Invisible dark matter

August 3, 2018, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Invisible dark matter
Credit: NASA

Deep beneath a mountain in the Apennine range in Italy, an intricate apparatus searches for the dark matter of the universe. University of Massachusetts physics students played a crucial part of the DarkSide-50 detector's latest discoveries—and, in fact, have been part of this project since its inception.

Professor of physics Andrea Pocar and his students designed and built a grid that is one of the key components of DarkSide-50, created in 2009 by an international coalition and housed in Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory. Undergraduates such as Arthur Kurlej '15 and Kirsten Randle '15 designed, assembled, and welded this delicate apparatus into place.

While can be inferred from its gravitational effects, physicists have great difficulty identifying it, as it otherwise hardly interacts with "regular" . So they have to innovate ways to detect it.

DarkSide-50 uses a vat of liquid argon with a small pocket of argon gas at the top as a target to attract the particles that are believed to constitute dark matter. The liquid argon is the target for , while the gas pocket is instrumental in amplifying the resulting signal. The argon core is surrounded by a large volume of clean scintillating fluid that shields it from ambient radioactivity that can mimic dark matter signals.The flash of light produced when a particle hits the nucleus of an argon atom will be an indicator to researchers that they are on the right trail.

The process in discovering dark matter means becoming an absolute expert on everything that dark matter isn't. Graduate student Alissa Monte looks for events that happen at the boundaries of the detector where it is less efficient to collect light, where charge can get trapped, or events lose energy with edge effects. Her work in these less "ideal" regions helps researchers understand the behavior of the whole detector.

The Millennium Simulation by the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics shows matter distribution in a cross-section of the known universe. Credit: Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics

Lying in wait for dark matter is a zen-like process. "If we want to see dark matter, it's a totally new signal," explains Pocar. "There's radioactivity in everything. So you have to know what those signals look like in your detector and how they could masquerade as dark matter."

"If we do see one event sneaking in," Pocar continues, "that's statistically extremely significant. We'd be forced to start claiming that is actually a signal."

Monte presented her poster at the Dark Matter 2018 symposium at UCLA, where she and the rest of Pocar's team gave its first report on the instrument's high sensitivity for a particular class of dark matter principles. The team had collected data for a measurement that they had not even expected to be able to make.

"It turned out we were more sensitive than any experiment that is currently running in a certain mass range," relates Pocar. "There have been a few decades of research pushing the limits looking for the heavy stuff but not finding anything. People started questioning maybe that's not the right place to look for it. So here we come with this experiment where several experiments are beginning to look."

The team has now gained an "exquisite understanding" of the way the detector indicates background events. "Nobody even expected us to say anything about this low-mass dark matter, and we set the best sensitivity in the world," says Pocar. "Suddenly, we are a player in this game."

Explore further: Physicists contribute to dark matter detector success

Related Stories

Physicists contribute to dark matter detector success

February 21, 2018

In researchers' quest for evidence of dark matter, physicist Andrea Pocar of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and his students have played an important role in designing and building a key part of the argon-based DarkSide-50 ...

Scientists investigating mysterious dark matter

March 15, 2018

University of Houston scientists are helping to develop a technology that could hold the key to unraveling one of the great mysteries of science: what constitutes dark matter? Scientists believe dark matter makes up 85 percent ...

PICO dark matter detector more sensitive than expected

February 28, 2017

Although invisible to our telescopes, dark matter is known by its gravitational effects throughout the universe. The nature of dark matter is unknown, but the consensus of the astrophysics and particle physics communities ...

Recommended for you

219 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fthompson495
1 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.
Nik_2213
5 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2018
#fft: Please, please predict something we can test. Perhaps not yet, considering how long it took to get neutrino and gravity wave detectors working, but potentially. Pronouncing 'ex cathedra' as you do only earns giggles...
LED Guy
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2018
Lousy editing

"DarkSide-50 uses a vat of liquid argon with a small pocket of argon gas at the top as a target to attract the particles that are believed to constitute dark matter."

According to this all we need is enough argon and we will attract enough dark matter to figure out what it is.
Old_C_Code
3.1 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2018
It's like a zen process (eye roll).
novasp9
1 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2018
"Lying in wait for dark matter is a zen-like process."

More likely a fool's errand if the dark matter is in the form of stellar-mass primordial black holes, for which real evidence is mounting. An estimated few hundred billion, and counting.
Whart1984
Aug 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
3.8 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2018
Because argon and xenon would be sensitive to different masses of dark matter particle, the fact that one experiment uses more xenon than the other uses argon is less relevant than you think, Zephir/Whart1984.
Whart1984
Aug 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2018
Argon, the great Faerie Dust collector/detector. The Darkside will be defeated, unfortunately it will likely be after Episode 9...
Whart1984
Aug 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 03, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2018
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.
jayelliii
1.8 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2018
A few years ago I commented somewhere that, very possibly, Dark Matter and Dark Energy might end up being the very same entity. I still believe that.
I am a big defender that science, nowadays, is more fiction than ever before. I find it difficult to accept the idea of building a device to capture something that no one knows about or have any real concept. What stroke my disbelief on this article was that the device was "welded" meaning that it is made of some sort of metal. Sorry, no can do! Dark Matter or Dark Energy will be something to be felt by some sensor mechanism. As a MATTER of fact, yesterday I was thinking of using a soap bubble as the possible capturing "device" ... in space.
Merrit
2.7 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2018
I have to second old c code. The fact that dark matter only shows up at the galactic level is a sign that we probably don't fully understand something. Having 80% of the mass being DM may seem significant, but compounded errors could easily add up to that.

Supposing that DM exists, it could be just about anything, not necessarily a particle. It could just be a form of energy, or something like anomalies in the structure of space time itself. The constant focus on DM particles is a pointless endeavor at this point. When is it enough already????
fthompson495
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
@Nik_2213 the Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the Milky Way moving through and displacing the supersolid dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
tallenglish
1 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2018
I have a major issue with a lot of these DM experiments - they are all done on Earth, I understand getting experiments in space are very expensive.

