First clear image made of accretion disk surrounding young star

April 20, 2017 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
An illustration of an accretion disk feeding a central young star, or protostar, and the gaseous jet ejected from the protostar. Credit: Yin-Chih Tsai/ASIAA

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers from the U.S. and Taiwan has captured the first clear image of a young star surrounded by an accretion disk. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, the team describes how the image was captured and details of their find.

Astrophysics have theorized that accretion disks form around young stars acting as food, helping the young star to grow bigger. Such an accretion disk would also make up the material that would over time accrete into planets. But until now, no clear image of an accretion disk had been made because the technology to do so did not exist. Now, thanks to by the team and the ALMA radio telescope in Chile, that has changed.

ALMA came online just four years ago—at a cost of $1.4 billion, it holds the record for the most expensive radio telescope ever built. But it also offers unprecedented resolution, capturing images in sharp detail that have appeared as fuzzy blobs in prior images. That resolution allowed the researchers to zoom in on a young star named IRAS 05413-0104 (part of the HH212 system and believed to be just 40,000 years old) that had around it a rotating accretion disk. Such disks are believed to be made of matter such as silicate, iron and other interstellar matter, and provide a steady source of food for the star. And because the disks are triple layered with brighter outer layers, the researchers describe it as looking like a hamburger.

Video explaining how a “dusty hamburger” (an accretion disk) feeds a central young star, or protostar, during the onset of an extra-solar system. Credit: Chin-Fei Lee/Lauren/ASIAA

The captured image lays to rest one critique of the prediction of around , which was that the magnetic field from the core of the star would be so strong that it would prevent the accretion disk from spinning, thus preventing its ability to gather matter. That is clearly not the case, as the new image shows. Also seen in the image were gaseous jets ejected from the star, which appear to pierce the hamburger at its center.

It is believed that more information about the formation of will contribute to understanding both the history of our sun and how planets form, perhaps offering a better way of filtering star systems while searching for signs of life beyond our own planet.

Jet and disk in the HH 212 protostellar system: (a) A composite image of the jet, produced by combining images from different telescopes. The orange image around the center shows the accretion disk at 200 AU resolution. (b) Close-up of the center of the dusty disk at 8 AU resolution. Asterisks mark the possible position of the central protostar. A dark lane is seen in the equator. Our solar system is shown in the lower right corner for size comparison. (c) An accretion disk model that can reproduce the observed dust emission in the disk. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)/Lee et al.

(a) The accretion disk model with the disk surface temperature. (b) The model dust emission map derived from the disk model. This model map is roughly the same as the observed map of the disk. Credit: Lee et al.

Explore further: Collisions generate gas in debris disks

More information: Chin-Fei Lee et al. First detection of equatorial dark dust lane in a protostellar disk at submillimeter wavelength, Science Advances (2017). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1602935

Abstract
In the earliest (so-called "Class 0") phase of Sun-like (low-mass) star formation, circumstellar disks are expected to form, feeding the protostars. However, these disks are difficult to resolve spatially because of their small sizes. Moreover, there are theoretical difficulties in producing these disks in the earliest phase because of the retarding effects of magnetic fields on the rotating, collapsing material (so-called "magnetic braking"). With the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), it becomes possible to uncover these disks and study them in detail. HH 212 is a very young protostellar system. With ALMA, we not only detect but also spatially resolve its disk in dust emission at submillimeter wavelength. The disk is nearly edge-on and has a radius of ~60 astronomical unit. It shows a prominent equatorial dark lane sandwiched between two brighter features due to relatively low temperature and high optical depth near the disk midplane. For the first time, this dark lane is seen at submillimeter wavelength, producing a "hamburger"-shaped appearance that is reminiscent of the scattered-light image of an edge-on disk in optical and near infrared light. Our observations open up an exciting possibility of directly detecting and characterizing small disks around the youngest protostars through high-resolution imaging with ALMA, which provides strong constraints on theories of disk formation.

Related Stories

Collisions generate gas in debris disks

April 12, 2017

By examining the atomic carbon line from two young star systems—49 Ceti and Beta Pictoris—researchers had found atomic carbon in the disk, the first time this observation has been made at sub-millimeter wavelength, hinting ...

Transition discs in Ophiuchus and Taurus

July 7, 2015

A star is typically born with a disk of gas and dust encircling it, from which planets develop as dust grains in the disk collide, stick together and grow. These disks, warmed by the star to a range of temperatures above ...

Effects of accretion disks around newborn stars

December 8, 2014

Stars are born in dense, cool clouds of molecular gas and dust. When the local density is high enough, the matter can gravitationally collapse to form a new star, a so-called young stellar object (YSO). In its early phases, ...

Twisted magnetic fields give new insights on star formation

December 21, 2015

Using new images that show unprecedented detail, scientists have found that material rotating around a very young protostar probably has dragged in and twisted magnetic fields from the larger area surrounding the star. The ...

Recommended for you

129 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (12) Apr 20, 2017
The tireless campaign to minimize the importance of electromagnetism in space rolls on, and let's be clear that those who seek to lend gravity all of this power have not taken the time to fully understand the many nuances of the debate. Those who cheer them on like a team sport seem unaware of the inherent gamble: If this approach proves wrong, then all we will have to show for this current era is the observations and lessons about the sociology of science. Many millions of hours of human activity and billions of dollars in public money rest upon the wisdom of these inferences; the idea that such inferences would be made without a very detailed analysis of the arguments on both sides displays an eagerness to spend vast human resources without concern for where the history will end up on these questions.
someone11235813
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
Maybe by the time our Sun has destroyed all life in the inner solar system, intelligent life will just be coming into existence in that distant proto solar system. Kant would have enjoyed this video.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2017
The gas jets are the source of the material falling into the disk, having been ejected from the star after forming new matter therein. But a merger maniac would never think such a thing. So the jets are not even given due consideration, but only mentioned as curiosity.
FredJose
1 / 5 (16) Apr 21, 2017
Star formation -> what is it? How does it happen? What triggers the ignition?

The unsolved mystery remains. The observations pile up, the theories become wilder and wilder but the enigma of stars forming all by themselves from clouds of gas without any external intelligent help and self-igniting remains as obscure and obdurate a problem as ever.

If you do not know how stars came into existence then you just about know nothing else about the origin of the whole universe - no matter how you throw wild, speculative theories around.
FineStructureConstant
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 21, 2017
The gas jets are the source of the material falling into the disk
And just when we think we've heard the last word in foolishness from Tux, he utters something so gob-smackingly asinine, and of such mind-crushing vapidity, that we are almost lost for words ourselves. Almost, but not quite.

Tux, you're obviously unaware that the Herbig-Haro objects which form the "knots" in these jets, and indeed in all similar jets with HH objects, are invariably seen to move *outwards* from the protostellar object in the center of systems like this one.
the jets are not even given due consideration, but only mentioned as curiosity.
Wrong again - such jets are the subject of countless detailed studies and analyses.

It's a shame really that you're not even prepared to learn about such things, preferring instead the comfy warm glow of ignorance, and reliance on the mindless repetition of some other idiot's half-baked and fanciful notions in a vain attempt to impress people.
krzychu01230
1 / 5 (11) Apr 21, 2017
Geometry of this object resembles Peratt plasma instability
FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 21, 2017
Geometry of this object resembles Peratt plasma instability
...in much the same way that a heap of horseshit resembles Mount Everest.
Hat1208
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 21, 2017
@FineStructureConstant

Good on ya!
bschott
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2017
The gas jets are the source of the material falling into the disk
And just when we think we've heard the last word in foolishness from Tux, he utters something so gob-smackingly asinine, and of such mind-crushing vapidity, that we are almost lost for words ourselves. Almost, but not quite.

LMAO...maybe before you insult somebody, you should make sure they are not correct. Check the composition of masers against the theorized composition of the Kuiper belt and oort cloud bodies. They correlate...he's right.
@FineStructureConstant
Good on ya!

Now I see why you only lick ass here and never post anything scientific in nature. Way to cheerlead an abusive moron who is completely incorrect in his "knowledge."
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 21, 2017
blahschott.
maybe before you insult somebody, you should make sure they are not correct.
TuxWindBag subscribes to the debunked notions of LaViolette, and believes against all evidence to the contrary that matter is created in vast amounts from nothing and can provide no theoretical basis for such a belief. His "science" cannot therefore be checked for correctness, and carries no more weight than any other set of religious beliefs.
Way to cheerlead an abusive moron who is completely incorrect in his "knowledge."
I wrote a thesis at Uni 30 years ago on HH objects - I knew then what I was talking about, and I still do.

As for yourself, when measured up against your own clueless peers, you may appear to know a great deal about physics but - as has been pointed out here numerous times by those who really do know what they're talking about - your "knowledge" is more full of holes than a sieve, and about as substantial as a Belgian waffle.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2017
@bullschott: OK, I'll bite
Check the composition of masers
Astrophysical masers occur in various types of places, where the conditions and composition of surrounding material vary widely. However, various species of molecule in such places can exhibit masing activity, among them being OH, H2O, NH3, SiO, HCN and others. So, are you talking about the masing molecules, or the composition of the matrix of material in which they find themselves?

And in any case WTF has any of that got to do with HH objects? HH objects form at places where jets collide with the ISM, are composed almost entirely of H and He, emit in IR and optical wavelengths over a range of frequencies, and do not exhibit masing.
theorized composition of the Kuiper belt and oort cloud bodies
Theorized? whose theories? Why not just stick to what is mentioned in the article, and talk about accretion disks, which change in composition over the lifetime of the disk?
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2017
They correlate...he's right.
Fatuous comment! The number of houses built in NY State in the last 30 years correlate rather well with the number of spacecraft launched in the same period, but the one set of data has nothing to do with the other. Correlation does not imply causal link, dum-dum.

