animosities, ok? Then see all the many obvious logical/reality non-sequiturs/unreal modeling/analysis etc employed by the 'exotic' DM proponents/theorists/calculators etc. Thanks, Whyde.

If you've noticed (you haven't), I've been "suggesting" protons all along...
Why don't the "gang of trolls" 1 me?
it's in the presentation, RC...
I don't say " Now you see I've been correct all along..."
BTW, If you noticed (you didn't), I did not fall hook, line and sinker for Bicep2.
Pretty naive of you to think so...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2017
@Whyde.
If you've noticed (you haven't), I've been "suggesting" protons all along...
Why don't the "gang of trolls" 1 me?
it's in the presentation, RC...
I don't say " Now you see I've been correct all along..."
No, Whyde, I read everything; and I have noted your 'protons' remarks------I even was tempted to ask if your 'protons in different energy states' was in any way agreeing with the poster(s) who mentioned the "Hydrino" state....but I didn't ask that because I was too busy elsewhere until now. :)

As for 'presentation' being the bot-voting 'criteria', Whyde, you and I know full well it is personal animosity against me for exposing/correcting that longstanding gang of trolls/bot-voters sabotaging for YEARS. You are 'safe'; as you haven't been correcting/exposing them at all, let alone for years now, hey? You've got the 'in' with that 'gang' and your past chats and condoning/approving of their bot-voting malignancy has made you a 'preferred-Skippy' (until now maybe!).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
PS: @Whyde.

Recall a decade long history. These are the same/affiliated bot-voting, sabotaging 'gang' of trolls who brought the 'poisonous tone and personal feuds' to OLD physorg-physforum! And they destroyed the site, with the connivance of the MOD(s); with whom they COLLUDED to frame and ban those not cow-towing to their WRONG beliefs in WRONG orthodoxies. Anyone who even tried to start polite, logical, scientific discussion on the issues would get sabotaged, baited, trolled and eventually banned! This happened at Sciforums recently too. There it was the "Trout" and more lately the "paddoboy" trolls who colluded with admin/mods to ban anyone showing any tendency towards objectivity and politeness wanting to discuss logics/science not persons.

Paddoboy/Trout gone now; even their colluding mods/friends had a gutfull of their poisonous games. And you know what happened to OLD physorg-physforum!

So, Whyde, you TOO might have been 'the victim' if you'd been in MY shoes! Ok?
astra
Apr 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2017
PPS @Whyde.
BTW, If you noticed (you didn't), I did not fall hook, line and sinker for Bicep2.
Pretty naive of you to think so...
Didn't you? Great! Well done! Which is why it has been so perplexing and disappointing to see you since that episode continuing to support, encourage and otherwise condone actively, and via your 'silence', during their CONTINUING ungentlemanly, unscientific and unfair attacks on the messenger who tried to warn them to check it out objectively for themselves.....with the result that since March 2014 I have been stalked, trolled, bot-voted against even when I have been correct on science and behavior, and baited into responding to their incessant 'gang' trolling etc attacks. If you are now more independent of the poisonous influence of that 'gang', then I can only commend you! Kudos, Whyde; and more power to your intellect! Thanks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2017
@astra, and all concerned.

There are signs that the poisonous influence and power of the old trolling/bot-voting 'gang' is waning in the face of more recent events in mainstream discovery/review which is effectively 'pulling the rug from under' the claimed 'superiotity and correctness' from which they pretended to 'launch' their attacks on perfectly respectful and objective members not wanting any part of any 'gang' activity against the best ethics and principles of Science Method and Fair Discourse. Hopefully PO discussions can enter a new era of co-operative discovery/discourse in the sciences and human condition. So please, astra, and anyone else previously disappointed with the 'gang' antics' to date, keep reading and hopefully rejoin the conversation here at PO as soon as the 'gangs' have disappeared into the mire whence they came. Thanks. Good luck and good thinking, astra/all genuine scientific/humane reader here/similar forums! Keep strong against the 'gangs'! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2017
PPS @Whyde.
BTW, If you noticed (you didn't), I did not fall hook, line and sinker for Bicep2.
Pretty naive of you to think so...
Didn't you? Great! Well done! Which is why it has been so perplexing and disappointing to see you since that episode continuing to support, encourage and otherwise condone actively, and via your 'silence', during their CONTINUING ungentlemanly, unscientific and unfair attacks on the messenger who tried to warn them to check it out objectively for themselves.....with the result that since March 2014 I have been stalked, trolled, bot-voted against even when I have been correct on science and behavior, and baited into responding to their incessant 'gang' trolling etc attacks. If you are now more independent of the poisonous influence of that 'gang', then I can only commend you! Kudos, Whyde; and more power to your intellect! Thanks.

Just - shut up, RC. Converse, not lecture, you idiot.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.
If you've noticed (you haven't), I've been "suggesting" protons all along...
Why don't the "gang of trolls" 1 me?
it's in the presentation, RC...
I don't say " Now you see I've been correct all along..."
No, Whyde, I read everything; and I have noted your 'protons' remarks------I even was tempted to ask if your 'protons in different energy states' was in any way agreeing with the poster(s) who mentioned the "Hydrino" state....but I didn't ask that because I was too busy elsewhere until now. :)

Flat out Bull-shyte, RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.

So telling it like it is makes you feel like you're being 'lectured' to? And your responses are now such, that, "conversing", appears to mean (to you) that you are free to insult/mistake and I cannot correct or disagree (or even agree) with you! Seems a somewhat arbitrary constraint; if not a downright 'double standard', Whyde. Maybe you should calm down and follow your own "shut up"; and then maybe actually "converse" instead of insulting/mistaking all over the place like an inebriated trolling, bot-voting, 'gang' member, hey? It would make a nice, quiet, change. Thanks.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.

So telling it like it is makes you feel like you're being 'lectured' to? And your responses are now such, that, "conversing", appears to mean (to you) that you are free to insult/mistake and I cannot correct or disagree (or even agree) with you! ... then maybe actually "converse" instead of insulting/mistaking all over the place like an inebriated trolling, bot-voting, 'gang' member, hey? It would make a nice, quiet, change. Thanks.