But I firmly believe DM bends spacetime in the opposite way to mass so will repel each other - so DM would be deflected away and around the planet not through it. We already see evidence of this with galaxies where the DM is a halo around it and filliments between the galaxies - not intermixed greatly with mass.

Think of DM gravity hills to matter gravity wells and it makes sense how DM compresses mass to form stars.

Easy way to show the hill/well effect is to send a ship away from Earth, there will be a point where the ship is no longer attracted to the planet, but accelerated away from it. Surely there must be some evidence of this.

In fact I think there was with voyager - once it got through the heliopause it was accelerated out the solar system - where you expect DM to be at its strongest.
tallenglish
1 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2018
The heliopause being the interface point where the gravity hill is the strongest, so anything inside the hill will either be reflected back or if it has enough kinetic energy to get over the hill it is then accelerated down the opposite side.

This would also explain the corona around the sun, where the interface point is now the surface of the sun, anything inside is either reflected back in (keeping the sun hot for fusion to work) and excess heat escapes and is accelerated away from the surface heating up the plasma even more than it was inside the sun.

Obviously thats additional to any magnetic heating effects due to charged particles moving inside a strong magnetif field. Going to take some clever math to seperate any magnetic and gravitational reasons for the heating.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2018
What? Is this the day for all kookaburras to have their meeting in physorg? That means Captain Stinky and his water-bucket boy, ThegoO1923 will be along any moment now.

@Whart/Zephir - you always give yourself away each time your mention your: "In dense aether model the dark matter corresponds the ripples at the water surface:"
Another dead giveaway is when you say: "But even after then...", which is the broken English that identifies you immediately as a foreigner. Not that foreigners are bad, but after the length of time that you have been commenting in this website, you should have picked up proper English by now. Just sayin'.
LED Guy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2018
@Tallenglish - you are confusing dark matter (attractive) and dark energy (repulsive).

If dark matter repels regular matter then there wouldn't be dark matter halos around galaxies. A cluster of regular matter inside a cloud of dark matter would be unstable and expelled. It would be like trying to balance a pencil on its point.

However since dark matter halos explain the rotational velocities in galaxies your theory contradicts facts.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2018
A few years ago I commented somewhere that, very possibly, Dark Matter and Dark Energy might end up being the very same entity. I still believe that.
I am a big defender that science, nowadays, is more fiction than ever before. I find it difficult to accept the idea of building a device to capture something that no one knows about or have any real concept. What stroke my disbelief on this article was that the device was "welded" meaning that it is made of some sort of metal. Sorry, no can do! Dark Matter or Dark Energy will be something to be felt by some sensor mechanism. As a MATTER of fact, yesterday I was thinking of using a soap bubble as the possible capturing "device" ... in space.
says jayelliii

WRT your first sentence, I agree that, IF DM and DE exist, they would be one and the same. The reasoning is that: Regular Matter transforms into Energy; Energy transforms or transmutes into Matter. The one can only change into the other. So it must be the same with DM&DE
barakn
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2018
Recently the DAMA/Libra experiment upgraded their detectors in such a way, the became less sensitive to background noise (which is indeed supposed to be a feature in the eyes of mainstream physicists). Well - and the usual annual variations of their signal suddenly disappeared https://www.wired...r-signal -Zephir/Wart1984
Except that's not what your own reference says. It says the signal stayed the same, even though it was expected to change. Furthermore you failed to mention that the majority of physicists never believed this was a dark-matter detection either before or after the upgrade. Whart1984 - new sockpuppet, still untrustworthy.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2018
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.

Actually, there's a great deal of evidence and the galaxy rotations are only a small part of that (https://en.wikipe...evidence ). And the evidence suggests that it is some kind of matter, rather than something wrong with general relativity.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2018
evidence suggests that it is some kind of matter, rather than something wrong with general relativity.


What "evidence" "suggests.........something is wrong with GR"?
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 03, 2018
evidence suggests that it is some kind of matter, rather than something wrong with general relativity.


What "evidence" "suggests.........something is wrong with GR"?

GR is fantasy land physics which is devoid of physical meaning laced with irrelevant maths.
IwinUlose
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 03, 2018
evidence suggests that it is some kind of matter, rather than something wrong with general relativity.


What "evidence" "suggests.........something is wrong with GR"?


Easy Trigger, read the very line you quoted one more time. 'Rather' anxious to get in a dig this afternoon are we?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2018
evidence suggests that it is some kind of matter, rather than something wrong with general relativity.


What "evidence" "suggests.........something is wrong with GR"?

GR is fantasy land physics which is devoid of physical meaning laced with irrelevant maths.


So now what do we do to get it right?
broknsymetry
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
There is no dark matter really. In fact of matter it's all dark
humy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.
Old_C_Code

Can you elaborate?
Exactly HOW is it a maths error?
Can you show us here what you claim to be the 'correct' maths for it i.e. with actual algebra and equations? If not, you are just making this up and your claim should be dismissed.

arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2018
@Old_C_Code
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.

I also noticed this long ago. I even posted here, just using Newton's equations, how one can describe the galaxy rotations, if one notices that the mass of the galaxy's stars can be laid out as a density. The original post of these basic equations was posted by Nanobanano.
Whart1984
Aug 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 04, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2018
@Old_C_Code
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.

I also noticed this long ago. I even posted here, just using Newton's equations, how one can describe the galaxy rotations, if one notices that the mass of the galaxy's stars can be laid out as a density. .
arcmetal

Physicists aren't completely stupid and thus obviously always take into account the observed density of visible matter in different parts of a galaxy.
And, when they do this and applying Newton's law for gravitation, they find that doesn't explain the galaxy rotation curves. And the only current way known to explain the galaxy rotation curves is to assume some invisible matter around and amongst that visible matter. This assumed invisible matter is dark matter by definition.

