Two separate teams of astronomers find evidence of missing Baryonic matter

October 10, 2017 by Bob Yirka report
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

(Phys.org)—Two teams working independently have found evidence of the existence of missing Baryonic matter—particles that link galaxies together. One team was made of members from the Institute of Space Astrophysics, the other was based out of the University of Edinburgh. Both teams have uploaded a paper describing their work to the arXiv preprint server and both are claiming their findings solve the mystery of where so much of the normal matter—protons, neutrons and electrons—in the universe has been hiding.

Once scientists came up with the Big Bang Theory, a problem immediately arose—after calculating how much normal matter should exist in the universe at this point in time, they found approximately 50 percent of it is missing. Since then, scientists have worked on theories to explain where all that matter was hiding—the prevailing theory suggests that it exists as strands of Baryonic matter floating in the space between galaxies and cannot be seen with conventional instruments—this was the theory both teams in this new effort tested.

To get around the problem of not being able to see the Baryonic matter directly, the researchers considered a phenomenon called the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in which light left over from the Big Bang scatters as it passes through hot gas—it should be measurable in the . Both teams used data from the Planck Collaboration presented two years ago to create a map of where Baryonic matter strands might exist. Each selected a pair of galaxies to study, focusing on the space between them. Then, they stacked data from between the two galaxies to magnify data believed to be from Baryonic matter.

Both teams repeated this process for multiple pairs of galaxies to show that their readings were consistent across multiple test sites—one team tested a million pairs, the other 260,000. Both report finding evidence of the theorized filaments between the galaxies. One group found them to be three times as dense as the mean of observable matter, the other group six times—a difference that was expected, the groups explain, due to differences in distances from the that were studied.

Both groups claim their findings prove the existence of missing Baryonic matter and thus solve the mystery of where all the unmeasurable has been hiding.

Explore further: Team Shines Cosmic Light on Missing Ordinary Matter

More information: A Search for Warm/Hot Gas Filaments Between Pairs of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies, arXiv:1709.05024 [astro-ph.CO] arxiv.org/abs/1709.05024

Missing baryons in the cosmic web revealed by the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, arXiv:1709.10378 [astro-ph.CO] arxiv.org/abs/1709.10378v1

Related Stories

Team Shines Cosmic Light on Missing Ordinary Matter

January 7, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of scientists, led by University of Maryland astronomer Stacy McGaugh, has found that individual galactic objects have less ordinary matter, relative to dark matter, than does the Universe ...

Mapping dark matter

July 24, 2017

About eighty-five percent of the matter in the universe is in the form of dark matter, whose nature remains a mystery. The rest of the matter in the universe is of the kind found in atoms. Astronomers studying the evolution ...

Dark matter less influential in galaxies in early universe

March 15, 2017

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

Does dark matter annihilate quicker in the Milky Way?

June 23, 2017

Researchers at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai have proposed a theory that predicts how dark matter may be annihilating much more rapidly in the Milky Way, than in smaller or larger galaxies and the early ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers identify new asynchronous short period polar

October 16, 2017

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

The remarkable jet of the quasar 4C+19.44

October 16, 2017

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

On the generation of solar spicules and Alfvenic waves

October 13, 2017

Combining computer observations and simulations, a new model shows that the presence of neutrals in the gas facilitates the magnetic fields to penetrate through the surface of the Sun producing the spicules. In this study, ...

105 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Molecular hydrogen
3 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
Such a good read
Baryonic Mass from Caltech many years ago
https://ned.ipac....es4.html
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (19) Oct 10, 2017
Both report finding evidence of the theorized filaments between the galaxies. One group found them to be three times as dense as the mean of observable matter, the other group six times

More and more evidence on a daily basis to support the notion we live in an Electric Universe. The 'warm/hot "gas" filaments' are in fact the electric currents connecting these galaxies. Alfven predicted this some 70-years-ago, still a surprise to the plasma ignoramuses.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 10, 2017
Alfven predicted this some 70-years-ago


Wrong, these observations are incompatible with Alfven's claims, specifically about the Cosmic Microwave Background. The SZ effect was predicted to exist where the very distance CMB is up-scattered by electrons in galaxy clusters and in this case filaments. The problem is Alfven claimed the CMB was produced locally inside the Milky Way therefore it would never interact with galaxy clusters or filaments, therefore there should be no SZ effect.

You might try to claim that there is no scattering happening and the filaments are simply emitting synchrotron but that doesn't work. The SZ effect is unmistakable because the promotion of CMB photons to higher energies makes the CMB brighter at high frequencies but dimmer at lower frequencies. If the CMB was Galactic there is no way it would know to be darker along the line of sight between galaxy clusters and telescopes.
IMP-9
4.6 / 5 (19) Oct 10, 2017
If you believe this observation (which it's obvious you do because it suits you) then it means the death of Alfven's claims about the CMB. Alfven spoke of filaments but there is no way they could be detected with the SZ effect in his cosmology. Not only that it means Pierre-Marie Robitaille, who the Electric Universe is so fond of, would be totally and completely wrong. If the CMB doesn't exist as Robitaille claims then there is no SZ effect. The observations done in these papers would be impossible. But there is, the SZ effect is observed, they are both wrong.

The problem with you Electric Universe acolytes is that you're so quick to claim any observation as your own without ever considering if it is really consistent with what you claim. This observation (and many before it) blow a hole in the claims about the CMB from both PC and EU.
archytype_net
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 10, 2017
10 years ago I said on a forum that the so called missing mass is NOT missing, but exists as a plasma in both intergalactic and interstellar space. There is no need for dark energy or matter, or elaborate requirements to measure CMB is fanciful way.

The explanation has been staring us in the face for years, it's just this dogmatic notion it must be related to BBT that keeps getting in the way of proper progress.
archytype_net
1.3 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2017
Almost every week there is a article or paper published which lends further support to the EU hypothesis. How much more direct evidence of the theories of Hannes Alfven do we need before the mainstream dogma is culled.