YOU don't converse. you excoriate. And you don't even realize you're doing it.
I think we all know what would make for a nice, quiet change, here...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2017
cont...@Whyde.

It perfectly illustrates all I have been trying to warn you/gang about all these years; re using simplistic assumptions/maths without proper regard to the reality being 'analyzed' so naively and misleading a manner.

Then why are you trying to simplify it even further?

Do you understand the subtle arguments against RNP's "model and methodology" involved in his approach to the two regions (galaxy and Solar System), Whyde? And how his approach is fatally flawed from the outset; and why?

No, I don't. I see it as a matter of scale, in which RNP has a reasonable grasp of.
What your missing is the variable relevance of forces at different scales.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.
YOU don't converse. you excoriate.
Your 'opinion' of me is like ISIS's 'opinion' of USA: a tad biased, hey?

Face/tell the reality as it is, Whyde; the ONLY posters I come close to "excoriating" (ie, responding proportionately and 'in kind', by exposing, condemning their anti-science method/discourse behavior on a SCIENCE site!); justified by their years long record of self-demonstrated trolling, bot-voting 'gang' members who persist in unwarranted personal stalking and attacks on me, based on their own sick agendas, and their embarrassment at being shown up for what they have been for far too long now.

As for the rest, please note my username, "RealityCheck": that will give you a clue why I post the occasional important and timely REMINDERS and CAUTIONS (to ALL 'sides') based on known science and more up to date mainstream/my insights...in the interests of BALANCED, impartial/objective, polite science/humanity discourse.

What have YOU/gang been doing, Whyde?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.
It perfectly illustrates all I have been trying to warn you/gang about all these years; re using simplistic assumptions/maths without proper regard to the reality being 'analyzed' so naively and misleading a manner.

Then why are you trying to simplify it even further?
How so? Is pointing out glaringly flawed assumptions, methodologies, models and claims, now falling foul of your own personal definitions/usages?
No, I don't.
So, you don't understand; and you haven't asked for clarification so that your understanding can be properly got; but resorted anyway to kneejerk reading/response, based on your OWN miscontruing of context/subtleties in this matter.

Whyde, the STUMP 'method' for ignoring, denying, insulting, remaining ignorant of actual context/issue, is NOT HELPING your understanding.
I see it as a matter of scale, in which RNP has a reasonable grasp of.
The SPECIFIC context/issues involved are NOT in that category in this case. Read. Ok?
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2017
Wow. So many idiots. So few explanations. Surprise, surprise. Get them to do the maths of gravitational lensing, and they implode. "can;t happen, doesn't happen", et boring cetera. The one thing in common with all these fruitloops is that they are a) unqualified, and b) haven't got a bleeding clue about the subject matter. Never is a scientifically sensible alternative option proposed. Ever. Essentially, we are just dealing with gobsh**tes, who have zero scientific qualifications, nor, indeed, a bleeding clue about what they are talking. And so it goes on. The usual idiots. The usual BS. Never making the tiniest dent on scientific thinking. Ever wondered why, cranks? Because you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Yes? Does that not trouble you, with your upper 4th form art merit? Get a frigging life.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.
Is pointing out glaringly flawed assumptions, methodologies, models and claims, now falling foul of your own personal definitions/usages?
No, I don't.
So, you don't understand; and you haven't asked for clarification so that your understanding can be properly got; but resorted anyway to kneejerk reading/response, based on your OWN miscontruing of context/subtleties in this matter.

Whyde, the STUMP 'method' for ignoring, denying, insulting, remaining ignorant of actual context/issue, is NOT HELPING your understanding.
I see it as a matter of scale, in which RNP has a reasonable grasp of.
The SPECIFIC context/issues involved are NOT in that category in this case. Read. Ok?

He doesn't even realize he's doing it - again...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde, most of the hydrogen in intergalactic space is ionized (i.e., free protons). If it weren't we'd be able to see neutral hydrogen absorbing and re-emitting CMB. In fact, the re-ionization of this hydrogen was a detectable event in the history of the universe, and resulted in it becoming transparent as we see it today rather than opaque as it was in the distant past. It's the electrons that absorb photons, and ionized hydrogen doesn't have them.

Yeah, but...
At what point does it GAIN them? I mean, what does it take to get a proton and an electron together..?
(No quantum porn jokes, please..:-))
The intergalactic medium's hydrogen is mostly ionized still, so the answer for it would be "never."
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
@Whyde, most of the hydrogen in intergalactic space is ionized (i.e., free protons). If it weren't we'd be able to see neutral hydrogen absorbing and re-emitting CMB. In fact, the re-ionization of this hydrogen was a detectable event in the history of the universe, and resulted in it becoming transparent as we see it today rather than opaque as it was in the distant past. It's the electrons that absorb photons, and ionized hydrogen doesn't have them.

Yeah, but...
At what point does it GAIN them? I mean, what does it take to get a proton and an electron together..?
(No quantum porn jokes, please..:-))
The intergalactic medium's hydrogen is mostly ionized still, so the answer for it would be "never."

What I meant was - under what conditions does a proton lose ion status and gain (or regain) an electron?
(In a lab setting)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
@Whyde.
YOU don't converse. you excoriate.
Your 'opinion' of me is like ISIS's 'opinion' of USA: a tad biased, hey?

Not opinion. Observation.

... ; the ONLY posters I come close to "excoriating" (ie, responding proportionately and 'in kind', by exposing, condemning their anti-science method/discourse behavior on a SCIENCE site!); justified by their years long record of self-demonstrated trolling, bot-voting 'gang' members who persist in unwarranted personal stalking and attacks on me, based on their own sick agendas, and their embarrassment at being shown up for what they have been for far too long now.

Your doing it gain and don't even realize it.
... in the interests of BALANCED, impartial/objective, polite science/humanity discourse.

The universe(and everything in it) works because it is UN-balanced.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
Your 'opinion' of me is like ISIS's 'opinion' of USA: a tad biased, hey?