-CONTINUED-
humy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
-CONTINUED-

This doesn't mean dark matter theory is necessarily correct; there may be some yet undiscovered explanation for these mysterious galaxy rotation curves (time will tell). But, contrary to your and his claim, there is no maths error here; the densities of visible matter and Newton's equations are mathematically correctly used here without error.

If you just wiki this and read it;

https://en.wikipe...on_curve

you will see they DO take into account BOTH the observed density of visible matter in different parts of a galaxy (just read under "Halo density profiles" if you don't believe me) AND Newton's equations and without any maths error.
If you dispute this then show exactly where and how they get there maths wrong and show your alternative maths equations that are different from those shown in that wiki link.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
i
f you dispute this then show exactly where and how they get there maths wrong and show your alternative maths equations


Classic ploy, utilizing the silliness of insensible math to create an argument from ignorance. Read this section of General Relativity:

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

.....ENTROPY
RNP
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2018
i
...show exactly where and how they get there maths wrong and show your alternative maths equations


Classic ploy, utilizing the silliness of insensible math to create an argument from ignorance. Read this section of General Relativity:

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

.....ENTROPY


.....IDIOCY
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2018
Classic ploy, utilizing the silliness of insensible math to create an argument from ignorance. Read this section of General Relativity:

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

.....ENTROPY


.....IDIOCY
.....then you tell us why you think you're smarter than Einstein, when all you are is a freelance journalist?

RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2018
@Benni
.....then you tell us why you think you're smarter than Einstein,


I do not claim to be smarter than Einstein, I KNOW, however, that I understand his theory better than you. For instance, to anybody that understands it, it is obvious that the quote you provide has nothing to do with entropy.

when all you are is a freelance journalist?


I am curious about your obsessive, compulsive repetition of this lie about my profession. You repeat it nearly every time we communicate. I can think of only two explanations;

1) You are trying to discredit me in some misguided attempt to promote your silly ideas.
2) You take pleasure in the idea that your lies will embarrass and/or anger me.

So, which is it? Perhaps both?

You are an idiot if you think either will work.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2018
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.
Old_C_Code

Can you elaborate?
Exactly HOW is it a maths error?
Can you show us here what you claim to be the 'correct' maths for it i.e. with actual algebra and equations? If not, you are just making this up and your claim should be dismissed.

I've seen a number of responses from Old_C_Code and there seems to be one common thread running through all of them: S/he is either incapable of or unwilling to understand basic math and science. I thought it was "unwilling to" since Code is avidly anti-science with regards to climate change/global warming. As there's no real political or religious reason to dispute dark matter (that I know of) maybe s/he really is just incapable of understanding.
V_ Bezverkhniy
not rated yet Aug 04, 2018
Principle of constancy and finiteness of the speed of gravitational interaction and dark matter.

It can be shown that the anomalously high rates of rotation of the outer regions of
galaxies follow from the constancy and finiteness of the rate of gravitational interaction, which is equal to the speed of light in accordance with general relativity of A. Einstein. Since the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction is constant and equal to the speed of light, then for compensation of lag of the gravitational field, an increase in the mass velocity will always be used, since the metric tensor according to general relativity of A. Einstein is depends on to both geometry and kinematics of masses.

See Bezverkhniy Volodymyr Dmytrovych (viXra.org) and Volodymyr Bezverkhniy (SSRN).

barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2018
Well - and the usual annual variations of their signal suddenly disappeared https://www.wired...r-signal -Zephir/Wart1984 Except that's not what your own reference says. It says the signal stayed the same, even though it was expected to change
LOL, 5/5 people upvoted this post... :-) The people here are simply tribal dumbasses and no Oxford English would improve it. -Whart1984
From the article you posted, "The latest run of the experiment, called DAMA/LIBRA-phase 2, began in 2011. After taking data for six earthly orbits, the team reports that they continue to see a seasonal signal consistent with dark matter. ... " Either you are sticking with an obvious lie, or you still haven't actually bothered to read the article you posted. Either way, your behavior is disgusting.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
@RNP
So, which is it? Perhaps both?
definitely both

of course, there are other options, like:
projection
jealousy
self-loathing due to meaningless insignificant existence on his/her part

Benni
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2018
As there's no real political or religious reason to dispute dark matter (that I know of) maybe s/he really is just incapable of understanding.


.......righto, the "dispute" is OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE, you know, stuff that can be seen, not the spurious INFERRED gravity fields Pop-Cosmology makes up.

Luv you Pop-Cosmology aficionados who live here, you demand OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE from everyone opposing your points of view, then turn right around & exempt your fantasies from the same demands for EVIDENCE.

Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
when all you are is a freelance journalist?


I am curious about your obsessive, compulsive repetition of this lie about my profession. You repeat it nearly every time we communicate. I can think of only two explanations;

1) You are trying to discredit me in some misguided attempt to promote your silly ideas.
2) You take pleasure in the idea that your lies will embarrass and/or anger me.

So, which is it? Perhaps both?

You are an idiot if you think either will work.


........so now you are again trying to walk back a boast you made. Ok, prove it?

Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
zz5555 says: Actually, there's a great deal of evidence < of dark matter >.

Oh there is not! You can't name any because there is no evidence. It's all conjecture from the dumbest geniuses in history imo.
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
zz5555: Basic math or science? We're talking evidence you numbskull.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
zz5555: Basic math or science? We're talking evidence you numbskull.
@old Cnut cont'd
the above is just a starter on observational evidence for Dark Matter

there is considerably more but would require far greater than 1K characters as the above is only in reference to Galaxy rotation curves, Velocity dispersions, Galaxy clusters, Gravitational lensing and some CMB
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2018
It's just pure imagination, no evidence. The galaxies are expanding while the space within them does not expand; that makes no sense, no matter how you say it. Clearly an error somewhere. But there is some terrific imagination here!!!
Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2018
Capt says: there is considerably more but would require far greater than 1K characters

Too much evidence? Ugh... I'm glad you guys don't engineer anything.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2018
The galaxies are expanding while the space within them does not expand; that makes no sense, no matter how you say it. Clearly an error somewhere. But there is some terrific imagination here!!!


