Hydrogen halo lifts the veil of our galactic home

April 18, 2017
The spectra used in this study cover large portions of the sky, depicted here as a map wrapping around the observer. The colors code for spectral emissions from diffuse hydrogen gas in the Milky Way's halo: While the degrees of brightness vary, they are remarkably uniform across the sky, indicating a rather uniform distribution of hydrogen as would be expected in a galactic halo. Credit: H. Zhang and D. Zaritsky/Nature

Sometimes it takes a lot of trees to see the forest. In the case of the latest discovery made by astronomers at the University of Arizona, exactly 732,225. Except that in this case, the "forest" is a veil of diffuse hydrogen gas enshrouding the Milky Way, and each "tree" is another galaxy observed with the 2.5-meter telescope of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

After combining this staggering number of spectra—recorded patterns of wavelengths revealing clues about the nature of a cosmic target—UA astronomers Huanian Zhang and Dennis Zaritsky report the first detections of diffuse hydrogen wafting about in a vast halo surrounding the Milky Way. Such a halo had been postulated based on what astronomers knew about other galaxies, but never directly observed.

Astronomers have long known that the most prominent features of a typical spiral galaxy such as our Milky Way—a central bulge surrounded by a disk and spiral arms—account only for the lesser part of its mass. The bulk of the missing mass is suspected to lie in so-called , a postulated but not yet directly observed form of matter believed to account for the majority of matter in the universe. Dark matter emits no electromagnetic radiation of any kind, nor does it interact with "normal" matter (which astronomers call baryonic matter), and is therefore invisible and undetectable through direct imaging.

The dark matter of a typical galaxy is thought to reside in a more or less spherical halo that extends 10 to 30 times farther out than the distance between the center of our galaxy and the sun, according to Zaritsky, a professor in the UA's Department of Astronomy and deputy director of the UA's Steward Observatory.

"We infer its existence through dynamical simulations of galaxies," Zaritsky explains. "And because the ratio of normal matter to dark matter is now very well known, for example from measuring the cosmic microwave background, we have a pretty good idea of how much baryonic should be in the halo. But when we add all the things we can see with our instruments, we get only about half of what we expect, so there has to be a lot of waiting to be detected."

By combining such a large number of spectra, Zaritsky and Zhang, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Astronomy/Steward Observatory, covered a large portion of space surrounding the Milky Way and found that diffuse hydrogen gas engulfs the entire galaxy, which would account for a large part of the galaxy's baryonic mass.

"It's like peering through a veil," Zaritsky said. "We see diffuse hydrogen in every direction we look."

He pointed out that this is not the first time gas has been detected in halos around galaxies, but in those instances, the hydrogen is in a different physical state.

"There are cloudlets of hydrogen in the galaxy halo, which we have known about for a long time, called high-velocity clouds," Zaritsky said. "Those have been detected through radio observations, and they're really clouds—you see an edge, and they're moving. But the total mass of those is small, so they couldn't be the dominant form of hydrogen in the halo."

Since observing our own galaxy is a bit like trying to see what an unfamiliar house looks like while being confined to a room inside, astronomers rely on computer simulations and observations of other galaxies to get an idea of what the Milky Way might look like to an alien observer millions of light-years away.

What our Milky Way might look like to alien astronomers: This image of NGC 2683, a spiral galaxy also known as the 'UFO Galaxy' due to its shape, was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. Since trying to find out what the Milky Way looks like is a bit like trying to picture an unfamiliar house while being confined to a room inside, studies like this one help us gain a better idea of our cosmic home. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA

For their study, scheduled for advance online publication on Nature Astronomy's website on Apr. 18, the researchers sifted through the public databases of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and looked for spectra taken by other scientists of galaxies outside our Milky Way in a narrow spectral line called hydrogen alpha. Seeing this line in a spectrum tells of the presence of a particular state of hydrogen that is different from the vast majority of hydrogen found in the universe.

Unlike on Earth, where hydrogen occurs as a gas consisting of molecules of two bound together, hydrogen exists as single atoms in outer space, and those can be positively or negatively charged, or neutral. Neutral hydrogen constitutes a small minority compared to its ionized (positive) form, which constitutes more than 99.99 percent of the gas spanning the intergalactic gulfs of the universe.

Unless neutral hydrogen atoms are being energized by something, they are extremely difficult to detect and therefore remain invisible to most observational approaches, which is why their presence in the Milky Way's halo had eluded astronomers until now. Even in other galaxies, halos are difficult to pin down.

"You don't just see a pretty picture of a halo around a galaxy," Zaritsky said. "We infer the presence of galactic halos from numerical simulations of and from what we know about how they form and interact."

Zaritsky explained that based on those simulations, scientists would have predicted the presence of large amounts of hydrogen gas stretching far out from the center of the Milky Way, but remaining associated with the galaxy, and the data collected in this study confirm the presence of just that.

"The gas we detected is not doing anything very noticeable," he said. "It is not spinning so rapidly as to indicate that it's in the process of being flung out of the galaxy, and it does not appear to be falling inwards toward the galactic center, either."

One of the challenges in this study was to know whether the observed hydrogen was indeed in a halo outside the Milky Way, and not just part of the galactic disk itself, Zaritsky said.

"When you see things everywhere, they could be very close to us, or they could be very far away," he said. "You don't know."

The answer to this question, too, was in the "trees," the more than 700,000 spectral analyses scattered across the galaxy. If the hydrogen gas were confined to the disk of the galaxy, our solar system would be expected to "float" inside of it like a ship in a slowly churning maelstrom, orbiting the galactic center. And just like the ship drifting with the current, very little relative movement would be expected between our solar system and the ocean of . If, on the other hand, it surrounded the spinning galaxy in a more or less stationary halo, the researchers expected that wherever they looked, they should find a predictable pattern of relative motion with respect to our solar system.

"Indeed, in one direction, we see the gas coming toward us, and the opposite direction, we see it moving away from us," Zaritsky said. "This tells us that the gas is not in the disk of our galaxy, but has to be out in the halo."

Next, the researchers want to look at even more spectra to better constrain the distribution around the sky and the motions of the gas in the . They also plan to search for other spectral lines, which may help better understand the physical state such as temperature and density of the gas.

Explore further: Astronomers observe early stages of Milky Way-like galaxies in distant universe

More information: The Galaxy's veil of excited hydrogen, Nature Astronomy (2017). nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41550-017-0103

Related Stories

Stars in the halo of the Milky Way often travel in groups

January 31, 2017

Many stars in the halo that surrounds the Milky Way travel in groups. This is the outcome of a recent analysis of data for millions of stars from the Gaia space mission. Astronomers report their discovery today in the international ...

Image: Hubble explores the hidden dark side of NGC 24

October 3, 2016

This shining disk of a spiral galaxy sits approximately 25 million light-years away from Earth in the constellation of Sculptor. Named NGC 24, the galaxy was discovered by British astronomer William Herschel in 1785, and ...

How a star cluster ruled out MACHOs

August 10, 2016

Are massive black holes hiding in the halos of galaxies, making up the majority of the universe's mysterious dark matter? This possibility may have been ruled out by a star cluster in a small galaxy recently discovered orbiting ...

Recommended for you

Webcam on Mars Express surveys high-altitude clouds

October 17, 2017

An unprecedented catalogue of more than 21 000 images taken by a webcam on ESA's Mars Express is proving its worth as a science instrument, providing a global survey of unusual high-altitude cloud features on the Red Planet.

Microbes leave 'fingerprints' on Martian rocks

October 17, 2017

Scientists around Tetyana Milojevic from the Faculty of Chemistry at the University of Vienna are in search of unique biosignatures, which are left on synthetic extraterrestrial minerals by microbial activity. The biochemist ...

Astronomers identify new asynchronous short period polar

October 16, 2017

(Phys.org)—An international team of astronomers led by Gagik H. Tovmassian of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has uncovered new details into the nature of a cataclysmic variable known as IGR J19552+0044. ...

The remarkable jet of the quasar 4C+19.44

October 16, 2017

Quasars are galaxies with massive black holes at their cores. So much energy is being radiated from near the nucleus of a quasar that it is much brighter than the rest of the entire galaxy. Much of that radiation is at radio ...

