Nanodiamonds responsible for mysterious source of microwaves across the Milky Way

June 11, 2018, Green Bank Observatory
Nanodiamonds in the sky. Credit: S. Dagnello, NRAO/AUI/NSF

For decades, astronomers have puzzled over the exact source of a peculiar type of faint microwave light emanating from a number of regions across the Milky Way. Known as anomalous microwave emission (AME), this light comes from energy released by rapidly spinning nanoparticles—bits of matter so small that they defy detection by ordinary microscopes. (The period on an average printed page is approximately 500,000 nanometers across.)

"Though we know that some type of particle is responsible for this microwave light, its precise source has been a puzzle since it was first detected nearly 20 years ago," said Jane Greaves, an astronomer at Cardiff University in Wales and lead author on a paper announcing this result in Nature Astronomy.

Until now, the most likely culprit for this microwave emission was thought to be a class of organic molecules known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - carbon-based molecules found throughout interstellar space and recognized by the distinct, yet faint infrared (IR) light they emit. Nanodiamonds—particularly hydrogenated nanodiamonds, those bristling with hydrogen-bearing molecules on their surfaces—also naturally emit in the infrared portion of the spectrum, but at a different wavelength.

A series of observations with the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia and the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) has—for the first time—homed in on three clear sources of AME light, the protoplanetary disks surrounding the young stars known as V892 Tau, HD 97048, and MWC 297. The GBT observed V892 Tau and the ATCA observed the other two systems.

"This is the first clear detection of anomalous microwave emission coming from protoplanetary disks," said David Frayer a coauthor on the paper and astronomer with the Green Bank Observatory.

The astronomers also note that the infrared light coming from these systems matches the unique signature of nanodiamonds. Other protoplanetary disks throughout the Milky Way, however, have the clear infrared signature of PAHs yet show no signs of the AME light.

This strongly suggests that PAHs are not the mysterious source of anomalous microwave radiation, as astronomers once thought. Rather, hydrogenated nanodiamonds, which form naturally within protoplanetary disks and are found in meteorites on Earth, are the most likely source of AME light in our galaxy.

"In a Sherlock Holmes-like method of eliminating all other causes, we can confidently say the best candidate capable of producing this microwave glow is the presence of nanodiamonds around these newly formed stars," said Greaves. Based on their observations, the astronomers estimate that up to 1-2 percent of the total carbon in these protoplanetary disks has gone into forming nanodiamonds.

Evidence for nanodiamonds in protoplanetary disks has grown over the past several decades. This is, however, the first clear connection between nanodiamonds and AME in any setting.

Statistical models also strongly support the premise that nanodiamonds are abundant around infant stars and are responsible for the anomalous microwave emission found there. "There is a one in 10,000 chance, or less, that this connection is due to chance," said Frayer.

For their research, the astronomers used the GBT and ATCA to survey 14 young stars across the Milky Way for hints of anomalous microwave emission. AME was clearly seen in 3 of the 14 stars, which are also the only 3 stars of the 14 that show the IR spectral signature of hydrogenated nanodiamonds. "In fact, these are so rare," notes Greaves, "no other young stars have the confirmed infrared imprint."

This detection has interesting implications for the study of cosmology and the search for evidence that our universe began with a period of inflation. If immediately after the Big Bang, our universe grew at a pace that vastly outstripped the speed of light, a trace of that period of inflation should be seen in a peculiar polarization of the cosmic microwave background. Though this signature of polarization has yet to be conclusively detected, the work by Greaves and her colleagues offers some hope that it could be.

"This is good news for those who study polarization of the cosmic microwave background, since the signal from spinning nanodiamonds would be weakly polarized at best," said Brian Mason, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and coauthor on the paper. "This means that astronomers can now make better models of the foreground microwave light from our galaxy, which must be removed to study the distant afterglow of the Big Bang."

Nanodiamonds likely form out of a superheated vapor of carbon atoms in highly energized star-forming regions. This is not unlike industrial methods of creating nanodiamonds on Earth.

In astronomy, nanodiamonds are special in that their structure produces what is known as a "dipole moment—an arrangement of atoms that allows them to emit electromagnetic radiation when they spin. Because these particles are so small—smaller than normal dust particles in a protoplanetary disk—they are able to spin exceptionally fast, emitting radiation in the microwave range rather than in the meter-wavelength range, where galactic and intergalactic radiation would probably drown it out.

"This is a cool and unexpected resolution to the puzzle of anomalous microwave radiation," concluded Greaves. "It's even more interesting that it was obtained by looking at protoplanetary disks, shedding light on the chemical features of early solar systems, including our own."

"It is an exciting result," concluded co-author Anna Scaife from Manchester University. "It's not often you find yourself putting new words to famous tunes, but 'AME in the Sky with Diamonds' seems a thoughtful way of summarizing our research."

Future centimeter-wave instruments, like the planned Band 1 receivers on ALMA and the Next Generation Very Large Array, will be able to study this phenomenon in much greater detail. Now that there is a physical model and, for the first time, a clear spectral signature, astronomers expect our understanding will improve quickly.

Explore further: Dusty protoplanetary disks

More information: Anomalous microwave emission from spinning nanodiamonds around stars, Nature Astronomy (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41550-018-0495-z ,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0495-z

Related Stories

Dusty protoplanetary disks

December 8, 2017

Planetary systems form out of disks of gas and dust around young stars. How the formation proceeds, however, is complex and poorly understood. Many physical processes are involved including accretion onto the star, photoevaporation ...

Methanol detected for first time around young star

May 25, 2017

Methanol, a key building block for the complex organic compounds that comprise life, has been detected for the first time in the protoplanetary disk of a young, distant star. This finding could help scientists better understand ...

Hubble images three debris disks around G-type stars

September 14, 2016

A team using the Hubble Space Telescope has imaged circumstellar disk structures (CDSs) around three stars similar to the sun. The stars are all G-type solar analogs, and the disks themselves share similarities with our Solar ...

Collisions generate gas in debris disks

April 12, 2017

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

Holes in valence bands of nanodiamonds discovered

January 28, 2015

Nanodiamonds are tiny crystals only a few nanometers in size. While they possess the crystalline structure of diamonds, their properties diverge considerably from those of their big brothers, because their surfaces play a ...

Recommended for you

Researchers investigate the peculiar radio source IC 1531

October 17, 2018

An international team of researchers has investigated a peculiar extragalactic radio source known as IC 1531. The new study analyzes the nature of IC 1531's high-energy emission, suggesting that the source is a radio galaxy. ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

119 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2018
@RNP et al.

Yet another of the myriad ways/processes I have been pointing out for so long now; ie, that CMB is being created 'now' and 'everywhere' we look across the cosmos. No Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Energy etc 'source' or 'interpretations/explanations' needed. How many times do I have to point it all out before you, RNP et al, finally stop ignoring/denying, and finally catch up with mainstream which is itself finally (even over the last few days/weeks in relevant PO articles) discovering/acknowledging ever more of those things that I have been ahead of the curve on for decades now? Time to listen and stop your unheeding 'crusade' against someone who has been trying to help you all become more objectively/correctly informed re the actual Universal physical reality phenomena around you. Try. :)
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2018
^^^^Nope, this is foreground emission, from very small areas in the milky way. As such it would have been removed from the CMB maps. I would suggest emailing somebody from the WMAP, Planck or COBE teams who will no doubt tell you the same.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2018
@jonesdave.
Nope, this is foreground emission, from very small areas in the milky way. As such it would have been removed from the CMB maps. I would suggest emailing somebody from the WMAP, Planck or COBE teams who will no doubt tell you the same.
I have long been trying to get you, RNP et al to 'connect the dots' further afield than just the particular instance/context being reported on in any one study.

Try to push through the one local context 'here', and consider the implications for CMB observed of ALL those 'local' contexts 'there', in all radial directions extending to the furthest observational horizon distance.

Can you not see that when added up it effectively adds to the background totality of CMB we see from 'here'?

Add these 'ordinary' (ie, non-BB etc) sources throughout the universe, then add further all the other ordinary ways/processes for CMB production I have long listed for your consideration...and 'connect all the dots' for yourself. Go on. :)
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2018
Can you not see that when added up it effectively adds to the background totality of CMB we see from 'here'?


Nope. And neither can anyone else by the looks of it. Doesn't even appear to be at the same frequencies, from what I can see. However, like I said, a quick email to an expert on these surveys would likely soon disabuse you of this rather naive conclusion.

RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2018
@jonesdave.
Doesn't even appear to be at the same frequencies, from what I can see. However, like I said, a quick email to an expert on these surveys would likely soon disabuse you of this rather naive conclusion.
Hehe. Considering how long I have been pointing out the naivete' of BB etc assumptions and interpretations of the observed CMB, it is somewhat ironic (not to say amusing) to hear myself being accused of naivete' by one who has subscribed to and been affected by all the decades of naive BB assumptions/interpretations.