And what about the name, Baryonic matter.....huh....suggests to me this is matter that resides at the barycentre between 2 bodies orbiting each other. The gravimetric midpoint I suppose. But this is inaccurate as the matter is fillamentary in nature and stretches for thousands of light years in some cases. Not just at the barycentre itself. 0/10 for the name people.
shavera
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2017
Baryonic matter.....huh....suggests to me this is matter that resides at the barycentre between 2 bodies orbiting each other

Incorrect. It's called such because it's positited to be made of baryons, particles composed of 3 quarks. If you think of most of the known matter in the universe is approximately hydrogen and helium, and the electron is ~1/2000 the mass of the proton in the hydrogen atom, than most of the "normal" matter in the universe has most of its mass in the form of the mass of protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are both Baryons, hence 'Baryonic' matter.

Why you think of 'Barycenter' is because 'Bary' is a prefix for 'heavy.' Before we knew of quarks, we classified particles as 'leptons,' 'mesons,' and 'baryons' for 'light', 'medium,' and 'heavy,' particles respectively. We later found leptons to be 'fundamental' particles (we don't think anything makes them up), and mesons to be quark/anti-quark pairs, and baryons to be 3 quarks in a bound state.
691Boat
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2017
Almost every week there is a article or paper published which lends further support to the EU hypothesis. How much more direct evidence of the theories of Hannes Alfven do we need before the mainstream dogma is culled.

Show the rest of the group the voltage sources and sinks in the Electric universe. That is step 1.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2017
"Both report finding evidence of the theorized filaments between the galaxies. One group found them to be three times as dense as the mean of observable matter, the other group six times"

.......and the ENTERTAINMENT DIVISION of DM Enthusiasts living on this site are already here trying to spoon feed the casual reader as to why 3-6 times more baryonic matter is an inconsequential quantity compared to the unknown quantity of Cosmic Fairy Dust often referred to as dark matter.
Ultron
3 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
Interesting research, but this does not explain the anomalous galaxy rotations.
Steelwolf
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
A voltage source and sink is not actually needed in cosmic electric universal theories (and yes, there are a few of them with various ways of operating) What is plainly seen, in studies like this, is that we get clouds and filaments of electrons (such as the article about electron brightening in the filament near a galactic cluster) and also clouds/filaments of protons, by similar methods, although BH jets are often proton in nature, and so we get differentiated areas/fields of differing charge separated by nearly pure vacuum and great distance. These fields do attract and repel each other, as charge would dictate.

Only when there is a connection would there be 'spark and electron flow to proton' with de-ionization happening. Mostly the fields are large and widely separated although a change of charge would be able to travel across this field. Think of how chemistry is dictated by electric potential and apply that to the cosmic scale, discarding 'electricity in wires' ideation
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
Interesting research, but this does not explain the anomalous galaxy rotations.


What makes you think there are anomalous galaxy rotations?
IMP-9
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2017
why 3-6 times more baryonic matter is an inconsequential quantity compared to the unknown quantity of Cosmic Fairy Dust often referred to as dark matter


Because the missing baryons are already accounted for in cosmology, they are called missing because they were predicted. The density of baryons in the universe is not calculated by just toting up what can be seen, it is measured with the baryon acoustic modes in the CMB and with primordial nucleosynthesis which both give consistent numbers. The CMB is sensitive to both the baryon density and the total matter density independently. From those numbers plus a total of what's observed locally the term missing baryons was coined. Note the simulation used in one of the papers predicted the value of the y distortion measured.

Secondly it's not 3-6 times more baryons, that is the density of the filaments compared to the cosmic mean. Read things more carefully.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 10, 2017
This is good news. This puzzle has been allowing #physicscranks to whine about the missing matter and #physicsdeniers to pretend there's no such thing as dark matter for decades. Now there is nowhere for them to hide any more. We found the rest of the missing matter in filaments; and we confirmed the filamentarian hypothesis while we were doing it.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2017
...
And what about the name, Baryonic matter.....huh....suggests to me this is matter that resides at the barycentre between 2 bodies orbiting each other. The gravimetric midpoint I suppose. But this is inaccurate as the matter is fillamentary in nature and stretches for thousands of light years in some cases. Not just at the barycentre itself. 0/10 for the name people.

Maybe you just need to get a dictionary and read it...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
"Both report finding evidence of the theorized filaments between the galaxies. One group found them to be three times as dense as the mean of observable matter, the other group six times"

.......and the ENTERTAINMENT DIVISION of DM Enthusiasts living on this site are already here trying to spoon feed the casual reader as to why 3-6 times more baryonic matter is an inconsequential quantity compared to the unknown quantity of Cosmic Fairy Dust often referred to as dark matter.

Hmmm... Some people like to think of the term DM as meaning "exotic", rather than seeing it for what it really means - unseen...
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2017
Hmmm... Some people like to think of the term DM as meaning "exotic", rather than seeing it for what it really means - unseen...


.......you mean like being thankful that when looking in a mirror that they can't see what the remaining 80% of themselves look like?
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Oct 10, 2017
Secondly it's not 3-6 times more baryons, that is the density of the filaments compared to the cosmic mean


Well now, insightfully brilliant Density Dude......now we have lots more gravity from a previously unidentified source that can account for anomalous rotations of spiral galaxies.

See no more need for DM Inferred Gravity, we have 3-6 times more dense baryonic filaments than we knew, and the denser they are the more gravity output they create, and VOILA, counter gravity filaments preventing spiral galaxies from imploding.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2017
Amusingly, the #physicscrank EU community thinks this is "dark matter."

It's not. This is duh.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
@Lenni proves he can't count again. The "nucular emgineerre" who can't count. What a fool.

Says it right there in the title, @Lenni: "baryonic matter." That's not DM.

You're lying again, @Lenni.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 10, 2017
Amusingly, the #physicscrank EU community thinks this is "dark matter."

It's not. This is duh.


See no more need for DM Inferred Gravity, we have 3-6 times more dense baryonic filaments than we knew, and the denser they are the more gravity output they create, and VOILA, counter gravity filaments preventing spiral galaxies from imploding.


Hey Schneibo? What do you think......a brilliant application of DENSITY DEPENDENT gravity that you apply to BHs; take a constant mass, shrink it & new gravity shows up out nowhere. Now we simply apply it to the new discovery of intergalactic filaments that are now confirmed to be 3-6 times more dense than previously thought, and NOW look at all this newly sourced gravity from visible baryonic matter displacing DM inferred gravity.

Next give us some cranky psycho-babble why this doesn't work......
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2017
@Lenni, here's your problem: you keep trying to re-litigate your idiotic claims that deny mathematics.

#physicscrank EUdiots don't get much opportunity to waste my time. Makes them mad. Makes me laugh at them.