116 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
4.2 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2017
An open access copy of the paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...2005.pdf
Whydening Gyre
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2017
HA! This should make more than few on here. think about their negative comments on "Dark matter"...:-)
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2017
Department of Astronomy/Steward Observatory, covered a large portion of space surrounding the Milky Way and found that diffuse hydrogen gas engulfs the entire galaxy, which would account for a large part of the galaxy's baryonic mass.
"It's like peering through a veil," Zaritsky said. "We see diffuse hydrogen in every direction we look."


HA! This should make more than few on here. think about their negative comments on "Dark matter".


Uh huh, you got that right WhyGuy.........the more they look hoping to find DM, the more stuff they find that they were never looking for that are REAL ATOMS of REAL MATTER.
OrangeHorse
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2017
"because the ratio of normal matter to dark matter is now very well known, for example from measuring the cosmic microwave background, we have a pretty good idea of how much baryonic matter should be in the halo. But when we add all the things we can see with our instruments, we get only about half of what we expect."

When you add normal matter to dark matter, you still only get about half of what you expect. Maybe there is a new substance. Let's call it "even darker matter."
RNP
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2017
@OrangeHorse
If you read the quote carefully, it is only half the *baryonic* matter that the author is suggesting has not been detected, NOT dark matter.
Dingbone
Apr 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2017

HA! This should make more than few on here. think about their negative comments on "Dark matter".


Uh huh, you got that right WhyGuy.........the more they look hoping to find DM, the more stuff they find that they were never looking for that are REAL ATOMS of REAL MATTER.

Silly rabbit, they ARE looking for REAL matter - that can't be seen for one reason or another. Prob'ly just lots of protons with little or no electrons, while not being big enough to hit with a photon because - insufficient gravity pull them to to a denser state where they might actually have a shot at "charging up"...
Whydening Gyre
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2017
Silly rabbit, they ARE looking for REAL matter - that can't be seen for one reason or another. Prob'ly just lots of protons with little or no electrons, while not being big enough to hit with a photon because - insufficient gravity pull them to to a denser state where they might actually have a shot at "charging up"...

edit (and becoming "REAL" atoms)
El_Nose
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2017
The funny thing about people stating and shouting about REAL matter - is that the lack of homework - most / not all have done on the subject. A few years ago scientists discovered they were wrong about the number of brown dwarfs and red dwarfs n a galaxy by a factor of like 5. 100000x more small stars in every galaxy -- didn't budge the needle of baryonic matter needed to displace dark matter -- you would need something on the order of 7-8 more universes of matter to account for the missing matter in the universe
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2017
......didn't budge the needle of baryonic matter needed to displace dark matter


What's this "displace" thing you're talking about?

you would need something on the order of 7-8 more universes of matter to account for the missing matter in the universe


No kidding? How did you come up with this? Is there something this mysterious going on? Oh, INFERRED GRAVITY?

What seems so odd is that our Solar System seems to be humming along quite well in accordance to the laws of Newtonian gravity of the observable real matter made of REAL ATOMS that we find within our solar system.

Heck man, we launch rockets & space probes throughout the solar system with no need to fudge in gravitational forces for some undetectable mass fantasy creating 7-8 times more gravity.

If NASA were to incorporate your 7-8 DM fudge to its calculations for probes to make flybys pics of Pluto, we wouldn't have gotten any.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2017
El_Nose.
....is that the lack of homework - most / not all have done on the subject. A few years ago scientists discovered they were wrong about the number of brown dwarfs and red dwarfs n a galaxy by a factor of like 5. 100000x more small stars in every galaxy -- didn't budge the needle of baryonic matter needed to displace dark matter -- you would need something on the order of 7-8 more universes of matter to account for the missing matter in the universe
You are apparently, like many here, still operating from OLD 'exotic DM' and similarly ill-informed 'urban myths'; built into the literature by a BROKEN 'professional peer review' system since the Big Bang 'urban myth' first 'passed' by same, based on mere philosophical/metaphysical notions that are NOW being found, by mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews, to have had NO TENABLE scientific evidence to support it whatsoever; only more 'myths!

They found/finding VAST amounts of NORMAL stuff everywhere!

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2017
@El_Nose cont...

Exhaustive examination of relevant papers/PO articles, over last ten years (including the above), will give an UP TO DATE picture of ALL that is being/yet to be found.

ALL of it NORMAL MATTER; previously too 'dim' or in 'states' which did not radiate as expected compared to previously 'easily seen' matter on which OLD, now-patently-incorrect, universal matter content estimates/proportions and assumptions/models etc were based!

These are NOW OBSOLETE 'myths'.

Consider what has been discovered last ten years to date:

- NORMAL MATTER galaxy masses/extents AT LEAST 2-3 TIMES what was previously estimated;

- Intergalactic/Intercluster MEDIUM is NOW found to be NORMAL MATTER previously undetectable, and represents MANY TIMES that previously estimated to be there in 'deep space';

- ALL OLD claims that intergalactic/intercluster lensing data 'implied exotic DM 'separated collisions/mergers' are NOW FALSIFIED: Normal Matter was already there!

Read up.
swordsman
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2017
It has been estimated that the universe is about 80 % hydrogen, so this tends to confirm this.

We do know that a vacuum has electromagnetic properties. Not necessary to go out into far outer space.
These properties are well known and have been characterized some time ago.
NMvoiceofreason
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
The statement [ Dark matter emits no electromagnetic radiation of any kind, nor does it interact with "normal" matter ] is facially incorrect. Dark matter clearly interacts with normal matter by gravity. Dark matter may not interact using the electromagnetic force, but it seems to have mass. Perhaps it is composed of gluon-gluon pairs instead of quark-gluon pairs.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2017
Dark matter clearly interacts with normal matter by gravity


So how do you draw a distinction between Dark Matter Gravity & Visible Matter Gravity to know this? Let me guess, there are two types of GRAVITY: Inferred Gravity & Normal Gravity

Normal Gravity- emanates from 5-20% of all gravitating bodies in the Universe.

Inferred Gravity- emanates from 80-95% of all gravitating bodies in the Universe

So, DM Inferred Gravity exerts a gravitational force of between 4:1 & 19:1 greater than Normal Gravity bodies (unless of course your gravity measuring device is located inside our Solar System).

It is not a valid condition of measurement to measure the forces of gravitating bodies within our Solar System. It is not valid because we already know our position in the Universe is 100% devoid of DM & we have the gravity measurements to prove it. Therefore by logical deduction, our Solar System is so damn special for our existence that DM found a way to be absent, cute.

IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 19, 2017
ALL OLD claims that intergalactic/intercluster lensing data 'implied exotic DM 'separated collisions/mergers' are NOW FALSIFIED


I'm afraid that cheap dismissal doesn't hold water. The point of Bullet Cluster is that the intracluster medium (which was not undetectable, it's bright in x-rays) contained the majority of the baryonic mass and yet was completely separated from the lensing peaks by the collision. Even if the galaxies magically grew in mass by a factor of 3 as you claim (without evidence) it wouldn't account for the missing mass by a factor of 3 [Paraficz et al. 2012]. The intracluster medium cannot account for this because it doesn't line up with the lensing.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 19, 2017
@Benni
It is not valid because we already know our position in the Universe is 100% devoid of DM & we have the gravity measurements to prove it. Therefore by logical deduction, our Solar System is so damn special for our existence that DM found a way to be absent, cute.


Since you are repeating the same nonsensical claims, so I am going to repeat their refutation.

The density of dark matter is extremely low - estimated to be on average 0.01 solar masses per cubic parsec in the Milky Way.

For the Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec), we expect 320 BILLION solar masses of DM.

For the solar system (radius ~100 AU, i.e. 0.005 pc, and therefore a volume of 5 billionths of a cubic arcsec), the DM content is only 0.000000000005 solar masses. I.e. the mass of an asteroid, distributed evenly throughout the solar system. This is UNDETECTABLE with current techniques, proving your claims false.
jonesdave
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 19, 2017
@Benni
Since you are repeating the same nonsensical claims, so I am going to repeat their refutation.

The density of dark matter is extremely low - estimated to be on average 0.01 solar masses per cubic parsec in the Milky Way.

For the Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec), we expect 320 BILLION solar masses of DM.

For the solar system (radius ~100 AU, i.e. 0.005 pc, and therefore a volume of 5 billionths of a cubic arcsec), the DM content is only 0.000000000005 solar masses. I.e. the mass of an asteroid, distributed evenly throughout the solar system. This is UNDETECTABLE with current techniques, proving your claims false.