Just goes to show how deeply 'inculcated' BB naivete is. :)

Consider all the uncountable repeated interactions, not just 'one offs', and you'll understand how 'serial attenuation' can produce a range of frequencies, including CMB ones. That goes for all the other CMB producing processes/frequencies that I have long alluded to. Its more complex/expansive than naive BB 'view' of things. It requires much cross-discipline, wide ranging view. :)
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2018
^^^^^Just write it up, eh? Or link us to somebody actually qualified who agrees with you. Otherwise it is just more crankery in a sea of crankery.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2018
By the way mate, before I log out for the day, I'd like to ask you to peruse, and sleep on it overnight, my post re Neutrino 'oscillation' over at thread:

https://phys.org/...ion.html

When next we 'speak' (hopefully tomorrow), I'd like your scientific opinion on my perspective on that subject therein; but only if you are interested and have the time, of course. Thanks and g'night, mate. :)
RNP
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2018
@Realitycheck
I have been pointing out for so long now; ie, that CMB is being created 'now' and 'everywhere' we look across the cosmos.

This clearly shows that you do not even know what the CMB is.

Of course the are sources of microwave radiation, but they do NOT produce the almost PERFECT black body spectrum observed in the CMB, nor are they as incredibly evenly spread acrosss the whole sky (1 part in 100,000) as the observed CMB. In fact, these sources are subtracted from the observed microwave observations to leave the CMB as the residual.

I have long been trying to get you, RNP et al to 'connect the dots'

Your problem is that I and the others are not willing to waste our time trying to connect your randomly generated "dots".

Go back to school and learn the actual physics, then come back and try talking to the grown-ups about this (or any other) subject.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2018
@jonesdave.
Or link us to somebody actually qualified who agrees with you. Otherwise it is just more crankery in a sea of crankery.
Try to do some original research/thinking for yourself given the presented facts/science involved. Don't just abdicate the duty you have to The Scientific Method. It's all there in the mliterature; it only needs those who can 'connect the dots' for themselves to get up the courage and investigate properly and objectively.

Anyhow, in case you are daunted/unfamiliar with some relevant aspects not immediately apparent at naive first glance, may I suggest you learn what happens in other 'serial interaction' contexts? For example, in META-MATERIALS and other 'waveguide' structures affecting light 'direction' and/or 'frequency' and or other property changes of photons. Also read up on what happens to light going through bose-einstein condensates (especially relevant in cryogenically cold 'clouds' in deep space).

G'night again, jd. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2018
@RNP.
Of course the are sources of microwave radiation, but they do NOT produce the almost PERFECT black body spectrum observed in the CMB, nor are they as incredibly evenly spread acrosss the whole sky (1 part in 100,000) as the observed CMB. In fact, these sources are subtracted from the observed microwave observations to leave the CMB as the residual.
It's the naive BB biased interpretation again, mate. Stop to consider all the aspects I have been pointing out that produce exactly that given the time and distance travelled from all the myriad sources/processes in/from all directions.
Your problem is that I and the others are not willing to waste our time trying to connect your randomly generated "dots".
Mainstream increasingly coming round to my longstanding points; but you and "others" haven't time to 'waste' updating yourselves beyond deeply-inculcated BB-naive 'understanding' of CMB? Not my problem, mate. :)

Have to go. G'night, RNP, all.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 12, 2018
@Realitycheck
Yet again you are talking complete balderdash. The mainstream clearly identifies you claims as completely false, as evidenced by the fact that you can not give even a single reference that supports your silly claims. I will waste no more time on you.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
The correlation between the cosmic background radiation and anomalous microwave emission
The cosmic background radiation where the temperature dropped allowing electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms
Microwave light emanating from proto planetary disks across the Milky Way, anomalous microwave radiation comes from energy released by rapidly spinning nano particles, hydrogen atoms 500,000 nanometres
The connection appears to involve the base ingredients of the vacuum of space protons and electrons or more precisely quarks, electrons and neutrino's
As anomalous microwave radiation and background radiation are emanating from hydrogen nuclei and both are emanating from proto planetary disks because in the dust is where the original hydrogen atoms were formed in the original primordial soup
Nothing has changed in 15billion years we are still dealing with hydrogen atoms radiating electromagnetic radiation from the primordial dust which is what proto planetary disks consists of.
thingumbobesquire
5 / 5 (1) Jun 12, 2018
Lucy in the sky with nano-diamonds?
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
Lucy in the sky with nano-diamonds?

That would have been more healthy than the 'diamonds' the Beatles were referring to.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2018
Where is the Nobel Prize in all this?

I like this article; not a dark molecule in sight, no MOND, no Aether, no Higgs field - just quarks, electrons and neutrinos going through their natural daily life unmodified by human kinds over imaginative imagination to the point we appear to have found a present day source of background radiation that has been carried out in the vacuum of space for 15billion years, that's almost identical to the length of time before human kind poked his intellectual oar in relatively speaking a few 100years ago.

What is intriguing in this discovery which on galactic scales has enormous consequences and possibilities, no one has submitted this for recommendation for a Nobel Prize.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2018
What is intriguing in this discovery which on galactic scales has enormous consequences and possibilities

And I'm sure you can list those enormous consequences and possibilities for the rest of us? Or did you just make that up to try and sound smart?
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2018
For want of the many possibilities for your Nobel Prize applications!
granville583762> What is intriguing in this discovery which on galactic scales has enormous consequences and possibilities

antialias_physorg> And I'm sure you can list those enormous consequences and possibilities for the rest of us? Or did you just make that up to try and sound smart?

One possibility is in matter expelled out of our light radius stars spin axis into their star forming Fermi bubbles, the material ejected is in the same form as the original 15billion year old primordial soup emitting the same background radiation to this present day in our galaxies.

One of the very deserving reasons for application and as one Nobel leads to another Nobel there's limitless room in the vacuum of space if more are required!
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2018
This present article has effectively confirmed back ground radiation from matter expelled out of our light radius stars spin axis into their star forming Fermi bubbles, the material ejected is in the same form as the original 15billion year old primordial soup emitting the same background radiation to this present day in our galaxies where our light radius stars reside.
SkyLight
4 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2018
@RC - skulking here in this forum for years trying to get others HERE to accept his views. But he knows very well that nobody in academia - "mainstream" if you will - would give his ideas more than a moment's perusal before they chuck them in the garbage for the unschooled, half-arsed nonsense that they are. They'd do the same with his monumentally inane TOE if ever he had the cojones to publish it.

So, he haunts this forum, his Dunning-Kruger leading him to believe that he is so especially gifted and scientifically literate that he can point out all the glaring mistakes made by all those stupid PhDs and professors in the mainstream.

But in reality (check that out, RC), he's like a dirty old man in a shabby raincoat, groping at forum visitors as they pass by, whispering "mate" and "g'day" in their ears as if he were their buddy. Just amazing how desperate some people are to get attention.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2018
Leave that poor mole alone Skylight, it's suffered enough
SkyLight! you paint a sad lonely picture of commentators like yourself grasping at straws on where to get the ideas from to achieve that rarity of species, a Nobel Prize, when in reality the trees are dripping with Nobel Prize winning ideas.
When you enter this site the ideas just ooze out you're finger tips, the very pores of your skin ooze ideas.
You just do not need to make any effort at all; they come so effortlessly you just do not have time to whack moles as all your time is used up inkly typing them down.
Give it a try SkyLight and leave that poor mole alone, it's suffered enough
SkyLight
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2018
@granville, I think the only thing that's oozing round here are the last few intact brain-cells escaping the black horror within your head by slipping silently out of your ears. Soon it will be all black, and you will be at peace.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2018
@granville583762
Your should know that your use of sock-puppets to promote your scores is obvious to people that use this site. Not that it matters. Everybody with any scientific knowledge will easily identify you as a crank.
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
Rating is for excellence not for frivolous comments
RNP@granville583762
Your should know that your use of sock-puppets to promote your scores is obvious to people that use this site. Not that it matters. Everybody with any scientific knowledge will easily identify you as a crank.

If we disreguard the fact this does not count as a coment, have you not got what you have just described'
based on your comment as your experiencing it your self, as you describe it sock puppets why use the rating system as it is obviously not working as your observation should not have been rated.
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
The rating system RNP as you rightly point out is not to down grade comments, it is also being used as a form of silent commenting, instead of inkly typing your thoughts on what you think of others comments come out with it and say it instead of clicking the rating star.
We all know it does not mean any thing any more so why use it -
Thanks for pointing out the pointlessnes of the rating system RNP!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
SkyLight> @granville, I think the only thing that's oozing round here are the last few intact brain-cells escaping the black horror within your head by slipping silently out of your ears. Soon it will be all black, and you will be at peace.

Well from a Skylight that appropiate!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
SkyLight> @granville, I think the only thing that's oozing round here are the last few intact brain-cells escaping the black horror within your head by slipping silently out of your ears. Soon it will be all black, and you will be at peace.

Well from a Skylight that appropiate!

And there you are RNP, Skylight no need to use the obsolete rating system
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
Biting the hand that feeds you
RNP> @granville583762
Your should know that your use of sock-puppets to promote your scores is obvious to people that use this site. Not that it matters. Everybody with any scientific knowledge will easily identify you as a crank.