#physicscranks can't count.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
@Lenni, here's your problem: you keep trying to re-litigate your idiotic claims that deny mathematics.


No, it's about my chuckling & chortling at you trying to use math to twist the Fundamental Laws of physics that deny your preposterous claims to density dependent gravity. You & your 19th century TUG, I guess you forgot the math of the 19th century does not roll over into the 21st, in between was the 20th & also the century of General relativity which denied any possibility that BHs could form via your stupid TUG math.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 10, 2017
"In the standard model of the evolution of the universe, galactic filaments form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter. It is thought that dark matter dictates the structure of the Universe. Dark matter gravitationally attracts baryonic matter, and it is this "normal" matter that astronomers see forming long, thin walls of super-galactic clusters."

https://en.wikipe...filament

Wki says baryonic & DM are gravitationally bound, that there must be 5 times more DM than baryonic to account for the presence of the excess quantity of INFERRED GRAVITY that supposedly exists. It is said the quantity of inferred gravity gravity can't be accounted for by the quantity of baryonic matter within the filaments......then we find out the density of baryonic matter is actually 3-6 times the previous estimates, meaning 3-6 times more gravity than previously estimated resides with baryonic, for all practical calculations wiping out the 5 times DM advantage.

Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2017
There is only one composite sub-atomic particle.......the neutron. It takes a star to assemble.
howhot3
4.7 / 5 (6) Oct 10, 2017
So the missing dark matter has been found? All of that "missing" mass has been as baryonic matter linking the galactic clusters and galaxies? I'm stunned. It's been there all this time staring at us, laughing at us, with our follies about dark matter, WIMPs, and strange gravity. I hope for more proof than the readings of wisps from tea leaves like the wisps of density in the cosmic background radiation.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2017
@howhot, no, there was also missing baryonic matter. It's that which has been found. And it's in the filaments. Keep in mind that filaments can't account for galaxy cluster or galaxy dynamics, discovered by Zwicky and Rubin.
Bart_A
4 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
Currently many scientists think that Baryonic matter consists only of 4.9% of the total mass–energy of the universe. Even it you multiple this by 3x or 6x, there is still a lot of missing mass-energy.

It may partly describe, though, where the "missing" mass is. At least this is measurable, whereas DM is not.

elios
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2017
People you are getting this wrong. This is not about the dark matter. This is about the missing normal baryonic matter that was a problem in cosmology separate from the dark matter problem. These filaments were predicted by the cosmological models and now have finally been found.

This article is somewhat poorly written in a sense that it does not warn the reader about this likely confusion with dark matter.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2017
This article is somewhat poorly written in a sense that it does not warn the reader about this likely confusion with dark matter
No, the author assumes that most people are knowledgable enough to know the difference, and further that people will actually read the article rather than assuming they know whats in it.

The author has no obligation to teach anyone basic physics or cosmology.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2017
@howhot, no, there was also missing baryonic matter. It's that which has been found. And it's in the filaments.


Hey Schneiibo, Density Dude......the "filaments" just happen to be located exactly where it has been predicted DM Cosmic Fairy Dust would be found, here read it again:

"In the standard model of the evolution of the universe, galactic filaments form along and follow web-like strings of dark matter."

https://en.wikipe...filament

You're suddenly are not a fan of the Std Model of the U?

I guess this means you should give up your 19th Century Perpetual Motion TUG Math so that new density calculations for baryonic matter does not displace inferred gravity previously allotted to dark matter?

All the gravity that exists anywhere in the Universe has a sum total that depends on the total quantity of mass in existence. If one kind of mass (BARYONIC) gets an upsized allotment of mass then some other kind of mass (DM) must get downsized, simple algebra.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2017
People you are getting this wrong. This is not about the dark matter. This is about the missing normal baryonic matter that was a problem in cosmology separate from the dark matter problem. These filaments were predicted by the cosmological models and now have finally been found.


No, you don't know what you are babbling about. Look at the link here:

https://en.wikipe...filament

.....no NEW FILAMENTS have been discovered, they have always been part of the Std Model, what has been discovered is that the filaments contain more BARYONIC MASS & density by 3-6 times more than previously estimated.

This additional BARYONIC MASS must displace the quantity of mass that had been previously allotted to DARK MATTER or TOTAL GRAVITY equations go out of whack, so by default, the quantity of DM must be downsized because the Fundamental Laws of Physics don't allow for existence of an excess of gravity if there is no mass to support the math.
elios
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2017
....no NEW FILAMENTS have been discovered, they have always been part of the Std Model, what has been discovered is that the filaments contain more BARYONIC MASS & density by 3-6 times more than previously estimated.


That's what I said that filaments were part of the theory, they just weren't thought to contain that much normal matter. I didn't say that some other new filaments were discovered.

This additional BARYONIC MASS must displace the quantity of mass that had been previously allotted to DARK MATTER ...


It was not allotted to dark matter. The distribution is 5% regular matter, 25% Dark Matter. Half of that 5% of normal matter was also missing and now found. It was not called dark matter because it was not predicted by the discrepancy in gravity, but by the BB Nucleosynthesis that predicted too many baryons, since we underestimated the amount of them in the filaments. The 25% dark matter is still all missing.
elios
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2017
cont ... Unfortunately this discovery does not reduce the amount of dark matter, because the methods used to obtain its amount already assumed the entire predicted content of baryonic matter, even though we could only see 10 - 50% of it.

If we obtained the amount of dark matter by only assuming the visible amount of baryonic mater, then we would be predicting more dark mater in the past anyway, and this new discovery would only bring it down to the currently predicted amount.
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2017
It was not allotted to dark matter. The distribution is 5% regular matter, 25% Dark Matter


It doesn't matter what is "allotted". What makes them think any baryonic mass was "missing" in the first place? Because initially they couldn't see all the places baryonic could hide? Right, so they created a pie in which the pieces were all different sizes & the biggest piece of the pie is a 100 year old fantasy.

In fulfilling the fantasy, roadblocks show up, as in this case when it's suddenly discovered that the baryonic distribution among the filaments is 3-6 times more than expected, making that piece of the pie bigger, therefore the allotted sizes of the other pieces must be re-allotted & made smaller. The previously allotted 25% piece gets downsized the most drastically because that previously inferred gravitational mass has been gobbled up by NEWLY DISCOVERED baryonic never known to exist.