Don't use maths, you'll only confuse the poor darlings.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 19, 2017
Since you are repeating the same nonsensical claims, so I am going to repeat their refutation.

The density of dark matter is extremely low - estimated to be on average 0.01 solar masses per cubic parsec in the Milky Way.

For the Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec), we expect 320 BILLION solar masses of DM.

For the solar system (radius ~100 AU, i.e. 0.005 pc, and therefore a volume of 5 billionths of a cubic arcsec), the DM content is only 0.000000000005 solar masses. I.e. the mass of an asteroid, distributed evenly throughout the solar system. This is UNDETECTABLE with current techniques, proving your claims false.


LMAO....you have proved nothing other than how strong your beliefs are. Benni didn't make a claim, he made an observation which is supported by all of our scientific observations...you (and the DM proponents) are the ones making "claims". This is reality, deal with it.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2017
Since you are repeating the same nonsensical claims, so I am going to repeat their refutation.

The density of dark matter is extremely low - estimated to be on average 0.01 solar masses per cubic parsec in the Milky Way.


Hell's bells Mr freelance journalist who never saw a Differential Equation he could solve.......how do you know there is this "0.01 solar masses per cubic parsec in the Milky Way"? Don't tell me, you got together with Schneibo & sent out your own supersecret probe & scooped something into a test tube? When you got it back to Earth you soon discovered it exhibited 10, 20, 30........1000 times the gravitational attraction of the original mass of the test tube, therefore you knew you really had something, yeah, had to be DM, where else could all that new gravity come from?

Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2017
DM content is only 0.000000000005 solar masses. I.e. the mass of an asteroid, distributed evenly throughout the solar system. This is UNDETECTABLE with current techniques, proving your claims false.


Everything you DM Enthusiasts believe about your precious Cosmic Fairy Dust is "UNDETECTABLE", and to top it off you even have the math to prove it........!!!!! No wonder you freelance journalists are so bewildered in trying to solve a Partial Differential Equation.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2017
Don't use maths, you'll only confuse the poor darlings.


Hey Jonesy, I'll just bet you have some Partial Differential Equation "maths" solutions from GR that you would like to impress us with?

Hey poor commoner, drop the "s" from "maths". Have you any idea how the brevity of such a word comes across to those of us who have taken math courses you have never even heard of? I know, you're just too lazy to finish out the spelling as it should be: "mathematics", at least this way it doesn't sound so cockney.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2017
@IMP-9.

It is disappointing that you are still not fully appraised of astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews over recent years, IMP-9.

We have, and are still finding, that galaxy estimates as to mass/extent were VASTLY UNDER-estimated because previous visible matter estimates based on OLD telescopes data were NOT showing the full extent/mass in reality.

Furthermore, I have long, and mainstream more recently, mentioned the HUMONGOUS quantities of deconstructed/reformed material which AGN polar-jets have been injecting into those vast so-called 'void' intergalactic/intercluster regions FOR EONS.

Understand? It is THAT ORDINARY material's gravitational lensing being observed. IT WAS THERE ALREADY, immersing the whole cluster(s) which were 'colliding/merging while they were moving within/through that pre-existing material occupying the deep space between them.

So NOW there is NO 'exotic' DM 'needed' any longer to explain the lensing/motional observations in reality. Ok? Thanks.
ZergSurfer
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 19, 2017
You seem to be confused.
"In astronomy and cosmology, baryonic dark matter is dark matter composed of baryons. Only a small proportion of the dark matter in the universe is likely to be baryonic"
https://en.wikipe...k_matter

"The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter..."
https://en.wikipe...c_matter
You really need to learn this. Read the articles (Heh, likely :)
Oh wait, you already did, and understand the implications, and you're about to lecture me about how I couldn't possibly begin to comprehend your brilliance :)

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2017
@Zerg.
"...baryonic dark matter is dark matter composed of baryons. Only a small proportion of the dark matter in the universe is likely to be baryonic"
https://en.wikipe...k_matter
Only Ordinary stuff found. Why do you keep just regurgitating OLD 'myths' based on OLD naive/simplistic (read: seriously WRONG) assumptions about material in space and ordinary/exotic 'proportions' based on OLD naive/simplistic (read: seriously WRONG) estimates using CMB etc 'methodologies/models/interpretations which are now ALSO seen to have been naive/simplistic (read: seriously WRONG)? That's NOT 'science', it's just 'parroting old wrong orthodoxy', Zerg.

Read...

https://en.wikipe...c_matter

...lecture me about how I couldn't possibly begin to comprehend your brilliance :)
No, you obviously don't realize how you're merely lazy 'parroting' instead of ridding yourself of old 'myths' and UPDATING to REAL knowledge, Zerg.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
"In astronomy and cosmology, baryonic dark matter is dark matter composed of baryons. Only a small proportion of the dark matter in the universe is likely to be baryonic"

Excellent, please link the experiment that confirms this.
"The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter..."

Only if you WANT it to indicate that, observationally the universe contains 100% baryonic matter...we'll stick with this until a DM particle is produced...thank you.
You really need to learn this.

You really need to unlearn it actually.
you're about to lecture me about how I couldn't possibly begin to comprehend your brilliance

Not sure who you are talking to here, but if you consider not buying into hypothetical physics coupled with understanding the fundamental laws regarding all stable particle interactions as brilliance, and you believe in DM as a particle...then you are right.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2017
@RealityCheck

I don't think that you understand what real means.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2017
@Hat1208.
@RealityCheck

I don't think that you understand what real means.
Ok, let's compare to see which of us two is best qualified to understand what real means.

First, Hat1208: Long inculcated in metaphysical/maths abstractions-based 'objects' and 'concepts' such as 'dimensionless points' and such; and who still works from old abstract/metaphysical 'myths' passed by peer review into the literature that still contaminate subsequent studies, exercises, interpretations, modeling and conclusions from BB, CMB, Inflation/Expansion etc.

Second, RealityCheck: From age nine scrupulously eschewed all abstract metaphysical/maths notions and stuck to real objective observations/cogitation following the OBJECTIVE scientific method principles at every stage; and whose observations/insights on many fronts is being increasingly confirmed correct by more recent astro/cosmo and QM/Classical physics dicoveries/reviews by mainstream.

What value your 'opinion' now, Hat? :)

ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2017
"...From age nine scrupulously eschewed all abstract metaphysical/maths notions..."
Ah, numbers. Tricky little buggers, before long they'll have you believing in things like infinities within infinities :) Words are the same, they need to be taught a lesson. Mix your matephors, obfuscate your intent. Resist RC, you don't need math or logic, they're a construct of the bot-voting mafia. /s
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2017
@Zerg.

Why waste your life/intellect looking for excerpts to take out of context so you can troll, take cheap shots while missing the point, Zerg?

No wonder you're still ignorant of the REAL progress mainstream is making in recent years, discovering/reviewing astro/cosmo/physics data, interpretations and conclusions.

You choose to waste whatever intellect/time you have left, by making ego-tripping nonsense posts which any serious, honest scientist would be ashamed to be in any way associated with.

But YOU persist in misconstruing things so you can take your cheap shots while missing every important clue/insight that has been posted for you!

And haven't you figured out yet, that (after two centuries!) unreal/abstract NOTIONS, be these mathematical/philosophical/metaphysical UNREAL/ABSTRACT notions, can NEVER hope to realistically construct the universal scientific/maths models to reflect the UNIVERSAL REALITY consistent and complete.

I have learned. You have not, Zerg.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2017
Did @RC just *brag* about being innumerate? Unbelievable.

Math is a language for describing reality quantitatively. You can figure some things out qualitatively, but if you want to make sure you know how things work, you gotta count things. It's just the way reality works. Apples don't appear out of nowhere, and they don't disappear into nowhere either. The universe is fundamentally consistent. Math represents this consistency faithfully, so if you don't trust math, you don't trust the universe, and that's the first step toward making up fairy tales. I'm sure they're very nice fairy tales, but they don't have much to do with reality.
bschott
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2017
Math is a language for describing reality quantitatively

Or a fairy tale quantitatively.
but if you want to make sure you know how things work, you gotta count things.

And as long as you are counting the correct things, the math will be describing reality.
Apples don't appear out of nowhere, and they don't disappear into nowhere either.

Quantum fluctuations...black holes...what?
The universe is fundamentally consistent. Math represents this consistency faithfully, so if you don't trust math, you don't trust the universe, and that's the first step toward making up fairy tales.