I like how you describe your rating benefacactors RNP, between your self and Skylight you have called on the servics as you describe them " 9 sock puppets" RNP!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2018
@RNP.

That sort of biased kneejerking and refusal to actually listen and learn resulted in 'egg on faces' among the same gang of bot-voting mainstream defenders/parrots during the Bicep2 fiasco; when that gang were attacking the messenger (me) instead of actually listening and thinking for themselves as I suggested according to scientific method principles.

It appears that few if any of that same gang have learned their lesson from their Bicep2 fiasco; and still pursue personal agendas/vendettas instead of listening and learning.

Anyhow, to give you an idea how 'ahead of the curve' I've been in cosmology theory/comprehension, and how 'uninformed and erroneous' your opinion and assessment is of me/my work, go read this novel (for mainstream) gravitational theory article (alas they still haven't got it anywhere near correct/complete as I have):

https://arxiv.org...3155.pdf

Attentive longstanding members of PO will know what I'm talking about. :)
SkyLight
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2018
Attentive longstanding members of PO will know...
how fixated @RC is on his own vastly over-inflated sense of superiority and invincibility. Sad...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2018
@Skylight.
Attentive longstanding members of PO will know...
how fixated @RC is on his own vastly over-inflated sense of superiority and invincibility. Sad...
So says a longstanding member of the same bot-voting troll gang that has been infesting/sabotaging science discourse on the net science forums for years. :)

@SkyLight, maaaate, your continuing interruptions and science-empty posts, especially that above, merely betrays your lack of original thought and even greater lack of useful contributions to discussion of the substantive science points/issues being discussed. And your 'need' to be such a useless troll against your betters in science-comprehension on the internet science forums, and your 'need' to 'join a gang' of bot-voting ninnies, strongly indicates your 'need' to 'cover and compensate' for a rampant 'inferiority complex' which drives you to such malice and irrelevance.

Anyhow, RNP asked; I provided. You missed that important fact, troll. :)
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2018
@RC
Anyhow, RNP asked; I provided
Please point out to us all where RNP asked you anything in the comments connected to this article. He has made statements here, and also given you good advice:
Go back to school and learn the actual physics
but posed not a single question to you.

The question you hear him asking is in your head, and only there. It's part of your unfortunate psychological condition that you expect people to come to the one true expert in science - namely yourself - and when none come knocking at your door, you simple imagine hordes of them standing in a huge line down the entire length of Penguin's Head Road, all waiting for the chance to hear the Great One speak ... when he can tear himself away from the onerous task of writing up the final draft of the TOE that'll blow all science out of the water. Either that, or it'll sputter and die like the damp squib it is.

And me a troll? I have a University degree in Astrophysics, you fuckwit! I BELONG here.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2018
@RC, the point about the CMB displaying an almost perfect black-body 2.725 K thermal spectrum is an important one. I think I see your point about there being a lot of radiation coming from cosmologically local objects, and that some proportion of this will be absorbed/re-radiated in our direction.

But a hand-waving statement like
Can you not see that when added up it effectively adds to the background totality of CMB we see from 'here'
cuts no ice at all with the mainstream, who would demand, not unreasonably, that such a statement be backed up by a quantitative analysis. So, line-of-sight integrations of all possible/probable radiation/absorption by interstellar gas/molecular clouds, ISM, dust particles, etc. across the whole sky would be a start. That should yield numbers good enough to plot expected radiance against wavelength, and to see whether a black body curve ensues. Such an analysis could easily be made by several contributors here. Are you up to the task?
theredpill
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
"I have a University degree in Astrophysics"

This would mean you know how to communicate technically about astrophysical phenomena, here's an example of the work of one of your colleagues as linked by JonesDave in another comment section: "The ultimate source of the energy that heats the corona is the turbulent motion of the hot gases in the Sun's convection zone; the kinetic energy of the convecting gases is then converted into magnetic energy and finally into thermal energy in the corona. However, there is no agreement among solar physicists about how this energy conversion occurs."

So you have a degree in saying things happen without knowing how, valuable, must be why you're here commenting.

" you fuckwit, I BELONG here."
That is true given the behaviour at this site. But as it is a public domain, we all belong here, there's no secret password.

SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2018
But as it is a public domain, we all belong here
very true, but I was just replying to @RC's use of the word "troll", which implies that I do not belong here.

Your other statements are interesting in that they seem to rely on the written word to relay all that is known (which may not be much, even now) about the source(s) of energy, or the mechanisms responsible for, the heating in the Sun's corona. That would be a mistake, since only the appropriate published papers on the subject, complete with their quantitative analyses of data/measurements, can be taken as the most authoritative source of understanding of the subject thus far obtained.
So you have a degree in saying things happen without knowing how
Reading articles on such subjects in popular magazines/websites/coffee-table books, etc., represents just one of the first steps to be taken toward learning science. The rest is hard work, y'know?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
So you have a degree in saying things happen without knowing how, valuable, must be why you're here commenting.


This assumes that it is pointless even doing a degree until we know everything there is to know about everything! How can a scientist formulate hypotheses about the heating of the solar corona, for example, without understanding what it is? And about the environment in which it is located? Hopefully, the Parker Solar Probe will get us closer to a definitive description.
However, there is not a snowball's chance in Hell that the answer will come from woo merchants who have never studied the environment, and simply don't understand enough of the relevant science to make a meaningful contribution. I refer, in particular, to the Velikovskian EU cult.

theredpill
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
"since only the appropriate published papers on the subject, complete with their quantitative analyses of data/measurements, can be taken as the most authoritative source of understanding of the subject thus far obtained."

The quote I referenced demonstrated the above to be patently false. A statement was made about the nature of an observation, an energy transfer process in which one of the forms named as energy has no energetic component, and if either you or Jones can link to the precise way in which "magnetic energy" transitions into thermal energy, it would validate the mechanism.

"The rest is hard work, y'know"

Yes, I do. Which is why when I see statements like the quote I referenced my skin crawls. And when I see the unjustifiably pompous attitudes from the kids who think they own this playground and they use papers containing statements such as that quote, I weep for science and anyone who thinks a degree that leads to that kind duplicity means something.
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2018
"This assumes that it is pointless even doing a degree "

No, it proves it.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
^^^^^^^You are falling into the pseudoscientific EU bad habits, of getting your science from press releases. Read the papers.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
"This assumes that it is pointless even doing a degree "

No, it proves it.


So, you failed to get a degree, and have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about it?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
....and if either you or Jones can link to the precise way in which "magnetic energy" transitions into thermal energy, it would validate the mechanism.


No, it would quite possibly win us a Nobel Prize! There are a number of mechanisms proposed for heating the corona. All are scientifically valid. Problem? It is bloody difficult to put a spacecraft in the corona! Guess why?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
"The ultimate source of the energy that heats the corona is the turbulent motion of the hot gases in the Sun's convection zone; the kinetic energy of the convecting gases is then converted into magnetic energy and finally into thermal energy in the corona."


The first two parts of that are undergrad stuff. In the convection zone, where the magnetic field is likely anchored, the gas pressure dominates over magnetic pressure. The fields can get all twisted up and amplified by the motion of the gas. These can then leave the convection zone via field lines, into the corona. And then it needs to be converted into thermal energy, possibly by nanoflares, or waves, or a combination of the two.
theredpill
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
"You are falling into the pseudoscientific EU bad habits, of getting your science from press releases. Read the papers"
The quote was from material you provided, the above is completely off topic and meaningless.

"So, you failed to get a degree, and have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about it?"

Not even close.

"No, it would quite possibly win us a Nobel Prize! There are a number of mechanisms proposed for heating the corona. All are scientifically valid. Problem? It is bloody difficult to put a spacecraft in the corona! Guess why?"

The quote maps out a very specific transition sequence for the energy. If we had a spacecraft in the corona it could possibly validate the sequence. But the statement of fact was made without the spaceship there to validate it, while admitting they don't know how what they are saying can happen does, which means they do not know if it is happening that way, just like everything else that is debated here. Data vs. interpretation...

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
^^^^^Word salad. You aren't Wal Thornhill in disguise, are you? Stick to philosophy, and leave the science to those that are qualified to do it. Unless you have some fiendish mechanism for where the heating in the corona is coming from? Hopefully written up in a scientific manner, somewhere.
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2018
The quote I referenced demonstrated the above to be patently false
No. The quote you referenced is just one person's attempt to put a highly complex subject into plain English such that a little of the science brushes off onto the person reading the article from which the quote is taken.

It could be that the person writing the above quote may himself have been a scientist involved in the study of these phenomena. If the quote appears to be meaningless, then he may simply not have the gift of translating the science (data, quantitative analyses, etc.) well enough into English. If, however that person had been "just" a journalist, then that's about par for the course.

Situation normal in either case, which is why people here are time and again advised to GO READ THE PAPER. That's where the science is, and not in a half-dozen more-or-less well put together sentences of plain English. How is this so difficult to comprehend?
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2018
"where the magnetic field is likely anchored,"

Provide mechanism for anchoring a magnetic field.