.......in the meantime galaxies all over the Universe continue COLLIDING in any direction we point a telescope & watch it.

If this Universe is expanding like the dots moving further apart on an expanding balloon, things that are 14 billion years old should already be so far apart that there's no chance for such collisions, yet we VIEW OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that even galaxy clusters become involved in such collisions, not just individual isolated galaxies within a local group.
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
@old Cnut
Too much evidence? Ugh... I'm glad you guys don't engineer anything
because you're being stupid, I shall remind you that you claimed
there is no evidence. It's all conjecture
We're talking evidence you numbskull
not "Basic math or science"

you asked for it and I started sharing the evidence

in small words you can understand:
there are sh*tloads of evidence
it's not "conjecture"

you shouldn't ask for evidence if you're fearful it may make you look the fool
It's just pure imagination, no evidence. The galaxies are expanding while the space within them does not expand; that makes no sense, no matter how you say it. Clearly an error somewhere. But there is some terrific imagination here!!!
so where is your evidence for this?
is it conjecture?
in order to definitively state your claim is true and DM is false you need to first demonstrate, with evidence, that DM is false

then I would ask for validation
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2018
Capt says: there is considerably more but would require far greater than 1K characters

Too much evidence? Ugh... I'm glad you guys don't engineer anything.


Yeah, we're still waiting for the first quanta of this stuff to show up in test tubes or trapping chambers, in the meantime the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here continues their unabated pace of name calling rants because there are those of us living in the real world of science who believe OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE trumps their fantasies.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
@f*cking idiot benji-TROLL
Yeah, we're still waiting for the first quanta of this stuff to show
Hmm... how long was it between relativity and the detection of Gravity waves?
did that mean relativity was wrong because it only had observational evidence?
LOL
there are those of us living in the real world of science who believe OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE trumps their fantasies.
funniest thing EVER
I post observational evidence that trumps the idiot troll brigades fantasy
idiot troll talks about lack of observational evidence
ROTFLMFAO

ya just can't write this sh*t!
Old_C_Code
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
Those links are not evidence. They just make a theory up, declare it invisible, and find math that makes sense with that non-reality. There is plenty of math that has NO PHYSICAL correlation to anything in reality. To defend something so strongly that is invisible and has yet to be discovered is sort of insane.
Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2018
They are trying to find evidence. That's what the article is about.
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
@old Cnut
Those links are not evidence
they are observational evidence
you asked for it - I only posted the first few of around 100 links, mind you
They just make a theory up, declare it invisible, and find math that makes sense
you obviously didn't read any of them
To defend something so strongly that is invisible and has yet to be discovered is sort of insane.
1- observational evidence means ya might can't see it directly, but you know it's there
this would be like knowing a star has a planet because of it's wobble - ya don't see a planet, but you know something of [x] mass has to be there

2- I am not defending anything
you asked for observational evidence and I provided exactly that
and it's just the tip of the iceberg, which is why I stopped where I did
if you can't grasp that tip, there isn't a point in giving you more because you will ignore that too

Insane would be *refusing to accept the overwhelming evidence of reality*, not the accepting of it
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2018
Capt you're insane, those posts are literally from a madman. Go away.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
PS @old Cnut
They are trying to find evidence. That's what the article is about.
no
the article is about direct detection
While dark matter can be inferred from its gravitational effects, physicists have great difficulty identifying it, as it otherwise hardly interacts with "regular" matter. So they have to innovate ways to detect it.

DarkSide-50 uses a vat of liquid argon with a small pocket of argon gas at the top as a target to attract the particles that are believed to constitute dark matter. The liquid argon is the target for dark matter particles, while the gas pocket is instrumental in amplifying the resulting signal. The argon core is surrounded by a large volume of clean scintillating fluid that shields it from ambient radioactivity that can mimic dark matter signals.The flash of light produced when a particle hits the nucleus of an argon atom will be an indicator to researchers that they are on the right trail.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2018
@Cnut
Capt you're insane, those posts are literally from a madman. Go away.
fascinating
why is it that when you're confronted with the evidence that you, specifically, request which directly proves you're incapable of accepting science over your beliefs that it's everyone else that is insane?

.

is it because the evidence doesn't prove you to be correct?

or is it because the evidence directly refutes your beliefs undermining your worldview?

why is the evidence such a threat to you and benji-troll?

are you making money preaching against it?

perhaps you think the posts are from a madman because you've not learned how to read properly?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2018
Because argon and xenon would be sensitive to different masses of dark matter particle, the fact that one experiment uses more xenon than the other uses argon is less relevant than you think, Zephir/Whart1984.
Dudebro links Zephir.

Any questions?
arcmetal
3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2018
@old C nut
Oh there is not! You can't name any because there is no evidence
to start with: https://arxiv.org.../9909252

mind you, that's the observational evidence and may include many additional references to comprehend

not that you will bother to read it


As I suspected, there is not one article their that shows any observational evidence. Which plainly shows that our understanding of the interactions of light with gravity in space is not very far along. I understand it'll never be complete, but your list of articles shows we have a long ways to go.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2018
@old C nut
Oh there is not! You can't name any because there is no evidence


to start with: https://arxiv.org.../9909252

mind you, that's the observational evidence and may include many additional references to comprehend

not that you will bother to read it


As I suspected, there is not one article their that shows any observational evidence. Which plainly shows that our understanding of the interactions of light with gravity in space is not very far along. I understand it'll never be complete, but your list of articles shows we have a long ways to go.


.......oh, but you don't get it when dealing with Pop-Cosmology, you are expected to put up OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that their FANTASIES are not real, shame on you for not understanding how this works.
arcmetal
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2018
...
As I suspected, there is not one article their that shows any observational evidence. Which plainly shows that our understanding of the interactions of light with gravity in space is not very far along. ...