As a Nuclear/ Electrical Engineer, I can do Differential Equations.
elios
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2017
What makes them think any baryonic mass was "missing" in the first place?


Because you get form BB nucleosynthesis and from CBM data 5% baryonic. And we could only see up to 2.5% of it. But since you need 30% matter for the gravity problem, even if you assume the full 5% baryonic, 25% is still missing.

that previously inferred gravitational mass has been gobbled up by NEWLY DISCOVERED baryonic


No, because they used the missing baryonic matter in the estimates anyway. Even if it was not seen yet. They already reduced the gravity problem by the missing baryons. But it was not enough. Analysis showed 5% baryonic (half was missing), 25% dark (all was missing and still is). But they used the full 5% when doing dark matter analysis. And not just 2.5%. In that case the dark matter content would now decrease. But only to the current level as it would have been even higher in the past.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2017
But since you need 30% matter for the gravity problem,
.........What gravity problem?
elios
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2017
.........What gravity problem?


The problem with there being too much gravitational lensing than can be accounted for by the gravity of ordinary matter and the problem with too high orbital speeds of stars in the galaxy among others. All these gravity problems are theoretically solved by the dark matter hypothesis under the standard theory.

This problem is separate from the baryon problem where the BB theory predicts far more baryons as a result of nuclear reactions in the early universe. Likewise, a higher amount of baryons was also inferred from the CMB analysis. So everyone just assumed they had to be there, floating somewhere in the intergalactic space, cold, diffuse and invisible, until now when they were detected right there.

But the missing baryons are unfortunately insufficient to solve both problems as their amount has already been accounted for when calculating the amount of DM because everyone just assumed their existence and apparently they were right.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2017
The problem with there being too much gravitational lensing than can be accounted for by the gravity of ordinary matter


So when Einstein calculated in GR & later observed gravitational lensing by electro-magnetic waves passing the immediate peripheral disc of the Sun at 1.75 arcsecs, that was too much?

too high orbital speeds of stars in the galaxy among others.
What stars have too high orbital speeds? Where do I look for them?

their amount has already been accounted for when calculating the amount of DM because everyone just assumed their existence and apparently they were right.


OK, so what. The quantity of DM has also been "assumed" & zero has been found. Now suddenly they're finding 3-6 times more baryonic within the largest structures of the Universe where they expected to find DM & have found none, but you would have me believe baryonic has not incrementally displaced DM even though you've never found any. You're having a math problem.

elios
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2017
So when Einstein ... observed gravitational lensing ... that was too much?


No, the lensing around the entire galaxies is too much. And in the galaxy are not enough stars and planets to account for that much gravity, so the hypothesis is that there is more non luminous matter in the galaxy between stars.

but you would have me believe baryonic has not incrementally displaced DM even though you've never found any


It wouldn't displace it because the estimated content of DM was already decremented in the past by the missing baryonic mass in anticipation that it'd be found one day. And it was just now. The estimate of baryonic matter in the filaments was very little as they were supposed to contain mostly DM. As a result, the 3-6 fold increase of that little amount does unfortunately only account for the total baryonic content. Only if the 3-6 fold increase results in there being more than 5% baryonic matter does DM get displaced. However, this has not been reported.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2017
the lensing around the entire galaxies is too much


I guess you don't know that the greatest effects of g lensing occurs near giant ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES that comprise about 2/3 of the MASS of the Universe, much less intense lensing occurs near SPIRAL GALAXIES which comprise only about 1/3 the MASS of the Universe. How do you purport that DM factors into this?

there is more non luminous matter in the galaxy between stars.


Yeah, that's what they found, 3-6 times more, meaning there is now 3-6 more gravity that can be allotted to the gravitational effects of baryonic matter, in the meantime still zero DM.

You stll haven't explained why baryonic matter only gets a 5% slice of the pie & non-existent DM gets 25%. Were you one of the ones sitting around in some smoke filled room cutting up the the slices of the pie?

How do you know baryonic is not displacing DM when you haven't even found any DM by which to prove it is not being displaced by baryonic?
elios
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2017
How do you purport that DM factors into this?

With different distribution of DM.
there is now 3-6 more gravity that can be allotted to the gravitational effects of baryonic matter

No, because it was already allotted to baryonic matter before it was found, because everyone anticipated that it will be somewhere.
You stll haven't explained why baryonic matter only gets a 5% slice of the pie & non-existent DM gets 25%

The BB nucleosynthesys does not allow more than 5% baryons as that would create more helium than observed in the early universe compared to hydrogen. The ratio is 25% He, 75% H. More baryons means that more H atoms would acquire more baryons and thus turn into He. The result would be more than 25% He.

Allowing more baryons simply replaces the missing DM problem with the missing He problem which should form more stars. Plus it would produce more problems with CMB fluctuations, baryon acoustic oscillations etc. So you end up with more problems.
elios
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2017
err
elios
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2017
Ups, mistake above. I confused two different issues.
When I said: replaces the missing DM problem with the missing He problem which should form more stars.
I should have said: replaces the missing DM problem with the missing He problem. period. And nothing about stars.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2017
Ups, mistake above. I confused two different issues.
When I said: replaces the missing DM problem with the missing He problem which should form more stars.
I should have said: replaces the missing DM problem with the missing He problem. period. And nothing about stars.

Wouldn't an atom made up of 2 protons AND 2 nucleus have a slightly more attractive properties than an atom with just 1 proton? Ergo, faster "clumping"...?
elios
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2017
Wouldn't an atom made up of 2 protons AND 2 nucleus have a slightly more attractive properties than an atom with just 1 proton? Ergo, faster "clumping"...?


You mean 2 protons and 2 neutrons. I would think that same number of He atoms should collapse due to gravity faster than same number of H atoms in a given volume. However, I'm not sure what that means for the formation of stars. Fusion with He requires a heavier star than fusion with H. So maybe more brown dwarfs and less real stars. On the other hand by having a higher fraction of He means that we had more baryonic matter to begin with, so maybe heavier stars form easier and we maybe end up with more stars. I don't really know this detail.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2017
it was already allotted to baryonic matter before it was found,
What was "found"? For sure not DM.

With different distribution of DM.


How so with the different distribution? DM is supposed to be right there in the filaments with baryonic doing it's magical fairy dance & now there's a 3-6 fold increase in baryonic & still zero DM. So explain the "distribution".