"the gas pressure dominates over magnetic pressure"

In a plasma the pressure is all field driven...there is no neutral "gas". And if it did work how you just said then the gas pressure is a result of thermal energy so there is no need for any "conversion".

" The fields can get all twisted up and amplified by the motion of the gas. "

Please stop calling plasma gas, or acknowledge it is ionized gas since it is interacting with and causing field geometries to change...this behaviour occurs in all ionized gases. from the solar wind through to Tokamaks.

"These can then leave the convection zone via field lines, into the corona. And then it needs to be converted into thermal energy, possibly by nanoflares, or waves, or a combination of the two."

Until we get that spaceship in there we won't be able to verify anything, except how accelerate and heat ions...

theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2018
"then he may simply not have the gift of translating the science (data, quantitative analyses, etc.) well enough into English

The following was not a mathematical derivation that required translation:" the kinetic energy of the convecting gases is then converted into magnetic energy and finally into thermal energy in the corona."

Because if it was demonstrated mathematically then the following statement wouldn't be true: " However, there is no agreement among solar physicists about how this energy conversion occurs."

"Word salad."
To believe the bulk of mainstream astrophysical interpretations, one must live on a steady diet of word salad, but thus far most of yours and skylights attempts at rebuttal have amounted to word compost.

"That's where the science is, and not in a half-dozen more-or-less well put together sentences of plain English. How is this so difficult to comprehend?
If the math doesn't translate into English, the math doesn't translate into reality.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2018
^^^^^Not up to me. Read the literature, or point us to the literature that says all of that is wrong. What is your point? If you really want answers to these questions, go ask on a physics forum, where there is more room to explain things in detail.

Until we get that spaceship in there we won't be able to verify anything, except how accelerate and heat ions...


And you haven't got a clue, have you? Like I said, what is your point? Got some woo you want to spring on us? Where is it laid out? Please link us to it, so that we may all have a laugh.

SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2018
"Provide mechanism for anchoring a magnetic field." Magnetic fields are generated somewhere. Hint: start there.

"Please stop calling plasma gas, or acknowledge it is ionized gas". OK, gas is not plasma and vice-versa. This is very true, but a plasma is an ionized gas, so still "gassy". Again, you're getting your silk knickers in a twist by focusing manically on a textual translation of the science into plain English. Read the paper, FFS !!!!!

That so much emphasis is placed by some on getting the verbiage correct is not at all surprising, and hardly news. For such people (e.g. the math- and clue-less EU), it would appear that the written word, rather than the math, is what constitutes the real science, and that, for these people, the math appears to have been bolted on to the words as a kind of afterthought.

Given the poor levels of understanding of science, the likelihood that these sorts are going to learn the truth - namely that the math comes first - is similarly low.
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2018
If the math doesn't translate into English, the math doesn't translate into reality.
What.
A.
HOPELESSLY.
Inept.
Statement.

How about the EU coming up with English which corresponds with reality? That is to say, the reality of scientifically objective theories which could lead to quantitative predictions leading to properly controlled experiments producing measurements, data, analysis...?

How many of the EU nutjobs are employed by Universities worldwide?

How many of the EU headbangers will be invited to join the teams which actually get to build the spacecraft you mention?

Where are all the scientific papers which the EU should have published by now (they've had plenty of time) in ***reputable*** journals (apart from those from the IEEE) explaining in detail how the rubbish EU jargon is to translate into workable hypotheses which could be tested by any scientist in the world?

And so on, ad infinitum, ad absurdum.
theredpill
1 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
What.
A.
HOPELESSLY.
Inept.
Statement

Hopelessly inept is one guy claiming that a mathematical derivation of Coronal heating would be Nobel worthy while a guy in the same camp claims the article writer simply couldn't translate the math into English, when everybody knows (including the author of the paper jones linked) that the statement there is no consensus among physicists HOW something happens is the only verifiable part of the quote.

I will also take this opportunity to point out that if any of this science was settled there would be no confusion or debate about evidence regarding astrophysical observations (or in the mainstream case the lack thereof). Skylight keeps harping on about the EU, for the record I have called out Thornhill directly in conversation about the EU "physics" and his response was to not respond. A smart move....because look at what happens when two people who know less than he does try and defend "science" with more unresolved issues than his has.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
A smart move....because look at what happens when two people who know less than he does try and defend "science" with more unresolved issues than his has.


Lol. What was his Bachelors in? Sorry, I outqualify him, and, I suspect, so does SkyLight. Thorrnhill is clueless, and scientifically illiterate, by definition - he believes Velikovsky! As for the rest of the EU 'brains trust'? Equally as clueless. Have a look at how Scott wants to accelerate the solar wind (or half of it, anyway!).
And there is no confusion about where the Sun's magnetic field comes from, nor that it provides the fuel for the coronal heating. The only remaining question is the exact mechanism(s).

And what precisely, are you bringing to this debate? Usual EU whines about real science, whilst being incapable of doing any yourselves. What a pitiful cult. No wonder they are a total irrelevance.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
......with more unresolved issues than his has.


Hahahahahahahaha! What, do you mean - the interplanetary lightning bolts hitting Earth as it was orbiting Saturn, due to Venus doing handbrake turns around the solar system having been ejected from Jupiter? Or dinosaurs proving that G must have been different in the Cretaceous? Or the woo of his lightning bolts carving out craters, the Grand Canyon, and Valles Marineris? That comets are electrical rocks? That the atmosphere of Brown Dwarves could host habitable planets? I could go on. The EU is batsh1t crazy woo, only believed by scientifically illiterate loons. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and is rightly ignored and/ or unheard of.
Whoops, forgot the silliest woo of all - the electric sun. Lol.
theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2018
"Given the poor levels of understanding of science, the likelihood that these sorts are going to learn the truth - namely that the math comes first - is similarly low."

Well it's a good thing someone with an astrophysics degree has the time to come here and set everybody straight, just don't ask questions about unexplained astrophysics, because the answer apparently is that the knowledge just can't be translated into English....what a joke.

""Provide mechanism for anchoring a magnetic field." Magnetic fields are generated somewhere. Hint: start there"

Very profound. Find one place in nature where one doesn't exist...hint: start...everywhere? Jones comment also insinuates that an anchored magnetic field is then "released" into the corona....neat science there I'll tell ya. Like blowing a smoke ring, the rotational motion is self reinforcing?

We are in our scientific infancy as a race, we know almost nothing. But we are getting better at observing, not communicating...
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
^^^^All of which just further reinforces the view that you are, indeed, scientifically illiterate, with no grasp of the physics involved.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
Jones comment also insinuates that an anchored magnetic field is then "released" into the corona....neat science there I'll tell ya.


Idiot. Never heard of field lines? Where is the Earth's magnetic field created? Gosh, how is it affecting the solar wind, all the way up there above our heads? Crikey, somebody hasn't thought that through.! Silly science people. Let's all give up and let some Velikovskian nutjobs take over!

theredpill
1 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2018
Jones, as I read your attempts at scientific dialogue here...and quite frankly in any other section where I have had the interesting experience of doing so, I can say with the utmost confidence you learned science over a hundred years ago and you are going to stick to your guns until death...which, if things keep progressing the way they are observationally, will come as a result of a heart attack when you find out how little you actually understand.

I am curious how you found your way to this comment section, being as you hadn't commented here before...although as I read skylights interactions with reality check the answer presents itself quite nicely. I have landed in a den of psychos with multiple personalities who are so small in number that they had to make copies of themselves to upvote each other and who have made their mission - "to defend dogma and non science at all costs". Math is non science unless it can be verified as correct in the physics it describes.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
^^^^^Loon. I learned modern science, you uneducated troll. One degree in the 80s, one in the 2000s. Now, care to tell us what you know about science? What are your brilliant insights and ideas? Where are they published? Which loons do you actually follow? What about their woo has so convinced you that it would be worth real science actually looking at?
The only people living on ancient science are the EU nutters, with their constant deification of long dead scientists. Why don't some of them actually try to learn some science?
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
Mr Red, I read your comments with interest. You do indeed have something to say, albeit mostly in the negative. Science has a way to go, astrophysics doubly so - we should agree on these points at least.

So, let's hear you accentuate the positive - let's see your positive contributions to science presented in the best of scientific manner. With plenty of math to back up your statements.

Your move, old man! We psychos will form a ring around you and hang on your every word (or should that be equation?) - at a safe enough distance, natch.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
Mr Red, I read your comments with interest. You do indeed have something to say, albeit mostly in the negative. Science has a way to go, astrophysics doubly so - we should agree on these points at least.

So, let's hear you accentuate the positive - let's see your positive contributions to science presented in the best of scientific manner. With plenty of math to back up your statements.

Your move, old man! We psychos will form a ring around you and hang on your every word (or should that be equation?) - at a safe enough distance, natch.