And if Tux were right about jets feeding accretion disks, we'd be able to see the vast amounts of material falling back down in curtains or clumps of material which would be highly visible. We don't see 'em.

Neither does Tuxiot posit any mechanism by which a highly collimated jet of material moving away from the protostar at high velocities can alter its' momentum so drastically that it can flow outwards and downwards to the disk in order to "feed" it.

These are the kinds of things one needs to consider - consistency, observing conserved quantities, adding up the numbers. Neither you nor Tux bother with any of this: for you guys, making things sound "science-y" is all that's needed.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2017
Another observation: even if there were molecules capable of masing present in the jets or HHO's, no masing would be possible: and that's down to one salient fact.

Notwithstanding the fact that the material in the jets and HHO's is moving outward at high speed, it's a hot gas (actually a partially-ionized plasma) which means that the particles in the gas are moving randomly around at high speeds within the body of the gas/plasma. This means that no portion of the object is able to achieve the velocity coherence necessary for any significant degree of masing.

And even if a portion of the jet or HHO were to momentarily achieve a condition of masing, the spectral absorption from the surrounding gas/plasma would most effectively attenuate any such masing signal to nothing.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2017
@FineStructureConstant.

FSC, while I do NOT agree with every assertion, claim etc made by Tuxford, I note that your responses are of 'double standard' type. Case in point:
blahschott.
maybe before you insult somebody, you should make sure they are not correct.
TuxWindBag subscribes to the debunked notions of LaViolette, and believes against all evidence to the contrary that matter is created in vast amounts from nothing and can provide no theoretical basis for such a belief. His "science" cannot therefore be checked for correctness, and carries no more weight than any other set of religious beliefs.
Your above observation/criticism is exactly applicable, word for word, to Big Bang, Inflation etc etc. So using that 'argument' to 'debunk' Tuxford is, as it were, a 'double-edged sword'. Take extra care when 'wielding' same, hey?
...about as substantial as a Belgian waffle.
Speaking of "Belgian", BB 'creationism' was a Belgian Priest's religious fantasy.
FineStructureConstant
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2017
Your above observation/criticism is exactly applicable, word for word, to Big Bang, Inflation etc
Only if one has failed completely to understand the fundamental difference between

(a) Tux/La Violette's baseless conjectures plucked out of thin air, with no evidence or carefully-constructed theories to back them up - in fact they ignore the evidence which very clearly disproves their ideas - no quantitative predictions and hence no means of proving or falsifying said conjectures.

(b) The vast amount of evidence collected over decades which has led many to construct theories, like BB and inflation, in an attempt not only to explain the observations, but also to provide quantitative predictions which can be tested, in other words, these theories are falsifiable.

Theories which can be lumped under category (a) are unfalsifiable, and hence ain't science. Those under (b) ARE falsifiable, no matter how kookie they may sound, and hence ARE science.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2017
@FineStructureConstant.
(a) Tux/La Violette's baseless conjectures plucked out of thin air, with no evidence or carefully-constructed theories to back them up...
Ok. HOWEVER, it's the SAME for BB/INFLATION; now being 'disowned' by Penrose/Steinhardt, saying they were NOTIONS that NEVER had any tenable scientific basis for them. See the similarities in critique?
(b) The vast amount of evidence collected over decades which has led many to construct theories, like BB and inflation, in an attempt not only to explain the observations, but also to provide quantitative predictions which can be tested, in other words, these theories are falsifiable.
First please see response to ( a). Then catch up with mainstream discoveries/reviews of late increasingly showing old BB etc myths NEVER 'scientific'.
Those under (b) ARE falsifiable,
But BB/Inflation etc ALSO 'unfalsifiable'! The only 'support' WAS notional/unsupportable assumption/interpretations etc. Circuitous.

See?
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2017
@RC: Theory with quantitative predictions => experimentation / observation => falsifiability. Science.

Of course many scientists are not totally happy with BB/Inflation, and some of those come up with alternatives - that's all been true for years, decades! Everybody knows this, so what's new? What exactly are you adding to this long-running debate which hasn't been said a thousand times?

But as working hypotheses, BB/Inflation/etc., at least permit work to be done by the few who dedicate themselves to such investigations. The vast majority, like the people in the article, get on with other stuff. Situation normal, nothing new to see here, folks, move on.

Meanwhile, the nutcases who believe in the barren "theories" propounded by the likes of EU, LaViolette, Velikovsky - yes, and your own rambling, flatulent cosmology-without-numbers-or-predictions - are floundering in the muddy waters of ignorance, without a snowball's chance in hell of ever being recognized as scientists.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2017
@FineStructureConstant.
@RC: Theory with quantitative predictions => experimentation / observation => falsifiability. Science.


But objective scientific care should have been taken as to the reality-or-not of the things being considered. If they are 'unreal' or 'imaginary' or wrong assumptions/interpretations-based 'quantifications', then no amount of 'precision' or logics can make them real or make the models they are part of 'falsifiable' in reality....since we can not actually have direct 'quantification' data on the whole universe, let alone some distant cosmic 'observables' which are themselves subject to great error/wrong conceptual 'interpretations' etc. That is the main problem for BB, Inflation, CMB-dependent exercises/claims etc.; GIGO simulations based on GIGO-train of assumptions and 'models' and 'quantities' which bear no relation to reality (a case in point being the huge OLD UNDER-estimates for what ordinary/visible matter existed).

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2017
@FSC cont
Of course many scientists are not totally happy with BB/Inflation, and some of those come up with alternatives
You miss the point. New/recent mainstream discovery/review is NOW falsifying and/or questioning (much MORE objectively than before) the very things that (as Penrose/Steinhardt have finally admitted) have been BUILT INTO the scientific literature by 'peer review' which has been 'passing' UN-scientific myths for decades which had become 'treated as fact' by subsequent 'hack' publish-or-perish' so-called 'researchers and science writers'.

I've been scrupulously independent observer/researcher/commenter pointing out the dangers and pitfalls of 'passing off' patently OBVIOUS 'myths' and 'claims' as 'scientific'.
...done by the few who dedicate themselves to such investigations.
That 'few' is precisely the problem! They 'manufactured' a BIASED 'peer review' HERD MENTALITY for themselves; 'deaf/blind' for DECADES.

I point out what they missed. :)
krzychu01230
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 24, 2017
@FineStructureConstant
...in much the same way that a heap of horseshit resembles Mount Everest.

Very mature answer and I wonder if You ever seen a heap of manure or Mount Everest ;)

Most of matter in universe is in plasma state so neglecting of plasma behavior and its electrical properties leads to constatnt bafflement, lack of proper prediction and ad-hoc hypothesis patching inconsistent model. Sipmple comparison of Peratt instability with bipolar nebulae, some HH object, radio lobes; diocotron instability with hexagonal [polygonal] galaxies, hexagonal [polygonal] tornadoes, hexagonal [polygonal] creaters; Birkeland currents with all filamental sctuctures explain/resolve some encountered problems
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
And if Tux were right about jets feeding accretion disks, we'd be able to see the vast amounts of material falling back down in curtains or clumps of material which would be highly visible. We don't see 'em.

Perhaps you should look at the above picture again (as I am sure we disagree on the blue matter and what it is doing there). You know what you were taught, which is why you (and the rest of the mainstream) think that a spinning disk of material can generate a magnetic field to form the jets. Ridiculous, otherwise we would have a nice video of the experiment where it was replicated. Now, funny thing....I have seen someone replicate accretion disks, jets and Planetary nebulae in plasma formations in a chamber. There is a nice narrative that goes with it which explains what you are seeing, why you are seeing it, how it all works. There is no confusion, fake matter or impossible objects. There is ONE magnetic configuration which generates jets, it is the same every time.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
. There is ONE magnetic configuration which generates jets, it is the same every time.

Conveniently, the same magnetic configuration was used to produce everything I mentioned in the above post, the only change was the orientation of the field. Why do you think the solar wind is emitted from the poles? Why do proto stars form masers ? Why do you think BH's form jets? Why always the hourglass form?
The model that accurately describes the physics of the universe from the atomic to the macro exists....just nowhere in the mainstream. Must be frustrating....
As for Tux's hypothesis, the lineup of chemicals you mention for maser composition does indeed correlate with the icy bodies that comprise the outer extremes of our solar system, where do YOU think the matter for those bodies came from? Is an HH object NOT theorized to be a stage of proto star development?
=> falsifiability. Science.

Precisely.
FineStructureConstant
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2017
.I have seen someone replicate accretion disks, jets and Planetary nebulae in plasma formations in a chamber.
Utter foolishness! You're wrong on so many points, there really is no point in discussing this further with you.
FineStructureConstant
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2017
@BS - your knowledge of these matters is very obviously far too incomplete and disordered for you to make any meaningful statement or observation on any of them. Your "science" is, as I've said before, shot through with holes, and lacks any awareness of the absolute necessity for math to underpin any statement you make.

You're basically finger-painting, making up stuff as you go, mix-n-match any old fact that seems to hang together: and then shout it all as loud as you can. And it's the internet that permits you to come to a place like this, totally anonymously (apart form using that stupid monicker) and troll-spray your rubbish at all four walls. If you were to try this at any University in the world worthy of the name, you'd rightly be chucked out on your ear.

And, yes, I'm damned annoyed that the likes of you and Tux and the EU and all the other science wannabes can infest this place like cockroaches, drooling mouths wide open, spewing nonsense signifying not a gnat's fart.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
.I have seen someone replicate accretion disks, jets and Planetary nebulae in plasma formations in a chamber.
Utter foolishness! You're wrong on so many points, there really is no point in discussing this further with you.

https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI
What you think is astrophysics is utter foolishness in comparison with this and the other two videos. Predictability - done, observational confirmation - done, scales down to the subatomic - done. All physical bodies accounted for - done. No fantasy math claims...perfect.
As to the rest of your rant, go cry in your math textbooks. The astrophysical models you support have one fate, and that is to be chucked out on their ear once enough money has been wasted trying to validate them to no avail.
You, mired in dogma, watching your theoretical physics fail every observational test are being shown as nothing more than mathematical con artists with no real grasp on the physics of our universe...finally.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
And, yes, I'm damned annoyed that the likes of you and Tux and the EU and all the other science wannabes can infest this place like cockroaches, drooling mouths wide open, spewing nonsense signifying not a gnat's fart.