Like a universe structured as it is due to gravity....mathematical fairy tales.
I'm sure they're very nice fairy tales,

No...it sucks actually
but they don't have much to do with reality.

When the math doesn't match observation...you can invent a new "reality" and waste billions searching for it. What a farce....

Hat1208
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2017
@RC
Second, RealityCheck: From age nine scrupulously eschewed all abstract metaphysical/maths notions and stuck to real objective observations/cogitation following the OBJECTIVE scientific method principles at every stage

Yes well age nine is a fun age and maybe someday you will make to age 10 mentally.

Good Luck!
Kron
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
An immaterialist would tell you all matter is dark until observed. Why it is so hard to accept that some materials in this universe do not possess the same properties as baryonic matter (composed of neutrons and protons) is beyond me. Our brains are composed of baryonic matter, so we are designed to perceive baryonic materials. The equipment we design as aids in detection are composed of materials our brains understand (baryonic things).

It just so seems, that our theories on gravity are showing us that this baryonic world we perceive is nothing more than a segment of the world around us.

All we can do is work with the information we've got. We were aware of baryonic matter so we created theories surrounding just that. New information has shown us that the mass presence in the universe is greater than the baryonic mass present.

So whats a sound realist mind to do but to hypothesize of non-baryonic material? If our brains were composed of dark matter all would come to light.
Kron
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve." -Planck
Our perception is limited by our brains. We can only interpret things that our brains are designed to interpret. The universe could potentially have an infinite type of physical properties, the ones we observe, are specific to us as the observers. What the universes true structure is is inaccessible to us. We are bound by our own physical limitations, but the world around us is not necessarily bound by our own physical structure. We as observers observe only that which we are sensitive or perceptive to. The universe may contain within it observers of another nature all together, with their own personal limitations and a world we ourselves aren't privy to.

You don't know what you don't know...
Kron
5 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2017
In the end, we must follow the information we have to fruition (or failure if thats where it leads). Right now, it seems, as if the matter we see in the universe does not add up to the mass our theories of gravity predict is there. Could our gravitational theories be wrong? Yes. But, they sure are pretty correct when applied locally.

The search for Dark Matter is an important one. It might in the end, if all else fails, provide us with a better gravitational theory, or it may just open up a window to a whole new previously dark world. In either case it will expand our knowledge and push us further as a species.

To discount it altogether and adjust our gravitational theories (such as is case with MOND types), would potentially forever blind us to the bigger picture. If Dark Matter really is there, wouldn't you all like to know?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Did @RC just *brag* about being innumerate?
Did Da Schneib just ask a 'loaded question' to set up his strawman/manufactured 'disbelief'. Yep! That's 'scientific method' for 'graduates' in STUMP METHOD for ignoring, insulting, remaining ignorant while attacking in self-assured ignorance.
Unbelievable.
Indeed!
....but if you want to make sure you know how things work, you gotta count things. It's just the way reality works.
How's the 'professional' ToE coming along, DS? Lost count of the 'unreal bits' in lieu of reality!
The universe is fundamentally consistent. Math represents this consistency faithfully,...
You are the one "not trusting the universe" to be REAL, DS. Again, THE Universe is NOT 'an apple' concept; THE universe is ALL THERE IS; ONE REAL THING 'abstractly subdivisible' into all sorts of 'sub-units' we LABEL ('apple', 'energy' etc).

NB:

Apple - Apple = 0 (apples).

BUT NO 'math' can give: Universe - Universe = 0.

Comprende?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
@Kron.
....If Dark Matter really is there, wouldn't you all like to know?
We have been finding previously dark material in all sorts of excited/ground states all over the place wherever we look!

And in humongous quantities/distributions!

And ALL of it ORDINARY stuff which previously was undetectable to our primitive instruments/telescopes!

Recent mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews over the last ten years or so has shown that all those 'exotic DM' and other ad hoc 'fixes' have been unnecessary; since the normal matter now accounts for the observed redshifts and motions which in more naive/simplistic times were attributed to 'exotic DM' etc.

So, Kron, the answer is in; we have found the (previously dark) matter which did not radiate in EM in the way, or sufficiently to be included in our earlier naive/simplistic calculations/interpretations as to ORDINARY matter content/proportions etc.

Now we know; it's there; it's ORDINARY stuff, in various states. Cheers.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2017
"..THE universe is ALL THERE IS;..."
Nope, it's all we can see, not necessarily all there is. We have an observational horizon.
" 'abstractly subdivisible' into all sorts of 'sub-units' we LABEL ('apple', 'energy' etc)."
Well of course, that's what we use numbers and words for. To assign abstract (existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence) symbols to real phenomena.
i.e. 1+1=2, Pi, C, sin, cos and so on.
"BUT NO 'math' can give: Universe - Universe = 0."
Given we've only got this one to study, that seems a, erm, given :)
(I realise of course that for some values of U, U-U would == 0 :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
@Hat1208.
Second, RealityCheck: From age nine scrupulously eschewed all abstract metaphysical/maths notions and stuck to real objective observations/cogitation following the OBJECTIVE scientific method principles at every stage

Yes well age nine is a fun age and maybe someday you will make to age 10 mentally.

Good Luck!
So, Hat; you failed by comparison re respective objective scientific contributions, ie:

Hat1208: Nil.

RealityCheck: Increasingly confirmed by mainstream as correct all along on many fronts.

So you have resorted to snide, irrelevant remarks/insults which only demonstrate further why it is that your scientific contribution has been: Nil.

Worse than Nil, actually; since your above trolling is preventing you from learning and understanding what is even now evolving within the mainstream paradigm(s) on many fronts due to recent discovery/review that confirming me correct and you self-satisfyingly ignorant.

You are the one needs all the luck, Hat!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2017
@Zerg.
THE universe is ALL THERE IS;
Nope, it's all we can see, not necessarily all there is.
Yes! That is the whole point, Zerg. Our abstract/arbitrary 'subdivisions and delimitations' are OUR maths/philosophical 'notions' based on our limited view. The Universe is not forced to comply to our observational limitations or our 'unreal maths' representations/models based on same.
'abstractly subdivisible' into all sorts of 'sub-units' we LABEL ('apple', 'energy' etc)
Well of course, that's what we use numbers and words for. To assign abstract ... symbols to real phenomena.
But conventional maths abstractions/notions are inadequate; hence the need for a reality-based maths.
BUT NO 'math' can give: Universe - Universe = 0
Given we've only got this one to study, that seems a, erm, given :)
You (and DS still) missed the crucial point of that observation, Zerg: There is NO such REALITY as NO UNIVERSE; so UNREAL (conventional) 'maths' inadequate. Ok?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 21, 2017
You gotta wonder what @RC thinks of pi or e if it doesn't "believe in" math. Does this individual also not "believe in" circles?

Teh stupid, it burnz.

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.

ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2017
"But conventional maths abstractions/notions are inadequate; hence the need for a reality-based maths."
I feel the need to ask for an example of reality-based maths.
I'm always interested in symbolic logic.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2017
@RC claims "But conventional maths abstractions/notions are inadequate; hence the need for a reality-based maths."

Dear idiot, "conventional maths[sic]" *are* reality based. They include zero, the idea that a thing is equal to itself, and the idea that things that are both equal to another thing are equal to each other, which are glaringly obvious features of reality.

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

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


RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Dear idiot, "conventional maths[sic]" *are* reality based. They include zero, the idea that a thing is equal to itself, and the idea that things that are both equal to another thing are equal to each other, which are glaringly obvious features of reality.
Dear maniac. :) The argument is not over what conventional maths is adequate for; it is over what conventional maths is NOT adequate for. Due to its infestation/contamination by unreal abstract notions which are more metaphysics and philosophic than reality. Do you understand the point being made to you, DS? Can you discern between your kneejerk 'understanding' and what actually is being said to you that needs understanding properly in this case, DS?

Basically, DS, any maths that treats/models Universes like Apples, is UNREAL maths; and so inadequate for treating/modeling REALITY (universe).

Your Apple-Apple=0 'maths' construct is NOT CAPABLE of reflecting the REALITY:

Universe-Universe NOT=0.

Ok, DS?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2017
@Zerg.
But conventional maths abstractions/notions are inadequate; hence the need for a reality-based maths
I feel the need to ask for an example of reality-based maths.
I'm always interested in symbolic logic.
The details of reality-based axioms set and consequential reality-based maths constructed therefrom, will be published along with my complete and consistent reality-based universal physics ToE.