More word salad incoming in....3......2.........1.......:)
theredpill
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2018
Exactly the responses I expected, thank you sir. I look forward to interacting with the left or right sock in the future here. I always wished I could go back in time to the wild west, as internet sites go, this is pretty close. When my garden needs more compost I will start a discussion that I know will draw you in.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
I am curious how you found your way to this comment section, being as you hadn't commented here before...although as I read skylights interactions with reality check the answer presents itself quite nicely. I have landed in a den of psychos with multiple personalities who are so small in number that they had to make copies of themselves to upvote each other and who have made their mission - "to defend dogma and non science at all costs". Math is non science unless it can be verified as correct in the physics it describes.


Errrmmm, eyesight not good is it old boy? You'll find the first comment in this thread is by RC and is, as usual, bollocks. The second comment is mine, explaining why it is bollocks.
And we are still waiting for you to avail us with some science that we can assess. Any idiot, such as Thornhill, can go online, denigrating real science, due to having a chip on his shoulder due to being crap at it. Tell us why we should take any notice of you.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
Exactly the responses I expected, thank you sir. I look forward to interacting with the left or right sock in the future here. I always wished I could go back in time to the wild west, as internet sites go, this is pretty close. When my garden needs more compost I will start a discussion that I know will draw you in.


Aaaaaaand the predicted word salad. No science. Typical EU loons. Go away, you idiots become tiresome. Tell us; what did you find so difficult about maths and physics? Oh yeah, can't do the latter without the former! "It's not fair Miss, I can't do maths.." Whinge, whine. "Oh well, I'll have to go away and make some stuff up, based on geniuses like Velikovsky! I'll show you!"
Pathetic, the lot of you.
theredpill
1 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
" eyesight not good is it old boy?"

I guess not, scrolled right over the stuff from a week ago.

" Tell us why we should take any notice of you."
I would prefer you didn't moving forward. Nobody needs the kind of attention abusive psychopathic internet degenerates with God complexes dole out, especially the ones who claim to have degrees yet show an amazing lack of capacity for original thought, or physical interactions. Pathetic, the lot of you and your smelly sock drawer.
The problem with you promoting the math aspect of physics, is that after seeing what someone like you has to say people will think that if they learn the math they will go insane...judging by the current state of astrophysics...they may be correct in that assumption.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
@Skylight.
where RNP asked you...
His 'ask' was implicit in his ill-informed assertion re my novel/objective work/observations; which assertion 'begged' to be refuted by me by linking to where mainstream theorists are finally coming around to a novel (for mainstream) 'vector theory of gravity' which I had already long worked out as part of my ToE (and not just the abstract maths, but also the fundamental real physical entities/processes involved). :)
..TOE that'll blow all science out of the water. Either that, or it'll sputter and die like the damp squib...
Ahem! Mainstream now increasingly copying/confirming correct my 'damp squibs', as you call them. You have obviously missed/misunderstood a lot, mate. :)
And me a troll? I have a University degree in Astrophysics, you fuckwit! I BELONG here!
You made personal disparagement/ad-hominem posts empty of science; ie, quintessential 'troll' posts; so, is 'troll' a 'pre-requisite' for being 'astrophysicist'? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2018
@SkyL
@RC, the point about the CMB displaying an almost perfect black-body 2.725 K thermal spectrum is an important one.
I never for one moment disputed that or its importance, mate. :)
I think I see your point about there being a lot of radiation coming from cosmologically local objects, and that some proportion of this will be absorbed/re-radiated in our direction.
It's refreshing to see you even consider the point; it's a lot more than the gang of bot-voting, in-denial, insults merchants, have been prepared to do (properly, objectively) up to now. Kudos, SkyLight! :)

Now re this from you:
But a hand-waving statement like
Can you not see that when added up it effectively adds to the background totality of CMB we see from 'here'
cuts no ice at all with the mainstream,...
Actually, mainstream has recently been doing that 'quantitative' work already 'piecemeal' employing newer telescopes/instruments; I merely pointed out the 'dots' to be 'connected'. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you today Cher? I am good, everything down here is right as rain.

my novel
So now you are the book writing author? What is he about and can I find him on the Amazon?
objective work
Cher, I don't think he objected your work. I don't even think he said it was objectionable.
observations
You still pushing that fantasy Cher? You know you don't have the scientist grade telescope and if you still live on the Penguin Head beach it's not zoned for a scientist grade laboratory. So what's up with the observations? You should get a telescope or/and/one/or/both laboratory before you start crowing about any observing you are not doing.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. What line of work are you in that he didn't object to? I can not for the life of me imagine what line of work you would be in.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
" eyesight not good is it old boy?"

I guess not, scrolled right over the stuff from a week ago.

" Tell us why we should take any notice of you."
I would prefer you didn't moving forward. Nobody needs the kind of attention abusive psychopathic internet degenerates with God complexes dole out, especially the ones who claim to have degrees yet show an amazing lack of capacity for original thought, or physical interactions. Pathetic, the lot of you and your smelly sock drawer.
The problem with you promoting the math aspect of physics, is that after seeing what someone like you has to say people will think that if they learn the math they will go insane...judging by the current state of astrophysics...they may be correct in that assumption.


Wanker. More word salad, yes? Dick!
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
" eyesight not good is it old boy?"

I guess not, scrolled right over the stuff from a week ago.

" Tell us why we should take any notice of you."
I would prefer you didn't moving forward. Nobody needs the kind of attention abusive psychopathic internet degenerates with God complexes dole out, especially the ones who claim to have degrees yet show an amazing lack of capacity for original thought, or physical interactions. Pathetic, the lot of you and your smelly sock drawer.
The problem with you promoting the math aspect of physics, is that after seeing what someone like you has to say people will think that if they learn the math they will go insane...judging by the current state of astrophysics...they may be correct in that assumption.


Translation; "I can't do science. I'm a bit of a tit. I only came here to show off my ignorance."
As I said previously - you aren't the idiot Thornhill in disguise, are you dear? What is it with you cretins?
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
Ahem! Mainstream now increasingly copying/confirming correct my 'damp squibs', as you call them.


Ahh, jeez, this is when one knows one is dealing with a serious nutjob! Earth to RC!!! Nobody has ever heard of your idiotic woo! Comprende? Nah, probably not.
What is it about this place that attracts so many tossers? Only the likes of RC, CD, Benni and various other wooists can answer that. Basically, there are a lot of dickheads out there. Eh?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
" eyesight not good is it old boy?"

I guess not, scrolled right over the stuff from a week ago.

" Tell us why we should take any notice of you."
I would prefer you didn't moving forward. Nobody needs the kind of attention abusive psychopathic internet degenerates with God complexes dole out, especially the ones who claim to have degrees yet show an amazing lack of capacity for original thought, or physical interactions. Pathetic, the lot of you and your smelly sock drawer.
The problem with you promoting the math aspect of physics, is that after seeing what someone like you has to say people will think that if they learn the math they will go insane...judging by the current state of astrophysics...they may be correct in that assumption.


Can I just say this? What a f*cking tosser. Anybody disagree? Good.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2018
.....yet show an amazing lack of capacity for original thought....


So, come on, sh1t for brains - let's see some 'original' thinking! Let's be honest - you have the IQ of a brain damaged badger., N'est-ce pas? We keep asking you, dear; show us the money! What is your brilliant idea? Don't be shy! Having the IQ of a f******g hamster should not stop you from voicing your opinions! Let's hear it, woo boy. Go for it! Show us that you are not just another thicko like Thornhill, Scott or the other tosser,......... thingy......Talbott. Yes? Got anything scientific to say, woo boy? Course you haven't. Get back to Dunderdolts, and the sub-human IQ crowd over there, where you might actually look intelligent. Tosser.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 19, 2018
Actually, mainstream has recently been doing that 'quantitative' work already 'piecemeal' employing newer telescopes/instruments; I merely pointed out the 'dots' to be 'connect.


No offence, RC - they do not need tosspots like you to point them to the actual science. Yes? You are an insignificant pimple on the arse of pseudoscience. Correct? Nobody is listening to you. You are, to all intents and purposes, a complete f****it!
Nobody here, or anywhere else, could give a flying ***k what you think. Now, go away, there's a good chap. You are extremely tiresome, and add nothing to any scientific discussion, due to being scientifically illiterate. Correct? (rhetorical).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
Ahem! Mainstream now increasingly copying/confirming correct my 'damp squibs', as you call them.


Ahh, jeez, this is when one knows one is dealing with a serious nutjob! Earth to RC!!! Nobody has ever heard of your idiotic woo! Comprende? Nah, probably not.
Your ill informed opinion, mate. Even some of the troll gang here has come across my novel theoretical work/ideas/observations which mainstream are increasingly confirming, as evidenced by various articles on PO over the last few years. Just because you missed it all it doesn't mean everyone else did, mate. As for 'woo', I linked to "Vector Gravity Theory' by mainstream (that is basically an incomplete 'copy' of my original idea/theory), so you're now calling mainstream theorists 'wooists' as well! :)
What is it about this place that attracts so many tossers?
That 'two-edged sword' is also cutting you to pieces, mate; you're here at "this place" too! Be more self-aware, mate. :)
SkyLight
3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2018
@RC
I never for one moment disputed that or its importance ... Actually, mainstream has recently been doing that 'quantitative' work already 'piecemeal' employing newer telescopes/instruments
So, it looks like you and the others here have missed the point - even giant molecular clouds, generally considered to be the coldest objects in the Universe, have temperatures at least several degrees warmer (with the notable exception of the Boomerang Nebula, or the CMBR Cold Spot) than the ~2.7 K typical of the CMBR.