The BB nucleosynthesys does not allow more than 5% baryons


So based upon a presumptive conclusion of "BB nucleosynthesys" resides the 5% B & 25% DM, but you still haven't found any DM......so how can the 5 & 25% allotments can be correct if you do not have gravity from one side of the equation so as to make a definitive comparison to the other side? Allotment Huh?

In case you missed it above, I did tell you I can do Differential Equations, do you know what those are?

elios
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2017
What was found for sure not DM

The missing baryonic matter was found.
now there's a 3-6 fold increase in baryonic & still zero DM. So explain the "distribution"

I'm not sure I understand.
so how can the 5 & 25% allotments can be correct if you do not have gravity from one side of the equation so as to make a definitive comparison to the other side?

Because we don't use gravity in this case to estimate baryonic content. BB nucleosynthesis uses nuclear physics to determine the amount of baryonic matter in the universe and not gravity. It does so by determining the amount of baryonic matter required to produce a 75:25 ratio between hydrogen and helium. No gravity involved here. We can then use that amount (5%) and subtract from the gravity problem (30%) and result is 25% still missing.
Differential Equations, do you know what those are?

I don't see the relevance, but yes differential equations are part of high school curriculum here in my country
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2017
now there's a 3-6 fold increase in baryonic & still zero DM. So explain the "distribution"


I'm not sure I understand
Explain the distribution of DM. Where do we find it?

Because we don't use gravity in this case to estimate baryonic content.
Why not?

BB nucleosynthesis uses nuclear physics to determine the amount of baryonic matter


OK, not a problem, I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer spent 6 years in Engineering School getting my degrees. Explain the nuclear physics, it won't be over my head, just be sure it isn't over yours because trust me, I'll catch it.

I don't see the relevance, but yes differential equations are part of high school curriculum here in my country


The "relevance" is about your credibility to engage in cogent discussions concerning the depth of your knowledge as a Science Professional. So, differential equations are part of high school curriculum in your country. What country is that? You take the course?

shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2017
As a Nuclear/ Electrical Engineer, I can do Differential Equations


OK, not a problem, I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer spent 6 years in Engineering School getting my degrees. Explain the nuclear physics, it won't be over my head, just be sure it isn't over yours because trust me, I'll catch it.


Literally everything anyone needs to know about "Benni." I bet you're probably pretty upset that all the normies ate your Szechuan Sauce. They probably don't even understand Rick and Morty as good as you do, bud.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2017
Literally everything anyone needs to know about "Benni." I bet you're probably pretty upset that all the normies ate your Szechuan Sauce. They probably don't even understand Rick and Morty as good as you do, bud.


Well Shavo, you're the one who's been here bragging about having taken an Introductory Thermodynamics course in Grad School. I was a 2nd year undergrad when I took 1st semester Thermodynamics, yeah tons of Calculus.

Did your grad school introductory course have any math content in it? I can guess certainly not Differential Equations. If you'd have lived in Elios' native land you could have taken them in high school. Seems you were born in the wrong school district in the wrong country. Maybe you could return to grad school & take an algebra course?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2017
...
OK, not a problem, I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer spent 6 years in Engineering School getting my degrees.

My son did it in 5....
elios
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
now there's a 3-6 fold increase in baryonic & still zero DM. So explain the "distribution"

I still don't understand. The DM distribution is in the DM halos and the filaments between galaxies. Known BM distribution used to be up until now only in the galaxies and now also in the filaments.
Why not?

Because early universe nucleosynthesis did not happen due to gravity but due to nuclear forces involved in high temperatures, pressures ...
Explain the nuclear physics

More baryons than 5% would result in more H atoms acquiring more baryons and thus turn into He atoms under the temperatures and pressures of the first 20 min of the early universe. It would deviate from 25% observed He in primordial gas. According to the standard theory.
What country is that? You take the course?

It's a country in Europe. The course was necessary to pass. But the differential equations are not that high a standard really.

I don't have more time so cheers.
Ojorf
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
elios, I applaud your futile effort.

As usual Benni got it all wrong and will continue to obfuscate/misunderstand/side-track/willfully misunderstand (I'm charitable that way)/refuse to give a straight answer/ etc. etc
Check anywhere anyone has ever tried to explain something or reason with him.

It has never worked.
Ojorf
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2017
I should have been a tip-off when Benni totally did not get your great explanation:
It was not allotted to dark matter. The distribution is 5% regular matter, 25% Dark Matter. Half of that 5% of normal matter was also missing and now found. It was not called dark matter because it was not predicted by the discrepancy in gravity, but by the BB Nucleosynthesis that predicted too many baryons, since we underestimated the amount of them in the filaments. The 25% dark matter is still all missing.


How could anyone not get this? Benni cannot.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2017
elios (ojorf),

The DM distribution is in the DM halos


So where should we expect to find these "halos"? Are they PURE DM, or mixed with other baryonic?

and the filaments between galaxies.


But they haven't found DM in the filaments, the more carefully they examine the contents of filaments the more baryonic mass they discover, thus displacing gravitational effects they thought could be attributed to DM, the displacement effect being to add 3-6 times the previous estimate originally attributed to baryonic. When you ADD to ONE you must SUBTRACT from the OTHER, you don't need high school differential equations to figure that out, algebra works just fine, except for you & Ojorf.

Hey elios (ojorf), there is only so much TOTAL GRAVITY in existence in the Universe. The reason being there is a finite quantity of MASS/ENERGY which is the source of gravity, capiche? Probably not.

Hey, Ojo, Like elios did you take Differential Equations in high school?

Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
What country is that? You take the course?


It's a country in Europe.
........well, what is this if we don't know? Don't you think t would be beneficial to the American educational system if we could track your country's curriculum & maybe copy it? It really sucks that my 15 yo had to begin learning Calculus on his own when he was 14, you'd think our decrepit American educational system could do a better job than not offerring a Calculus course to a high school freshman.