More like USA's opinion of ISIS.
... responding proportionately and 'in kind', by exposing, condemning their anti-science method/discourse behavior on a SCIENCE site!);

Subjective opine
justified by their years long record of self-demonstrated trolling, bot-voting 'gang' members who persist in unwarranted personal stalking and attacks on me,

I guarantee no one is stalking you. You just "drop in" and make sweeping, grand pronouncements.
based on their own sick agendas, and their embarrassment at being shown up for what they have been for far too long now.

Paranoid much? Totally subjective opine, again.
... in the interests of BALANCED, impartial/objective, polite science/humanity discourse.

What a load of horse-shit.
Science ain't that pretty... (unless yer just a "wannabe")

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
@Whyde.
Your 'opinion' of me is like ISIS's 'opinion' of USA:..biased
Observation.
Yeah, confirmation-biased 'observation'.
the ONLY posters I come close to "excoriating" (ie, responding proportionately and 'in kind', by exposing, condemning their anti-science method/discourse behavior on a SCIENCE site!); justified by their years long record of self-demonstrated trolling, bot-voting 'gang' members who persist in unwarranted personal stalking and attacks on me, based on their own sick agendas, and their embarrassment
Your doing it gain and don't even realize it.
Only because YOU keep "doing it again and don't even realize it", Whyde; else I wouldn't have had to respond accordingly at all.
BALANCED...discourse.
universe(and everything in it) works because it is UN-balanced.
Sure. I have been pointing out 'imbalances' at infinitesimal quantum-to-largest-emergent scales. But science discussion requires objectivity/balance; else trolls win.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
@Whyde.
Your 'opinion' of me is like ISIS's 'opinion' of USA:..biased
Observation.
Yeah, confirmation-biased 'observation'.
the ONLY posters I come close to "excoriating" (ie, responding proportionately and 'in kind', by exposing, condemning their anti-science method/discourse behavior on a SCIENCE site!); justified by their years long record of self-demonstrated trolling, bot-voting 'gang' members who persist in unwarranted personal stalking and attacks on me, based on their own sick agendas, and their embarrassment
Your doing it gain and don't even realize it.
Only because YOU keep "doing it again and don't even realize it", Whyde; else I wouldn't have had to respond accordingly at all.
BALANCED...discourse.
universe(and everything in it) works because it is UN-balanced.
Sure. I've long pointed out 'imbalances' at infinitesimal-quantum-to-largest-emergent-scales. But science discussion requires objectivity/balance; else trolls win. Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
Oops. Double post instead of Edit. Apologies.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
@Whyde, most of the hydrogen in intergalactic space is ionized (i.e., free protons). If it weren't we'd be able to see neutral hydrogen absorbing and re-emitting CMB. In fact, the re-ionization of this hydrogen was a detectable event in the history of the universe, and resulted in it becoming transparent as we see it today rather than opaque as it was in the distant past. It's the electrons that absorb photons, and ionized hydrogen doesn't have them.

Yeah, but...
At what point does it GAIN them? I mean, what does it take to get a proton and an electron together..?
(No quantum porn jokes, please..:-))
The intergalactic medium's hydrogen is mostly ionized still, so the answer for it would be "never."

What I meant was - under what conditions does a proton lose ion status and gain (or regain) an electron?
(In a lab setting)
Anytime there's one around. Nothing special is required, they're attracted to one another.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
What I meant was - under what conditions does a proton lose ion status and gain (or regain) an electron?
(In a lab setting)
Anytime there's one around. Nothing special is required, they're attracted to one another.

Ahhh.. the old "charge differential"...
That would mean - very few electrons in space to bind to the free protons (if said proton is holding any positive charge at all), or there is a proximity limit that must be met., right?
murraylo9
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
Anytime there's one around. Nothing special is required, they're attracted to one another.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2017
@Whyde.

In space conditions there are natural, practically ubiquitous, variously scaled, 'sorting mechanism' for charged particles which separates negative from positive charged particles into 'current streams and sheets' that may extend for large distances. You can easily confirm that by referring to literature on magnetic field effects across space. Even our very own Earth's magnetic field pattern 'sorts' incoming electrons/protons and other charged particles, so they eventually end up striking our planet at different (North or South) poles according to 'charge'.

Some people's simplistic 'picture' that charged particles 'always attracted to oppositely charged particles' may not reflect all the rich 'intermediate' features/dynamics which can arise across 'magnetic field-conditioned' space between 'sources and sinks'.

PS: Also, a strong gravitational field can 'sort' according to energy/speed/mass of light/heavier charged particles' ability to 'escape' it. Cheers.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2017
What I meant was - under what conditions does a proton lose ion status and gain (or regain) an electron?
(In a lab setting)
Anytime there's one around. Nothing special is required, they're attracted to one another.

Ahhh.. the old "charge differential"...
That would mean - very few electrons in space to bind to the free protons (if said proton is holding any positive charge at all), or there is a proximity limit that must be met., right?
And very few protons as well.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@Whyde.

In space conditions there are natural, practically ubiquitous, variously scaled, 'sorting mechanism' for charged particles which separates negative from positive charged particles into 'current streams and sheets' that may extend for large distances. You can easily confirm that by referring to literature on magnetic field effects across space. Even our very own Earth's magnetic field pattern 'sorts' incoming electrons/protons and other charged particles, so they eventually end up striking our planet at different (North or South) poles according to 'charge'.

Can you express that with your REAL maths, please?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@Whyde.
@Whyde.

In space conditions there are natural, practically ubiquitous, variously scaled, 'sorting mechanism' for charged particles which separates negative from positive charged particles into 'current streams and sheets' that may extend for large distances. You can easily confirm that by referring to literature on magnetic field effects across space. Even our very own Earth's magnetic field pattern 'sorts' incoming electrons/protons and other charged particles, so they eventually end up striking our planet at different (North or South) poles according to 'charge'.
Can you express that with your REAL maths, please?
Those things I pointed to are ALL EMPIRICAL observables/processes, Whyde. If you can't grasp empirical evidence according to its physical obviousness, then 'maths' (of any kind) won't help you!