There's no way that everywhere and in every direction, absorption and re-radiation of the different wavelengths emitted by galactic or cosmological objects could sum to a black body spectrum at a temperature LOWER than the temperatures of the objects doing the radiating. You'd need a mechanism like Maxwell's Demons to facilitate such a thing, and the demons don't exist - except in your head, maybe...

So, the CMBR is ... different, something special.
SkyLight
2 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
And we note that Mr. Red has gone suspiciously (or should that read "superciliously"?) quiet when asked to provide some math-based studies of his works.

My guess is that he actually swallowed the BLUE pill, and wakes every day into his own, personal and terrifying version of the Matrix... Kansas every day, no Yellow Brick Road.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
Actually, mainstream has recently been doing that 'quantitative' work already 'piecemeal' employing newer telescopes/instruments; I merely pointed out the 'dots' to be 'connect.


No offence, RC - they do not need tosspots like you to point them to the actual science. Yes? You are an insignificant pimple on the arse of pseudoscience. Correct? Nobody is listening to you. You are, to all intents and purposes, a complete f****it!
Nobody here, or anywhere else, could give a flying ***k what you think. Now, go away, there's a good chap. You are extremely tiresome, and add nothing to any scientific discussion, due to being scientifically illiterate. Correct? (rhetorical).
Are you ok? Anyhow, Skylight at least stopped to think about points I raised; whereas you emotionally and prejudicially kneejerk, ignore, deny because you don't like "this place" and/or "the poster"! You've lost your scientific objectivity/curiosity irrespective of 'source'/person', jd.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
@SkyLight.
even giant molecular clouds, generally considered to be...
Those 'measurements' are not of the whole line-of-sight' column between 'here' and 'far distant 'there', SL. They have no way of knowing, by the 'individual photons' which slowly 'build up the image' in the receptors, what other wavelengths are actually produced deeper in/further along those vast regions.
There's no way that everywhere and in every direction, absorption and re-radiation of the different wavelengths emitted by galactic or cosmological objects could sum to a black body spectrum at a temperature LOWER...
Depends on motion/direction of scattering/re-radiating material.

Consider Compton 'backscattering' and Doppler 'downshifting' (of already-long-wavelength photons) by BH/NS polar jet material TRAVELLING at RELATIVISTIC velocities AWAY from us. Consider also EXTREME GRAVITATIONALLY 'red shifted' photons leaving vicinity of BH EHs, NS surfaces. These things are everywhere. See? :)
RNP
3 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2018
@RealityCheck
Consider Compton 'backscattering' and Doppler 'downshifting' (of already-long-wavelength photons) by BH/NS polar jet material TRAVELLING at RELATIVISTIC velocities AWAY from us. Consider also EXTREME GRAVITATIONALLY 'red shifted' photons leaving vicinity of BH EHs, NS surfaces. These things are everywhere. See? :)


Just serving up another scientific word salad only serves to emphasize your lunacy. None of the processes that you mention above (or combination of them) could produce the CMB spectrum, and the suggestion that they could shows that you have NO understanding of the physics.

So, I again advise you to actually complete a high-school science class before commenting again.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2018
@RC, Of course I'd considered, and then rejected, the scenario of particles/objects speeding away at very high speeds causing redshifting. You'd need an awful lot of such objects, in all directions, which of course don't exist. It's nice to play the "what if" game, but at the end of the day the necessary reality check should be engaged. How probable? What are the numbers? DO THE MATH.

Your scenario is so improbable as to be impossible. This is the difference between science - real science - and your kind of science-y mashup. Science informs better than speculation, it gives us the means of calculating "what happens when", and thereby gives us various means of filtering out the BS.

This fact alone informs us that your "only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics" is doomed from the outset to failure. It has no means of filtering out the BS. Worse, from the get-go, it's constructed entirely from pure BS.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
Taking one's eye of the ball, micro-wave back-ground radiation
phys.org> Nano-diamonds likely form out of a superheated vapour of carbon atoms in highly energized star-forming regions. Nano-diamonds produce a "dipole moment allows them to emit electromagnetic radiation when they spin. Because these particles are s small—smaller than normal dust particles in a proto-planetary disk, they spin exceptionally fast, emitting radiation in the microwave range rather than in the meter-wavelength range, where galactic and intergalactic radiation would probably drown it out

The micro-waves are a result of spinning hydrogen atoms in star forming dust clouds!
SkyLight
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
The micro-waves are a result of spinning hydrogen atoms in star forming dust clouds
So, let's look at this in detail:

* micro-waves : no, they're microwaves. Simple mistake to make, one supposes;
* spinning, hydrogen, atoms : ✓
* star, forming, dust, clouds, etc : ✓

An impressive list of science-y sounding stuff! You should feel proud of yourself, @granville, to have managed to put all these terms together in the right order in a sentence.

The problem is, it's wrong. You're probably referring to the well-known 21 cm line which can be emitted by a hydrogen atom, and which is due to the difference between two closely spaced energy levels in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. These energy levels are related to the intrinsic spin values of the electron and proton, and have nothing to do with a physical "spinning" of the atom itself.

The article here refers to anomalous microwave emission (AME), which is observed in frequencies in the tens of GHz range.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
The micro-waves are a result of spinning hydrogen atoms in star forming dust clouds
SkyLight> So, let's look at this in detail:

* micro-waves : no, they're microwaves. Simple mistake to make, one supposes;
* spinning, hydrogen, atoms : ✓
* star, forming, dust, clouds, etc : ✓

An impressive list of science-y sounding stuff! You should feel proud of yourself, @granville, to have managed to put all these terms together in the right order in a sentence.

The problem is, it's wrong. You're probably referring to the well-known 21 cm line which can be emitted by a hydrogen atom, and which is due to the difference between two closely spaced energy levels in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. These energy levels are related to the intrinsic spin values of the electron and proton, and have nothing to do with a physical "spinning" of the atom itself.


Thanks SkyLight for returning the focus
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
What frequency is 21cm radiation or is it 1.4 GHz
SkyLight > The article here refers to anomalous microwave emission (AME), which is observed in frequencies in the tens of GHz range

What is the difference on a galactic scale between 1.4 GHz and 10Ghz because this article has mentioned the difficulty in separating the background radiation and foreground radiation for want of distinguishing between two very similar radiation frequencies?
Because these frequencies are never to exactly precise frequencies as there is a difference of 7:1 there should be no difficulty distinguishing so why is there.
RNP
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2018
@granny
Yes, 21cm is equivalent to 1.43 Ghz. It is the wavelength/frequency of a photon emitted by an electron in a hydrogen atom reversing the direction of its spin to a more energetically favourable direction with respect to the nucleus.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2018
So, as RNP has mentioned, the 21 cm line has a frequency of about 1.42 GHz. It's also NOT one of the frequencies used in the study.

It would appear from comparisons with laboratory spectra that nanodiamonds (NDs) are responsible for IR emissions at 3.43 and 3.53 µm - these emissions have therefore been used in the recent past to map out which objects contain NDs. The authors of this study have looked at protoplanetary disk sources of AME and note that three of them also crop up in sources known to contain NDs. They note that it's very probably the NDs which are responsible for the AME emissions.

Not quite sure what the rest of your question is supposed to mean?... perhaps you meant this:
This means that astronomers can now make better models of the foreground microwave light from our galaxy, which must be removed to study the distant afterglow of the Big Bang
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
Frequency and energy with distance
Were observing our CMB from a distance of 13billion light years, it has expanded evenly with distance. From 0.3GHz to 300GHz is the microwave range, as of existing and expanding over 13billion years it has now dropped to 1.4GHz as it continues to expand in its journey in the vacuum of space its frequency dropping with distance as it loses energy till eventfully it will reach a distance where its energy and frequency drops to 0.3GHz where from then on it will no longer qualify as microwaves and be no longer CMB.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
Frequency and energy with increasing accelerating distance
There are many aspects of photons travelling increasing distance that is due to the CMB its self in that it predicts the very universe itself is expanding into space, which is expanding at an increasing rate and not a constant velocity.
The CMB frequency is reducing with increasing accelerating distance
By expanding at an increasing rate is it is expanding with acceleration which is the Doppler Effect which consequently affects the CMB frequency which is how we detect with changing frequency which is the Doppler Effect as it is called by Christian Doppler.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
Concerning microwave radiation
Skylight> Not quite sure what the rest of your question is supposed to mean?..