Perhaps the internet is not the place for you then....although once everything you thought you knew has been relegated to the garbage bin where it belongs, it will be the only place you and your like will have to exchange fairy tales on infinite gravity wells and clouds of gravity.
Your "science" is, as I've said before, shot through with holes

Holy crap...this from a BH DM guy....too funny.
, and lacks any awareness of the absolute necessity for math to underpin any statement you make.

Math that describes reality is useable, math you use is only useful to you and others with the same flawed religious devotion to a theory that is crumbling with each new observation. Useless antiques from the dark ages of physics.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Apr 24, 2017
@FSC, you are by no means the only one who is frustrated by the fantasy physics crowd. I have picked two of the most egregious transgressors out and I am working on them. I hope you will join me in this endeavor and submit for your consideration that it appears, however unpleasant it may be, to be the only effective countermeasure.

If we do not hang together we will apparently hang separately.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017
@FSC, you are by no means the only one who is frustrated by the fantasy physics crowd.

You two belong to the fantasy physics crowd...you just think that because you can do the math associated with your fantasy physics that makes it real physics. At some point, with some therapy, you might be able to get back around to the awareness that if your math doesn't match observation...IT IS WRONG.
I have picked two of the most egregious transgressors out and I am working on them. I hope you will join me in this endeavor and submit for your consideration that it appears, however unpleasant it may be, to be the only effective countermeasure.

You say that like "winning" will result in something. Is that what you are hoping to do here? "Win"? Is it your goal to have those who do not share your worldview...just leave?
Awwww.....
As long as bullshit keeps getting passed off as science...you will have to deal with people who don't buy it.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2017
@bullschitt, it's not about math, it's about experiments, and the fact you don't know the difference is obvious evidence you are incompetent to express an opinion.

You are a minor player. Get over it.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 24, 2017

@bullschitt, it's not about math, it's about experiments,

Experiments eh? Your cosmology has no experimental verification. You are ridiculous for stating that.
and the fact you don't know the difference is obvious evidence you are incompetent to express an opinion.

I linked the first in a video series that revolved around six months of plasma chamber experiments in which plasma structures were created using magnetic fields, that match what we see through telescopes. You have nothing but math which doesn't match observation unless you claim there is more matter present than there is...one is valid science performed by a non scientist, the other is theoretical physicists sending materials physicists on a wild goose chase at the expense of the rest of us...thanks.

You are a minor player. Get over it.

This is true, but at least I am not sitting at home wishing I could watch the game...enjoy your popcorn.
FineStructureConstant
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2017
@BS: Reading your rants, empty threats and posing, I'm reminded of the days before the internet, when basically the only option open to crackpots like yourself to spread their gospel, or warnings of impending doom, was to stand on street corners, yelling at passersby, holding placards, and handing out grubby leaflets. Their influence was quite rightly limited to how far their voices could carry - they had no real power to impress their crazy message on the wider public.

Nowadays, however, in these more - ahem - enlightened times of the internet, such screwballs get the chance to spread their inept "theories" to the far corners of the world, virtually invading people's homes, sitting in their favourite chairs and shouting inanities incessantly in their ears.

This gives you numbskulls the illusory notion that you have the power to change things; trouble is, your message is so unsound, distorted and lacking in scientific credibility that you've no chance of achieving that goal.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2017
@DS - It's got to the stage that I'm a little hesitant to come in here - a site dedicated to the reporting of physics FFS - and offer a comment from the perspective of a decent scientific training.

The schotts and tuxes, cantdrives and alfvens, wducks's, and all the others who subscribe to untenable pseudoscience, truly infest this forum like vermin, plastering the place with their absurd drivelling and whining. One might wonder as to why they're permitted to do so if one were not totally aware that the site has to make money from advertising to survive. So, the more, the merrier as far as phys.org is concerned.
I hope you will join me in this endeavor
What do you have in mind?
bschott
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2017
@FSC - Thanks for the personal evaluation. My turn: You have dedicated your life to studying physics and the math which describes the physical reactions. Now reality is demonstrating how the math is lacking, you only have a math fix for it. It is clear you have little physical understanding, hence the personal attacks. It is funny, you worked so hard to learn the math of motion based on equations centered around gravity and thermodynamics that when observations showed it was wrong, the only fix the mainstream has is tweaking the mass in the equation...and reality isn't co-operating because you assume the wrong force is at work. So the Schneibs and the FSC's are now left to "defend" a failing model to the attacks of those whom they consider to be inferior...and live in denial that it is indeed failing. You can't fathom for one second that your "decent scientific training" was wrong, despite what more detailed observations tell you.

So where does that leave you...

bschott
3 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2017
So where does that leave you...

Here, with as many nutters who support what you believe is sound physics as there are who don't and whining that you have to interact with them, with a personal attack when you can't refute observations they point out. I used to have respect for anyone intelligent enough to complete PHD math in astrophysics, until it became apparent how disconnected they are.
trouble is, your message is so unsound, distorted and lacking in scientific credibility that you've no chance of achieving that goal.

All of the necessary parts of the model that I consider an accurate description of reality from a fundamental physics standpoint exist, and have been demonstrated to behave as the model predicts. You have a model based on impossible objects and non-existent matter but think because you can make the math work it must be real....and you consider this scientific credibility?
You aren't fit to judge, and your misplaced arrogance is laughable.
FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2017
All of the necessary parts of the model that I consider an accurate description of reality from a fundamental physics standpoint exist, and have been demonstrated to behave as the model predicts
Your model predicts nothing, and can predict nothing - it merely describes itself. It is as devoid of mechanisms to predict as you are of the ability to see its' flaws.
FineStructureConstant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2017
You have dedicated your life to studying physics and the math...etc.
I was trained in the scientific method, in mathematics and logic and reason; when to listen to instinct and when not: tools which equip one to discern the difference between something that merely sounds like science, and the real thing. It's really not that difficult, you know - you ought try it sometime.

Those tools and that training have stood me in good stead in a long and very varied life. The same can very evidently not be said about you or your compatriots in LaLa Land.
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2017
Delusion is a harsh master. Delusions are fragile constructions. This fragility requires a vigorous defense, and demands investment. The more that is invested the greater the demand. Thus the infestation of the deluded vermin, desperately driven to invest more and more....seeking out articles that stimulate their defensive behaviors - not driven by interest in the subject, rather by the overpowering need to prop up a belief system. The belief system must be invested in to defend the fragile illusion of sanity.
There is nothing any intelligent logical presentation of facts or argument can do to effect change in this dynamic.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2017
Your model predicts nothing, and can predict nothing - it merely describes itself

With all of your claims to your abilities, you either haven't seen what I am talking about or didn't understand what you were watching...it's OK...it's what we call "new".
It is as devoid of mechanisms to predict as you are of the ability to see its' flaws.

As I thought, your schooling and "scientific method" fail you...again. There is only one mechanism, the magnetic moment and it's field geometry. Of course there is also the true nature of light, particle interaction and all that flows from redefining the geometry of the magnetic moment...but why would you look on this as a mechanism? Especially with the mechanism for DM production so clearly laid out in that theory that by observation can't predict anything. My tools and training, when applied to astrophysics actually make sense and apply variables known to exist in reality (lala land to you)...
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2017
Your tools and training have taught you to believe in objects/matter that cannot possibly exist in our universe...
: tools which equip one to discern the difference between something that merely sounds like science, and the real thing.

So when you say the above and then try to convince people that mathematical constructs are real, you really just make a fool of yourself.
It's really not that difficult, you know - you ought try it sometime.

Take your own advice, get off the gravity train before it completely derails, killing all aboard.

But hey, at least you aren't at a science site posting cut and pasted word salad that you think sounds sage like, analytical and intelligent, when really all it is a pathetic attempt to include yourself in a discussion way above your headzzzzzzz

bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2017
@FSC - You believe so deeply what you have been taught that you refuse to consider any other options other than those based on it - step one to discarding the scientific method.
You support math based science that cannot be verified experimentally, but state that observations support it without realizing they only support if you are correct which again, cannot be verified...or apparently even pointed out because you seem genuinely hurt by it and lash out. (not part of the scientific method either I think)
The "scientific method" you speak of is not adhered to by anyone who makes statements about DM or BH's...because the current state of understanding precludes the ability to do this.
Something as simple as the observation that magnetic fields can either increase or decrease the relative mass between interacting bodies is completely ignored in favor of an assumption and 6 fold increase in the mass content that clearly is not there, but makes the math work.
Reality.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2017
@FSC, you are by no means the only one who is frustrated by the fantasy physics crowd


And it's fantasy physics to imagine that a well of infinite gravity can exist inside a finite stellar mass, your vaunted BHs which are nothing less than Perpetual Motion Machines.

I have picked two of the most egregious transgressors out and I am working on them.
Oh come on, there are more than two who do not believe in your Perpetual Motion Machines base on some dumb concept of Schwarzschild BH Math that gravity is DENSITY dependent & not MASS dependent

I hope you will join me in this endeavor and submit for your consideration that it appears, however unpleasant it may be, to be the only effective countermeasure.
By this you mean you plan to ramp up the name calling binges over & above your past name calling binges?

If we do not hang together we will apparently hang separately
It's for sure that the gallows are efficient non-Perpetual Motion Machines.

FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2017
@BS, @Benni, reading your comments, I'm horrified by the confused, flawed, ignorant and carelessly-formulated "thinking" behind your statements, which set off alarm bells ringing practically everywhere. You're both of you very obviously unaware of your incompetence and hopeless ineptitude in this field.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
I'm almost reluctant to post anything next to this steaming pile of ignorance: But then the ignorant and their "imagined new truth" would win.

I'm just looking forward to the James Webb telescope images which will show so many star systems forming, and also provide an optical component to these fantastic radio images.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
I'm almost reluctant to post anything next to this steaming pile of ignorance

Problem is: then the ones more motivated win. And motivation is (unfortunately) not linked to intelligence.

Anger is a powerful motivator. And I guess what motivates the EU, cold fusion, religious nutcase, etc. - crowd is a (subconcious) realization that they have failed. Now they're just trying to make their way right by force (i.e. by shouting loudest instead of argument).
They don't care that this impresses no one.

"If you can't win by reason go for volume"
--- Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
http://thecurious...?p=20313
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
@a_p - there's also the "I'm NOT a dummy!" and "you'll be sorry!" syndromes (for want of better names - are there terms in psychology for these?), which lead people of limited ability to adopt ideas or theories which they find not so tough that they can't understand them - especially those which appear to threaten the established order, and where that established order ("mainstream" science in this case) presents ideas too complex and difficult for them to wrap their meager intellects around.

Such people are easily led by others who present readily-digestible "facts" in bite-sized portions, and where no ability to question or reason is required or necessary, presenting the whole (the "Electric Universe" for instance) as a fait accompli, a set of precepts so obviously at odds with established science, and so "obviously true" that these people feel able at last to argue the "new science" with the "old guard" till the cows come home, but utterly unaware that they're spouting BS.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
@a_p - there's also the "I'm NOT a dummy!" and "you'll be sorry!" syndromes

Exactly. But I think that only manifests after that person has already repeatedly failed (i..e at some level they know they're a failure)

(for want of better names - are there terms in psychology for these?

Dunning-Kruger?

which lead people of limited ability to adopt ideas or theories which they find not so tough that they can't understand them

My personal view on this is: At some point in everyone's life you have this idea that you are right (i.e. have the perfect set of ideas/ideals, etc...usually as a kid or young adult). Some get stuck in this view of themselves and never grow up (resulting in the righteous, fanatics, psychopaths, and - on here - the self deluded 'armchair scientiosts').

where no ability to question or reason is required or necessary

Well, such an ability would require work to develop. Work is hard. Self-delusion is so much easier.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 26, 2017
@a_p: DK of course, but my use of the term "syndromes" refers to my intuition that these people were bullied or ridiculed for being dummies - slow, witless, unable to keep up - at school or in their low-paid, unskilled jobs, and this is their chance to get back at all those who dared to call them names.

So, remarks like "get off the gravity train before it completely derails, killing all aboard", "posting cut and pasted word salad", "a pathetic attempt to include yourself in a discussion way above your headzzz" are really all about the beat-up kid trying (and failing miserably) to take sweet revenge on all those nasty bright kids. Pathetic, really, but that's just an aspect of human nature we all have to deal with.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
refers to my intuition that these people were bullied or ridiculed for being dummies

I think it might even manifest itself without any external bullying or name-calling. If you think you're perfect then any kind of negative reinforcement (like bad grades) will push you one of two ways: either try to apply yourself more or blame someone else ("it's the teachers' fault"). Denial is a very common mechanism not limited to those with mental trauma.

Frank Herbert made a very astute observation in one of the Dune novels. When the Bene Tleilax tried to artificially create a Kwisatz Haderach (super-being) which they could control it killed itself. In effect he's saying: Something will turn upon itself rather than be forced to acknowledge being the opposite of what it thinks it is.

are really all about the beat-up kid trying ...

Or they are just so far gone that no one will deal with where any human contact (even ridicule) is better than none at all..
FineStructureConstant
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
Ahhh, Dune - a masterpiece. It was the dwarf, wasn't it? - my memory of it is a little hazy...
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 26, 2017
@BS, @Benni, reading your comments, I'm horrified by the confused, flawed, ignorant and carelessly-formulated "thinking" behind your statements, which set off alarm bells ringing practically everywhere. You're both of you very obviously unaware of your incompetence and hopeless ineptitude in this field.


Of course you're "horrified" that I don't believe in the Perpetual Motion concepts of finite stellar masses at the center of which exists an INFINITE GRAVITY WELL.

I spent six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering in addition to compiling continuing education credits beyond that, and you're trying to imagine I shouldn't be able to figure out Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math is nothing less than PERPETUAL MOTION gone wild? Einstein's 1939 paper on that subject should have put that on ice a long time ago, but there are those, such as yourself, who prefer to indulge in their fantasies.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
I think it might have been (Bijaz?). Haven't read them in a while. But judging by the condition of the covers they are certainly among my most read (and re-bought) books. There's just so many good political, religious, societal and environmental observations in there (and a cool story) - I haven't really found much else that lives up to that.

Another thought on denial: I actually think that a mild form of denial is a beneficial thing. A healthy dose of "I failed, but I think I can do this if I try harder" is essential for growth. Though it is equally important to find a point where one admits to oneself "maybe I was wrong and I can't do this no matter how hard I try?"

... but just going "I can do this" and then not actually show that one can - that is unhealthy self-delusion. I've had no end of students who proclaimed they could do the math after being taught - but failed when they were actually put to the test (reason why they had to go get a tutor, I guess)
FineStructureConstant
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2017
you're trying to imagine I shouldn't be able to figure out Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math is nothing less than PERPETUAL MOTION gone wild?
Actually no, Benni, I'm not trying to imagine any such thing. I personally couldn't care less what you've studied or not.

The fact of the matter is that you HAVE figured out, to the best of your ability only, that Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math IS "perpetual motion gone wild". The problem is, you're evidently too stupid to actually understand the subject - witness the tripe you often write about the Inverse Square Law as if it were something so breathtakingly complex and mysterious that lesser beings than yourself would have no chance to appreciate it's deepest mysteries. But, dum-dum, it's so simple, kids at school learn it in the 7th/8th Grades.

That deep learning you're so proud of is actually so shallow that you're denouncing something which you very clearly have not the wit to comprehend. Go play with your slide-rule, Benni.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
@FSC - It is just sad that you think you are intelligent and well trained in whatever it is you claim to be, while your response to observations about the *ahem*... "science" you support is to again, go to personal insults and ad hoc psych evaluations...oddly enough these are observations which anyone can make about the claims of mainstream astrophysics. As we see here anyone who supports this "science" has no recourse but to resort to these tactics when trying to defend a fairytale...because reality disagrees and nothing you can say will change that. Better to try to discredit the poster and maybe anyone reading won't notice they are correct. This is how people behave when their belief system is challenged...this may have been pointed out here a few times. It's good that you have friends here that share your delusion and provide perspectives that support yours so you aren't alone...you can all go into the garbage bin together, right behind your "science".
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2017
Ahhh, Dune - a masterpiece. It was the dwarf, wasn't it? - my memory of it is a little hazy...

No debate on this...like memory, like science though.
And I guess what motivates the EU, cold fusion, religious nutcase, etc. - crowd is a (subconcious) realization that they have failed

Says the supporter of one of the worst failing models science has seen...is that your motivation?
If you think you're perfect then any kind of negative reinforcement (like bad grades) will push you one of two ways: either try to apply yourself more or blame someone else

And as we read the comments here from the supporters of the mainstream fictional constructs we see door number 2 open wide...I would feel bad about tromping over someones "life work" if the blind arrogance wasn't so blatant. As is, the likes of FSC have made a life perpetuating what will amount to...a discarded model.
It is inevitable, reality always wins out over fantasy.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
It is inevitable, reality always wins out over fantasy.
Truer words were never spoken.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
BB, BH's, DM - these make up just the tip of the mainstream cosmology iceberg, the part where everything is uncertain and up for grabs - everybody knows this, chief among them being the very scientists who posited the theories, and those who conduct scientific research in trying either to find further evidence to support them, or to refute them. Nothing new here.

The mistake made by you, and others of your ilk, is to paint the entire science of astrophysics and cosmology with the same brush you apply to the iceberg tip - you say if one small part of it seems to be wrong, then it must all be wrong; the math supporting these objects leads to what you consider to be fairy-tales, therefore all the math supporting astrophysics must also be wrong. Which is a pretty weak argument, not only logically unsound, but also disregarding the many successes of the main body of astrophysics in explaining so many features of stellar evolution using only standard physics and math, and no unicorns.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
BB, BH's, DM - these make up just the tip of the mainstream cosmology iceberg...
The mistake made by you, and others of your ilk, is to paint the entire science of astrophysics and cosmology with the same brush you apply to the iceberg tip

You painted the picture with one brush, gravity. And these are not the tip, they are the cornerstones.
you say if one small part of it seems to be wrong, then it must all be wrong;

You base the entire motion of the universe on gravity, yes.
the math supporting these objects leads to what you consider to be fairy-tales

Correct...
, therefore all the math supporting astrophysics must also be wrong.

That I have never said, and I have always supported the math describing motion, just not the "inferred" variables as to what is claimed causes it.
not only logically unsound

You believe adjusting a math constant by a multiple of six in order to make an observation fit a theory is logical? Scientist my ass.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
but also disregarding the many successes of the main body of astrophysics in explaining so many features of stellar evolution using only standard physics and math, and no unicorns.

