Superluminous supernova marks the death of a star at cosmic high noon

Superluminous supernova marks the death of a star at cosmic high noon
The yellow arrow marks the superluminous supernova DES15E2mlf in this false-color image of the surrounding field. North is up and east is left. This image was observed with the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) gri-band filters mounted on the Blanco 4-meter telescope on Dec. 28, 2015, around the time when the supernova reached its peak luminosity. Credit: Observers: D. Gerdes and S. Jouvel

The death of a massive star in a distant galaxy 10 billion years ago created a rare superluminous supernova that astronomers say is one of the most distant ever discovered. The brilliant explosion, more than three times as bright as the 100 billion stars of our Milky Way galaxy combined, occurred about 3.5 billion years after the big bang at a period known as "cosmic high noon," when the rate of star formation in the universe reached its peak.

Superluminous supernovae are 10 to 100 times brighter than a typical supernova resulting from the collapse of a massive star. But astronomers still don't know exactly what kinds of give rise to their extreme luminosity or what physical processes are involved.

The supernova known as DES15E2mlf is unusual even among the small number of superluminous supernovae astronomers have detected so far. It was initially detected in November 2015 by the Dark Energy Survey (DES) collaboration using the Blanco 4-meter telescope at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. Follow-up observations to measure the distance and obtain detailed spectra of the supernova were conducted with the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph on the 8-meter Gemini South telescope.

The investigation was led by UC Santa Cruz astronomers Yen-Chen Pan and Ryan Foley as part of an international team of DES collaborators. The researchers reported their findings in a paper published July 21 in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The new observations may provide clues to the nature of stars and galaxies during peak . Supernovae are important in the evolution of galaxies because their explosions enrich the interstellar gas from which new stars form with elements heavier than helium (which astronomers call "metals").

"It's important simply to know that very massive stars were exploding at that time," said Foley, an assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC Santa Cruz. "What we really want to know is the relative rate of superluminous supernovae to normal supernovae, but we can't yet make that comparison because normal supernovae are too faint to see at that distance. So we don't know if this atypical supernova is telling us something special about that time 10 billion years ago."

Previous observations of superluminous supernovae found they typically reside in low-mass or dwarf galaxies, which tend to be less enriched in metals than more massive galaxies. The host galaxy of DES15E2mlf, however, is a fairly massive, normal-looking galaxy.

"The current idea is that a low-metal environment is important in creating superluminous supernovae, and that's why they tend to occur in low mass galaxies, but DES15E2mlf is in a relatively massive galaxy compared to the typical for superluminous supernovae," said Pan, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Santa Cruz and first author of the paper.

Foley explained that stars with fewer heavy elements retain a larger fraction of their mass when they die, which may cause a bigger explosion when the star exhausts its fuel supply and collapses.

"We know metallicity affects the life of a star and how it dies, so finding this superluminous supernova in a higher-mass galaxy goes counter to current thinking," Foley said. "But we are looking so far back in time, this galaxy would have had less time to create metals, so it may be that at these earlier times in the universe's history, even high-mass galaxies had low enough metal content to create these extraordinary stellar explosions. At some point, the Milky Way also had these conditions and might have also produced a lot of these explosions."

"Although many puzzles remain, the ability to observe these unusual at such great distances provides valuable information about the most and about an important period in the evolution of ," said Mat Smith, a postdoctoral researcher at University of Southampton. The Dark Energy Survey has discovered a number of and continues to see more distant cosmic explosions revealing how stars exploded during the strongest period of star formation.


Explore further

Collapsing star gives birth to a black hole

More information: Y.-C. Pan et al, DES15E2mlf: A Spectroscopically Confirmed Superluminous Supernova that Exploded 3.5 Gyr After the Big Bang, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx1467
Citation: Superluminous supernova marks the death of a star at cosmic high noon (2017, July 21) retrieved 16 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-07-superluminous-supernova-death-star-cosmic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
334 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 21, 2017
Read a book: the bigger the star, the shorter its life.

Jul 21, 2017
Are we supposed to believe that a massive star was somehow chaotically formed AND died in about 4 billion years only?

It doesn't work like that. More mass means more pressure and hence a much larger volume in which fusion can happen = more fusion going on (which in turn eats up the stars 'fuel' faster). Really large stars live only a few million years before going nova.

If you think about very small stars (i.e. stars that barely go above the size where they can start fusion) then you can see that there's extremely littel fusion going on...i.e. the fuel of that star will last a very long time. The smallest stars can last trillions of years.

Jul 21, 2017
Are we supposed to believe...

If astrophysicists have their way we would believe in magical faerie dust, scawry monsters, and that the Universe relies on pseudoscientific processes to exist. It's actually quite pathetic.

Jul 22, 2017

Weren't all first generation stars massive enough to supernova? If so, then if we look back far enough we should see a lot of supernovas.

Jul 22, 2017
If so, then if we look back far enough we should see a lot of supernovas.

Sorta. Problem is that supernovas are very short-lived events (days/weeks) - so there's not that many visible. If you want to look that far back that also means you have to look...far. Which makes matters tricky as you have to start looking at the same patch of sky for a long time to get an image...which in turn means you're averaging over a long period of time ...which doesn't mesh well with these short lived events.