This goes somewhat to answering what is the rest of my question supposed to mean which is "Frequency and energy with increasing accelerating distance" and its connection with the microwave radiation of AME, as not only does cosmic acceleration be effecting microwave radiation, but the very universe its self in that it is governed by gravitational acceleration which is directly responsible for acceleration the universe.
In essence the CMB of 1.4GHz over the billions of years which is the background radiation is not fixed because of Christian Doppler
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
@SkyLight and RNP.

Guys, you are both defaulting to old 'partial view' of what's 'out there'. Realize that mainstream is now finding myriad energy-particle 'states' and 'processes' in deep space. You need to drop those old/simplistic 'standby counter-arguments' and 'get with the program'. Even your quote from one of the authors...
"This means that astronomers can now make better models of the foreground microwave light from our galaxy, which must be removed to study the distant afterglow of the Big Bang."
...makes your 'not relevant' assertion a non-sequitur; because that author realizes that any and all sources of microwaves can affect the CMB observed 'here' if further 'downshifted' as I pointed out.

And your 'arm-waving' hasn't actually refuted my logical observation that microwaves emitted from vicinity of BH event horizon are extremally 'gravitationally redshifted' to CMB wavelengths.

These processes (and many others) been going for EONS in all directions. :)
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2018
The reduction in frequency of AME and CMB because of Christian Doppler
Which comes full circle in how this all came about in the comparison of CMB and AME emanating from the same primordial dust clouds found in galaxies presently, which are the same as in the first CMB emanating from the original primordial dust clouds in the begging, as AME being one of the same as CMBs frequency of AMEs frequency has dropped to its present value of 1.4 GHz because of Christian Doppler, as will in billions of years to come so will AMEs 10GHz frequency drop the same to 1.4 GHz and below.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Oh, Lordy, I forgot granville was a burbling word-saladian.

@RC
that author realizes that any and all sources of microwaves can affect the CMB observed
Yep, smearing the radiance/wavelength curve into something wildly different from a BB curve - another point your immense ego just will not permit your own mind to see.
SkyLight
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
@RC
And your 'arm-waving' hasn't actually refuted my logical observation that microwaves emitted from vicinity of BH event horizon are extremally 'gravitationally redshifted' to CMB wavelengths.
BH = point source in the sky. End of.

Stop your willy-waving.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
SkyLight> So, let's look at this in detail:
* micro-waves : no, they're microwaves. Simple mistake to make, one supposes;
* spinning, hydrogen, atoms : ✓
* star, forming, dust, clouds, etc : ✓
An impressive list of science-y sounding stuff! You should feel proud of yourself, @granville, to have managed to put all these terms together in the right order in a sentence.
The problem is, it's wrong. You're probably referring to the well-known 21 cm line which can be emitted by a hydrogen atom, and which is due to the difference between two closely spaced energy levels in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. These energy levels are related to the intrinsic spin values of the electron and proton, and have nothing to do with a physical "spinning" of the atom itself.
The article here refers to anomalous microwave emission (AME), which is observed in frequencies in the tens of GHz range.

As you padded out 12 sentences from 1 sentence, it must be catching SkyLight!
SkyLight
3 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
@granville
as AME being one of the same as CMBs frequency of AMEs frequency has dropped to its present value of 1.4 GHz because of Christian Doppler
This, and the rest of your post, is meaningless drivel !!!

Somebody above mentioned 1.4GHz (and also explained that it had nothing to do with this article), your feeble mind has latched on to that number as something significant, and now the random word-salad generator in your head fires off and instructs your fingers (or your toes) to type out reams of unscientific balderdash.

I won't waste my time with you in future.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
SkyLight> @granville
as AME being one of the same as CMBs frequency of AMEs frequency has dropped to its present value of 1.4 GHz because of Christian Doppler
This, and the rest of your post, is meaningless drivel !!!
Somebody above mentioned 1.4GHz (and also explained that it had nothing to do with this article), your feeble mind has latched on to that number as something significant, and now the random word-salad generator in your head fires off and instructs your fingers (or your toes) to type out reams of unscientific balderdash.
I won't waste my time with you in future.

Having not latched on to 1.4GHz SkyLight, as this is a variable frequency because of Christian Doppler, you need to thoroughly read through all the texts before your final conclusion SkyLight.
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
I suggest you familiarize yourself with modern radio astronomy, which knows far more about Doppler-shifting and -broadening of the 21cm line, and of other emission and absorption lines, than you can possibly imagine.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
SkyLight > I suggest you familiarize yourself with modern radio astronomy, which knows far more about Doppler-shifting and -broadening of the 21cm line, and of other emission and absorption lines, than you can possibly imagine.

This is texting SkyLight, it was in my texts, it could quite easily been in your, where you could have countered it by texting what you are texting now.
I think you get the gist of my texting point, if you don't text and counter text it some one else will text and as your probaly aware I do not have any fixed theories, I just discard the old and accept the new and the new when the new become old as your also aware, I am not disagreeing with you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
@SkyLight.
that author realizes that any and all sources of microwaves can affect the CMB observed
Yep, smearing the radiance/wavelength curve into something wildly different from a BB curve -.
But the BH event horizon vicinity gravitational redshifting of microwaves produces a 'black body' spectrum (due to various altitudes above EH the emissions come from) which contributes to observed CMB spectrum etc, then you wouldn't know where the totality of CMB came from, it would be 'just here' being detected, irrespective of directions it came from.
And your 'arm-waving' hasn't actually refuted my logical observation that microwaves emitted from vicinity of BH event horizon are extremally 'gravitationally redshifted' to CMB wavelengths.
BH = point source in the sky.
There is NO 'point source' for CMB, that's the whole point/implication of DIFFUSE 'CMBackground'. Even WMAP etc 'surveys' detect only MINUSCULE 'variations' in CMB from ALL directions. See? :)
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
@RC
BH event horizon vicinity gravitational redshifting of microwaves produces a 'black body' spectrum
Why specifically mention microwaves? Particle–antiparticle radiation from just above the EH can produce photons at any wavelength, which are then red-shifted as they escape the BH.

As to the black-body spectrum caused by Hawking radiation, calculations show that, for a BH of 1 solar mass, the effective temperature is of the order of 10e-8 K, and the radiated power is ~10e-28 W. So, utterly negligible.
There is NO 'point source' for CMB
Where did you get that from? I didn't say the CMB had a point source ON THE SKY (although it is often speculated that the CMB is a relic of the BB, which purportedly occurred at a singularity).

Again get your facts right, and don't just throw wild speculations onto the table as "obvious fact". Thankfully, REAL science doesn't follow your method of "make something up with a lot of science-y jargon - if it feels right it must be right".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
@SkyLight.

I observe your subtle re-casting of the actual situations I allude to, and your attached series of personal insults based on your own re-castings, that, together, is leading you inexorably creating 'your own 'reality'; from which you then proceed to make non-sequitur 'assertions/corrections'. Please resist this habit/tactic. Thanks. :)

Now, as to...
@RC
BH event horizon vicinity gravitational redshifting of microwaves produces a 'black body' spectrum
Why specifically mention microwaves? Particle–antiparticle radiation from just above the EH can produce photons at any wavelength, which are then red-shifted as they escape the BH.
Please note well: I was NOT alluding to 'Hawking Radiation' from the EH. I am alluding to all sorts of radiation, including MICROWAVES, emitted by ordinary particles/processes going on in the vicinity of EH at various altitudes. Hence the gravitational 'redshifting spread' of whatever radiation leaves said altitudes. :)

cont..
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
@SkyLight, cont..
As to the black-body spectrum caused by Hawking radiation, calculations show that, for a BH of 1 solar mass, the effective temperature is of the order of 10e-8 K, and the radiated power is ~10e-28 W. So, utterly negligible.
Again, please see above and again note well: I was NOT alluding to Hawking Radiation. Thanks.
There is NO 'point source' for CMB
I didn't say the CMB had a point source ON THE SKY (although it is often speculated that the CMB is a relic of the BB, which purportedly occurred at a singularity).
Please immediately correct your misunderstandings re supposed origins of Big Bang attributed CMB, SL. It was NOT from any supposed 'singularity'; it is supposed to be from the all-around observational 'Surface of Last Scattering' that manifested when photon-baryon 'plasma' supposedly 'cooled' enough to allow 'Neutral Hydrogen' to form/persist, and so allowing radiation to proceed unhindered across universal space. Ok? :)

cont..
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@RC - your constant posing as a person of science is undercut at all levels by your evident inability to think like a scientist, and your reliance on fantasy and wild speculation. Your problem, not mine. End of.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@SkyLight, cont.

Anyhow, re this particular point:
There is NO 'point source' for CMB
I didn't say the CMB had a point source ON THE SKY
So we agree on that. Good.