.......oh, but you don't get it when dealing with Pop-Cosmology, you are expected to put up OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that their FANTASIES are not real, shame on you for not understanding how this works.

hehe, "dark matter" is just a poor kludge. I'd have more respect for the cosmologist that can admit "we just don't really know". To keep saying we have "evidence", is so weak and shows poor character. From my readings I can see that some of the fellows of the past, 1800's, 1700's ... and so on, had more honor. (I'd exclude of course those that would claim every now and then "... all within physics has already been discovered, there is no need to study it further")
zz5555
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2018
zz5555 says: Actually, there's a great deal of evidence < of dark matter >.

Oh there is not! You can't name any because there is no evidence. It's all conjecture from the dumbest geniuses in history imo.

Yes, that was the level of scientific and mathematical rigor that I expected. That you don't try to refute any of the evidence (or even understand it) and, instead, go straight to denial of all evidence is where the anti-science movement has come to. As someone said, we need a better class of "skeptic".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
So, Argon gas is supposedly an attractant to particles of Dark Matter? Why Argon gas? Has Argon or any other gas ever been found to be attractive to Dark Matter? And how would they recognise that it is Dark Matter without ever having seen the particle? Perhaps it is the Ghost of Christmas Past, or a Djinn flying about the Universe, or maybe the cloak of Mandrake the Magician?

When and how did Dark Matter or Dark Energy come into existence? Was it already in existence in the beginning of the Universe, and why did it take so long to discover?
Why can't it be seen by human eyes or instruments? A sprinkling of faerie dust, perhaps? Or maybe the Lord of the Rings has it in his pocket? If there are no validated results within the next 5 years, I will have to call this pseudoscience and the twits running it - pseudoscience twits.

arcmetal
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
... Perhaps it is the Ghost of Christmas Past, or a Djinn flying about the Universe, or maybe the cloak of Mandrake the Magician?

When and how did Dark Matter or Dark Energy come into existence? Was it already in existence in the beginning of the Universe, and why did it take so long to discover?
Why can't it be seen by human eyes or instruments? A sprinkling of faerie dust, perhaps? Or maybe the Lord of the Rings has it in his pocket? If there are no validated results within the next 5 years, I will have to call this pseudoscience and the twits running it - pseudoscience twits.


I'd wager nothing will be observed within the next 5 years. Nothing has been observed since its inception, how will another 5 years make a difference?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
We seek Truth. It is in the very fibre of our being. Science itself can often be bought off and grossly manipulated - and that is unacceptable. Those of you who cannot abide the truth, and instead will settle for pretentious claims even from the topmost tier of the illustrious scientific communities, you will have only yourselves to blame for falling for lies and innuendo.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2018
when all you are is a freelance journalist?


I am curious about your obsessive, compulsive repetition of this lie about my profession. You repeat it nearly every time we communicate. I can think of only two explanations;

1) You are trying to discredit me in some misguided attempt to promote your silly ideas.
2) You take pleasure in the idea that your lies will embarrass and/or anger me.

So, which is it? Perhaps both?

You are an idiot if you think either will work.


........so now you are again trying to walk back a boast you made. Ok, prove it?


I never made any such "boast" and only an idiot would ask someone to prove they did NOT say something. However, a simple link from you could prove that I did. So, go ahead try and find that nonexistent link, I dare you!.
Old_C_Code
Aug 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zz5555
4 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
OCC made a comment about how they haven't found dark matter yet. It was removed, I think, because of a swear word. The swear word didn't bother me, but the suggestion that because they haven't found dark matter yet they shouldn't look for it does.

We have evidence for missing matter: rotation curves, lensing, CMB, etc. This independent evidence supports the idea that either there is missing matter or we don't understand gravity (general relativity is wrong). Evidence like the Bullet Cluster data suggests that it's missing matter. There are well known particles that act similar to how dark matter acts (neutrinos), so there's no reason to think that dark matter couldn't exist. And the reaction from the anti-science contingent is that because we haven't found it, we shouldn't look for it. Lovely.
zz5555
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
OCC, here's an example you might understand. From your handle, I take it you're a programmer. Assume you've written a complex, multi-threaded piece of code. You release it to your customer, who starts getting errors indicative of a race condition in the code. You look for the race condition for a little while, but aren't successful in finding it. Do you now go to your customer and say, "I haven't found the problem, so it must not exist. I'm going to stop looking now"? That would be insane and get you fired. But that's what you seem to be suggesting as regards dark matter.
zz5555
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2018
Let's go back to your original comment:
Dark matter is a fudge factor for bogus galaxy rotation math. That's the only evidence. A math error.

You've been unable to produce the math error and instead have moved on to "you haven't found it yet, so it must not exist." This suggests that you just made up the "math error" comment. Can you comment on why you thought it was appropriate to make that up? I'm actually very interested in getting an honest response here. There are a lot of comments on this site from members of the anti-science movement and I've always wondered what motivates them. I think I understand why the anti-science movement attacks climate science, but what is it about dark matter that has gotten you so worked up that you start making things up? (Especially things that are so easy to check.)
Whart1984
Aug 05, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
but what is it about dark matter that has gotten you so worked up that you start making things up? (Especially things that are so easy to check.


What it is about DM that is unscientifically redeemable is that sticky word Pop-Cosmology just can't part with: INFERRED GRAVITY.

In the world & culture of Pop-Cosmology, so much of everything revolves around reaching conclusions based on assumptions that can be nowhere found in NUCLEAR PHYSICS, for example the structure of BLACK HOLES.

BHs are hypothesized to evolve from NEUTRON STARS, but the problem Pop-Cosmology has with this theory is the fact that a free unbound NEUTRON has a 15 minute beta decay rate & cannot become the dominant particle of a stellar body in GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE because such COLLAPSE takes far longer than 15 minutes, by which time there are no neutrons left to form so-called neutron stars. Well established scientific data from the Hadron Collider in no way supports neutron star formation.
RNP
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni
BHs are hypothesized to evolve from NEUTRON STARS, but the problem Pop-Cosmology has with this theory is the fact that a free unbound NEUTRON has a 15 minute beta decay rate & cannot become the dominant particle of a stellar body in GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE because such COLLAPSE takes far longer than 15 minutes, by which time there are no neutrons left to form so-called neutron stars. Well established scientific data from the Hadron Collider in no way supports neutron star formation.