Meanwhile, you'll have to make do with example of UNREALITY of conventional maths; as expressed in:

UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE= 0

Which treats THE REAL universe like an abstract 'apple unit' term.

Hence the REALITY expression would be:

UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE NOT= 0.

That is just a quick comparison-expressions to highlight what current 'unreal/abstract' etc maths IS ok for....and what it's NOT ok for.

Ok?

PS: DS in maniac mode; obviously incapable of pausing to actually consider objectively the point in discussion. Unreasoning anger is no substitute for science.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2017
@RC doesn't understand that mathematicians have explored "unconventional math." In fact, most of quantum physics is made up of "unconventional math." It's called non-commutative geometry, and the fact is that the geometry of 3-space is non-commutative.

I can prove it. Take a simple 6-sided die. Turn it right then up. Now, put it back how it was, and turn it up then right. Note that you do not get the same results. 3-d reality is non-commutative. It denies a basic law of arithmetic.

That's reality. Anyone with a buck in their pocket can perform that experiment.

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 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Your gradually receding into your self-constructed 'manic world'; too amply 'populated' by the many 'embodiments' of your litany of mistakes and strawmen , DS. All because of YOUR MUCH-BOASTED "NOT READING"; and your REFUSAL POINT BLANK to update yourself on the scientific reality you have been ignoring too often while attacking in egregious error using tactics only a manic ego-tripper troll would resort to. That way lay madness, DS! Stop and backtrack to reason and reality before its too late, DS. Read it all; learn; instead of manically driveling and strawmanning all over the threads, DS. And stop digging, DS!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Your gradually receding into your self-constructed 'manic world'; too amply 'populated' by the many 'embodiments' of your litany of mistakes and strawmen , DS. All because of YOUR MUCH-BOASTED "NOT READING"; and your REFUSAL POINT BLANK to update yourself on the scientific reality you have been ignoring too often while attacking in egregious error using tactics only a manic ego-tripper troll would resort to. That way lay madness, DS! Stop and backtrack to reason and reality before its too late, DS. Read it all; learn; instead of manically driveling and strawmanning all over the threads, DS. And stop digging, DS!

Don't you have a ToE to finish?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@Whyde.
Don't you have a ToE to finish?
...and the reality-maths too, don't forget! Anyhow, as I explained before (and just now in the other thread), I still 'soundboard' and try to keep up to date with science news/discourse; and PO site is a 'one stop shop' for doing both!

And then there are the occasional reality checks I post in the interests f getting the discussions here on a more objective and less 'partisan' level. A thankless task, I know, but someone has to do it if the discussions are ever to be freed from the usual 'gang' mentalities and feuds which have dogged all the science forums for far too long now. Science needs every intellect to do its bit for science and humanity's sake, if not for the sake of the individual involved.

Good luck, good thinking, and good discourse, Whyde, everyone.

Cheers, Whyde. And many thanks to PO! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
Oops! Double post instead of edit. Apologies!
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2017
"...UNREALITY of conventional maths; as expressed in:
UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE= 0"
"Which treats THE REAL universe like an abstract 'apple unit' term."
Ok, 1-1=0, good so far.

"Hence the REALITY expression would be:
UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE NOT= 0."

Ambiguity detected. Is it (U-U) NOT = 0;
Or (U-U NOT) = 0 ?
Is NOT being used as a logical operator? Reverse Polish? Have you assigned some other meaning to it?
Or does it mean whatever you want it to mean at the time?
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2017
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2017
Anyone can go get a die and perform the experiment I explained above, and they'll all get the same results I do.

Anyone but you, apparently, @RC.

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

The direct lie:
The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@Zerg.

The Apple -Apple=0 form was clear and unambiguous as DS used it. The Universe-Universe=0 form was following exactly DS's unambiguous current maths form/convention. The further statement of the reality form/convention of that same expression Universe-Universe NOT= 0 is just as unambiguous (except to you; a clueless troll grasping at any strawman in order to set up yet another of your pathetic cheap shots).

Zerg, your TehDog 'incarnation' here was valueless to science and humanity discourse. Your new 'incarnation' as ZergSurfer remains faithful to that 'tradition of irrelevance and waste of intellect/time' so 'concretely established' set by your former TehDog incarnation'. When does the penny drop, Zerg, that you are being just as antithetical to the interests of science and humanity discourse as any Trump/Denier troll is (actually, worse; because YOU should know better, Zerg!).

Be/Do better than this, Zerg; science and humanity advance needs you to be/do so. ASAP. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2017
@Da Schneib (and Mimath).
Anyone can go get a die and perform the experiment I explained above, and they'll all get the same results I do. Anyone but you, apparently, @RC.
@Mimath!...There you see it again! DS, in his self-constructed 'zone of ignore and insult' mania is OBLIVIOUS of the fact that there is NO argument against the directly testable category of simulations (series of same). Mimath, can you tell me WHY DS continues to drivel on about what is NOT being challenged; while missing the point about the cosmic scale/not-directly-testable category of simulations? Maybe you can post to him and make him aware of what he is missing in his manic need to attack and insult despite NOT being 'all there' insofar as all the facts are concerned? Please, if you are his friend, try to help him come back to reality soon, before the 'unreality world' he is 'constructing' consumes his intellectual integrity/capacity irretrievably. Thanks.

PS: Good luck, Da Schneib. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2017
Obfuscation is lying, @RC. You're lying again. And demonstrating your innumeracy again, as well.

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

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

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2017
Oh, and BTW, @RC, now it seems you've changed your story right in the middle.

First the experiment with a die was "fantasy." Now you're claiming it's "NOT[sic] being challenged." One of those two absolutely has to be a lie.

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

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

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Oh, and BTW, @RC, now it seems you've changed your story right in the middle.

First the experiment with a die was "fantasy." Now you're claiming it's "NOT[sic] being challenged." One of those two absolutely has to be a lie.
What are you going on about now, DS? You are twisting it all so much that I suspect you have lost track of your own strawmen by now!

Stop it before you twist yourself into an 'impossible' M. C. Escher drawing!

PS: Come back to reality, DS; we miss you! :)

Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
@RC, so which one is a lie? Is the experiment with the die a "fantasy," or are you claiming that calling it a "fantasy" means it's "NOT[sic] being challenged?" It's a simple enough question, and whatever you answer, you're a proven liar.

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.

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2017
RC, why do you even bother? Seriously. In all the time you've been here you've never once met anyone who thinks you have even a smidgeon of understanding (let alone someone who supports your 'arguments')

At some point even you must come to the realization that you're just plain wrong and uneducated.

Get some education. Then come back (or don't. Who cares?) - but cluttering up the comment sections of some random internet site in your dotage isn't doing anyone a favor. Least of all you.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
...
Be/Do better than this, Zerg; science and humanity advance needs you to be/do so. ASAP. :)

Science/humanity need that ToE, RC.
ASAP.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2017
The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.
http://phys.org/news/2014-12-tracking-fukushima-radioactivity-plume-pacific.html
Science/humanity need that ToE, RC.
ASAP.
i'm guessing the "reality-cavalry" fell off his horse?

does anyone else find it fascinating how the lie has evolved over the decades?
from a "maths free" ToE to re-writing maths ??

this is direct from her earthlingclub nonsense BS site:
a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics
proxy added for everyone's safety: http://proxy9747....lub.com/

obviously someone explained why you can't have a ToE without math... so now, to be taken seriously, she must regurgitate a delusional argument about new maths

this is striking in many ways
very telling

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You boast and pride yourself on NOT reading or being up to date on the evolving science falsifying/questioning decades-old BB, Inflation, QM 'myths' based on maths/philosophy/metaphysics NOTIONS instead of physical reality. So please don't keep pretending to yourself and the 'gang' that you are in any way equipped emotionally, intellectually or educationally, to accuse others of anything. You've tried your insults-in-ignorance tactics before, too often; and you've betrayed your time, character, intellect and credibility quotients, not to mention science and humanity discourse, by your compulsive 'need' to insult and attack despite being DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. If you keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting things to turn out differently than they have every time already for far too long now, then you should "step away from that keyboard" for a long while, and seek help to cure your (increasingly painful to watch) mania. Good luck, DS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
RC, why do you even bother? Seriously. In all the time you've been here you've never once met anyone who thinks you have even a smidgeon of understanding (let alone someone who supports your 'arguments') At some point even you must come to the realization that you're just plain wrong and uneducated. Get some education. Then come back (or don't. Who cares?) - but cluttering up the comment sections of some random internet site in your dotage isn't doing anyone a favor. Least of all you.
That's more than a tad hypocrisy-and-insensibility-rich coming from you, anti.