Nevertheless some have tried to look for a more extreme type of supernova that required very early/very large stars:
https://arstechni...niverse/

Also from the above article re. your question:
Normally, we can't detect supernovae out to high enough red-shifts to spot them in the early Universe



Jul 22, 2017
@tblakely1357.
Weren't all first generation stars massive enough to supernova? If so, then if we look back far enough we should see a lot of supernovas.
Well observed, tblakely1357. :)

Other issues arise:

- If the mass of such a feature was so great, then its gravity well strength must have been extreme and so must have its gravitational redshift effect been extreme on the 'signature' of photons escaping the exploding surface 'front'. If so, then the distance estimate may be WRONG if the cosmic ladder technique employed in such cases is based on hypothesized Big Bang and its Distance-Only 'redshift relation' assumptions.

- If the gravitational redshifting accounts for much of the observed redshift in this case, then the extremely massive feature observed may be MUCH CLOSER than they have 'interpreted' based on BB etc assumptions/model.

- If BB etc correct, then the whole sky at that 'age/distance' should be alight with extreme supernovae!

Bad for BB models, hey?

Jul 23, 2017
Are we supposed to believe...

If astrophysicists have their way we would believe in magical faerie dust, scawry monsters, and that the Universe relies on pseudoscientific processes to exist. It's actually quite pathetic.


No astrophysicist, alive or dead, ever wanted you to believe in magical faerie dust, scawry monsters or pseudoscientific processes. Stop lying.

Jul 24, 2017
Dark Matter?

So you believe that we've discovered all of the kinds of matter that exist in our universe at this point? That there's nothing left to be found? Furthermore this phrase should be treated as a placeholder for "We have observations that are best explained by the presence of additional mass than we can't observe through optical phenomena."

"Self gravitating out of our universe... infinite gravitational collapse"

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Sounds like strawmen you've created to describe how silly you think physics is when you can't be bothered to learn it.

Black hole

General relativity is exceedingly well supported by data, and black holes are a very straightforward consequence. If you don't like the idea of it being a 'gravitational field', then think of it as a region where all future timelines point toward one spatial point.

Jul 24, 2017
How math...

Math is just a language we use to combine observations and predict the outcome of future ones. When that math correctly predicts the results of experiments, then I dare say it's a lot more than "math making us arrive at conclusions." The math suggests the possible outcome, we go out and perform an associated experiment, and have high degrees of correlation between what we predicted to be true and what was observed. That's science.

And maybe that's why all you cranks hate doing maths with your "theories" of whatever nonsense, because your maths don't allow you to predict the future [outcomes of experiments that can be performed].

Jul 24, 2017
And maybe that's why all you cranks hate doing maths with your "theories" of whatever nonsense, because your maths don't allow you to predict the future [outcomes of experiments that can be performed].


Correct. Not that they do experiments, mind. Just come up with impossible woo, where other people have to do the maths for them, to show that said woo is impossible. That is, where the 'hypotheses' (lol) are actually scientifically viable. Which they mostly aren't. It's just one big, irrelevant yawn.

Jul 24, 2017
General relativity is exceedingly well supported by data

This statement is a flat out lie.


Wrong. Care for me to point to all the observations that show GR to be correct?

Jul 24, 2017
^^^^And you are like a disease that one can't get rid of. Of no use to anyone, contributes nothing, and won't be missed when it's gone. Unless you have got something to contribute? Nope, didn't think so.

Jul 24, 2017
if you want to keep believing what you do...


Oh goody; here's a chance for you to tell us what YOU believe. Care to lay it out for us? Nope, again, didn't think so. Doesn't involve all sorts of Velikovskian woo, and Saturn being in the centre of the solar system does it? If so, I shall laugh. A lot.

Jul 24, 2017
Wrong. Care for me to point to all the observations that show GR to be correct?

You are far too devout to understand that if one observation proves it wrong....it's wrong.
You guys are like a doctor telling a women she's pregnant because of all the "signs"
yet 24 months later she still hasn't produced a baby.
Until a DM particle is found and studied, you are raving about how great a model is that is off by a multiple of five...and that mathematically produces objects that physical reality cannot. So no, I don't need to watch you reinforce your belief system, but if you want to keep believing what you do...this is what you have to deal with. BTW, photons are units of light, more of them means "brightening"....just in case your model doesn't tell you that.


Have I mentioned that you have got nothing? If you have, let's hear it woo boy.

Jul 24, 2017
^^^^And still can't point us to any alternative hypothesis. Know why? Because it doesn't exist. He just wants to impress his schoolfriends by saying - "look, I'm going on the interweb, and telling scientists that they're wrong. Aren't I clever?"
Put up or shut up, woo boy. Where is your alternative? Otherwise, STFU, and get back to class.

Jul 24, 2017
Here is a completely factual statement about physics: Every interaction/observation we measure is done via electromagnetic radiation. Thus by default, everything we measure is an EM interaction.


Really, woo child? Here's a little exercise for you and your fellow woo children: look up Sag A*. Now, pretty much every real scientist will tell you that is a black hole. What is your alternative, given the measured orbits of the stars about that unseen object? It's EM woo, yes, we get it. Now describe precisely what it is, and how it is causing those orbits. Shouldn't be difficult.

Jul 24, 2017
Oh goody; here's a chance for you to tell us what YOU believe. Care to lay it out for us? Nope, again, didn't think so. Doesn't involve all sorts of Velikovskian woo, and Saturn being in the centre of the solar system does it? If so, I shall laugh. A lot.


Care to have another go at that, in a bit more detail? Maybe point us to some literature from your crank of choice. perhaps?

Jul 24, 2017
As to the magnetic fields/structures at work, the primerfields both explain and predict so much more than anything the mainstream has that it is embarrassing (for science in general) the standard model still exists.


Really? Is that it? So where are these predictions written down, idiot? Or have you just read that statement on some woo site, and posted it here? WHAT does it explain, eejit? And HOW does it explain it? If you are incapable of telling us, point us to where it has been laid out. It has been, right? Or is that statement all that your belief system consists of? What a joke.