Any success that stemmed from the use of experimentally verified physics and the math which describes it stands as an accomplishment...to that end the theories behind stellar structure and evolution also require verification. IOW...you have a theory of the lifecycle of stars...you also have a stellar model that sunspots demonstrate is not accurate...but hell...when observations don't fit the model...make something up to patch the model right? ( As simply as can be stated, based on the solar model, a hole in a layer must expose a hotter layer and thus should not appear darker and be cooler than the outer layer....but again, math provided some sort of non testable crutch to help the model limp on) LMAO...magnetic prevention of convection when it is claimed the convection drives the magnetism.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
I hope you will join me in this endeavor
What do you have in mind?
Just what you're doing. Stick around; it's not always easy to deal with the trolls, but there is good conversation to be had here, I hope, and you're certainly a contributor to that. There are some good contributors, like IMP-9, RNP, antialias, and others; there are also some non-technical people who are aware of the problem and are less and less easily misled by the trolls as time goes on and their trolling is revealed for what it is. I think we should support them, and aid where we see the opportunity, and continue pointing out trolling and various sorts of intentional misdirection. It's obvious that the moderators are incapable/unwilling, and the results if we do nothing or ignore the trolls are that they are unopposed.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2017
my use of the term "syndromes" refers to my intuition that these people were bullied or ridiculed for being dummies
@FSC
actually, you're not far off the mark here- but there is more to it, depending on who you're talking to

not only is neurosis and psychosis an issue (not syndromes) but you're also dealing with a situation of specialisation

in that most of the science tends to be highly specialised, you run into problems dealing with laymen and their understanding (or lack thereof)

it doesn't help that most scientists ignore trolls and pseudoscience idiots - because who spreads the information then?

the scientists tend to expect people to actually try to comprehend reality, whereas most people are really too f*cking lazy to work that hard, regardless of their interest in the topics (see above)

and there are so few "Azimov's" out there explaining it for the laymen in short easily digestible bits

so we end up with people grabbing anything that fits their bias
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2017
Hint: EUdiots don't like accretion disks and claim they never happen. Since accretion disks are a relativistic gravity phenomenon, and EUdiots deny relativity, they cannot admit that accretion disks exist; and this locks their BS out of competent astronomy, never mind astrophysics. It's one of the key insights that we see everywhere that proves they are EUdiots.

It's unfortunate that we have to be looking at the entomology of EUdiots to try to make sense of how the universe works, but the results of not protecting oneself against their poisons are false beliefs and conspiratorial ideology, both to be assiduously avoided.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2017
@FineStructureConstant and @antialias and @Da Schneib etc.

@Da Schneib:
If we do not hang together we will apparently hang separately.
Your post there is effectively a POLITICAL call to arms for GANG activity aimed at disruption of open discourse, not reasoned individual contributions to the discourse on scientific/logics merits. No more 'gangs' and/or 'herd mentality' please, DS! Thanks.

@all abovenamed addressees: Your 'characterizations' of 'failings' you attribute to alleged "idiots" might be more 'effective' if the SAME did not apply to yourselves as well, all too often!

Recall your gang/herd mentality/attacks against ME when I was merely advising you to objectively check out the Bicep2 'work' and 'claims'?

Y'all went BERSEK! Just insulted instead of following objective scientific method principles which I was suggesting you apply INSTEAD of 'bashing cranks' with such FLAWED 'work', 'claims'!

You acted WORSE than any alleged "idiots" you bashed then, or now!
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2017
@RC, your use of persiflage, inimical misrepresentation, abusive invective, direct lies, and pernicious prevarication in order to mount personal attacks is objectionable, and I am objecting. You are without honor and bereft of credibility by your own actions, clearly visible to anyone who bothers to look at what you write.

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 (4) Apr 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You have tried to recruit a gang for your malicious activity against fair and open science and humanity discourse on a science site. That is UNFORGIVABLE here, DS! Even more so than your recent employment of the STUMPY METHOD of NOT READING while attacking, insulting and remaining intentionally ignorant and malicious against all good ethics in science and humanity. That was bad enough, DS; but this latest manic spamming and lying-by-egregious-OMISSION campaign is just the final nail in whatever integrity/intellect you had once upon a time; which you have so effectively and wantonly WASTED on your and the gang's ego-tripping, bot-voting and gang-attack stupidity, on a science site no less!

R.I.P. DS's integrity/intellect. So easily and tragically taken from him/us, by drink, ego and malice in noxious combination; made even more poisonous and virulent by the catalyzing/enabling action of internet access unsupervised by a responsible adult. Sad case. :(
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
So much for the measured responses of this site's self-appointed "genial mediator" @RC, who's always trying to get us all to sit at the same table to thrash out our differences as "equals".

Well @RC, you've sat by in the shadows reading the exchanges here until you could contain yourself no longer, and have spewed your bile onto the open page for all to see. "malicious activity", "intentionally ignorant", "manic spamming", "lying", "ego-tripping", "bot-voting", "gang-attack", "drink, ego and malice", "poisonous", "virulent", etc. These on a science site no less. Sad case indeed.

We all want to see "open science and humanity discourse on a science site", that's one of the ways in which science progresses, but anybody attending such a discourse should abide by the scientific method, which has stood us all in good stead for at least 300 years. And the likes of you and the EU, subscribe to notions which make NO use of the scientific method; which is why they're criticized so heavily.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
@DS - thank you for your invitation to occasionally contribute to keeping up standards on this site. As I've hinted before, I find the ranting of these people sometimes so grating and so inimical to reasoned discussion, I often just turn around and find something else to do. And in normal circumstances, I might try a little harder; but the circumstances here are anything but normal, with the same few hard-cases trying every trick in the book to attach their theories to an ostensibly respectable website dedicated to physics.

One can see very clearly that, in doing so, it lends a certain degree of credibility and a cachet of respectability to their otherwise completely discredited and inane "theories". But only in their own blinkered and jaundiced vision.

What a situation we find ourselves in, what an age, when false news and Hogwarts science can reach so many, as to pose a real danger to the truth.
FineStructureConstant
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
@Cap - so true, my friend!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FineStructureConstant.

That's a tad (more than just a tad) hypocritical isn't it. FSC? You would have the trolls, bot-voting ignoramuses run riot and lie by omission and commission, and spew THEIR bile all over the threads burying any interesting discussion under your 'preferred toll-shite'. Yet when I am forced to defend against ALL those trolls, you make it sound like I am the one who started it or am perpetuating it. That is 'blaming the victim' type of double-standard which has been used by perpetrators of the most heinous crimes against science and humanity, FSC. If you don't even realize how MORALLY BANKRUPT and DANGEROUS to all decent people your CONDONING/EXCUSING such behavior is, then you are truly lost in 'gangmember' mindlessness and malice.

Resist 'gang mentality', FSC; before it's too late for you (it's apparently too late for DS, Stumps, Ira et al, but YOU might still have a chance to make things right with your character and your intellect). Try, FSC. :)
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
@RC - try to wrap your head around this one pertinent fact: your "science" and that of the EU, do not adhere to the scientific method. Which part of that do you not understand?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.

Firstly, I do NOT speak for EU/plasma universe proponents: I even sometimes REMIND THEM (and you etc) that ALL universal phenomena/features etc are HYBRID in nature; involving ALL forces at different stages, one dominating over other(s) in turn as they evolve over various time scales depending on phenomena under study. So your 'impressions' and 'associations' there are mistaken!

Secondly, let's just recall briefly WHOSE science knowledge/comprehension and practice was correct all along and:

- saw the Bicep2 flaws immediately, while you/the 'gang' did NOT even bother to objectively check it out as I (and Scientific Method) suggested;

- is being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by recent mainstream discovery/reviews in astro/cosmo/QM field; while you/gang still working from old increasingly 'iffy' myths/notions that never had tenable scientific/logical basis since proposed;

- trying to get all to discuss based on objective science merits, not person.

Ok?
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
...and because your so-called "science" ignores the scientific method, it can't be called science. Which part of THAT do you not understand?

And because it cannot be called science, it doesn't belong in a website dedicated to science. Are you beginning to get the message here?? Is any of this making its' way past your immense prejudice and overweaning pride???
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
Forget Bicep - you may have been right on that, along with a lot of others, but frankly who cares? Scientists are people, and we all understand that sometimes they make mistakes; it's par for the course - just look what happened with the "FTL neutrinos".

Learning from its' mistakes is just one of the ways in which science distinguishes itself from other, less stringent, disciplines. But don't flatter yourself that it was you, or any of the other bystanders who caused the Bicep team to issue an update to their findings - it was down to other scientists pointing out errors in a scientifically competent manner which did it. Situation normal, the built-in checks and balances in science doing what they're supposed to do. Armchair scientists, take note.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
...and because your so-called "science" ignores the scientific method, it can't be called science. Which part of THAT do you not understand?
Whoa there, buddy! What makes you fit to criticize MY science and contributions here to the science discourse? You, who have NOT been correct all along like I have, on many fronts; including Bicep2 fiasco and recent mainstream discovery/reviews confirming ME correct and NOT you/that 'gang' of pretend 'scientists' who prefer to troll, bash cranks, bot-vote and otherwise insult and sabotage science discussion....anything BUT 'doing science', but only 'parroting' OLD orthodoxy like all those 'science writer' HACKS who are decades behind the evolving situation which makes them sound like broken records!

I take pride in being and following the science and science method; whereas you/gang takes pride in doing your gang attacks, personal insults etc on a science site. That makes you much WORSE than any real anti-science cranks. :)
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
@RC
let's just recall briefly WHOSE science knowledge/comprehension and practice was correct all along
But @RC, you don't have the requisite knowledge or comprehension.

One has only to view your own website http://earthlingclub.com to see just how wide of the mark you really are with your own "Realised Direction Theory", which professes to be nothing less than "a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics".

As a work of fiction, it's turgid and unreadable; as a work of science, completely untenable, because it has no means of providing quantitative predictions which could be checked for falsifiability by proper experimentation.

Best stick to something you understand, "buddy".
434a
5 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
- saw the Bicep2 flaws immediately


Hi RealityCheck,

I'm new to this site so I was intrigued by your post regarding flaws with BICEP2

I had a google around to find your posts on BICEP2 using this search

https://www.googl..._rights=

The first link took me to this specific post where you say you are quoting yourself.

https://phys.org/...urt.html

RealityCheck 1 / 5 (27) Mar 17, 2014
Reposted from the earlier thread:
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw.