In your European system, how well did you do with Differential Equations? Did you take them as a Pre-requisite for Calculus, or how exactly did this work?
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
In your European system, how well did you do with Differential Equations? Did you take them as a Pre-requisite for Calculus, or how exactly did this work?


elios (ojo), Be aware that the 2nd question could be a TRICK QUESTION.......
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
@ elios.
The BB nucleosynthesys does not allow more than 5% baryons as...
CONSIDER: We NOW know that the universe has many processes at many epochal and spatial scales/stages which RECYCLE (deconstruct-and-reconstruct repeatedly) the energy-matter content (via galactic BHs and Supernovae etc POLAR JETS systems) and RE-DISTRIBUTE said energy-matter into DEEP SPACE all over.
Allowing more baryons simply replaces the missing DM problem...
The above (see CONSIDER above) effectively exposes the "Missing Baryon Problem" as a 'manufactured problem' artifact of applying NAIVE/WRONG assumptions from UNSCIENTIFIC BB, CMB, 'exotic'-DM etc 'misinterpretations' of observed phenomena. It was all ILL-INFORMED 'estimating' now shown to be IRRELEVANT and MISLEADING to proper examination of ACTUAL reality.
CMB
Same/more processes I pointed out above (see CONSIDER above) also create CMB all the time!

So your quoted ratios, bounds, estimates, etc, are NOW ALL IRRELEVANT. Ok?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
OK, next 5 @100LiarRC lie threads:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that GRT is "only a theory" despite extensive experimental evidence: https://phys.org/...ory.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that there's no need for DM due to "discoveries over the last few years:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims science can be done by non-scientists, ignoring all the training real scientists receive: https://phys.org/...per.html

Let's see how many we can get in tonight! The current total is 80.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
Schneibo, Density Dude......81 is the new total, It may even be the number of times you've lied about black hole hypothesis having it's foundations in General Relativity Then when I've asked you to tell us what section of GR to look in, you immediately punt to Schwarzschild black hole math as if it were an adjunct to GR approved by Einstein but about which Einstein totally destroyed in his 1939 Paper:

"On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
@Lenni, sorry you don't understand how math works, but it's not my problem to explain it to your ignorant stupid trolling sorry ass. Now bend over and thank me for the 25 1s you got for trolling a new user on this thread.

You are a large part of the problem here.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
OK, next 5 @100LiarRC lie threads:
Thread where @100LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" .....
Let's see how many we can get in tonight! The current total is 80.
Your poor drunken sot. All you have been reduced to is a spammer and evasion/insults merchant who misses all the MAINSTREAM discoveries/reviews which confirm me correct all along and you still self-satisfiedly INTENTIONALLY IGNORANT, by REFUSING to READ and UPDATE 'connect the dots' of evolving REAL picture of cosmology (not BB fantasies). You are so busy ego-tripping and pretending, that it's all going right past you, DS. The NEW discoveries of LOTS of ORDINARY matter, and the revision of old 'expectations', 'interpretations' based on NAIVE assumptions and woefully incomplete data on what was actually out there, makes you and your SPAM LIES a SAD JOKE. Don't you EVER learn from your mistakes, DS?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
OK, next 5 threads on which @100LiarRC lies:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims engineering was invented in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...dio.html
Thread where @100LiarRC defends @Zeph, who has been kicked off physorg more times than anyone: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC goes paranoid (this is not unusual for @100LiarRC) and starts accusing other posters of being "bots:" https://phys.org/...ace.html
Thread where @100LiarRC denies math works again: https://phys.org/...low.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims energy in space can somehow create charge from nothing: https://phys.org/...cle.html

I'm thinking we're going to Hit the Ton tonight. It's Friday night let's have a party!

It's not a mistake to note you've lied on 100 threads, @100LiarRC. It's fact. Get over it.

Count now 85.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
@DaSchneib.
OK, next 5 threads on which @100LiarRC lies:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims engineering was invented in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...dio.html

I'm thinking we're going to Hit the Ton tonight.

It's Friday night let's have a party!

It's not a mistake to note you've lied on 100 threads, @100LiarRC.

It's fact.
You are that stupid and malignant, aren't you, DS. Your claims to 'fact' in those other threads where you were proven wrong make you a joke now, mate. As have your past claims I 'lied' when it was proven that you were the one lying...and wrong re 'fact'. How deep you will dig your own drunken-stupidity-hole is your business, mate; but it's not healthy for your psyche, DS. As for your above Freudian Slip:
It's Friday night let's have a party!
It again betrays your DRUNKEN tendencies and attendant damaged intellect/character which is all too self-evident by your spam and lies while in denial of your faults. Sad.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
@100LiarRC lies again! And here are the next 5 lies:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims there haven't been any lab experiments in plasma physics before 2015: https://phys.org/...lds.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the galactic magnetic field has a net effect on uncharged, non-magnetic asteroids not to mention supernova remnants: https://phys.org/...ova.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims magnetic fields can create plasmas: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang doesn't have any supporting physical evidence: https://phys.org/...sal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims DM and DE are "aether:" https://phys.org/...mic.html

We're up to 90 now. I don't think there will be any trouble reaching 100 tonight.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
Just so you're aware, I don't think there's any point in responding to your puerile arguments when I have scientific data that you've lied on 100 threads. And so you know, I have it right now; I'm just waiting for each of your posts to show another 5.

Bring it, #physicscrank #troll #100liar. Be aware that there's evidence for a lot more than 100. I told you. If you thought it was an empty threat you were wrong. I suggest you explore surrender since it is the only thing that can possibly save you and the longer you go on the stupider you look to everyone.

I will also point out that this was not difficult. It merely required a bit of google fu. You have made yourself a simple, easy, attractive target and I am using you eagerly. It's fun.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2017
@Lenni, sorry you don't understand how math works, but it's not my problem to explain it to your ignorant stupid trolling sorry ass.


Aw, Density Dude, so you're accusing me of having a math problem because I agree with Einstein's math "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses".

You are a large part of the problem here.


What problem is that DD? That I constantly expose your constant prattle about promoting Perpetual Motion pseudo-science here? Look, it's the neophytes like you & shavo, and half a dozen others, who make this such a fun & entertaining place to come to. What possible reason could I have to come here were it not for making fun of the cadre of Perpetual Motion Mechanics living here?

What is fun for me is somehow some kind of a problem for you? I don't get it.........digress a bit?

Oh, makes me think......did you take Differential Equations as a pre-requisite for Calculus?

Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
@Lenni sorry if you don't understand how math works, if you're going to make me explain it to your sorry lying trolling ass I'm going to make you look as stupid as you are.

Direct implications of Einstein's math are part of Einstein's theory. Everyone but you knows that. You're left looking stupid again because you don't know math.