And then this denigrating remark/assumptions from you:
Again get your facts right, and don't just throw wild speculations onto the table as "obvious fact". Thankfully, REAL science doesn't follow your method of "make something up with a lot of science-y jargon - if it feels right it must be right".
That's 'a bit rich' coming from someone who didn't even know whence the BB-claimed CMB came from. So please, less of the irrelevant/insulting, and more proper understanding/reading what is involved, rather than creating your own re-statements of the points I make strictly according to the real reality physics and known science involved. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@SkyLight.
@RC - your constant posing as a person of science is undercut at all levels by your evident inability to think like a scientist, and your reliance on fantasy and wild speculation. Your problem, not mine. End of.
Mate, it was you, not me, who misunderstood whence the BB-claimed CMB originated. So I suggest you heed that old saying: "Physician heal thyself"; before you again attempt to irresponsibly and unwarrantedly throw out irrelevant and silly spurious assertions about my scientific method/knowledge. Thanks. :)
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@RC
throw out irrelevant and silly spurious assertions about my scientific method/knowledge
Your "scientific method" employs no math, hence no means of quantitatively assessing whether your speculations could actually lead to the conclusions you claim for them. It ain't science, it just sounds science-y.

As others here have repeated so often, get and learn some science, don't just cherry-pick phrases from articles and books on science, and then use strong-arm, bar-room tactics to try to propagate your inept science-y mashups.

Having said that, I know full well you'll continue in the same blasé manner, since your obsessive narcissism and D-K unfortunately render you incapable of actually learning anything. You're a one-man band playing to yourself in a closed room. And after all these years on this and other forums, nobody - NOBODY - has taken any notice of what you say. You know what people mean by "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@RC
although it is often speculated that the CMB is a relic of the BB, which purportedly occurred at a singularity) ... Please immediately correct your misunderstandings re supposed origins of Big Bang attributed CMB
Also, learn to read what is actually written, and not listen to the voices in your head. I said it is often speculated...etc...

I took great pains NOT to say exactly what events and/or mechanisms led directly to the CMB. And then you accuse me of being the one
who misunderstood whence the BB-claimed CMB originated
You're trying to place words into my mouth, which I had not uttered. You're a pathetic lying SOB, and a f***ing loony. And yes, you can quote me on that.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
A reality check on RealityCheck
RealityCheck:- are you taking Christian Doppler and 13billion years and into account
Disputing the apparent difference in microwave radiation frequency between AME and CMB and not taking into account that CMB has 13billion years of Doppler shift because of Christian Doppler, diminishing 10GHz to 1.4GHz as AME which is presently being observed at 10GHz will be 1.4GHz in 13billion years RealityCheck!
SkyLight
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
This should be interesting..... let's see what the hyper-numbskull has to say to the Uber-numbskull...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@SkyLight.

Mate, cut the personal crap, it only demeans you and the scientific discourse. As for this latest irrelevant excuse for you not having a clue what is really going on in reality...
Your "scientific method" employs no math, hence no means of quantitatively assessing whether your speculations could actually lead to the conclusions you claim for them. It ain't science, it just sounds science-y.
What the hell do they teach you in 'astrophysics degree' courses where you attended? Any 'professors' worth their salt will caution their pupils 'up front' that maths untethered to reality is abstract fantasy in the making. Empirical observations/evidence and strictly logical examination is 'king'; maths is a helpful 'tool' for mapping/quantifying/predicting, NOT 'the reality' itself.

And you obviously didn't 'get the memo': Penrose and Steinhardt admitted Big Bang, Inflation etc has never had any real (as opposed to 'fantasy maths') tenable scientific evidence for it. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@SkyLight, cont
As others here have repeated so often, get and learn some science, don't just cherry-pick phrases from articles and books on science, and then use strong-arm, bar-room tactics to try to propagate your inept science-y mashups.
Talk about insensibility to one's own failings in those very same things! Mate, you and that gang of trolls have tried every nasty personal kind of 'strong-arm, bar-room tactics as a 'first response', even when I have been shown correct all along. As before, SL: "Physician heal thyself" is good advice for such as you/that gang to follow.
...since your obsessive narcissism and D-K unfortunately render you incapable of actually learning anything.
Is there a "D-K" page addressing the type of "obsessive narcissism" demonstrated by that gang who fell 'hook line and sinker' for that Bicep2 crap, despite my cautioning they should check it out first? They, and you too it seems, never 'learn' from your mistakes. Physician heal thyself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@SkyLight.
I took great pains NOT to say exactly what events and/or mechanisms led directly to the CMB. And then you accuse me of being the one
who misunderstood whence the BB-claimed CMB originated
You're trying to place words into my mouth, which I had not uttered. You're a pathetic lying SOB, and a f***ing loony. And yes, you can quote me on that.
Your words/misunderstanding could only be construed in one way when you said
...speculated that the CMB is a relic of the BB, which purportedly occurred at a singularity.
Because 'Big Banger' proponents have always purported that CMB did NOT "occur at a singularity", but well after the so-hypothesized "Inflation" stage. If you 'misspoke' there, then just say so and be done with it, mate.; instead of engaging in ever-escalating barrage of 'defensive' attacks and insults. :)

SL, you are obviously ill informed abut me and my original ideas/contributions to advancing scientific endeavor/discourse. Learn. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2018
@SkyLight.

Anyhow, mate, since we now can see that 'misunderstandings' can occur (on both sides) during discussion, isn't it better to talk it through until mutual understanding is reached, rather than immediately defaulting to nasty personal attacks/insults?

Shall we start afresh and see what happens, SL? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good mostly. Thanks for asking. (Though I am have a bit of trouble with Trump-Skippy,,,, hooyeei, he makes me the misere, eh?)

Steinhardt admitted


Cher, you might not want to be bringing Steinhardt-Skippy into the mix,,,, he's the one that I asked him about "being correct all along" from your Playhouse,,,, he said whoever wrote that was "demented", and something about "raving" too. He is a really nice guy who will answer emails if you are nice. But I would not say anything about the "volumetrifications" because then he will know it is you from the stuffs I showed him.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
...I am have a bit of trouble with Trump-Skippy,,,,)
What sort of "trouble", Ira?

Anyhow, Ira, I have a few minutes to spare for a little light-hearted banter with you today; so here goes...
Cher, you might not want to be bringing Steinhardt-Skippy into the mix,,,, he's the one that I asked him about "being correct all along" from your Playhouse,,,, he said whoever wrote that was "demented", and something about "raving" too. He is a really nice guy who will answer emails if you are nice. But I would not say anything about the "volumetrifications" because then he will know it is you from the stuffs I showed him.
For your info, Ira, my original Vector/Volumetrication insights from my novel 'ToE theorizing process' are now being slowly but inexorably adopted by mainstream theory-makers, the latest/nearest being Vector Gravity Theory. :)

He knows you're a bot-voting ninny, mate; and told you what you wanted to hear, to avoid being your next victim. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
What sort of "trouble", Ira?
Well for starting off, he said he was going to drain the swamp. I thought that was just a rhetoric way of saying he was going to clean up Washington. (That's not the state but the city where our capital is.) I did not really believe him, so I did not vote for him. But what he is doing is FILLING UP the Washington swamp with all sorts of crooks, con-mens, and general all around scoundrels.

But one of his favorite scoundrels is the E.P.&A. Secretary-Skippy. And he is letting the oil and gas companies drain MY swamp, and I don't like it at all non. They are doing double time with their pipes and canals and not back filling them like they are supposed to do and the swamp is disappearing right before our eyes..., before it was bad but you could not see a difference in only a month. Now you can actually see it changing week by the week,

I am running short of letters so I have to P.S. you
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
P.S. for you Really-Skippy,,,,

Anyhoo, where I was? Oh yeah,,,, losing the wetlands and swamp has always been the big deal with me, but this couyon Pruitt-Skippy is going move the coastline up to Baton Rouge at the rate he's going if they don't kick him soon for doing all the stealing he doing from the tax payer.

Then the last couple of days or a week Trump-Skippy is doubled down on his usual racist hate people less fortunate than him stuffs. We are losing our moral compass here Cher and I don't see the end of it.

Oh yeah, I almost forget.
He knows you're a bot-voting ninny, mate;
I don't know if he knows that or does not know it. He is a really nice guy though and will answer emails.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2018
Reality and RealityCheck
RealityCheck and reality is not what I thought that there would be two worlds apart, as now reality in the disputed theories can not be brought to heel because there is no realty in RealityCheck.
My apologies RealityCheck, as this is just an observation I am observing, I think a rebranding of the brand name is in order!
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2018
@granville583762.
RealityCheck and reality is not what I thought that there would be two worlds apart, as now reality in the disputed theories can not be brought to heel because there is no realty in RealityCheck.
My apologies RealityCheck, as this is just an observation I am observing, I think a rebranding of the brand name is in order!
Before you go any further along your 'new' anti-reality path, mate, you need to be aware that your 'new' heroes are 'desperately talking through their hats' now, and will say anything to convince the unwary (that apparently now includes yourself, granville) that their lame, increasingly falsified (by mainstream no less!) incorrect 'parroted hypotheses/arguments' are in any way 'in touch with reality'. For proof of what I just said, go over to:

https://phys.org/...ary.html

....and read my responses to your 'newfound' heros' lame campaign of denial/obfuscation against the reality unfolding even as they deny it. :)
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018

RealityCheck> Before you go any further along your 'new' anti-reality path

- RealityCheck, I donot have any theories as they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat -

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.