Jul 24, 2017
bschott's paper to A & A:

Abstract:
EM explains everything.

Introduction:
EM explains everything.

Instrument:
None.

Observations:
None.

Discussion:
EM explains everything.

Results:
None.

Conclusions:
EM explains everything.

Brilliant.

Jul 24, 2017
You are definitely not a scientist....


Neither are you. The difference is that I actually have some relevant qualifications. However, there are not sufficient to come on here, and start telling better qualified people than me, that they have got it all wrong. For that I would need some serious quals. So, I'm guessing you, or whoever you are a fan boy of, has? Yes? Errr, no, would be the answer to that. Correct?


Jul 24, 2017
The answer is, not a black hole. Hey, you were right....


So WTF is it, jerk? If you have no idea, then STFU, for Pete's sake. You patently haven't a clue what you're on about. Stop embarrassing yourself. All you know how to do is say: "it's EM." You cannot explain it, and it has never been written down. Ergo, it doesn't exist.

Jul 24, 2017
They have to orbit something right?


Yes, you dickweed, they orbit the centre of mass of the two stars. **Multiple** stars have had their orbits measured around Sag A*, you prawn. So what are they orbiting? Highly elliptical, some of these orbits. When you take all the orbital parameters, and work it out, then they MUST be orbiting an invisible object with a mass of 4 million solar masses. Where is it? What is it? How does EM explain it? I'm waiting.

Jul 24, 2017
News flash, writing something down doesn't make it pop into existence.


Oh dear! So, it has never been written down, and you can't explain it! Brilliant. Can hardly accuse scientists of ignoring something that only exists in somebody's befuddled mind, can you? Unless and until somebody writes it down, how can you possibly hope to influence science? By talking crap on here? Newsflash for you: not going to happen. In case you haven't noticed.

Jul 24, 2017
Above, Ladies & Gentlemen, is an absolute classic example of a schoolboy who can't do science, with a chip on his shoulder, trying to compete with people who know far more than he does. Not gone well, has it? There are a number of things one could say. like "what a dickhead." I don't think that will get us very far, though. Best if we leave the poster to complete his primary school education.Yes? And then come back when he has done a little more than copy/paste woo site crap onto here. Bless him. I expect he has to be up quite early. Awww.

Jul 24, 2017

Well Shitstick, how about all the mass of the galaxy orbits around it's own COG? Ya see, now I am reversing your COG debate and applying it here. There is no object between the binary stars, and that point they orbit around does not have "more" gravity than the surface of either object...why can't the galaxy behave in the same manner? Funny how each spiral arm moves in conjunction with each other one eh?


Blah, blah, eejit. Where is your hypothesis? Been asking for a while, now. Is it non-existent? Yes!!! Haven't got a clue, have we, woo boy? Just here to make yourself feel better about knowing Jack **** about science. Yes. Bless. Damn teachers and other boys in the class are making me feel small. I need to make my pathetic, scientifically illiterate life have some meaning, So I come on here and pretend that I know stuff. Dear me. Their is a word for people like you. wankers. Yes?

Jul 24, 2017
@jonesdave.

You alright? I ask because you seem to be reacting to bschott etc with over-the-top level of emotional/insulting etc retorts, rather than countering/rebutting calmly (based on objective/new argument/observation instead of just repeating orthodoxy which even many professional theorists have made clear may not be correct let alone complete as is).

I also worry that you persist with 'requirement' for 'alternative' explanation/hypothesis rather than objectively explaining/supporting alleged 'correctness' of your understandings/orthodoxy.

Please calm down; don't react so personally, insultingly; irrespective of what you perceive to be insults to an orthodoxy you accept as 'correct' just because you have no 'alternative' to doing so.

REMINDER: Falsification by new/ongoing observations is all that is required to disprove orthodoxy. Requirement for 'alternative' before admit falsification is like requiring 'alternative' to Epicycles before admit its falsification. :)

Jul 25, 2017
Their whole argument is, "Where is your alternate hypothesis?" as if that is somehow proof that the consensus hypothesis is correct
@earthling maybe
that isn't true
for starters, jones is asking rc the question because for decades rc has stated he is working on said alternate hypothesis that will change the world... this is especially hilarious considering there is absolutely no evidence that rc has a firm grasp of the basics of math, let alone complex physics of any kind

for two: the primary argument is "where is the evidence?"
Science advances on evidence and that which can be proven by predictability, repeat-ability and validation

just like you can extrapolate velocity from a series of still camera pictures, you can also extrapolate physics of something not directly seen by observation of effects or working out what is known, etc (like fusion in the sun)
2Bcont'd

Jul 25, 2017
@earthling not - cont'd
so when you make a claim like
History has shown, just in the last decade, how utterly wrong and far off the mark scientists (especially astrophysicists) have been
but you can't provide an example with requisite evidence of refute, as prescribed by the scientific method, then what you are making is, at best, an untested claim (see: http://www.auburn...ion.html ), but considering the effectiveness of not only the known physics said extrapolations of fact are based upon, and that you can't provide refutation, this is more likely a false claim or opinion, with the emphasis on the former due to refusal to provide evidence

the scientific method is easily available for everyone to use

if you can provide a refute of astrophysics like you and the eu claim, then why isn't there a validated reputable peer reviewed study you can link for evidence?