I suspect you had 'tongue in cheek' when asking that. In any case, read up on subject matter in question to see the KNOWN science I reminded of.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@RC is lying again. Now, when challenged to provide some sort of alternative math it claims to have discovered, it changes the subject to vague "EMPIRICAL[sic] observables/processes" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in order to avoid admitting there is no alternative math and never was and never will be.

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

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

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
...it changes the subject to vague "EMPIRICAL[sic] observables/processes" ....
What are you going on about now, DS?

Obviously, if the phenomenon I spoke of is readily observed and examined closely in any lab; and if same phenomenon is now confirmed by mainstream to occur in space, just as I described to Whyde; then that should suffice to comprehend that the phenomenon as described exists and so do its 'charge sorting' effects which, again, can be easily observed with Earth's magnetic field and the polar aurora resulting from the 'sorted charges' impinging on the atmosphere at Earth's magnetic North and South poles according to the charges involved. In that context, Whyde's 'maths' request was 'tongue in cheek'; not needed to understand the empirical evidence/phenomena described insofar as its 'sorting' action is concerned.

PS: Your gratuitous insults, trolling 'campaign', aren't helping your 'image' or your 'objectivity'. Please just drop them, DS. Ta.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@RC, still waiting for the alternative math you claim to have invented.

Lying again, I see.

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

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

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.

DS, you have just again tacitly admitted you are not aware of the magnetic fields and their 'charge sorting' behavior in lab or space, things which all real physicists know well and are increasingly studying even as we speak.

What does that do to your 'scientific/logical' integrity/credibility, DS?

And DS, you keep accusing me of lying; despite your boast that you don't read what I posted and do not keep abreast of recent astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews by mainstream which increasingly making old naive/simplistic/unreal BB/Inflation/Expansion/CMB etc 'myths based' claims and assumptions/interpretations obsolete.

How much more damage does that do to your 'scientific/logical' integrity/credibility, DS?

Learn, DS. Stop trolling and insulting like a maniac on the internet, DS. And stop digging!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, still waiting for the alternative math you claim to have invented. Charge sorting is an obvious and well-known phenomenon; and it is a feature of both magnetic and electric fields, taught in early courses in Electronics Engineering, as well as the physics of the EM field.

You're lying again, @RC. It's not an "accusation;" it's a fact. And the evidence is compelling:

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

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

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, still waiting for the alternative math you claim to have invented. Charge sorting is an obvious and well-known phenomenon; and it is a feature of both magnetic and electric fields, taught in early courses in Electronics Engineering, as well as the physics of the EM field.
Thanks for agreeing with what I posted to Whyde on that.

Which now raises the question: Why did you attack when I pointed out to Whyde that all that stuff was empirically well known already?

PS: As for my reality-based axioms/maths work for modeling my reality-based physical ToE, I already TOLD you and EVERYONE (but you never read it): you'll have to wait till I publish consistent and complete. The example I gave you/Zerg (in response to your "Apple-Apple=0" based attack) was to highlight how, plainly, the current conventional maths INADEQUATE for modeling THE REAL UNIVERSE consistent and complete (hence why I began my reality-based axioms/maths development project). Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, math is already based in reality. The points about apples show it. Pretending it's not is another lie.

As far as basic charge sorting, that's already well known and not at all similar to your representation of it, which is also a lie.

Finally, no one is "attacking" you. You're merely being forced to confront your dishonesty, and like most dishonest people you don't like it much.

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

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

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
math is already based in reality. The points about apples show it. Pretending it's not is another lie.

As far as basic charge sorting, that's already well known and not at all similar to your representation of it, which is also a lie.

Finally, no one is "attacking" you. You're merely being forced to confront your dishonesty, and like most dishonest people you don't like it much.
What the dickens are you on about now, DS?

My relevant post(s) to Whyde were perfectly consistent, both in context and content, with the subject matter and known science.

So WHY OH WHY do you 'need' you keep trying to twist things out of all objective shape like that, DS?

Oh, right. So you can pretend to 'correct' someone who was ALREADY fully correct all along, that's why!

DS, do you even stop to realize how lame and pathetic, not to mention disrespectful to all science method/discourse principles, you are being?

PS: Do stop spamming your ignorance/disrespect, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@RC, I don't respect liars, so I don't respect you, and I won't unless you stop lying. If you want respect, earn it.

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

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

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
@Whyde.
[Those things I pointed to are ALL EMPIRICAL observables/processes, Whyde. If you can't grasp empirical evidence according to its physical obviousness, then 'maths' (of any kind) won't help you!

Empirical in words (your chosen medium). All brought to you by empirical mathematics to "model" those "observables/processes" so they could be translated to words....

I suspect you had 'tongue in cheek' when asking that. In any case, read up on subject matter in question to see the KNOWN science I reminded of.

Too late, since I do almost all of my science "catching up" on Phys.org, I'm as well read as you.
Hold on, let me wrestle my tongue out of the cheek, again...

And how did we get sidetracked out of the topic, again?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Whyde.
Empirical in words (your chosen medium). All brought to you by empirical mathematics to "model" those "observables/processes"..
Careful not to conflate the map with the territory, Whyde. All good mathematicians and good physicists know where to draw the line. The directly observable phenomena evidences that phenomena empirically when you actually directly test its existence and properties etc (ie, the territory) The mathematical representation OF that empirically observed phenomena is abstraction (ie, the map/model). Ok?
Too late, since I do almost all of my science "catching up" on Phys.org, I'm as well read as you.
Good to hear! The questin then is: are you as comprehensively equipped in the science/logics and longstanding knowledge/insights-base as I have been in order to 'connect all the disparate dots' into one 'whole big physical picture' consistent and complete reality-based ToE/Maths construct?