Cont
434a
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017

So I refined the search to include the term "Nobel coveting"

https://www.googl...hys.org/

Success, I thought! The original post :)

But there's no actual detail of the flaws you've seen :(

I can then only find references in other posts you make back to that post but no actual post containing your insights :(

Can you link me to the post where you detail your insights or post them up again? It would really help me in understanding what you are saying.

Thanks v.much
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
Forget Bicep -
What are you saying, FSC! Remember the truism:
He who forgets their history is doomed to repeat it!
It is because many so-called 'scientists' have CONVENIENT amnesia and in-denial herd-mentality that Bicep2 fiasco was allowed to happen AT ALL.

Anyone NOT following scrupulously the objective dictates of the scientific method is DOOMED to be WRONG. I followed it scrupulpusly, you/others did NOT.

Learn your lessons from that fiasco yet, FSC/gang? It appears NOT, judging from the way you/they STILL attack the person (ME) and 'conveniently forget' how correct I have been ALL LONG, on both the science AND the behavior, despite extreme provocations and sabotage from YOU/gang trying to skew the discourse/metrics on a SCIENCE site out of pique/embarrassment at YOU/gang being WRONG all along.

And how many DECADES did it take for Penrose/Steinhardt to 'self-correct'? Too Long!

Look to YOURSELVES to see where the problem lay here, FSC/gang. :)
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
@RC - you know of course that the march of science will pass you by without ever noticing you - the ragged toothless beggar at the side of the road - bleating about something or other, words lost in the slipstream of constant scientific progress.

Keep it up, wear yourself out, brighten your lonely life for a moment or two, and know that in the end your ranting amounts to. Precisely. Nothing.
You, who have NOT been correct all along like I have, on many fronts
This: what a complete head up the arse moron and self-aggrandizing geyser of absurdity you are!

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@434a.

This is a long story and I have no more time/inclination to go over old ground on that with every new poster who has not seen the various posts you ask about. The last time, only recently, I had a moment or two to spare for similar requests from poster @imfromcanada. I explained the whys and wherefores of my scattered posts in side-discussions re the flaw in various unrelated topic threads. I even mentioned one of the major assumptive/modeling flaws to @imfromcanada in one of my replies to him. If you search @imfromcanada's posting history you will find that as well as more explanations re my not being at liberty to discuss those in more details until I publish all my work complete. Sorry if you aren't satisfied with this response, but you can appreciate I cannot keep satisfying a parade of new posters, as I'd have no time/energy left for more important/immediate matters which require my attention and time. Good luck anyway, 434a; and welcome to PO. Avoid 'gangs'. :)
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
@434a - Good work done there in following up on RC's claims - it's more than I was prepared to do. Thanks!
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
I'd have no time/energy left for more important/immediate matters which require my attention and time
Like shouting a lot, trying to convince people of your own over-inflated importance, and adding to your pseudoscience website http://earthlingclub.com/ .

Or perhaps you're conducting vital scientific research? - do you have links to your positive contributions to science, your papers published in reputable peer-reviewed journals? Don't worry on my account though, "buddy", I won't be holding my breath...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
you know of course that the march of science will pass you by without ever noticing you - the ragged toothless beggar at the side of the road - bleating about something or other, words lost in the slipstream of constant scientific progress.
You're in denial, FSC. Science is "passing you by" not me.

I'm the one fully abreast of developments; I'm the one mainstream is confirming correct on many fronts; I'm the one trying to get you/gang up to speed (a thankless task at best; wearisome task at worst); and I'm the one who has brought new insights, objective discourse despite your/gangs personal tactics, insults etc.

NOT you.

That you STILL call me names, and disrespect me, FSC, when I have been the one proven correct all along on both the science and the behavior, and you/gang unscientific and wrong all along, tells that you are NOT the stuff TRUE selfless objective scientists are made of, FSC.

In-denial, elitism, exclusionism, insults etc are NO substitute, FSC.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
@RC:
Your post there is effectively a POLITICAL call to arms for GANG activity

He's just describing a standalone-complex (bonus points to who gets the reference). Separate people coming independently to the same conclusion.
(That just happens to be be how scientific theories are strengthened. So it's the scientific process applied to a social problem..i.e.: you)
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
@RC
I'm the one... I'm the one... I'm the one... and I'm the one... I've been the one
You've obviously been playing too often with your one-eyed snake down there!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.

Would this be the SAME Peer Review system that 'passed' all those old unscientific/illogical, unreal, metaphysics/maths myths into 'professional science literature' despite never having any science/logics support?

And which FOR almost a CENTURY in many cases been cited/relied upon by subsequent 'exercises' and 'claims' by HACK 'researchers/writers' merely repeating dogma instead of critically assessing objective scientific merits/basis for same?

And which "Peer Review" system lately been in the news for all the WRONG REASONS for many fields?

FSC, it is people like YOU/gangs (who blithely 'passed' Bicep2 crap and still based on your beliefs over evidence) that has DESTROYED Peer Review Process which started out so well many decades ago, before BB etc "snake oil" selling 'mathematical-physicists-come-cosmologists' polluted the process and betrayed science method for so long.

Look to yourselves, FSC.

ps: My site has interim/incomplete work only. I never link to it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
@RC:
Your post there is effectively a POLITICAL call to arms for GANG activity

He's just describing a standalone-complex (bonus points to who gets the reference). Separate people coming independently to the same conclusion.
(That just happens to be be how scientific theories are strengthened. So it's the scientific process applied to a social problem..i.e.: you)
Wow, mate, that technique let you down BADLY in that Bicep2 fiasco, where YOU and your 'science-by-trolling-and-bot-voting gang consensus' got it all wrong, and me correct. You still haven't learned anything from that, have you antialias? Ego and denial is strong in the types who would call for a gang mentality to take precedent over individual responsibility for applying scrupulously the TRULY objective scientific method AT ALL TIMES and all circumstances....even here; instead of your insults, bot-voting 'gang' stupidities skewing the metrics here. Shame on you, antialias. Shame.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
@RC
I'm the one... I'm the one... I'm the one... and I'm the one... I've been the one
You've obviously been playing too often with your one-eyed snake down there!
Each iteration involves proof where I was correct all along and YOU/gang WRONG all along. So naturally, your EMBARRASSMENT at being SO WRONG SO OFTEN would propel your ego-saving attempt to save face against the terrible truth about yourselves: in-denial rationalizations while insulting from self-imposed ignorance and malice....at a 'strength' which would make the real anti-science cranks green with envy that they couldn't muster up such 'industrial strength' arrogance, stupidity and malice for their own agendas.

FSC, if you are the latest example of what has been going into the ranks of professional physicists/cosmologists, then no wonder it has taken so long for these fields to even BEGIN to 'self-correct'.

I applaud the newer crop of more objective, respectful and selfless scientists. :)
FineStructureConstant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2017
@RC
Ego and denial is strong
...in you. Straight from the horse's mouth!

@RC, if you had even a shred of decency and critical self-analysis, you'd understand what's going on here, with people "ganging up on you" actually pointing out to you the flaws in your reasoning and approach, you poor deluded fool. But you don't, and you very evidently can't, GET IT.

You're closed to reason, see everything in black and white, you are totally self-centered and self-aggrandizing, suffer from a huge persecution complex, have no capacity for introspection and are completely unable to listen to criticism. You're evidently a loner basket case and loudmouthed crackpot who simply has no idea of the enormity and depth of his problems and failings.

You belong quite frankly in a mental asylum, which is where I suspect you actually spend your days, feverishly attacking anybody online who dares to question your word on anything.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@RC - you know of course that the march of science will pass you by without ever noticing you - the ragged toothless beggar at the side of the road - bleating about something or other, words lost in the slipstream of constant scientific progress


In the meantime, you have posited not one syllable of vowel & consonants that have any content about the subject of: "First clear image made of accretion disk surrounding young Star".

The totality of everything you have posted so far is the usual name calling rants that is such a commonplace feature of perpetual motion advocates. You believe Infinite Wells of Gravity & Density can exist inside a Finite BH Stellar Mass, but you can't prove it.

Within the enclaves of Astro-physics, there is this propensity for persistent name calling binges against those of us who challenge you to prove how your advocacy for unproven mathematical models comports with the proven Laws of Physics.

Can you put up a post minus the name calling?
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
'industrial strength' arrogance
I like that - you can come up with a pretty turn of phrase when you put your mind to it.
I applaud the newer crop of more objective, respectful and selfless scientists
Objective, respectful, selfless: no doubt you include yourself among these paragons of scientific endeavour.
FineStructureConstant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2017
...and Benni has woken up in time to get his oar in. Time for your meds again?
you have posited not one syllable of vowel & consonants that have any content about the subject of: "First clear image made of accretion disk surrounding young Star"
You've evidently overlooked my several comments in this thread on Herbig-Haro objects (HHOs), jets and disks - all features of the system featured in the article - you really ought to pay attention, you know.

Having said that, I do realize these things are easy to miss when you're unable to tell reality from a ripe fig.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
@RC
Ego and denial is strong
...in you. Straight from the horse's mouth!

@RC, if you had even a shred of decency and critical self-analysis, you'd understand what's going on here, with people "ganging up on you" actually pointing out to you the flaws in your reasoning and approach, you poor deluded fool. But you don't, and you very evidently can't, GET IT.
What the hell, FSC? Where have you been the last decade of my Internet Experiments PROVING beyond shadow of doubt the existence of certain internet mod-troll gangs sabotaging, banning posters etc for their own sick ego-tripping 'enjoyment'?

Your predilection for excusing the perpetrators (because they are your 'friends in crime' as it were) makes you so NOT FIT to opine about the innocent/correct victims of their abuses of mod power and privileges (your hair would curl, FSC, if you but knew the half of what they got up to!).