it really is that simple

Jul 25, 2017
@bs
This means they were far off the mark
no, it doesn't
you're making assumptions without evidence - and articles are opinion pieces, not facts
this is best demonstrated by the following: https://phys.org/...ity.html

it's not the shape that may undermine relativity, but rather the evidence proving said shape
more to the point: will it actually undermine it?
relativity "undermines" newtonian mechanics, but we still use newtonian mechanics to launch rockets and for almost everything else on earth

it boils down to a few salient points
1- articles aren't evidence - they're opinion about evidence
2- follow the evidence
3- making a claim about [x] while not being able to provide evidence is no different than religion
. This has been the case since I have been reading articles here
but you've also demonstrated that you can't tell the difference between valid scientific evidence and belief or opinion

Jul 25, 2017
@bs continued
...likely because they know that they don't know what you think they know
1- reading an article and thinking it's a factual representation of the evidence or the science is like reading the bible and stating it's representative of reality

2- you do not have a very good history of being able to differentiate the different levels of evidence

You've also historically claimed that opinions listed on a web-site that you can't authenticate, nor could prove came from different people, were equivalent to evidence of magical cures
http://phys.org/n...ant.html

http://phys.org/n...apy.html

plus, you've demonstrated abject failure to learn the basics or even check simple facts: http://phys.org/n...ted.html

so why should anyone take your opinion as legit over mainstream science and evidence?

Jul 25, 2017
@full of bs
The writer of an article is not allowed to say that scientists are confused unless the scientists themselves admit to it
yeah... i completely forgot about truth in the press!
why, that would be fake news, right? and the press is infallible:
http://www.storyl...shotgun/

https://en.wikipe...ay_Night

Stump, historically you wander off topic
every post above is on topic and directly related to the quoted material

not only that but it's supported by evidence as well, especially every post to and about your own BS beliefs

i can see you're still pissed at being outed as ignorant of strapping fields or how medical trials work...

by all means, keep venting
maybe you can get your magical magneto cancer machine sold to the various pseudoscience acolytes who, like you, can't tell the difference between the levels of evidence

it worked on you
it's bound to work on them

Jul 25, 2017
@bs... something to consider
historically you wander off topic every time you get flustered and when asked to actually discuss the physics of anything
i've noticed that whenever you get cornered and proven wrong you resort to making sh*t up and attempting to cry about the other person

with jonesdave you claim he has a meltdown
with me it's a mental disorder

considering the evidence as linked above by me, this is demonstrably projection on your part

you even validate this with your own words
you're envious of those who comprehend more than you

what a sad pitiable existence
if i didn't know you reveled in your stupidity, hatred, and delusions, i would feel bad for you

Jul 25, 2017
@bs
He had a few in the thread but that last one was visible from space
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

that's all I have to point out Stump
let me reply: Read what i wrote and what you wrote...that's all I have to point out @bs

the evidence is all in my favour
I can and have demonstrated every single thing i said about you and your sock

...well here we are. I'd love to keep using the endless supply of links proving "bs is an idiot" and the overwhelming amount of ammo you keep handing me but it really just feels like I am making fun of a retarded person now. And that is just wrong.

Good luck
keep up the validation as it will definitely be used again to underscore the point against your delusional beliefs

Jul 25, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
for starters, jones is asking rc the question
Get your facts straight before cluttering up the thread, Stumpy. @jonesdave was asking @bschott (and others in EU crowd, and Plasma U crowd); he was NOT asking ME; and in any case, I am in neither 'crowd'. Ok?
because for decades rc has stated he is working on said alternate hypothesis that will change the world...
So completing the universal theory from scratch should have been easy and not taken decades? Why the double standards, CS? Mainstream has NOT completed the theory; and many insights/observations from MY reality-based ToE/Maths work are being confirmed correct almost every day now.

I've already posted many alternative insights over years; which you/gang ignored; and you/they came a cropper more than once because you ignore/insult from your malignant ego/bias. :)

And you missed the point, CS: Falsification does NOT 'require' alternative theory; only observation which falsifies. Learn, CS. :)

Jul 25, 2017
with jonesdave you claim he has a meltdown

He had a few in the thread but that last one was visible from space
with me it's a mental disorder

Read what you wrote, how it was responded to, and how you reacted...that's all I have to point out Stump...You told someone there was no evidence of their claim and when it was pointed out that at this very site in only one section there were 10 examples of said evidence...well here we are. I'd love to keep using the endless supply of "Stump is an idiot" ammo you keep handing me but it really just feels like I am making fun of a retarded person now. And that is just wrong.

Good luck.


Hey. BS (apt name), have you managed to figure out what you believe in yet? EM; we get that. Care to be more specific? Show us where this crap you believe in is actually written down? I'm saying it doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

Jul 25, 2017
@BS,
Look, if scientists admit that they are surprised by a finding, an experimental result, or an observation, or that they are baffled...that is them telling us they were off the mark.....


Jesus. Bullsh*t you f***wit!!!! These are f***ing press releases, you tw**. Get it through your thick, scientifically illiterate skull, that press releases ARE NOT fecking science. You arse. Jesus, thick, or what? Read the papers. Yes? Not subscribed? Why not? I thought that anybody who comes on here, with even a vague knowledge of science, and telling **real** scientists that they are wrong, must at least have read the frigging paper. Yes? Go back to school, you arse. You are crap at science. Did I mention that? "mumble, mumble, it's EM, mumble, mumble..." Dickhead.


Jul 25, 2017
so when you make a claim like
History has shown, just in the last decade, how utterly wrong and far off the mark scientists (especially astrophysicists) have been
but you can't provide an example with requisite evidence of refute, as prescribed by the scientific method, then what you are making is, at best, an untested claim

There are currently at least 10 articles in the astronomy and space section of this site in which the words or a paraphrase of "observations weren't as theorized ", and "scientists were surprised by"....show up. One even states it in the title. This means they were far off the mark....
If this does not suffice and you have not read these articles, I will be happy to point them out by copy and pasting the titles and relevant quotes...