PS: I was on science; tis others keep sidetracking. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
Case in point:

@Da Schneib, please stop spamming your ignorance/nastiness and attacking/stalking so insensibly/obsessively; it's not nice; and it's cluttering up the threads. Get help. :)
randomcyborg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
RC, why are attacking the people instead of the science?

Why are so fanatically opposed to the existence of dark matter? I also look at the data, and every time I do, I see dark matter.

Your diatribes against dark matter began long I joined this commentary halo (I couldn't resist, and I'm not the least itty bitty tad bit sorry), so I don't know the bases of your arguments — how, when, and why your vomit inducing distaste for the stuff (dark matter) got started.

This is a serious request.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
RC, why are attacking the people instead of the science?
Because it doesn't have any facts to support its lies and it has no other response.

The only useful reply is to continue to point out its lies, over and over and over again. It's a shame you oppose this; I was not impressed with your prior comments on this thread so far. I'm glad you seem to be figuring out that not all those who oppose liars by pointing out their lies are somehow problematic, but suspect that you will not reply to me supporting this pro-science agenda since you appear to be more interested in whether people are polite than in whether they are correct and dealing as best they can with liars and provocateurs.

Impress me and consider reality rather than appearances.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@RC, I am not ignorant, and I am not hasty. You are lying regularly, and descending to various strategems involving insults, condescension, whining, unsupportable accusations for which you present no evidence, claiming non-existent scholarly papers, obfuscation, misused philosophy, and every other prevarication you can come up with. As long as you continue on this course, you will eventually sour the perceptions of anyone reasonable who reads your trolling. In short, stop lying, @RC. Cheaters never prosper.

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

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.
randomcyborg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
Da Schneib, it's not you I'm complaining about; it's RealityCheck. You are being civil — there's nothing wrong with calling someone a liar when that someone is a liar, and you have more than enough proof that RC is lying — my sixteen year old daughter knows enough to recognize that he's lying. It is RC's venomous foaming at the mouth that bothers me, and I can't figure out why he has problems with dark matter when all he ever does is shout incoherently, appearing to believe he's Galileo, Einstein, and Hawking, all rolled into one. All I've been trying to do is get him calmed down enough to state his case without spattering everyone with his saliva and stomach acid. I simply don't like fighting; I killed a great many people in my youth, and I'm trying to do penance (I was a so-called super soldier for several years — Green Beret Special Forces, SEAL). I'm sorry I caused myself to be misunderstood.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
@randomcyborg and @Da Schneib.

Has it even occurred to either of you (and to your claimed "sixteen year old daughter" for that matter) how longstanding is the context which should be considered before anyone starts to 'taking sides' at all? In short, any fair assessment you should include the context of:

- the many times Da Schneib has attacked ME despite being him being patently ignorant of the subject matter (as I demonstrated in those instances);

- the recent mainstream discoveries/reviews in astro/cosmo/QM etc fields which confirm ME correct all along and the many BB, Inflation etc and 'exotic' DM etc claims to have been wrong and based on old naive/simplistic interpretations based on equally naive/simplistic maths
model' and assumptions.

The reality is: I AM the one who has been attacked unprovoked by trolls/ego-trippers motivated from by own scientific ignorance and/or personal malice.

Hence, @randomcyborg, you and your daughter need to get up to speed, ok?. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
(I was a so-called super soldier for several years — Green Beret Special Forces, SEAL)


I would so-call that a Skippy-super-duper soldier. (Since it takes several years to get to be one or the other.) How you do that? Serve in the Army for enough years to be a Green Beret, and after you got out you decided you would join the Navy/Marines just to see if those Seals is as tuff as they claim to be?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@randomcyborg, thank you and well said, sir. I'll keep that in mind from now on. My apologies to you for the misunderstanding as well.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@RC, you're lying again. This is another of your standard maneuvers: trying to inject FUD into science. I won't bother adding this thread to the list... yet. But I suggest you note that your frantic maneuvering is apparently clear to just about anyone, and amend your behavior. Your cred is very weak.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@Ira, my friend, that was a handsome apology and I for one have no intention of looking a gift horse in the mouth. I can think of good reasons to believe that such a claim might be obfuscated and I'm sure you can too. I have no intention of pressing someone who has potentially had experiences they cannot share on an open forum like this one, particularly not when they behave rationally. Food for thought. There are claims to press, and claims not to press, and I evaluate this one as one not to press. I don't say not to be cautious, but we'll have plenty of time to evaluate this over time, and the truth will out. I'll let this lay.
randomcyborg
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
UI, the Navy asked me to join and undergo SEAL training. That, however, is neither here nor there; I was explaining why I don't like fighting, nothing more.

Here's more you can be a piss-head about, if you wish:

I have the rank of yondan in one style of karate, godan in another. I love and have taught knife fighting (but, since I left the military because of combat injuries, only as sport).

I've sailed around the Ring of Fire in a 70' waterline double masted schooner.

I'm a private pilot with a commercial certificate.

I have three doctorates, all earned (mathematics, psychology, computer science).

I've been a professional musician, and did studio work as well as back up stage work.

My "claimed 'sixteen year old daughter'" is my sixteen year old daughter, who has an eidetic memory and an IQ of about 200.

RC, you have yet to answer my question; you're still spewing vomit without telling me what you ate.
randomcyborg
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@randomcyborg.

So far, mate, the only vomit being spewed (about me) is by you and DS. Why bother to get involved in a longstanding situation involving long campaign waged by the troll/bot-voting gang here which is pissed off because I do reality checks on their comments/claims as well as those from their supposed enemies. I have been trying to get all 'sides' to eschew personal feuds and insults and trolling/bot-voting tactics etc which only clutter and bury the science discussions in gang-troll-shite and poison the waters for everybody.

Now, @randomcyborg, if you're REALLY interested in getting the WHOLE truth instead of half-truths and outright delusional versions of what has gone down here, just:

ASK Da Schneib to confess who was it that didn't know about PLASMOIDS and FLUX TUBE PROCESSES going on in the SUN's photosphere etc; and who was it that had to point out the known science that they DO go on there.

It's become DS/gangs signature MO: LIES BY OMISSION.