So please, FSC, you're ignorant/biased on many levels/issues. NOT GOOD. :(
FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2017
Where have you been the last decade of my Internet Experiments PROVING beyond shadow of doubt the existence of certain internet mod-troll gangs sabotaging, banning posters etc for their own sick ego-tripping 'enjoyment'?
Your "Internet Experiments"? You put the internet in a test-tube? you measured the troll-gangs with a micrometer/voltmeter/E-meter/tailor's tape measure and proved their existence?

Anyway, here are some of your thoughts on reality for others here to enjoy:
Whether 'pristine' or 'recycled', mRDloops can delay DeRealisation by aggregating (evolving) into Dipole Addition Structures (DASs) in accordance with the loop dynamics Rules of Reality (discussed in my book THEORY & WORKS). These natural loop-interaction rules operate in our relative RDmedium/Spacetime context to produce geometric/arithmetic consequences in the form of localised flows and pressure differentials in the global G-I Fluid
So that's perfectly clear, hope everybody is keeping up...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
'industrial strength' arrogance
I like that - you can come up with a pretty turn of phrase when you put your mind to it.
I do as well on science too. But you wouldn't have noticed that, being as how you are so busy excusing trolling, bot-voting insulting ignoramuses 'gang' on a science site; so missing all the good science on offer from mainstream and me. Never mind, FSC, go back to sleep.
I applaud the newer crop of more objective, respectful and selfless scientists
Objective, respectful, selfless: no doubt you include yourself among these paragons of scientific endeavour.
If the shoe fits, FSC. But your foot is so stuck in your mouth of late, FSC, it's soggy troll-shoes for you! Maybe a dunce's cap borrowed from Uncle Ira would help keep you warm and dry (and even more ignorant, unfortunately) while your troll-shoes dry out...if ever.

BTW, now that this has arisen, FSC, have you EVER contributed anything original in science/logics/maths here?
FineStructureConstant
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2017
Here's some more
the indirect consequence of the sink effect not only produces a LOCALISED force that prevents mathematical singularities, it can also produce a COSMOLOGICAL force as well. Multi-Body 'antigravity' situations involve a matter-free 'void' filled with flaw-Realised (pristine as opposed to reclaimed) mRDloops pressurising a G-I Fluid region loosely surrounded by a discontiguous 'shell' of sink-structures. Such 'Void-Cell' Fluid-Sink geometries and distributions results in a globalised 'antigravity' repulsion effect that kicks in once a critical minimum expanse of matter-free space separates two or more sink structures...
Don't forget this is from a work presenting
a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics
"Non mathematical", and yet he talks of mathematical singularities... Can't have the one without the other, "buddy".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
Where have you been the last decade of my Internet Experiments PROVING beyond shadow of doubt the existence of certain internet mod-troll gangs sabotaging, banning posters etc for their own sick ego-tripping 'enjoyment'?
Your "Internet Experiments"? You put the internet in a test-tube? you measured the troll-gangs with a micrometer/voltmeter/E-meter/tailor's tape measure and proved their existence?
So, when someone says they do "Internet Banking", you ridicule them like that too? Lame, FSC, lame. Evasive and just plain lame. Not only an inadequate 'scientists', but an inadequate 'jester' too. Never mind, there must be something you can do right. Let us know when you find it, FSC. So that's perfectly clear, hope everybody is keeping up... FSC, you were told that site has only interim incomplete works at present; yet you took that out of context crucial for consistent understanding across the whole works when published complete. That desperate, FSC? :(
434a
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
Hi RC

Well that was an interesting sojourn. I'll quote from ImfromCanada's post as it will save retyping what I feel.

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

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

To me this means I have searched for what I feel was a reasonable amount of time to find your scientific proof against a paper that is/was up for peer review, yet could find nothing. If you have posted it somewhere, perhaps it's time to repost
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@434a.

Patently you cannot do simplistic searches and expect to find randomly inserted references to said flaws in random side-discussions in threads not directly on the topic of said flaws. It was explained to @imfromcanada. The fact you didn't acknowledge that aspect; and neither did you mention the flaw I DID mention to @imfromcanada, tells that your cursory 'search' is woefully inadequate in the circumstances. In that case try not to draw conclusions from incomplete and erroneous 'data' set which you have at present. And I will not repost again because I have not the time/inclination to go back and find them and so do the work that people should have been doing all along for themselves instead of ignoring, insulting while missing everything important. Naturally, @434a, you being a newbie is unfortunate for you, as you have just walked in on an ongoing issue which I have no time/inclination to satisfy you/others about again. That's it until I publish complete, 434a. :)
434a
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
@434a - Good work done there in following up on RC's claims - it's more than I was prepared to do. Thanks!


Hi FSC, the issues which @RC has with BICEP2 are raised in many dozens of threads. I assumed, as it turns out erroneously, that they were documented in a way in which anyone could read and get an understanding of. I am glad my time was of some use to you.

@RC given the effort you go to explain and defend your position with reference to BICEP2 I find it very odd that you aren't able to easily or willingly point to, or repeat, the issues you've identified.
You may not care about the perceptions this raises in those of us who are looking in on the conversations within this forum but it doesn't do your position any favours. I mean this purely from the perspective of someone interested in the process of constructing a well structured argument. Having a foundational stone missing in a debate is surely a weakness that will be exploited. Best of luck.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@434a.

Thank you for your concern on my behalf, @434a. Much appreciated and applauded for its tone. If you can keep up that tone of genuineness and objectivity against the 'gang' tactics which are usually directed at those who challenge/expose those gangs then you'll do ok here; although, from first indications, the fact you are not challenging the 'gangs' version/tactics etc, means you will probably be left alone (or even '5'ed, just to seduce you into going along with them on other gang-attacks/trolls etc; but beware the cost to your integrity/objectivity if you get conned into trusting the 'gang'; don't say you weren't warned, ok? :) ).

Anyhow, re Bicep2 flaws etc; I have provided the necessary often, only for it to be ignored by trolls whose method was "TL;DR" (ie, Too Long; Didn't Read) followed by usual insults in ignorance/malice for which they have become well known. It put me off repeating those efforts in futility. And I won't play that game again. Sorry. :)
434a
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
Hi @RC You assume much, I did indeed read the one criticism that you put forward to ImFromCanda. This is what you refer to
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;

I was expecting a little more than this given the continued criticism you have levelled at the research. Would it be churlish to point out it is one person's unsupported opinion rather than a rigorously sourced refutation and that it is 1 not 4.
Cont
434a
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
If this is the acceptable standard then I will suggest that the CMB is a consequence of electrons and neutrons forming hydrogen for the first time some 375k years after the BB vs inflation which occurred 10 minus 36 to 10 minus 33 seconds after the BB.

Inflation couldn't smooth out the resulting radiation as it occurred 375k years before the radiation had been generated.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@434a.
Hi @RC You assume much, I did indeed read the one criticism that you put forward to ImFromCanda.
I merely noted the absence of your mention of my mention of one flaw I DID to @imfromcanada; and again pointed out that the situation is not one for facile searches, as I also explained to @imfromcanada
This is what you refer to

https://phys.org/...rgy.html
- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;
I was expecting a little more than this given the continued criticism you have levelled at the research. Would it be churlish to point out it is one person's unsupported opinion rather than a rigorously sourced refutation and that it is 1 not 4.
It was my observations/insights since supported by Planck results. :)
434a
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
It was my observations/insights since supported by Planck results. :)


Hi @RC

This paper? https://arxiv.org...02.01589
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
PS @434a.

The Planck results confirmed my longstanding observations about the 'mixmaster' effect by innumerable high energy processes/materials during photon transit from any appreciable cosmic distances; it even identified the local Milky Way dust etc effects. Hence my CMB-related observations, questioning and pointing out the dangers of too simplistic/naive assumptions, models and interpretations of same. Bicep2 was merely the latest (then) of a series of 'exercises' based on CMB data analysis/interpretations etc subject to much GIGO due to all the 'mixmaster' and other complications (including naive/simplistic redshift and distance ladder etc 'techniques and methodologies built into all such 'exercises' involving obviously unreliable assumptions and models). Then there is the teams behavior itself; wherein they were obviously motivated by glory/nobel visions which led to 'gazump' and other personal/mercenary 'publish or perish' imperatives to do SLOPPY flawed 'work'.

Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@434a.
It was my observations/insights since supported by Planck results. :)


Hi @RC

This paper? https://arxiv.org...02.01589
Unfortunately they still haven't changed the usual spiel about CMB and BB etc myths. They have come far, to be sure, to even admit that CMB can be so affected even at local scale let alone through cosmic travel distances! But they have a long way to go before the whole litany of BB/Inflation/Expansion/exotic DM and DE etc MYTHS are flushed from the scientific literature and we get back to serious reality-based scientific method application rather than maths/religious/metaphysics etc UNREALITY nonsense that has been 'passed by peer review' for too long. It has taken DECADES for Penrose/Steinhardt to self-correct, admit that BB/Inflation were bogus artifacts of fantasy not real scientific/logical hypotheses.

Anyhow, I've had my say. I don't much care what troll gangs do/say because they have been wrong all along. Good night. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
You've evidently overlooked my several comments in this thread on Herbig-Haro objects (HHOs), jets and disks all features of the system featured in the article you really ought to pay attention, you know.

Having said that, I do realize these things are easy to miss when you're unable to tell reality from a ripe fig.


.........of course the posts you point out specific to yourself are "easy to miss", they're easy to miss because all the foul mouthed name calling rants far outnumber what little content you put up that is appropriate to the subject material.