You were one of those 'gang' of trolling idiots who fell hook-line-and-sinker for all that BICEP2 crap. You ignored my caution to objectively check it out thoroughly for yourselves to find the many obvious flaws in it that were immediately evident to any scientifically educated person applying scientific scrutiny objectively (not just 'believing' like you/gang preferred to do).

Sad, anti.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
Poor stump.

He can't comprehend that political/technological developments can overtake projects and re-direct/delay them. So he persists in personal trolling/stalking campaign from ignorance malice. So sad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Whyde.
...
Be/Do better than this, Zerg; science and humanity advance needs you to be/do so. ASAP. :)

Science/humanity need that ToE, RC.
ASAP.
Don't forget the reality-based axioms/maths too, Whyde! Every big work has its own timeline to proper and consistent completion. Only 'publish or perish' types rush things due to personal/mercenary/prestige etc 'imperatives' which are in many ways antithetical to the spirit and practice of big scientific endeavors.

Patience. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy and happy as a clam me, thanks for asking.

Cher, why you want all the humans and scientists to be "sad" all the time? Seems like at least 30 of your 35 daily posts have you wishing peoples to be "sad".

Why you don't want the humans and scientists to be happy like I am. I mean I wish you were happy like me, and I don't wish you are sad. Choot, you don't see other peoples wishing for you to be sad even though you give them enough reasons for them to wish that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Why you don't want the humans and scientists to be happy like I am. I mean I wish you were happy like me, and I don't wish you are sad. Choot, you don't see other peoples wishing for you to be sad even though you give them enough reasons for them to wish that.
The saddest case of all: a "happy" little bot-voting ignoramus; "happily" trolling a science discussion and skewing the ratings metrics on a science site.

Now that's real real sad.

Oh well, if it makes you "happy" to be what you have become by your own choice, Ira.

But it's a sad thing to watch you betraying your intellect/character; seeking your "happiness" in such anti-science and anti-humanity activity.

Too, too, sad.

Oh well, cest la vie, n'estpa, mon cher? Even malignant village idiots like you need a place to hang out; but take care not to slip on your own or your idiot-gangmates' troll-shite, now, Ira! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
Oh well, if it makes you "happy" to be what you have become by your own choice, Ira.
Now you get it Cher. That is what I been trying to explain to you for years. Laissez les bons temps rouler Make your self happy Cher.

Oh well, cest la vie, n'estpa, mon cher? Even malignant village idiots like you need a place to hang out; but take care not to slip on your own or your idiot-gangmates' troll-shite, now, Ira! :)
Good for you Cher. Now see how better that is? If you can keep it up maybe I will rethink about taking you off the vot-boter "1" karma point list.

Try it more with the other humans and scientists and maybe the others will like it too
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
@RC
"The Apple -Apple=0 form was clear and unambiguous as DS used it...
"
"They include zero, the idea that a thing is equal to itself, and the idea that things that are both equal to another thing are equal to each other,.."

t=t, t-t=0, if t=s and r=s then t=r,

"Hence the REALITY expression would be:
UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE NOT= 0."

That is not unambiguous. NOT is a boolean op. Returns TRUE or FALSE, not a numeric value.
And not equals is generally represented by != (strike thru is never used)
(U-U) NOT = 0;
Or (U-U NOT) = 0

Operator precedence would like to know.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2017
@Zerg cleverly inserts yet a third interpretation.

So, @RC, is it
U - (U NOT) = 0,
((U - U) NOT) = 0,
or
U - U (NOT =) 0?

And this @RC guy claims to be a programmer. Obviously never seen a code review board. Obviously innumerate and alogical. Obviously incapable of understanding as simple a programming concept as operator precedence.

Like I said, glad I don't have to fix any of his bugs.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
Oh, and @RC, also noted that instead of answering the question, "so which one is a lie? Is the experiment with the die a 'fantasy,' or are you claiming that calling it a 'fantasy' means it's 'NOT[sic] being challenged?' It's still a simple enough question, and whatever you answer, you're still a proven liar.

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
@Zerg.
@Zerg cleverly inserts yet a third interpretation.

So, @RC, is it
U - (U NOT) = 0,
((U - U) NOT) = 0,
or
U - U (NOT =) 0?

The only confusion is in your mind, Zerg. You ARBITRARILY SEPARATED the "NOT=" component and placed it in a different "parentheses rule" position which was NOT the position indicated unambiguously by the combination term "NOT=".

The fact you attempted to put the "NOT EQUAL" term in a parentheses says how far you will debase your own maths in order to create a strawman. Pathetic, Zerg.

For someone who is so dishonest and easily confused by his own dishinesty, Zerg, you certainly do persist in your dishonesty quite 'doggedly'-----pun intended, making allusion to your previous 'incaranation' here as @TehDog. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
Sigh. @RC, you made two diametrically opposed statements. One of them is a lie. This is obvious, and easy for anyone to understand. First you call something a "fantasy," then you claim it's "NOT[sic] being challenged."

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.

ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2017
I think he meant (U-U) !=0;
which evaluates to false.
Still makes no sense, how can subtracting something from itself have a result other than 0?
Maybe (U @ t=0) - (U @ t+i) !=0; where t=some arbitrary time, i=some interval, is what he's trying to say?
Lol, what am I saying, the guy never learned basic algebra :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Sigh. @RC, you made two diametrically opposed statements. One of them is a lie. This is obvious, and easy for anyone to understand. First you call something a "fantasy," then you claim it's "NOT[sic] being challenged."

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.

Your now well-infamous lack of objective reading/comprehension is palpable to all readers at this point. Your attacking/insulting-in-ignorance tactics are no substitute for honesty or intellectual capability. Take a break from posting while drunk and/or otherwise insensible. Step away from that keyboard! Stop spamming your nastiness/ignorance!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Zerg.
I think he meant (U-U) !=0;
Yay, finally! It was un-ambiguous all along to objective readers.
which evaluates to false.
Again: Yay, finally! That too was un-ambiguous all along to objective readers.
Still makes no sense, how can subtracting something from itself have a result other than 0?
And again: Yay, finally! That was the point all along! Which point was un-ambiguous all along to objective readers.
Maybe (U @ t=0) - (U @ t+i) !=0; where t=some arbitrary time, i=some interval, is what he's trying to say?
No. Forget all that qualification/interpretation etc confusion. The point was that algebra, or any other maths construct/treatment INCAPABLE of treating THE universal reality properly AS reality, will NEVER satisfy our needs for MODELING THE reality-------ie, THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE CONSISTENT AND COMPLETE----which CANNOT be treated like just any other FINITE ELEMENT/CONCEPT in the way that current maths does.

Well done, Zerg!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Non complaints from down here, thanks for asking.

So what you are saying about the "universal reality" and "THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE" is that you will never be satisfied with the regular maths. Is that right, not all along, just for now is it right?

I think you are saying that the U - U still has something left over because the Really-Skippy reality is left over so. But that can not work either. Because for the NEW & IMPROVED REALLY-SKIPPY AXLE MATHS to get the right answer it should U + Really-Skippy = U. And U - Really-Skippy = U.

And Really-Skippy divided by U is not allowed because dividing 0 by U (or anything else) is against the rules.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
And, now - we return you to your regularly scheduled topic - an observed halo of hydrogen surrounding our galaxy.
This article explains very simply how an unseen "gravitational anomaly" (avoiding the dreaded DM label) is being spotted and used to account for missing mass. It takes a lot of observin', more than little calculatin' and some good ol' fashioned triangulatin' to do that. By trained-in-the-field, scientists.
I didn't see anywhere where it suggests anything other than good ol'-fashioned baryonic mass - hydrogen (in prob'ly more states than we are observationally aware of).
No "woo" involved.
BTW. Has anyone ever proposed a gravitational polarization hypothesis?
And before you even start, RC/Soliari - don't...
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
So what you are saying about the "universal reality" and "THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE" is that you will never be satisfied with the regular maths. Is that right, not all along, just for now is it right?
In science, personal/emotional considerations (such as you or my or another's "satisfaction") has nothing to do with the scientific demands placed on any maths for objectively describing the Universal reality consistent and complete. Hence my reality-based axioms/maths work is aimed at "satisfying" the scientific demands/nees, not my or anyone else's personal demands/needs.