Not a word of the above diatribe bears any relation to the actual physics. Your comments, as usual, are of no use, because you do not understand the subject,
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni

BHs are hypothesized to evolve from NEUTRON STARS, but the problem Pop-Cosmology has with this theory is the fact that a free unbound NEUTRON has a 15 minute beta decay rate & cannot become the dominant particle of a stellar body in GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE because such COLLAPSE takes far longer than 15 minutes, by which time there are no neutrons left to form so-called neutron stars. Well established scientific data from the Hadron Collider in no way supports neutron star formation.


Not a word of the above diatribe bears any relation to the actual physics. Your comments, as usual, are of no use, because you do not understand the subject,


.....and this is just more evidence you are in fact the freelance journalist you've in the past claimed to be. It is "actual physics" that the beta decay rate of a free unbound neutron is 15 minutes. You've never cracked the covers of a nuclear physics is evidenced by your denial of neutron beta decay rate.
V_ Bezverkhniy
1 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2018

You've been unable to produce the math error and instead have moved on to "you haven't found it yet, so it must not exist." This suggests that you just made up the "math error" comment. Can you comment on why you thought it was appropriate to make that up? ...


Since the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction is constant and equal to the speed of light, then for compensation of lag of the gravitational field (outer regions of galaxies), an increase in the mass velocity will always be used, since the metric tensor according to general relativity of A. Einstein is depends on to both geometry and kinematics of masses. See Bezverkhniy Volodymyr Dmytrovych (viXra) and Volodymyr Bezverkhniy (SSRN).
V_ Bezverkhniy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2018
See Principle of Constancy and Finiteness of the Speed of Gravitational Interaction and Dark Matter.
Bezverkhniy Volodymyr Dmytrovych (viXra) and Volodymyr Bezverkhniy (SSRN).

What is dark matter? Volodymyr Bezverkhniy (Quora).
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2018
I never made any such "boast" and only an idiot would ask someone to prove they did NOT say something. However, a simple link from you could prove that I did. So, go ahead try and find that nonexistent link, I dare you!.


Are you accusing me of INFERRING? Alright, prove that I haven't INFERRED anything about YOU or the Pop-Cosmology culture you wallow in? You, know, kind of like the INFERRED GRAVITY speculations you Pop-Cosmology aficionados wallow around in with no evidence there is INFERRED GRAVITY caused by undetectable DM, just like your undetectable background in nuclear physics.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni
.....and this is just more evidence you are in fact the freelance journalist you've in
the past claimed to be. It is "actual physics" that the beta decay rate of a free
unbound neutron is 15 minutes. ....


You are becoming more and more incoherent.

If you really understood nuclear physics you would know that 15 minutes is the average life-time of a free neutron not the "beta decay rate".

Regards the journalist claim;
You first made this silly claim that I am a journalist in Jan 2017; https://phys.org/...axy.html

And, in the thread, I denied it.

You then added the epithet "freelance" in April 2017; https://phys.org/...zzy.html

Again, I denied it.

These links PROVE that you blatantly lie in an effort to engrandise yourself and diminish others.You are an appalling example of a human being,
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2018
@zeph
Galielo was also apparently anti-scientific, i.e. oriented against scientific establishment of his era
ok, so here is one problem with your delusional belief: You assume that the establishment is "science"
no
the *evidence* and where it takes us is what makes science "science"

moreover, you're comparing apples to firetrucks

In his life, the Church had considerable power (and used it), unlike today, yet you can still see it's influence in things like anti-Climate Science, idiot aether theories, anti-vaxxers and anti-Evolution where it's considered equivalent to simply "believe" opposite to the repeatedly validated evidence, and that is somehow OK in society to cling to these types of delusion simply because there are others who also believe like you

The modern definition of science using the scientific method didn't really take off till the 19th century

so you're argument is invalid
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2018
If you really understood nuclear physics you would know that 15 minutes is the average life-time of a free neutron not the "beta decay rate".


No, it is not an average, it is an IMMUTABLE law of nuclear physics that a free unbound neutron has a beta decay rate of 14.7 minutes & there has never been a neutron detected in the Hadron Collider that shows a shorter or longer decay rate so that you can get to your Pop-Cosmology "average".

ALL neutron tracking data is consistent with the decay rate of a neutron, that there is no AVERAGE in it's decay rate, that's just Pop-Cosmology trying to evade an immutable law of physics, just like you've been trying to avoid your past admission of being merely a freelance journalist, which based on your comprehension of neutron decay is easy to understand.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
@old Cnut
I'd wager nothing will be observed within the next 5 years. Nothing has been observed since its inception
had that idea been adopted when Einstein published GR and SR then we would have simply ignored it for Newtonian physics

it was how long before they discovered Gravity waves?

worse yet, Atoms!
the ancient Greeks were the first to mention Atoms and they weren't discovered for millennia!
https://books.goo...;f=false

https://books.goo...;f=false

if scientists acted like you we would still believe in the heliocentric model
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2018
Zephyr,
Galileo wasn't anti-science. He actually did the measurements to confirm or refute his hypothesis.

You, on the other hand, will ignore any evidence that refutes your hypotheses. Your idea that global warming comes from the oceans is easily refuted by noting that global warming is larger in the northern hemisphere, which has a larger land to ocean ratio. If oceans were responsible for the warming, then the southern hemisphere would be more affected. There's also the inconvenient measured data showing the effect of increased greenhouse gases, but that's not needed to refute your hypothesis.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
@benji the illiterate
No, it is not an average, it is an IMMUTABLE law of nuclear physics...
that there is no AVERAGE in it's decay rate, that's just Pop-Cosmology trying to evade an immutable law of physics
LOL

perhaps you should read this: http://pdg.lbl.go...bxxx.pdf

or this: http://pdg.lbl.go...st-n.pdf

just sayin'
RNP
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni
No, it is not an average, it is an IMMUTABLE law of nuclear physics that a free unbound neutron has a beta decay rate of 14.7 minutes &

Let's try an English lesson: Do you know what the word "rate" means?
I suspect not, because otherwise you would not claim that neutrons have a decay rate measured in minutes A *rate* has the units of per-time (i.e. per second or inverse time) not time (i.e. seconds)

....there has never been a neutron detected in the Hadron Collider that shows a shorter or longer decay rate so that you can get to your Pop-Cosmology "average".