So far, your foul mouthed name calling content is at least 90% of the content you've posted to date, so why would anyway even care about reading the remaining 10%? Your attitude reminds me of a guy by the name of Fritz Zwicky, an astronomer who made it a practice to shout down any of his colleagues who disagreed with him about anything, like calling them "spherical bastards" as he labeled Einstein on occasions.
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
FSC, you were told that site has only interim incomplete works at present; yet you took that out of context crucial for consistent understanding across the whole works when published complete.
So you don't deny it's your own work then... Well, old pal, people have been waiting for several years now for this magnum opus of yours to be published, so I thought it might be helpful to give them a taster of at least some of your ideas, even if they are just "interim" and "incomplete" and a little out of date.

The quotes will surely at least give us a hint of the style of writing and the breadth and depth of your explanation of "the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics". No small task for a mere human.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
FSC, you were told that site has only interim incomplete works at present; yet you took that out of context crucial for consistent understanding across the whole works when published complete.
So you don't deny it's your own work then... Well, old pal, people have been waiting for several years now for this magnum opus of yours to be published, so I thought it might be helpful to give them a taster of at least some of your ideas, even if they are just "interim" and "incomplete" and a little out of date.

The quotes will surely at least give us a hint of the style of writing and the breadth and depth of your explanation of "the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics". No small task for a mere human.
FSC, your cavalier disregard for others' work is telling of your attitude in general to all things serious. Like science/logics method/principles, for instance. What you are doing is like taking a picture of an artist's work in progress. Misleading.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
like calling them "spherical bastards" as he labeled Einstein on occasions
Zwicky probably needed better spectacles.
FineStructureConstant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2017
What you are doing is like taking a picture of an artist's work in progress
Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work" you keep telling them about, in order that they be able to make some kind of an objective appraisal of it, and of your scientific credibility.

Heck, even Einstein published interim results on the way to finally cracking GR; but perhaps you're a greater man than he ever was?
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work" you keep telling them about
.........and so far, the only "work" you've been showing up with are your foul mouthed name calling binges. Within this entire thread, I have yet to see anything that comports to standards that could be labeled SCIENCE, you're just following the Stumpy trail with no separation between the two of you.

FineStructureConstant
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2017
Oh do shut up Benni, there's a good fellow...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
What a situation we find ourselves in, what an age, when false news and Hogwarts science can reach so many, as to pose a real danger to the truth
@FSC
there is a solution - i've presented a method for the site (PO) to moderate using existing known educated posters (like AA_P, Thermodynamics, Q-Star, Runrig, etc) as volunteers to moderate, with their ability limited to short term temp ban's unless a consensus votes to perma-ban someone

There are provisions for moderation of the moderators as well, with a 3-5 panel of mod mod's rotating from the existing mod list

this leaves admin functions with the site and existing site admin while offering a method to limit the blatant stupidity being spread by idiots like above

the cost is only a change of permissions to a profile

i submit this every couple months

- perhaps if others were to also submit a workable free plan or stand together on this one we can effect change?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Apr 27, 2017
to moderate using existing known educated posters

I'd argue for another approach. I think it's always (potentially) problematic when someone is modding who's also posting. In the end you'll always get a situation when a poster gets banned while the two are locked in an argument in some thread. And no matter how well supported by fact the ban is some will always see this as abuse of power. The gray area (real or simply for interpretation) is just too big.

Optimally I envision a mod as someone who doesn't post and doesn't argue. They enforce the comment section rules. Comments get deleted and the reason for deletion posted instead (like "deleted for crackpottery") and a link to the post so people can see it was fair.
But no appeal, no arguing. Nothing. If someone gets hit with the ban stick (after three strikes or so) that's it. All their posts get deleted retroactively (with some offenses an immediate ban: sockpuppetry, re-registering after a ban, that sort of stuff)
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2017
Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work" you keep telling them about
......and so far, the only "work" you've been showing up with are your foul mouthed name calling binges. Within this entire thread, I have yet to see anything that comports to standards that could be labeled SCIENCE, you're just following the Stumpy trail with no separation between the two of you.


FineStructureConstant
Oh do shut up Benni, there's a good fellow...
......to follow.......down the Stumpy trail??? No pent up Professional Science topics down that trail. I see where you get your lead from.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
What you are doing is like taking a picture of an artist's work in progress
Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work"...., and of your scientific credibility.
And what ensued from his 'piecemeal' publishing prematurely? Nasty bitter and acrimonious controversy over DECADES with his 'peers', which could have been avoided and his time better spent in refining/completing his SR/GR theory. I am too old and lack the energy levels required for such time and energy wasting 'indulgence'. Besides, I have already given people here examples, hints, clues, insights and known science reminders. This is a news/comment/discussion site not a 'peer review' site. I soundboard, discuss, remind etc as I see fit. If that's ok with you/gang of bot-voting ignoramus trolls.

As for 'credibility', I remind you of the earlier comparison between us two; and the many instances where you were wrong/me continuing correct.

Rethink it all, FSC.
FineStructureConstant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2017
controversy over DECADES...his time better spent in refining/completing his SR/GR theory.
I take it you're talking about Einstein: well, controversy is par for the course when creating a new scientific paradigm, which GR certainly turned out to be. But you're wrong about his "refining/completing his SR/GR theory" - SR was already basically completed in 1905, and he only later turned his attention to what would become GR.
As for 'credibility', I remind you of the earlier comparison between us two
You flatter yourself - there is no "comparison" between us.
Rethink it all...
Abandon the scientific method in favour of mumbo-jumbo? I think not.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Forum.

The bot-voting ignoramus troll gang again trying to entrench their poisonous agendas here at PO. Their call to 'gang' arms now is latest 'putsch' to seize undue influence in moderation of a site.

Their agenda should ring alarm bells!

Anyone who witnessed the slow, painful decline of old physorg (before/after the split into this PO and remainder physforums) will well recall the horror of watching CORRUPT and MALIGNANT gang of mod-trolls abuse mod power, colluding to ban even most correct, genuine science/logics posters.

The same thing happened at Sciforums; first with the "Trout" troll baiting, insulting and sabotaging/banning posters with collusion of his 'protectors' in mod ranks. The same thing with "paddoboy" troll.

Now both gone from Sciforums because even mods/admin/'friends' had a gutful. Too late! Damage done!

Also consider: if professional science 'peer review' system can be corrupted for decades; imagine these trolls 'in charge' as mods!

Resist! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Never mind I can see. I am doing good, thanks for asking.

This is again you bring up the "paddyboy-Skippy" and the "Trout-Skippy". Who are they and way you keep bringing them up here. I never heard of them, did they have another physorg name?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
I take it you're talking about Einstein: well, controversy is par for the course when creating a new scientific paradigm, which GR certainly turned out to be.
But I want to avoid said controversy stage lasting decades. That's the whole point of finalizing/publishing a consistent, complete work.
But you're wrong about his "refining/completing his SR/GR theory" - SR was already basically completed in 1905, and he only later turned his attention to what would become GR.
You must have missed the nastiness between him and detractors for decades over SR, FSC. And all the 'help' given him by a succession of mathematicians, of which period/effect Einstein said in jesting admission:
Now the mathematicians have invaded my theory I don't understand it myself anymore!
You flatter yourself - there is no "comparison" between us.
True indeed!
Rethink it all
Abandon the scientific method
No, FSC. Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
This is again you bring up the "paddyboy-Skippy" and the "Trout-Skippy". Who are they
The "Trout" troll infested the old physorg before the split to PO and physforum, and afterwards, and had more than one sockpuppet name there. When even the corrupt mods/admin there has a gutful of that troll he migrated with some of his old mod-troll gang buddies with whom he proceeded to carry out the same nastiness/collusioin in order to get genuine posters banned at Sciforums (for whatever sick agendas he/his 'protector' mods had in their twisted minds).

Anyhow, physforum site eventually collapsed under weight of crass corruption/malice due to sabotage, unconscionable abuses of mod power, by sole mod remaining there.

The Trout troll at Sciforums eventually went too far even for the mods/admin/friends protecting/colluding with him.

The "paddonboy" troll came soon after to Sciforums. Went the same way.

Too late! Damage done!

Why mention? Cautionary tale, Ira. :)
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse
By those criteria, and if what we've already seen of your interim work is any guide to the style and methodology of your as-yet unpublished ouevre, it will almost certainly turn out to be nothing more than a rambling, turgid work of fiction with no predictive ability, hence providing no means by which it may be falsified, and therefore no hope of being accepted as science.

My advice to you would therefore be to take your own advice: "Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse", if you possibly can.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
@FSC.
Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse
By those criteria, and if what we've already seen of your interim work is any guide to the style and methodology of your as-yet unpublished ouevre, it will almost certainly turn out to be nothing more than a rambling, turgid work of fiction with no predictive ability, hence providing no means by which it may be falsified, and therefore no hope of being accepted as science.
Let's see, novel insights/observations, from my novel reality-based theorizing process, are being increasingly confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream discovery/reviews on many fronts.

Your contribution to original science/logics/maths advancement is, what, exactly, FSC? See the 'sand' on which you 'stand', opining from ignorance?
My advice to you would therefore be to take your own advice: "Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse", if you possibly can.
Been there since age 9. You haven't been at all, FSC. :)
RealityCheck
Apr 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2017
Why mention? Cautionary tale, Ira. :)
Well I will keep a watch-out for them,,,, if I spot one of them you want me to take of them or do you want me to just let you know what they are up to?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. These guys are not part of one of those interweb experiments you keep having trouble with are they? I mean I don't want to spend a lot of time on the lookout for somebody that is only in your imaginations.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
My advice to you would therefore be to take your own advice: "Revert to objective science such as this:

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL: http://www.jstor..../1968902 .

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

Cont'd......
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2017
.......cont'd:

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

............or maybe you & Stumpy imagine you're better authorities on Black Holes than Einstein?
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2017
@Benni - So all the many very estimable physicists and mathematicians down the years who have studied the subject have been on a wild goose chase? My advice: don't tell them, it would only spoil their day...

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.