PS: Your attempt at humor was a lot better than your usual; and not as damaging to science and humanity discourse as usual. You must be taking lessons from Whyde on how to be a jester yet not make a total ass of yourself. Good show, guys! Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2017
@Whyde.
And, now - we return you to your regularly scheduled topic - an observed halo of hydrogen surrounding our galaxy.
This article explains very simply how an unseen "gravitational anomaly" (avoiding the dreaded DM label) is being spotted and used to account for missing mass. It takes a lot of observin', more than little calculatin' and some good ol' fashioned triangulatin' to do that. By trained-in-the-field, scientists.
I didn't see anywhere where it suggests anything other than good ol'-fashioned baryonic mass - hydrogen (in prob'ly more states than we are observationally aware of).
No "woo" involved.
You've put your finger on the point, Whyde. And yes indeed, more objective recent crop of astro/cosmo observations also recognize that what we now see may still be 'the tip of the iceberg'; insofar they are expecting more and better telescopes/instruments to pick up even more low-luminosity and/or infer other ordinary stuff in neutral/ionized states. Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2017
When little kids say one thing, and then say the exact opposite a minute later, everyone knows they're lying. That's just how it is, @RC. The more you try to squirm out of it, the less everyone respects you.

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.

ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
"I think he meant (U-U) !=0; "
"Yay, finally! It was un-ambiguous all along to objective readers."
Nope.
"which evaluates to false. "
"Again: Yay, finally! That too was un-ambiguous all along to objective readers."
Not to anyone unfamiliar with logical operators, so nope again.
"Still makes no sense, how can subtracting something from itself have a result other than 0? "
"And again: Yay, finally! That was the point all along! Which point was un-ambiguous all along to objective readers."
So your point was 1-1=0 ? Why didn't you say that?
"The point was that algebra, or any other maths construct/treatment INCAPABLE of treating THE universal reality properly AS reality, will NEVER satisfy our needs for MODELING THE reality-..."
Oh. Right.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2017
@Zerg, minor problem, @RC has not demonstrated that the universe is infinite. Speaking of logic.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
So what you are saying about the "universal reality" and "THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE" is that you will never be satisfied with the regular maths. Is that right, not all along, just for now is it right?
In science, personal/emotional considerations (such as you or my or another's "satisfaction") has nothing to do with the scientific demands placed on any maths for objectively describing the Universal reality consistent and complete. Hence my reality-based axioms/maths work is aimed at "satisfying" the scientific demands/nees, not my or anyone else's personal demands/needs.

PS: Your attempt at humor was a lot better than your usual; and not as damaging to science and humanity discourse as usual. You must be taking lessons from Whyde on how to be a jester yet not make a total ass of yourself. Good show, guys! Thanks. :)

Well, lookee there. Ira turned off the botvote somehow and gave ya a 5...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2017
@Zerg, minor problem, @RC has not demonstrated that the universe is infinite. Speaking of logic.

To be fair, it may not be. The fact that we can make any observations at all, imply that it could be...
Implication of that? Infinite lines of thought on the matter....:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Zerg.
Nope.
NOT "Nope". The opposite of "Nope". :)
Not to anyone unfamiliar with logical operators, so nope again. :)
It was in plain ENGLISH SYNTAX, Zerg. Any English reader of average English language comprehension unambiguously comprehended it. So it's a NOT "Nope". Again, the very opposite of "Nope". :)
So your point was 1-1=0 ?
No no no! The point was and remains, that such an abstract treatment cannot be applied to THE UNIVERSAL REALITY. Hence the need to improve the current maths to make it capable of doing so (just as Newton/Liebnitz had to invente calculus to treat things which the foregoing maths couldn't handle).
Oh. Right.
Yes. Right. Algebra (the study of generalizations of arithmetic operations) CANNOT 'generalize' THE UNIVERSE like it does 'apples'. In the latter treatment, apples are 'generalized' and denoted by number(s) so that when 1-1=0 is applied, the 'apples' JUST DISAPPEAR into 'nothingness' (ZERO). REAL UNIVERSE does NOT. Ok? :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2017
"It was in plain ENGLISH SYNTAX, Zerg."
And yet it purported to be a mathematical expression. Why didn't you use the form;
"UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE is NOT= 0"
That would be an unambiguous statement in english.

"Any English reader of average English language comprehension unambiguously comprehended it."
How many did you ask for their opinion?
Wanna go again? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
@Zerg.
It was in plain ENGLISH SYNTAX, Zerg.

And yet it purported to be a mathematical expression. Why didn't you use the form;
"UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE is NOT= 0"
That would be an unambiguous statement in english.
I did, Zerg; at least twice! I quote the relevant section of my post to you dated April 22 above:
... Which treats THE REAL universe like an abstract 'apple unit' term.

Hence the REALITY expression would be: UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE NOT= 0.

That is just a quick comparison-expressions to highlight what current 'unreal/abstract' etc maths IS ok for....and what it's NOT ok for. ...


I also used it in the preceding post to that, addresses to DS; relevant section quote:
...

Your Apple-Apple=0 'maths' construct is NOT CAPABLE of reflecting the REALITY:

Universe-Universe NOT=0.

...


Any more of your misconceived arguments or misunderstandings which you need my help dispelling; or is that it for now, Zerg? :)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2017
PS @ Zerg: In case you aren't familiar with English usage, the "is" in your suggested 'form' is treated/termed in conversations in context as: 'understood'. And in text-limited situations like PO comment box text allowance, all sorts of short-cuts and 'understood' extraneous text dropping is usually needed to fit the limit. Ok? :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2017
I said;
"UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE is NOT= 0
That would be an unambiguous statement in english."
You said;
"I did, Zerg; at least twice!"
Well, that's a blatant lie.

Keep going, that hole is getting deeper mate :) BTW, too much white space.
"And in text-limited situations like PO comment box text allowance, all sorts of short-cuts and 'understood' extraneous text dropping is usually needed to fit the limit. Ok? :)
Nope. Classic example, "PO comment box text allowance" instead of "PO's 1000 char limit"
See the difference? Saves 9 chars, and is more accurate.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
I said;
"UNIVERSE - UNIVERSE is NOT= 0
That would be an unambiguous statement in english."
You said;
"I did, Zerg; at least twice!"
Well, that's a blatant lie.

Keep going, that hole is getting deeper mate :) BTW, too much white space.
"And in text-limited situations like PO comment box text allowance, all sorts of short-cuts and 'understood' extraneous text dropping is usually needed to fit the limit. Ok? :)
Nope. Classic example, "PO comment box text allowance" instead of "PO's 1000 char limit"
See the difference? Saves 9 chars, and is more accurate.
Are you ok, Zerg? You seem to have acquired a petty details syndromic bug! It is distracting/preventing you from getting the point, mate. Just relax, read in context, and all will be ok. Don't sweat the typos and formating petty stuff. Look at the big picture, that's where reality is hiding from you. You're too close to the minutiae of the 'brush strokes' and missing the overall meaning. Step back from the 'canvas'. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
PS @Zerg: Speaking of your overly critical pettiness, mate, you'll see that I quoted your above post exactly as you formatted it. You apparently haven't figured out how to use the quote function/symbols even after all these years posting as TehDog and now Zergsurfer. Can you see how someone like you, seeing that from you, would by now have gone troppo with petty complaints against your posting style? Go easy on yourself, Zerg! I don't mind you being lax re that. I'm tolerant of things not that important in the overall Science/Humanity scheme of things. Relax, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
@RC, it doesn't matter how many times you claim both X and not-X are true, anyone smarter than a 3-year-old child can see you have to be lying one way or the other. That you think anyone could miss this is insulting to the intelligence of every poster and even lurker on this forum. I will be adding this thread to the permanent list of lies revealing your dishonesty.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
You seem to have acquired a petty details syndromic bug!
so... you can't actually provide evidence for your claims, therefore you blame it on formatting and space?

that makes no sense - you don't mind making multiple posts to complain about how you're treated above

you don't mind making multiple posts blaming others for not reading your posts

you don't mind making multiple posts telling the forum that we should all be objective thinkers with our heads stuck up our arse like you, not willing to see reality

but you can't do the same to make a clear, coherent post explaining your stupidity or your math and programming failures ... or presenting evidence that is freely available to everyone in open access studies?

how does that work?

considering you've made 6,646 posts without producing the 4 fatal flaws you claim to have spotted right away, i would say that is hypocrisy

but considering the above, it is more likely just plain old delusional behaviour
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
"PS @Zerg: Speaking of your overly critical pettiness, mate, you'll see that I quoted your above post exactly as you formatted it."
Yay, you've learned how to copy'n'paste. Have a cookie :)
" Don't sweat the typos and formating petty stuff. "
Typos are fine, even grammatical errors. Not everyone is a native english speaker or writer.
"See the difference? Saves 9 chars, and is more accurate. "
That wasn't a complaint, it was a lesson :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Zerg.
PS @Zerg: Speaking of your overly critical pettiness, mate, you'll see that I quoted your above post exactly as you formatted it.