Caution!
Da Schneib
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
randomcyborg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
RC, I started out, lo! these many posts ago, by asking nicely, and kept trying to ask nicely, but you have never answered me with anything except venom.

I would like to know what the original... disagreement was about. That's all.
randomcyborg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
Uncle Ira, after re-reading what I wrote to you, it is clear that I owe you an apology. I fully understand why someone would be skeptical regarding my statements about myself. I was pissed off at RC, and I took no precautions to make sure no one else was hit.

I neither lie nor exaggerate when telling someone about myself, but there's no way you could have known that. I know from experience that most people have trouble, initially, believing many of the things I tell them about the life I've led. I was wrong to criticize you, and doubly wrong to criticize you so rudely.

I do apologize.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
@randomcyborg.

Your misunderstandings even in such simple matters between you/DS/Ira, demonstrates how easy it is to 'get hold of the wrong end of the stick' if not fully informed as to ALL the facts before jumping into the middle of YEARS of 'internet gang' bot-voting/trolling/attacking etc activity here/in other forums.

Regarding the exchanges between me and the usual 'gang of trolls here', there is NO 'one original disagreement', It's about the longstanding campaign by them to sabotage, clutter, bury and skew both the discussion and the rating metrics on a science site. That is UNFORGIVABLE on any level, because it goes against all good science/humanity discourse ethics.

More particularly, I have been 'reality-checking' all 'sides' when comments/claims/arguments seriously against already-known science or recent mainstream dicovery/reviews increasingly confirming ME correct while falsifying and/or bringing into serious question many OLD BB/Inflation etc 'myths'. Ok? :)
randomcyborg
3 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
RC: "Your misunderstandings..."

That's why I've been asking. Duh.

And you're still not answering.

What big bang and inflation "myths"? Which recent mainstream discoveries? What are your new mathematics? Such things are not derived in a vacuum (unless the developer is outside the atmosphere); novel applications, perhaps, but not entirely new mathematics. I was doing just that for several years, and it wasn't easy — it took letters, emails, visits, and colleagues.

Are you going to keep putting off answering forever, just to save face? You wouldn't be the first.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
@randomcyborg.

Replies in respective order...

It's many years long situation/story, as I already pointed out. How long have you got for a proper briefing which would be required now if you are to NOT get the wrong end of the stick on that too? I haven't the time.

I already pointed out Penrose admitted BB is NOT and never was a REAL 'beginning' for the universe, but a mere arbitrary notion.

And Steinhardt admitted INFLATION bogus too.

They were pointed out/discussed in the relevant PO threads on the matters in question. If you missed it all, then I haven't the time/inclination to do the work for you/others not fully appraised of the background so far.

The failure/inadequacy of conventional 'unreal' axioms/maths I have long pointed out, more recently again discussed/highlighted in exchanges with DS/Zerg, makes it incapable of modeling Universal Reality. My novel reality-based axioms/maths work aims to make maths capable of modeling reality-based ToE.

That's all. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
UI, the Navy asked me to join and undergo SEAL training. That, however, is neither here nor there; I was explaining why I don't like fighting, nothing more.

Here's more you can be a piss-head about, if you wish:

I have the rank of yondan in one style of karate, godan in another. I love and have taught knife fighting (but, since I left the military because of combat injuries, only as sport).

I've sailed around the Ring of Fire in a 70' waterline double masted schooner.

I'm a private pilot with a commercial certificate.

I have three doctorates, all earned (mathematics, psychology, computer science).

I've been a professional musician, and did studio work as well as back up stage work.

My "claimed 'sixteen year old daughter'" is my sixteen year old daughter, who has an eidetic memory and an IQ of about 200

Well all that is interesting to know about. Do you know a guy named glam-Skippy? You should meet him, you two have a lot to talk about.

randomcyborg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2017
Uncle Ira, I do not know glam-Skippy, not even by his real name.

I do, however, know the very first SEAL. He was in the first group to graduate the Navy training course in WWII, before they were called SEALS (they were UDTs, then); I'm not going to name him. He's the last one of that group still alive. He's 97 years old (30 years my senior), and his mind is almost gone due to Alzheimer's. Every now and then he knows me. I miss him — we always had lots to talk about. I have the opposite problem: I can't forget anything, and everyone thinks I'm 40 (although I need a cane to walk any farther than across the room — combat injuries).

Do you have any experiences I might find interesting? (My interest is genuine.)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2017
I do, however, know the very first SEAL. He was in the first group to graduate the Navy training course in WWII, before they were called SEALS (they were UDTs, then); I'm not going to name him. He's the last one of that group still alive. He's 97 years old (30 years my senior), and his mind is almost gone due to Alzheimer's. Every now and then he knows me. I miss him — we always had lots to talk about. I have the opposite problem: I can't forget anything, and everyone thinks I'm 40 (although I need a cane to walk any farther than across the room — combat injuries).
Well that is really good stuff to know. Nobody thinks I am 40. I will be next year though and Mrs-Ira-Skippette will probably still accuse me of not acting my age.

Do you have any experiences I might find interesting? (My interest is genuine.)
Non, I am just a regular Skippy. But I do have a question me.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2017
Uncle Ira, from your tone and word choices, I think you have had some interesting experiences...

I've never acted my age; I've found that has a rather soothing effect when that is needed the most.

I should mention the 70' waterline schooner was my friend's, not mine. My wife and I spent four wonderful months on it. My friend was afraid of flying, so my wife and I couldn't take him up.