DEs are taught as second year calculus where I learned them as you'd know if you'd ever done so.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2017
DEs are taught as second year calculus where I learned them
........how cute Density Dude, you went for it & got it wrong.... DD, there is no such thing as "second year calculus", it goes by semesters & Differential Equations are the fourth semester of Calc.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2017
@Lenni not in any curriculum I ever saw. Guess you must have gotten this about 50 years ago. Take your meds Alzheimer's boi.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Just so you're aware,
Which is more than you have been for a long time now, DS; especially when it comes to being self-aware (which is difficult for you when you are all too often drunk, DS). :)
I don't think there's any point in responding to your puerile arguments when I have scientific data that you've lied on 100 threads.
You evade and lie unheeding. As it has always been; as per your BOASTS of NOT READING before jumping in attacking and kneejerking all over the place like an egomaniacal loon more interested in winning Internet-Ego-Trolling 'games' than doing objective science and honest fair discourse.
And so you know, I have it right now;
You haven't had anything 'right' in all those instances when you attacked me while you were wrong and me correct all along, DS. Own it, DS; you'll feel better once your delusional 'strain' is lifted, by admitting the truth to yourself and the @Forum readers, mate. :)

Get help to 'heal' your psyche, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
@100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck, here's another set of threads on which you lied:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "not belonging to... EU crowd:" https://phys.org/...ted.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims time is somehow motion: https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the polar outflows from a planetary nebula are a Z-pinch (standard EUdiot drivel, despite its claims it's not an EUdiot): https://phys.org/...ula.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the long-debunked "tired light" hypothesis of the Babble-thumpers is still viable: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims scientists are engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that the Big Bang isn't real: https://phys.org/...ion.html

:D
howhot3
5 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
FOOD FIGHT!! I really wish I had put the label "Sarcasm" on what I wrote. I've had some really good discussions with some really good scientists (including a Nobel Chemist) on dark matter and the missing baryonic materials. It's a puzzle, and we've looked at WIMPS as possible dark matter, even though no one has ever seen or detected a WIMP. Not one signal! But neutrinos make signals everywhere! The new gravity theories are fascinating, but do they describe reality? So I asked the speakers, what if the missing baryons are simply scattered in deep space undetected? Most said, we would have seen it by now. Looks like with better well funded science and instrumentation we are.

Anyway, its a pretty good article,

Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
n! 100 = 9.3326215443944152681699238856267e+157

That means the number of combinations of a set of 100 members is 10^158 more or less. I will not run out of combinations until many times the death of the universe. @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck, I suggest you give up now. I can keep this up forever with what I already have.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck, here's another set of threads on which you lied:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "not belonging to... EU crowd:" https://phys.org/...ted.html
Da Schneib, are you gone totally bananas! You/all KNOW I'm Independent Commenter not involved with anyone else, especially NOT "EU-crowd". So why post your spammed lies insinuating otherwise, DS. Only a completely demented liar and self-serving delusional 'case' would post what you just did, DS. Haven't you any sense of honor or self-control left? Have your drink and ego excesses done so much damage to your mind and character that you would stoop even lower than you already have to date? It's not healthy to keep lying just to delude yourself that anyone is falling for your delusional campaign, mate. Your psyche can't take much more of that sort of blatant self-destructive dissembling and denial, DS. You need help. Now, DS. RESET!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
#physicscranks can't count.

Welcome to permutations, combinations, and factorials @physicscrank #troll.

Another five:
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC insults a user by lying about what that user said: https://phys.org/...ter.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html

Loving this! Bring more, @100TLRC!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
What I really love is trapping this #physicscrank #troll on the very math it denies. This is delicious.

You could post a billion times a second and I wouldn't run out of combinations until a trillion times the age of the universe! I love trolling a #physicscrank #troll like you with that. It is absolutely your just desserts!

Choke on it #100ThreadsLiarRealityCheck.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
DS, you're losing touch with reality, mate. STOP. Are you on meth as well as booze, now? The signs are there, mate; stop whatever it is you're 'taking', because its making you 'go troppo' and unheeding even more than usual! Your posting is now indicative of a delirium 'loop' which your brain-mind has got itself into and can't snap out of. STOP.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
@100ThreadLiarRealityCheck, it's just math. You'd know it if you were actually able to do math, but you can't so you're utterly screwed.

Another five:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin: https://phys.org/...zzy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about GR "predicting" singularities: https://phys.org/...s_1.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about BICEP2 again, still without any evidence of four errors in the paper: https://phys.org/...rse.html

Keep it up, @100ThreadLiarRealityCheck, I have your number. It's 9.332 x 10^156.
yep
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2017
Math is not empirical evidence of anything.
Math is not a one to one correlation to reality.
Our math has been correct before but our theories based on it proven incorrect.
Garbage in garbage out.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You poor schmuck! You have confused me with Benni, you twit. I never said any such thing about Rubin/imploding galaxies etc as you just mistakenly claimed. You don't care what you say, do you; just as long as you delude yourself it's 'true', hey mate? A scientist you never were and never will be, DS. And no wonder! How long before the effects of the meth and booze you've taken 'wear off'. It's making you delirious and creepy-manic now, mate. STOP.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
Obviously we'll be doing this all night.

5 more:
Thread where @100LiarRC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html

I got 9 billion more. Bring it, @100ThreadLiarRealitySpammer.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
@Forum readers.

More of DS's delusional 'takes' on what transpired in those threads. He has just (in another thread) been told where he was WRONG, yet persists in posting his childishly obvious misrepresentations, as follows:
Obviously we'll be doing this all night.