So, where have your heroes predicted the correct outcome? Thornhill? Hahahahahahhahha,,,etc.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.

You alright? I ask because you seem to be reacting to bschott etc with over-the-top level of emotional/insulting etc retorts, rather than countering/rebutting calmly (based on objective/new argument/observation instead of just repeating orthodoxy which even many professional theorists have made clear may not be correct let alone complete as is).

I also worry that you persist with 'requirement' for 'alternative' explanation/hypothesis rather than objectively explaining/supporting alleged 'correctness' of your understandings/orthodoxy.

Please calm down; don't react so personally, insultingly; irrespective of what you perceive to be insults to an orthodoxy you accept as 'correct' just because you have no 'alternative' to doing so.


Give up, you tosspot. Who the f*** asked you? Bugger off back to whichever hole you crawled out of. Tw*t.

I

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.

You alright?

Let's see......
Blah, blah, eejit. Where is your hypothesis? Been asking for a while, now. Is it non-existent? Yes!!! Haven't got a clue, have we, woo boy? Just here to make yourself feel better about knowing Jack **** about science. Yes. Bless. Damn teachers and other boys in the class are making me feel small. I need to make my pathetic, scientifically illiterate life have some meaning, So I come on here and pretend that I know stuff. Dear me. Their is a word for people like you. wankers. Yes?

I'd say Fukushima looks like a candle compared to this meltdown. Every time he pulls his head out of his ass he spits out a mouthful of the standard model....(shhhhhhhhiiiiiitttttt)


And the tosser still can't give us an alternative hypothesis. Eh? All talk, no education. Correct, Bschitt?

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
You alright? I ask because you seem to be reacting to bschott etc with over-the-top level of emotional/insulting etc retorts, rather than countering/rebutting calmly (based on objective/new argument/observation instead of just repeating orthodoxy which even many professional theorists have made clear may not be correct let alone complete as is). I also worry that you persist with 'requirement' for 'alternative' explanation/hypothesis rather than objectively explaining/supporting alleged 'correctness' of your understandings/orthodoxy. Please calm down; don't react so personally, insultingly; irrespective of what you perceive to be insults to an orthodoxy you accept as 'correct' just because you have no 'alternative' to doing so.
Give up, you tosspot. Who the f*** asked you? Bugger off back to whichever hole you crawled out of. Tw*t.
No-one had to ask me, mate; I'm compassionate human; I saw fellow human in obvious distress; I did what I could for you. :)

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.

Re your retort to @bschott:
still can't give us an alternative hypothesis. Eh? All talk, no education. Correct, Bschitt?
Please try to take the following reminder in the spirit of objective/compassionate fellow scientist/human that I intend it in.

I posted it to Captain Stumpy because he too is misunderstanding the scientific method as to falsification requirements. Reminder:
Falsification does NOT 'require' alternative theory; only observation which falsifies.
On that understanding, your demand to @bschott is unreasonable The onus is upon you to support your continuing acceptance of mainstream hypotheses which are being increasingly falsified by new/recent mainstream observations/reviews.

You see the point, mate?

If @bschott, anyone else, points to observations which falsify a belief you accept because you have no other alternative, it's not proper to demand an 'alternative' from him.

Falsification sufficient unto itself.

So calm down, ok? :)

Jul 25, 2017
No-one had to ask me, mate; I'm compassionate human; I saw fellow human in obvious distress; I did what I could for you. :)


I was discussing illiterate science with an EU tosser. Have you got anything worth saying on this matter? Perhaps you can describe his alternative hypothesis. Yes? If not, STFU.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
No-one had to ask me, mate; I'm compassionate human; I saw fellow human in obvious distress; I did what I could for you. :)


I was discussing illiterate science with an EU tosser. Have you got anything worth saying on this matter? Perhaps you can describe his alternative hypothesis. Yes? If not, STFU.
Please see my post just above yours. Thanks.

Jul 25, 2017
If @bschott, anyone else, points to observations which falsify a belief you accept because you have no other alternative, it's not proper to demand an 'alternative' from him. Falsification is sufficient unto itself. So calm down, ok? :)


BSshit has pointed to nothing. Yes? What has his scientifically illiterate mind come up with? "It's EM." F***ing brilliant. So, why should I not ask what his explanation is? Find out what this Primary School child actually knows? Fair point?
I'll tell you now: he has not read the paper, and neither have you. Stop commenting on s*** that you don't understand.

Jul 25, 2017
]Please see my post just above yours. Thanks.


Addresses nothing. He is a dipsh*t EU loon. How would you like me to deal with the tosser?

Jul 25, 2017
Here is a thought for RC,
Saturn used to be at the centre of the solar system! Venus was a recent planet, that was spat out of Jupiter! The volcanoes on Io are electric woo! Comets (despite all observations to the contrary) are frigging rocks, with all sorts of electric woo going on. The H2O is formed by solar frigging wind, at 400 km/s hitting non-existent O-! Et boring cetera. Would you give these cretins the time of day? Or do you believe that crap as well? And more!