This is one of the funniest things you have ever posted. Events in the LHC take miniscule fractions of a second. The LHC is not able to make direct measurements of something as long-lived as neutron decay. You are simply making things up!!

I appreciate the laughs that you have given me in the these post. So, KEEP EMBARRASSING YOURSELF.
humy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni
.....then you tell us why you think you're smarter than Einstein,


I do not claim to be smarter than Einstein, I KNOW, however, that I understand his theory better than you. For instance, to anybody that understands it, it is obvious that the quote you provide has nothing to do with entropy.
RNP

I second that. I also do not claim to be smarter than Einstein but that doesn't mean I know nothing about the physics.

Benni
As I told you before, relativity has extremely little if anything to do with entropy. And the fact that you repeatedly claim relativity is all about entropy shows you don't understand the first thing about either relativity or entropy.
You keep quoting the same quote said by Einstein again and again making out it is about entropy, which clearly it isn't but is of a totally different subject. Can't your see how silly that makes you look?
KBK
3 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2018
What about the concept that 'dark matter' is merely the indicator for other dimensional spaces and their connection to this space and place?

And the numbers are off..for this space and place... as you can't account for the mechanics of dimensions ---that you can't access and/or don't know the mathematics/constants of.

It is strongly suspected that if one begins to run the numbers in that scenario, that it all snaps into perfect focus.

We can't be too egocentric about the nature of reality ...and then take that ....and superimpose it upon our 'reality', and make all of timespace egocentric and singular as well.

That shit don't work.... As we know that this is not the only reality, we know this is not the only dimension.....

therefore....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2018
Let's try an English lesson: Do you know what the word "rate" means?


If you really understood nuclear physics you would know that 15 minutes is the average life-time of a free neutron .


Yeah, words mean things, like the word AVERAGE which implies variability in numbers within a specific population group, a premise based upon a range of numbers that are computed to create an AVERAGE within that population group, there is no such average from the moment ANY neutron becomes free & unbound, it is ALWAYS 14.7 minutes.

The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.

That there is an AVERAGE in the decay rate of neutron is simply Pop-Cosmology fantasy trying to evade an immutable law of nuclear physics,

LED Guy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni

Neutrons in a neutron star are not free and unbound. Add so much as a single proton and you get a deuteron - no longer free and unbound. Are you trying to claim that deuterium is unstable?

A neutron star is equivalent to a massive atomic nucleus. You have more than a solar mass of additional atomic particles bound together. Is there some magical limit were bound nucleons star behaving as free particles again? Please share your research and proof.

Otherwise stop your inane rants about the half life of free neutrons because they don't apply to neutron stars.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2018
What about the concept that 'dark matter' is merely the indicator for other dimensional spaces and their connection to this space and place?

And the numbers are off..for this space and place... as you can't account for the mechanics of dimensions ---that you can't access and/or don't know the mathematics/constants of.

It is strongly suspected that if one begins to run the numbers in that scenario, that it all snaps into perfect focus.

(...)too egocentric about the nature of reality ...and then take that ....and superimpose it upon our 'reality', and make all of timespace egocentric and singular as well.

That shit don't work.... As we know that this is not the only reality, we know this is not the only dimension.....

therefore....
says KBK

Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave an excellent talk on geometric inter-dimensionality and its logical effect on reality, which is reasonable since we are all 3 dimensional Life Forms.

https://www.youtu...HPAXwJFw
Benni
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni

Neutrons in a neutron star are not free and unbound. Add so much as a single proton and you get a deuteron - no longer free and unbound. Are you trying to claim that deuterium is unstable?


The nucleus of deuterium, called a deuteron, contains one proton and one neutron, whereas the far more common protium of hydrogen has no neutron in the nucleus.

A neutron star is equivalent to a massive atomic nucleus.


No, you have it backwards, a free unbound neutron is such precisely because it is no longer part of an atomic nucleus, and free unbound neutrons are what is claimed to be the substance of a neutron star.

You have more than a solar mass of additional atomic particles bound together


Really? Like what? You don't know almost the entirety of a NS mass is NEUTRONS?

Otherwise stop your inane rants about the half life of free neutrons because they don't apply to neutron stars.
............Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome on parade.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2018
Presenting Robert Heinlein's Tesseract House.

http://homepages....ouse.pdf
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2018
Guys! Guys! You're all arguing over simplistic/erroneous 'interpretations' and 'models', rather than observations per se. More recent multi-spectral observational tech/methods/analysis is NOW finding all sorts of ORDINARY 'previously unseen' gas/dust matter (vast streams/clouds, even whole galaxies!) between previously known galaxies.

So all those estimates, missing matter, motional mysteries etc, which you are all arguing over, are NOW made irrelevant because those old/simplistic conclusions/estimates/interpretations were way off the mark!

So calm down, everyone; catch up with what is being observed/re-estimated NOW; and ditch all those old 'models' and 'paradigms' which have led everyone to argue over irrelevant/erroneous claims/stances for so long in ignorance of all the cosmic phenomena just NOW being discovered more clearly.

ps: BB etc based claims are NOW also moot! We are NOW realizing that many astrophysical/other processes produce the CMB! No BB/INFLATION needed!
arcmetal
3 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
@old Cnut
I'd wager nothing will be observed within the next 5 years. Nothing has been observed since its inception
had that idea been adopted when Einstein published GR and SR then we would have simply ignored it for Newtonian physics

it was how long before they discovered Gravity waves?

worse yet, Atoms!
...

if scientists acted like you we would still believe in the heliocentric model


That must be the most backwards understanding of what I wrote. Reread what I had posted, and try again. ... If your second try is just more nonsense, I won't reply.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
Ahaa I feel vindicated wrt the CMBR being the ripples/bumps that carried Matter forward into Space in all directions, and that the expansion of Space was a result of Matter/Energy streaming out at C post-ignition.