Yay, you've learned how to copy'n'paste. Have a cookie :)
You again miss the point, Zerg. The point is YOU still 'copying and pasting' excerpts, then embedding them in YOUR overall response text by enclosing those quoted excerpts in " to indicate it's a quote,instead of enclosing those quaoted excerpts in "[q ] and [/q ]" so that they stand out AS quotes and make your response format more clear/less cluttered and open to misreading by careless readers as to who it was saying what to whom. :)

So, why have you not learned to use the site's automatic quotation function/feature, Zerg?
Don't sweat the typos and formating petty stuff.

Typos are fine, even grammatical errors.
Then relax, just 'read' for meaning without being distracted by formatting.

it was a lesson :)
You mistook who needed the 'lesson', Zerg. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Da Schneib.
it doesn't matter how many times you claim both X and not-X are true,.
See? This is what happenbs when you DON'T READ and/or DON'T take care to UNDERSTAND what is being said IN CONTEX instead of putting your OWN mistaken construction on what was said.

Here, DS, listen and understand properly please:

I DID NOT claim what you just said I did. That was YOUR kneejerked reading-confirmation-biased MISUNDERSTANDING.

The POINT i made was that the two expressions are NON-SEQUITUR if attempted t be taken as identical in the same maths construct which I pointed out the inadequacies of when dealing with REAL UNIVERSE instead of 'generalized' ABSTRACT numbers/concepts (such as your 'apples' examples).

DS, it's painfully obvious that SUBTLETIES are not your forte'. You still miss my point, and keep substituting your own 'point'! You are not objective or in-depth enough in logical cogitations and reality comprehension. Your emotional/personal 'attitude' hinders you.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
They're called quotation marks for a reason, they denote a quote.
"open to misreading by careless readers as to who it was saying what to whom. :)"
Like that. Why should I type extra characters to get the same effect?
BTW, you're still using too many words to say too little.
"You mistook who needed the 'lesson', Zerg. :)"
Nah, you just didn't realise what button I'd pressed :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@Zerg.
They're called quotation marks for a reason, they denote a quote.
"open to misreading by careless readers as to who it was saying what to whom. :)"
Like that. Why should I type extra characters to get the same effect?
But but but, wasn't it you obsessing over style/format while missing the substance/meaning? The [q ]...[/q ] format clearer, less cluttering/confusing to readers than embedded "excerpts" demanding extra time/care to 'tease out' of surrounding text of your replies to more than one item.

Anyhow, Zerg, stop, have a think, about WHY it is, sites provide the [q ]...[/q ] quote-formatting capability rather than just recommending using "quotation marks" in comments/responses. Hint: "quotation marks" are best reserved for "incidental" in-line referencing/highlighting etc, not for whole sections of quoted text for specific reply as in [q ]...[/q ] format.

@Zerg, better too many words than too few, especially where complexities/subtleties involved. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@RC, your claims are right there in black and white. No one forced you to make them. It doesn't matter how you squirm, the more you post the more you lie and everyone can see it. Hominids, which include orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans, have a well-developed instinct for cheating, widely documented and illustrated, and you are a cheater. It doesn't even require much effort to get you to demonstrate you cheat. You are vulnerable, and you are being owned here and now.

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
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (3) Apr 26, 2017
"But but but, wasn't it you obsessing over style/format "
Nope, all I care about is meaningful content. Of which you provide none.
"Hint: "quotation marks" are best reserved for "incidental" in-line referencing/highlighting etc, "
And that's how I use them. Or hadn't you noticed?
"better too many words than too few,..."
Only if those extra words provide extra meaning.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, your claims are right there in black and white. No one forced you to make them. It doesn't matter how you squirm, the more you post the more you lie and everyone can see it. Hominids, which include orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans, have a well-developed instinct for cheating, widely documented and illustrated, and you are a cheater. It doesn't even require much effort to get you to demonstrate you cheat. You are vulnerable, and you are being owned here and now.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Stop spamming your ignorance and malice, DS. Get help.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@RC, the more you lie, the more you insult, the more you obfuscate, prevaricate, and denigrate, the more you prove what you really are: a pure troll, who has no business but trolling on a science site. You have no data, and you lie about every single thing you claim.

Stop lying, @RC.

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
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Zerg.
But but but, wasn't it you obsessing over style/format
Nope, all I care about is meaningful content. Of which you provide none.
You could have fooled the forum, mate! You complained about petty formatting/style INSTEAD of concentrating on salient point made; which you MISSED precisely because of your petty obsessions with the irrelevancies you now pretend you don't care about, despite those being your only 'objections' while missing the substance of point made while you were busy obsessing over petty matters. Denial of your own actions is not healthy for you, Zerg.

Hint: "quotation marks" are best reserved for "incidental" in-line referencing/highlighting..
And that's how I use them. Or hadn't you noticed?
You use them for whole excerpts for specific response; they are NOT "in-line/incidental".
better too many words than too few,

...extra meaning.
No, for the original meaning/point; which you MISSED due to your petty obsessions. :(
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@RC, you claimed to be a programmer, and proved you cannot be because you cannot parse formal language. Yet another lie.

Stop lying, @RC.

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
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.

If you must spam anything, DS, spam a list of links to all those exchanges where you attacked, insulted and trolled me/others from your ignorance/malice and I corrected you using known science and even provided new insights for your benefit.

But you won't, will you, DS, because that would be the honest thing to do, instead of all your half-truth and twisted versions which only the bot-voting gang here 'believes' and keeps promulgating in your 'gang' chattering amongst yourselves while missing all the important things happening in recent mainstream discovery/review which is pulling the rug out from under whatever ;justifying beliefs' you all are working from that are out of ate and just plain wrong.

Oh dear, DS, your continuing to misconstrue what was said to you is almost painful to watch now. Stop digging, DS!

Good luck with your misinformed herd mentality ignorance/malice, DS/gang; you are making yourselves a laughing stock in the eyes of objective readers.
Da Schneib
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Meanwhile you have boasted you didn't read posts before attacking; and you have refused point blank to update yourself on many recent mainstream astro/cosmo/QM discovery/reviews which increasingly confirm me correct and you not up to speed (even with the previously known science, let alone with the recent developing science being advanced by mainstream). In the face of that, and in view of your continuing heedless and cowardly lying by omission and just plain maniacal trolling and spamming your ignorance and malice all over, there seems little that can penetrate that thick ego-tripping in-denial miasma which you have created for yourself, DS. Get help.
Da Schneib
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You're in denial and lying by omission and commission against me and about your own failings, DS. Stop digging. Get help.
Da Schneib
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
I think that's the shortest post ever from RC.
DS, you win a pint, or a decent single malt double :)
Hmm, it's not that he lies, he believes what he's saying.
Shame really, he does have a way with words. Maybe he should try writing some short sci-fi stories based on his TOE.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2017
@Zerg.
I think that's the shortest post ever from RC.
DS, you win a pint, or a decent single malt double :)
Hmm, it's not that he lies, he believes what he's saying.
Shame really, he does have a way with words. Maybe he should try writing some short sci-fi stories based on his TOE.
He [DS] "wins a pint" for what, exactly, Zerg?

My above brief response was indicated; in context of preceding exchange between him/me; which was proving futile getting through to him what he was doing that was damaging/cluttering not only to science/discussions, but also damaging to his own psyche. It was time to make clear what he needed most: help to collect himself; regain the sense of dispassionate objectivity upon which the scientific method was founded; and which it demands from all would-be discoursers on the science issues/merits.

Zerg, do realize what dis-service you've been doing DS's state of mind/science discourse, by enabling and/or 'egging on' his self-destructive actions. Ok?

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.