I can't tell if, by referring to yourself as a "Skippy", you're disparaging yourself (if so, don't let your wife see your post), stating you're a guy to be with when when things get dodgy ("Dodge" is what I've been called all my life; I didn't learn my real given name until I was age five), were in the Navy (SEALS are tougher, those who wear the Green Beret are smarter; but not by much, either way), or that you're from a part of the world where the Southern Cross is visible (I have a few friends who are Ozzies; one turned out to be a Nazgul).
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2017
I should mention the 70' waterline schooner was my friend's, not mine.
You can mention him if you want, why ask me?

can't tell if, by referring to yourself as a "Skippy", you're disparaging yourself (if so, don't let your wife see your post)
Too late for that, Mrs-Ira-Skippette sees a lot of the stuffs I posts. And has big fun with me about it too.

stating you're a guy to be with when when things get dodgy
Non I am not stating that. I call everybody Skippy, even me, and Mrs-Ira-Skippette, and everybody. It's like "dude", or "guy", or "mate", or "podna".

or that you're from a part of the world where the Southern Cross is visible
I hope you are not accusing me of what it sounds like you are, if you are it might be time to live up to your name and try to "Dodge" me from here on out.

Why does everybody always assume the worse about the Cajun? You watch to many cartoons, eh?
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2017
Uncle Ira, I most definitely was not accusing you of anything bad, wrong, illegal, immoral, unethical, distasteful, dishonorable, unpleasant, or, in fact, anything at all. I was just asking in a roundabout way, as is my wont.

Dodge is from "roger dodger" — my dad was an ATC.

I like people; I'm also a psychologist, remember?

That you are Cajun explains your use of "non". I should have realized; I grew up near Cajun country.

I mentioned my friend and his boat because I didn't want anyone to think I was rich. My wife and I were well off, but not enough to have a 70' waterline double masted schooner. We had a 26' deep keel cutter sloop (perfect for offshore) and a twin engine airplane that cruised at 200kts (my wife was also a licensed private pilot, but was killed by a terrorist while pregnant with our first child; I earned three doctorates to try to forget, but it didn't work), but a double masted schooner was extremely outside our price range.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2017
Uncle Ira, you may think me stupid, or even dishonest, for asking the following questions, but they are honest and genuine.

Is there prejudice or bigotry, or both, against Cajuns? If there is, I've never been aware of it.

If you can tell me within the constraints placed on language by this message board, please tell me what you thought I might have been accusing you of doing or being. I honestly do not know.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2017
Is there prejudice or bigotry, or both, against Cajuns? If there is, I've never been aware of it.
Yeah, there is. A lot of people think because we talk funny, that we are all stupid and ignorant. They get that idea from the movies I guess.

People from California, like glam-Skippy think we are all racist lynch mobs. That's why I took exception to your thing about can I see the "Southern Cross". I am not a Klucker, never been one and I despise them to their core for personal reasons. Always have.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2017
P.S. for you random-Skippy. I am Cajun, Mrs-Ira-Skippette is Creole, that makes us interracial, and that is why I resent anyone even thinking I have any truck with a Klucker. glam-Skippy made that mistake one too when we were discussing the Mardi Gras Indian Tribes, he said the only tribes in Louisiana was cockroaches. Make me mad, eh? I got over it, but it took awhile. Now I just think he is a harmless moron.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 30, 2017
@Uncle Ira.

Mate, the reference to "Southern Cross" made by @randomcyborg was in connection with Stellar Constellation "Crux" seen from the Southern Hemisphere, eg, from here "Down Under" in Oz (Australia). His reference to "Ozzies" should have given you the clue that he was not making any other references re crosses of the sort which you might be offended by. Moreover, I suspect he is subconsciously associating your use of the "Skippy" term with the Children's TV series we had here in Oz long ago, starring "Skippy" the "bush-Kangaroo!"

So relax, Uncle Ira, it's obvious, from the context and all, that he wasn't insinuating/accusing/associating you with anything 'sinister' at all, mate!------unlike myself, who HAS been accusing you of bot-voting, trolling, cluttering and otherwise UN-funny ignoramus antics on a science site! :) :)
randomcyborg
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017
Uncle Ira, if a white supremacist gets within spitting distance of me, it gets drenched. If it tries to attack me, it has a concussion, a broken arm, a broken leg, and a broken kneecap on the other leg inside of ten seconds (it's happened). You are right to despise them.

By "Southern Cross", I meant the constellation, visible only from the southern hemisphere. I most emphatically did not mean a nasty, damned, ignorant, KKK cross burning.

I'm white. My white sixteen year old daughter is dating a young man who is black. I like him a lot. I've had both black and Asian girlfriends. My white nineteen year old son is living with a young lady who is Puerto Rican. I like her a lot. I have a Korean aunt. My favorite uncle on my mother's side was Jewish. My first wife was Jewish.

My response to you being in an interracial marriage is, "So what?" The only thing that matters is the love you have for each other.

I may be many things, but racist isn't one of them.
randomcyborg
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017
RealityCheck, thank you, sir!

Actually, "Skippy" can mean any of the things in my post, and I've heard all of them used, plus a couple more.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017
Moreover, I suspect he is subconsciously associating your use of the "Skippy" term with the Children's TV series we had here in Oz long ago, starring "Skippy" the "bush-Kangaroo!"
Some more overs to you. That's why I explain to him what Skippy means for me. We do not have the kangaroo problem here in Port Fourchon so I was probably not talking about that, eh?

------unlike myself, who HAS been accusing you of bot-voting, trolling, cluttering and otherwise UN-funny ignoramus antics on a science site
Cher, that is the amazing accusing you do. Did you figure that out all by your self, or did you have some help? Unlike your self, I said all along what I was really doing. In case you forget again, it is a service I provide to the humans and scientists that do not want to be bothered with your clutters. I am probably the only person on the whole interweb that thinks your cluttering is great big fun.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017
UI, the Navy asked me to join and undergo SEAL training. That, however, is neither here nor there; I was explaining why I don't like fighting, nothing more.

Here's more you can be a piss-head about, if you wish:

I have the rank of yondan in one style of karate, godan in another. I love and have taught knife fighting (but, since I left the military because of combat injuries, only as sport).

I've sailed around the Ring of Fire in a 70' waterline double masted schooner.

I'm a private pilot with a commercial certificate.

I have three doctorates, all earned (mathematics, psychology, computer science).

I've been a professional musician, and did studio work as well as back up stage work.