EDIT:
Just to add; they are bloody idiots, who deserve no sympathy from anyone on here. Loons, cretins, scientifically illiterate burkes. End of. Complete tossers.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
If @bschott, anyone else, points to observations which falsify a belief you accept because you have no other alternative, it's not proper to demand an 'alternative' from him. Falsification is sufficient unto itself. So calm down, ok? :)
Find out what this Primary School child actually knows? Fair point?
I'll tell you now: he has not read the paper, and neither have you. Stop commenting on s*** that you don't understand.
Mate, you KNOW I DO READ and UNDERSTAND. I adhere scrupulously to the objective scientific method and make objective conclusions. I do NOT follow the NOT-READ and then INSULT-from-IGNORANCE 'method' practiced by SOME here. Which is why I am the one being increasingly confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream discovery/review. So please drop the insulting 'in-denial' assertions, Ok? Thanks. :)
How would you like me to deal with the tosser?
I already posted suggestion for you re that. Start by stopping all insults/demands. :)

Jul 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
Here.....Saturn used to be at the centre of the solar system! Venus was a recent planet, that was spat out of Jupiter! The volcanoes on Io are electric woo! Comets (despite all observations to the contrary) are frigging rocks, with all sorts of electric woo going on. The H2O is formed by solar frigging wind, at 400 km/s hitting non-existent O-! Et boring cetera. Would you give these cretins the time of day?
Mate, you left out that mainstream theorists have been mooting even sillier and more bizarre things than that for almost a century now. Fair do's, mate. One must allow ANY 'crowd' some leeway to spout rubbish; especially if one is a mainstream cosmologist who claims thye 'right' to spout rubbish 'protected/allowed' by a closed-shop of 'peers'.

The trick/reward in science is to seek/find 'gems among the dross' (be it dross from within/without the 'professional ranks').

So, calm down; be polite, alert to, and diligently seek, 'gems' without prejudice. :)

Jul 25, 2017
Just for anyone casually browsing this thread; you do not overturn science by posting utter crap on here. Nobody cares. You write up your "hypothesis", and get it published. Many people have done that. Not all successfully. Now, the problem with Bscitt, is that he doesn't actually have a hypothesis. He has travelled the usual EU route of coming on sites like this, and reading PRESS RELEASES, and picking up on quotes like, "scientists were surprised by,,,," And yet, when you ask the cretins why we shouldn't have been surprised, they can't even point to what they believe in! They have no alternative. They merely part of an anti-science, mythology based cult. In other words; wankers.

Jul 25, 2017
So, calm down; be polite, alert to, and diligently seek, 'gems' without prejudice. :)


Sorry, yet again. Have you seen how these uneducated cretins operate? Go on numerous sites, and see them accuse ***real*** scientists of being ignoramuses, ignorant, stupid? Seen that? Sorry, these cnuts get no sympathy from me. Screw the uneducated pricks.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
^^^Sorry, but f*** off! Some uneducated tosser comes on here, pretending to know enough to claim that ***real*** scientists are wrong, then why the f*** shouldn't I question the tosspot's knowledge? Give me a reason.
Here are several reasons:

- real scientists have been known to BE wrong before now, often; so how wrong are those NOT-real scientists who have corrupted the peer review/literature with crap for decades now?

- you yourself may be trusting/believing in the infallibility of human beings whose prime imperatives may not align strictly with the scientific ideals; one instance of which was Bicep2; another was Big Bang/Inflation being 'passed' for decades just because it was from YOUR 'infallible' preferred 'real scientists' which now have recanted (ie, Penrose and Steinhardt and others).

- hence why increasing attempts by mainstream itself to remedy science 'peer review' and 'trust' deficits: https://phys.org/...eer.html

Ok? :)

Jul 25, 2017
Mate, you left out that mainstream theorists have been mooting even sillier and more bizarre things than that for almost a century now.


Utter bleeding crap! They do not come out with crap that is demonstrably bloody impossible! As in the Velikovskian woo I quoted. At least start with something that is reasonable. String theory? Who knows? Various other conjecture (and that's all it is). But scientifically impossible woo? Give it a rest. No need to treat that with anything other than the contempt that it deserves. Idiots, like I said.

Jul 25, 2017
- real scientists have been known to BE wrong before now,
Only one thing wrong with theory Cher. You are not a real scientist. You are not even the amateur scientist. Choot, you are hardly even a pretend scientist.

Being demented with delusions of grandeur while hooked up to the interweb is not enough. Now why you don't leave the humans and scientists have a break from your foolishment?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That is coonass for: "P'tit Boug, you sure look good in that silly looking pointy cap".) How you like me now, eh?

Jul 25, 2017
Here are several reasons:.....

Right, so you believe solar wind H+ can combine with non-existent O- to form water, do you? Or that Saturn used to be at the centre of the solar system? Or that Venus was spat out by Jupiter? Et bleeding cetera. These people are scientifically illiterate cretins. You need to be to believe crap like that. Point more than proven. Yes?

Jul 25, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
- real scientists have been known to BE wrong before now,
Only one thing wrong with theory Cher. You are not a real scientist. You are even the amateur scientist. Being demented with delusions of grandeur while hooked up to the interweb is not enough. Now why you don't leave the humans and scientists have a break from your foolishment? Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy (That is coonass for: "P'tit Boug, you sure look good in that silly looking pointy cap".) How you like me now, eh
So, the fact, that scientists have BEEN wrong, is merely a secondary consideration behind personal crap posted by a bot-voting ignoramus now?

How low can 'science' go?

Being 'defended/excused' by bot-voting ignoramuses who don't even realize what science is; let alone what objectivity, comprehension of subtle/complex subject matter is.

Still, Ira, you have a valuable role: to highlight what can happen to 'minds' that put bot-voting over objective discourse. Pity.