5 more:
Thread where @100LiarRC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html

I got 9 billion more. Bring it, @100ThreadLiarRealitySpammer.
How sick of mind/character can an Internet poster ('case' in point @Da Schneib) get before he self-destructs and implodes from the pressure of his own litany of lies spam while Projecting-in-Denial of his own sorry 'problems'? Well, folks, it looks like we are set to witness one such 'case' do just that sooner or later; because DS's weirdness is obviously drink-drug induced delirium 'loop' which he can't snap out of by himself, and no-one is at hand to help him out, apparently. Sad.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
Here's another unique 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "not belonging to... EU crowd:" https://phys.org/...ted.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the Big Bang is a religious belief: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC advertises its supposed "Theory of Everything" (ToE) which it has never provided even an explanation of, then tells the Steinhardt lie again: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html

What a dumbshizz, keeps coming back for more. I got more than you can possibly come back for and you should already know it, @100TLRC
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Here's another unique 5:
Another "unique 5" what, DS; unique 5 'items' from your drink-drug induced delirium 'loop' fantasy 'trip'?
What a dumbshizz, keeps coming back for more.
Mate, do you even realize how 'dripping' with irony and non-self awareness that is? Take a rest, mate. Go get help and come back better. Go on. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
And here are 5 more, just for grins:

Thread where @100LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims a "cloud" of ions is not a plasma: https://phys.org/...gas.html
Thread where @100LiarRC forgets that doppler shift is not visible to the human eye then denies forgetting it: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...cal.html

I guess this puppy really needs to have its nose scrubbed in the naughty.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2017
See, @100LiarRC, this is what it's like when it's ALL ABOUT YOU. And as long as you keep lying and insulting that's what it's always gonna be about any time you show up.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
as long as you keep lying and insulting that's what it's always gonna be about any time you show up.


Yeah Density Dude, it's like trying to get you to explain how a CONSTANT MASS BODY can magically increase it's TOTAL GRAVITY by simply shrinking it's volume & making the radius smaller, then subjecting an electro-magnetic wave to the ESCAPE VELOCITY KINEMATICS of kinetic energy of baryonic mass, you know, 1/2mv².

Talk about Perpetual Motion Mechanics, you're the epitome of such slop & swill funny farm pseudo-science.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
@da schnied pseudoscience guy,
No further comment on your "open field lines" and the monopoles this implies? This is a Nobel level discovery, please do expound as I would be proud to have had one to one interaction with a Nobel prize guy.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
please do expound as I would be proud to have had one to one interaction with a Nobel prize guy.


There are no explicit prizes given to perpetual motion mechanics, but if there were Density Dude Schneibo would clamor for & fight for the front of the line.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 14, 2017
Yeah Density Dude, it's like trying to get you to explain how a CONSTANT MASS BODY can magically increase it's TOTAL GRAVITY by simply shrinking it's volume & making the radius smaller,

Why is it YOU are the only one who believes he is saying this...?
Do you think your denseness magically increases your intelligence?
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2017
@da schnied pseudoscience guy,
No further comment on your "open field lines" and the monopoles this implies? This is a Nobel level discovery, please do expound as I would be proud to have had one to one interaction with a Nobel prize guy.

how would it imply monopoles?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2017
Yeah Density Dude, it's like trying to get you to explain how a CONSTANT MASS BODY can magically increase it's TOTAL GRAVITY by simply shrinking it's volume & making the radius smaller,

Why is it YOU are the only one who believes he is saying this...?
Do you think your denseness magically increases your intelligence?


WhyGuy.........because he constantly peddles that funny farm theory, better known as Schwarzschild Black Hole Math. Stop making excuses for someone who just can't help trying to advance Perpetual Motion Math, probably an age related thing.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
how would it imply monopoles?

It is patently obvious, by definition "magnetic field lines" are a representation of magnetic flux in the field are are closed loops which have no beginning or end. If there is an "open field line" the implication is one end is connected to say the north pole and the other end is flapping in the breeze somewhere at infinity (according to da schnied). This obviously implies a "magnetic field line" connect to one pole, a monopole...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2017
@Da Schneib.
See, @100LiarRC, this is what it's like when it's ALL ABOUT YOU.
Again, you have just unwittingly admitted you make it about the person at every opportunity, and especially whenever you are being shown to be wrong in science and behaviour while you kneejerk, insult and now spam misrepresentations as to what actually transpired in those linked threads. The reality is quite different from your delusional 'takes' in your pathetic spam campaign. An example of what REALLY has been going on with you and your troll tactics and personal malice can be seen in the following link/thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

You were wrong all along while crying "liar!" at me even though I was correct and you wrong/ignorant not only of the KNOWN science but also of the EVOLVING science with which I have been trying to 'update' your own knowledge base (to no avail so far it seems). Learn, DS. And take a break to reset your MO, mate. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2017
Yeah Density Dude, it's like trying to get you to explain how a CONSTANT MASS BODY can magically increase it's TOTAL GRAVITY by simply shrinking it's volume & making the radius smaller,

Why is it YOU are the only one who believes he is saying this...?
Do you think your denseness magically increases your intelligence?


WhyGuy.........because he constantly peddles that funny farm theory, better known as Schwarzschild Black Hole Math. Stop making excuses for someone who just can't help trying to advance Perpetual Motion Math, probably an age related thing.

You can get perpetual motion - if in an infinite set - The Universe...
Benni
1 / 5 (1) 22 hours ago
You can get perpetual motion - if in an infinite set - The Universe...
.......only if there is a way to repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY. Maybe Congress could do it? Contact your district representative & see if he has an opinion differing from those of the overage trekkies who live here!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) 19 hours ago
You can get perpetual motion - if in an infinite set - The Universe...
.......only if there is a way to repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY. ...

For an ISOLATED system...
Apparently, you do not get the concept of infinite...
Benni
1 / 5 (1) 9 hours ago
For an ISOLATED system...
Apparently, you do not get the concept of infinite...
...........you mean an isolated system like how infinite gravity & infinite density can exist at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass. Yeah WhyGuy, that's called Perpetual Motion, so use your artistic genius & explain it to us Science Professionals who spent 6 years in Engineering School getting our degrees.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) 8 hours ago
OT: New Gravitational Wave Discovery (Press Conference and Online Q&A Session)
https://www.youtu...PKYl4AHs LIVE in less than 30 minutes.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) 8 hours ago
Follow up, the news : Merger of neutron stars detected.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) 8 hours ago
The news was communicated to the main medias with an embargo falling at 10 am eastern time.
https://www.nytim...ion.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) 2 hours ago
For an ISOLATED system...

...........you mean an isolated system like how infinite gravity & infinite density can exist at the surface of a FINITE stellar mass.

No, cuz they don't. What exists is MAX density, accompanied by the MAX gravity it generates. Sufficient to change the curvature of space time down to really small.
Yeah WhyGuy, that's called Perpetual Motion, so use your artistic genius & explain it to us Science Professionals who spent 6 years in Engineering School getting our degrees.

The Universe (space/time) is infinite (And I, like Einstein, am not even sure about that...). That doesn't mean everything IN it is...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) 40 minutes ago
@Techno, thread on this over here: https://phys.org/...ime.html

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.