My "claimed 'sixteen year old daughter'" is my sixteen year old daughter, who has an eidetic memory and an IQ of about 200
Hell I know a guy who rolled off a hangar roof while watching an SR71 crash in the desert.

Uh you werent flying it at the time were you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017
A lyric from one of my favorite songs is, "When everyone's shouting, and no one is listening, how can we decide?"
So youre pretty smart n stuff maybe you can help me out Im trying to remember the name of that disease where old guys like to bullshit about their imagined lives as if anybody cares?

They seem to end up here because they get thrown out of everywhere else.

Its a debilitating disease. The whole community suffers.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2017
I've never piloted a SR71 (or a U2, for that matter). Prop planes are much more fun, anyway.

Do you know how to launch a chopper off the deck of a destroyer in heavy seas in a storm? You're required to have change of trousers (here's a hint — the word "launch" was carefully chosen and wonderfully descriptive; can't let the jet-boys have all the fun).

I'm incredibly smart, I've had an extremely interesting life, and I'd gladly trade it for almost anyone else's. I done too much to life, and life done too much to me. I'm holding on until my son earns his Navy Cross, and my daughter earns her M.D.

There's a line from another favorite song that reads, "He's writing his memoirs, and losing his hearing, but he don't care what most people say."

I'm here because physics is a hobby.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2017
@randomcyborg
Uncle Ira, you may think me stupid, or even dishonest, for asking the following questions, but...
just FYI - this site has a few folk who make a lot of claims that have been proven to be false, therefore it is wise to limit your claims to things you can validate with evidence

case in point: the idiot realitycheck above
when BICEP2 was published, he claimed to have seen 4 fatal flaws (and 4 other flaws, total 8)
since then he has posted 6,691 times, wasting 6,691,000 characters and he still hasn't produced those 4 fatal flaws (though he does rant about a single point regarding redshift that he can't provide empirical evidence for)

you can count those posts starting here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

that is something you can validate
you can also search the site & see that there is still zero mention of those 4 fatal flaws

point being: stick to what can be proven
then prove it with links and references
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 30, 2017
@randomcyborg
I've never piloted a SR71
otto is making a point
if you want to see what he is talking about, read just a few of this guy's posts
https://sciencex....m/?v=act

I'm here because physics is a hobby
then you should check this out: https://ocw.mit.e...=physics

not only is it free, but it's the same stuff you get attending courses there, and you can get involved in research
I'm incredibly smart, I've had an extremely interesting life
skip the personal stuff unless you can validate the claims

most people won't believe you anyway

it's called the 4-chan/b/ RULE 37
essentially it means "there are no [insert claim here] in the internet"

otto will simply denigrate and target you until you either learn to validate your claims or you go away, just like some others

more to the point - it's not relevant and most people don't care here
this is a science site, not a personal forum

just sayin
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2017
I'm incredibly smart,
Maybe you let others be the judge of that Cher. Or do you think everybody is so stupid that they might not realize it?

I've had an extremely interesting life,
You really need to trade email addresses with the glam-Skippy. He will be the first to tell you the same thing (and he don't mind telling you over and over in case you miss it the first 100 times.)
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2017
I let my comments get out of control.

I take full responsibility for that, and I apologize to all participants and observers.

Whatever I have to say about physics will be a question, or a contribution with justification.

Whatever I say about myself, it matters not at all to me whether anyone believes me. Those who know me well feel no need to ask for proof, but I do acknowledge that some things I say are not readily believable. There have also been times, throughout my life, that I should have left some things unsaid; this has been one of those times.

I take full responsibility for that, and I apologize to all participants and observers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017

I'm incredibly smart, I've had an extremely interesting life, and I'd gladly trade it for almost anyone else's. I done too much to life, and life done too much to me. I'm holding on until my son earns his Navy Cross, and my daughter earns her M.D
I'm I've I'd I me I'm me I'm my my.
Whatever I say about myself, it matters not at all to me whether anyone believes me. Those who know me well feel no need to ask for proof, but I do acknowledge that some things I say are not readily believable. There have also been times, throughout my life, that I should have left some things unsaid; this has been one of those times
Ditto.

Its like, STFU goes right over their heads.

What is wrong with people like you???
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 30, 2017
I think my first encounter with one of these here at physorg was poor quantum conundrum/returners et al. Remember him? "If the world had only recognized my greatness i could have fixed everything..." in 60 posts a day.

Jesus fukme.
randomcyborg
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2017
It seems to me that you are having trouble accepting a sincere apology, in which I wanted to state precisely why I was apologizing — that is, I was wrong to do this, that, and the other, as a blanket "I'm sorry" is, I have found, rarely sincere. I was a man and took responsibility for my words (and I still do).

Nevertheless, I am not going to apologize to you or anyone for my life, experiences, and memories. I will, however, keep quiet about them.

I therefore humbly request that you accept my apology, or go suck rotten eggs (I'm being polite).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2017
I me me my

Seems to me youre old enough to have heard this all before, and you apparently still think youre the most important topic to be discussing here. Am I right?

What makes you think we care about apologies?

Like stumpy says theres no way to tell whether all the embarrassing self-aggrandizing crap you dump is made-up trollshit or not.

I mean, it sure LOOKS like trollshit.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) May 01, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

For years now the forum has observed you honing and practicing your 'Stumpy Investigative Method', to wit:
TL;DR (ie, Too Long; Didn't Read)....followed by gratuitous and malignant personal insults and lies about the person.
You are still smarting from egg-on-face impact during that Bicep2 fiasco; when I tried to suggest you/gang check it all out objectively for yourselves before continuing cheefully and maliciously 'bashing cranks' with obviously many-flawed 'work' and 'claims' which even a moment's application of scientific method scrutiny showed just how many-flawed it was....to the objective observer.

But YOU and that 'gang' of incompetent, malignant betrayers of scientific method, would NOT check it out as suggested....but attacked the messenger/person!

So it's raw hypocrisy that you NOW pretend to @randomcyborg that you are not interested in the person, CS.

That's ALL you/your 'gang' of bot-voting ignoramus have been interested in; not science.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.