Jul 25, 2017
I'll just add a little message before I hit the sack; EU has been around in its current guise (i.e. the idiots Thornhill, Scott & Talbott) for over 20 years. What has it contributed? Indeed, when has it ever been right about anything? That's an easy one - never. What impact do its scientifically illiterate believers think it is having/ has had on science? That's also easy - none.
How many science courses did you fail/ not bother taking, before you started believing in impossible woo?
Lastly, can somebody please tell me the current belief of EU nutjobs on what powers the Sun, and how it happens?

Jul 25, 2017
Still, Ira, you have a valuable role: to highlight what can happen to 'minds' that put bot-voting over objective discourse. Pity.
Thanks, no hard feelings here either. So why you don't try to do like I do. Say all you got to say once, take four or three posts if you need. You write 20 or 17 posts a day and keep saying the exact same thing in every one of them every day.

Choot, you been repeating the same goofy thing over and over and over for years now. If it has not caught on yet, I think you are wrong if you think that if you say it just one more time somebody will believe it.

Anyhoo, there was not the need to apologize about the valuable role thing, but I am glad you thought is was good.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
Here are several reasons:.....

Right, so you believe solar wind H+ can combine with non-existent O- to form water, do you? Or that Saturn used to be at the centre of the solar system? Or that Venus was spat out by Jupiter? Et bleeding cetera. These people are scientifically illiterate cretins. You need to be to believe crap like that. Point more than proven. Yes?
Why do you keep making attributions to me that I do not hold, mate? I told you I am independent and not in any 'crowd', be it the EU crowd or the Plasma U crowd. So please drop that 'tactic' as it is beneath you or any scientist, ok?

And in your continuing excitement/passion you miss the point:

Claims may be refuted/accepted after polite, objective scrutiny/discourse if any/no scientifically/logically tenable/supportable merits. That is the PROCESS. Just calling someone 'crank' or ridiculing before proper refutation/otherwise, is just BAD MANNERS....and demonstrates bias/prejudice. Ok? :)

Jul 25, 2017
@RC, I'll repeat this:

Right, so you believe solar wind H+ can combine with non-existent O- to form water, do you? Or that Saturn used to be at the centre of the solar system? Or that Venus was spat out by Jupiter? Et bleeding cetera. These people are scientifically illiterate cretins. You need to be to believe crap like that. Point more than proven. Yes?


Any comments? Or is any sh*t allowable? We just let them off because they are obviously mentally deranged? Not happening.


Jul 25, 2017
Claims may be refuted/accepted after polite, objective scrutiny/discourse if any/no scientifically/logically tenable/supportable merits. That is the PROCESS.


Actually, no it isn't. You have a hypothesis? Write it up. Subject it to the same peer review that every bugger else has to go through. You do not come on here, and say "it's EM!" Only a dickhead would do that, and expect to get away with it. Are you saying I shouldn't question such idiocy? Wakey, wakey.

Jul 25, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Still, Ira, you have a valuable role: to highlight what can happen to 'minds' that put bot-voting over objective discourse. Pity.
Thanks, no hard feelings here either.
Good to hear. :)

So why you don't try to do like I do. Say all you got to say once, take four or three posts if you need. You write 20 or 17 posts a day and keep saying the exact same thing in every one of them every day.
Science is a huge subject dealing with many subtle and complex phenomena/disciplines. Whereas bot-voting demands little intellect or comprehension. You meet the criteria, Ira. :)

Choot, you been repeating the same goofy thing over and over and over for years now.
And how many years now have you been reprising your 'Cajun' Schtick and Bot-voting, Trolling stupidities, Ira?

Anyhoo, there was not the need to apologize about the valuable role thing, but I am glad you thought is was good.
Your apology accepted, Ira. But don't do it again. :)

Jul 25, 2017
Claims may be refuted/accepted after polite, objective scrutiny/discourse if any/no scientifically/logically tenable/supportable merits. That is the PROCESS.


Actually, no it isn't. You have a hypothesis? Write it up. Subject it to the same peer review that every bugger else has to go through. You do not come on here, and say "it's EM!" Only a dickhead would do that, and expect to get away with it. Are you saying I shouldn't question such idiocy? Wakey, wakey.


In case anybody is in any doubt, scroll back through the thread, and see how many times I asked Bschitt a direct question as to what he believed in, and where I could read it. It appears that it has never been written down, and only exists in Bschitt's mind. Fantastic. That's the way to do science, eh?

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
Are you saying I shouldn't question such idiocy? Wakey, wakey.
Mate, calm down, you keep missing the point.

I NEVER denied your right, nay scientific duty, to challenge/question anything, from whomever that thing has come. Ok? :)

The point is to be fair and reasonable, without double standards or bias and without personal rancor or other emotional baggage which may blur your intellect and make you miss any 'gems among the dross'. Hence my reminders re 'falsification' NOT requiring 'alternatives' to be offered in order for falsification to occur based on new observations/reviews. And also re being polite and dropping all tactics involving gratuitous/emotional insults and derision and prejudices of all kinds.

See? Just question/challenge politely, based on new info, objective arguments. That's the only way to 'get through to' cranks....OR to incorrect professionals alike!

Just be tolerant; realize that whatever YOU may think of site/internet, it exists! :)

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
Are you saying I shouldn't question such idiocy? Wakey, wakey.
Mate, calm down, you keep missing the point.

I NEVER denied your right, nay scientific duty, to challenge/question anything, from whomever that thing has come. Ok? :)


Sorry. not going to happen, as long as these cretins keep coming on here, questioning scientists who are waaaay better qualified than they are, when their only comeback is: "it's EM." Idiots. You read through the whole of the garbage put out by the idiot Thornhill on his crank sites, and it is belligerently anti-science. You want me to be nice to these f***ers? No chance. Cretins, the lot of them. If they can't take it, then stop giving it out. Yes?


Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
@jonesdave.
Are you saying I shouldn't question such idiocy? Wakey, wakey.
Mate, calm down, you keep missing the point.

I NEVER denied your right, nay scientific duty, to challenge/question anything, from whomever that thing has come. Ok? :)
Sorry. not going to happen, as long as these cretins keep coming on here, questioning scientists who are waaaay better qualified than they are, when their only comeback is: "it's EM." Idiots. You read through the whole of the garbage put out by the idiot Thornhill on his crank sites, and it is belligerently anti-science. You want me to be nice to these f***ers? No chance. Cretins, the lot of them. If they can't take it, then stop giving it out. Yes?
That is your choice. I can only point out certain things which may indicate you may not be the best person for the job in this case with EU and Plasma U crowds. I say this because you seem too emotionaly invested and angry to be objective. Good luck though, jd. :)

Jul 25, 2017
That is your choice. I can only point out certain things which may indicate you may not be the best person for the job in this case with EU and Plasma U crowds. I say this because you seem too emotionaly invested and angry to be objective. Good luck though, jd. :)


Sooooo, why do you think I asked Bscitt what his alternative was, way back up thread? Hmmm? Simply to show that the idiot is merely copy/ pasting crap from Dunderdolts, and has no scientific literacy to claim as his own. Every time the idiots post, I will question them. We will get nothing in response, and this merely confirms that they are bereft of any scientific knowledge. It is a non-event idea anyway - nobody takes it seriously, and the leader of the clan, i.e. Thornhill, is a moron. I just enjoy showing up his equally moronic followers for what they are. Morons.

Jul 25, 2017
@jonesdave.
Sooooo, why do you think I asked Bscitt what his alternative was, way back up thread? Hmmm? Simply to show that the idiot is merely copy/ pasting crap from Dunderdolts, and has no scientific literacy to claim as his own. Every time the idiots post, I will question them. We will get nothing in response, and this merely confirms that they are bereft of any scientific knowledge. It is a non-event idea anyway - nobody takes it seriously, and the leader of the clan, i.e. Thornhill, is a moron. I just enjoy showing up his equally moronic followers for what they are. Morons.
Whatever rights/wrongs of your present situation, mate, I can sympathize! I keep being confirmed correct all along, on many fronts, by new mainstream discovery/reviews; I have posted links that show I am correct, not lying; but all I ever get from 'CS gang' is more personal attacks, lies and insults...while they assiduously ignore what I linked for them to check it out.

C'est la vie. :)

Jul 26, 2017
@lying POS troll sam:)
I am in neither 'crowd'
you are proven to be in the liar crowd:), along with the pseudoscience crowd:)
No-one had to ask me
fanatical cultists rarely have to be asked - it's a compulsion to regurgitate the lies as it helps cement the delusion in their mind
points to observations which falsify a belief
and yet another crank who can't differentiate between levels of evidence

it seems the only one missing the point is you

anecdote and opinion do not falsify science
ever

it takes evidence that can be repeated, then validation to show it's not a one-off fluke

so, in conclusion
just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is
kinda like your belief that you presented 4 fatal flaws despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever

you're now at 7,003 posts with zero evidence

feel free to rant on about the irrelevant BS you believe since you've already admitted to lying

Jul 26, 2017
jonesdumb, rather than doubling your medications I think you'd do us all a favor and just take them all, at once.

Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@lying POS troll sam
...
fanatical cultists rarely have to be asked - it's a compulsion to regurgitate the lies as it helps cement the delusion in their mind
points to observations which falsify a belief
and yet another crank who can't differentiate between levels of evidence
it seems the only one missing the point is you
anecdote and opinion do not falsify science

...

just because you believe something to be true doesn't mean it is
kinda like your belief that you presented 4 fatal flaws despite there being absolutely no evidence of that ever
you're now at 7,003 posts with zero evidence
feel free to rant on about the irrelevant BS you believe since you've already admitted to lying
Your lies, evasions and malice are getting more lame/unhinged daily, CS. As this also shows:

https://phys.org/...dnt.html

Pitiable, CS. Truly pitiable. Get well soon.

Jul 28, 2017
@pseudoscience sam the chronic liar with martyr-victim complex
Your lies,
that's called projection
ROTFLMFAO

well... you can always shut me up and link just the thread where you state your 4 fatal flaws from BICEP so everyone can see when you posted it!
:-o
that'll teach me...

ah.
that's right!
you can't because it doesn't exist, as you finally admit here after 7,030 posts: https://phys.org/...ure.html

As this also shows:
https://phys.org/...dnt.html
thanks for linking that:)

what that link shows is that you're still not able to validate your claims with evidence, much like your continued epic failure and reduction to insanity here: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

:)
thank you for validating my claims and diagnosis, BTW
all you need now is medication and treatment
:)

LOL

Jul 28, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Again, see CS spamming clutter, lies, ignoring the links/posts already provided long since, which already show unambiguously that I was correct all along, on many fronts, according to recent mainstream discoveries/reviews reported here on PO. Ask yourself: why do CS-gang keep ignoring/denying what is already recorded PO facts? How can CS-gang pretend to follow science when they act in this unconscionable manner towards correct poster/science? It is their kind of indiscriminate bot-voting, hypocritical/malicious ego-tripping attacks/trolling, that throws true scientists in a bad light (if they only knew what these CS-gang imbeciles are doing to tarnish the reputation of all true scientists whom these miscreants pretend to 'speak for', 'defend', while doing everything they can to bring true objective science/scientists into disrepute! At least I make observations that will help correct/advance science/scientists past/present/future achievements/reputations!). :)

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