Thanks, RC
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
Re: Dark Matter (if it exists) as a possible inter-dimensional wave that may have seeped in, or has been sucked into, our Universe from the 4th dimension; such an entrance would indicate that a "portal" has opened into our Universe and would fill in the spaces between Matter/Energy sources. The 4th dimension, being a geometric figure, just as our own is a 3rd dimensional figure, could possibly contain a set of new Laws that are unfamiliar to us. Exotic Laws that have come into our Space.
RealityCheck
2.9 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit
Ahaa I feel vindicated wrt the CMBR being the ripples/bumps that carried Matter forward into Space in all directions, and that the expansion of Space was a result of Matter/Energy streaming out at C post-ignition.

Thanks, RC
Since there is no BB/Inflation needed, there is also no 'space expansion' needed to, as you say, "carried matter forward into space etc...". The energy/matter formed from/by SPACE potential 'in situ' EVERYWHERE...and that initiated the dynamics of gravity/electro-magnetism etc across infinite universal space extent.

Hence NO bb/inflation OR 'expansion' OF SPACE involved/needed.

So your thanks are misplaced, as you also need to re-do your own 'interpretations' and 'conclusions' accordingly, S_E_U. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
Re: Dark Matter (if it exists) as a possible inter-dimensional wave that may have seeped in, or has been sucked into, our Universe from the 4th dimension; such an entrance would indicate that a "portal" has opened into our Universe and would fill in the spaces between Matter/Energy sources. The 4th dimension, being a geometric figure, just as our own is a 3rd dimensional figure, could possibly contain a set of new Laws that are unfamiliar to us. Exotic Laws that have come into our Space.
There are NO 'other dimensions' (other than the spatial dimensional potential-directions motional pathways already in plain view as you look around you from any location in that infinite universal space extent).

And there is NO 'time dimension' other than the ABSTRACT one in graphical/mathematical 'TIMING constructs' used to analyze/compare MOTIONS/DURATIONS of one thing with another).

S_E_U, drop all those old/simplistic (and unreal) things/abstractions. :)
AllStBob
5 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2018
LOL the nutters who couldn't even write down the Lagrangian for their crackpot theory. Or even know what a Lagrangian is.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
Re: Dark Matter (if it exists) as a possible inter-dimensional wave that may have seeped in, or has been sucked into, our Universe from the 4th dimension; such an entrance would indicate that a "portal" has opened into our Universe and would fill in the spaces between Matter/Energy sources. The 4th dimension, being a geometric figure, just as our own is a 3rd dimensional figure, could possibly contain a set of new Laws that are unfamiliar to us. Exotic Laws that have come into our Space.


No, it is ENTROPY that ALWAYS trumps. An "entrance" will cause the forces of entropy to be drained from the engine & it will stop running.

I think you are suggesting a hole of some kind can be made at the fixed boundary of the Universe leaking the contents into the infinite vacuum of space beyond? Such would eventually cause Entropy to fall back towards zero depending on the size of the leak. There's nothing of course to say this couldn't happen, or vice versa that it could.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
@RC
I have suspected all along that the BB never happened, but that there had to be a driving force to distribute Matter/Energy into the Cosmos that eventually settled into a well-coordinated spatial distribution of all sources of Matter/Energy, ie: Stars, planets, gas, dust. I refused to give much thought to dimensional intrusion until I saw Dr. Tyson's video.

A request: Would you give the link to the articles regarding the latest discoveries of more Matter/Energy? Thanks
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2018
@Arc
@Captain Stumpy
That must be the most backwards understanding of what I wrote. Reread what I had posted, and try again. ... If your second try is just more nonsense, I won't reply.
I stand corrected and apologize - I really did read that wrong

Sorry
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
No, it is ENTROPY that ALWAYS trumps. An "entrance" will cause the forces of entropy to be drained from the engine & it will stop running.

I think you are suggesting a hole of some kind can be made at the fixed boundary of the Universe leaking the contents into the infinite vacuum of space beyond? Such would eventually cause Entropy to fall back towards zero depending on the size of the leak. There's nothing of course to say this couldn't happen, or vice versa that it could.
says Benni

That "hole of some kind" was the suggestion I already gave for a 4th dimensional portal locking onto our Universe with the possible DM seeping through, but that was only in the event that DM was real, which would have nothing to do with the Beginning of the Universe.

But what if the Laws of Thermo didn't apply before the Universal distribution of Matter/Energy? Would there need to be a "hole" for Matter/Energy to escape in Space without a driving force to propel it?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
Re: Dark Matter (if it exists) as a possible inter-dimensional wave that may have seeped in, or has been sucked into, our Universe from the 4th dimension; such an entrance would indicate that a "portal" has opened into our Universe and would fill in the spaces between Matter/Energy sources. The 4th dimension, being a geometric figure, just as our own is a 3rd dimensional figure, could possibly contain a set of new Laws that(...)
There are NO 'other dimensions' (other than (...)

And there is NO 'time dimension' other than the ABSTRACT one in graphical/mathematical 'TIMING constructs' used to analyze/compare MOTIONS/DURATIONS of one thing with another).

...drop all those old/simplistic (and unreal) things/abs. :)
says RC

Certainly not. I have never indicated a belief that Time was a dimension and it is a curious bit of science history that Time was ever included as Space/Time in the equations. I think Einstein secretly didn't believe either.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
This:
there had to be a driving force to distribute Matter/Energy into the Cosmos that eventually settled into a well-coordinated spatial distribution of all sources of Matter/Energy, ie: Stars, planets, gas, dust.


Is this: Part 3 of General Relativity, The Structure of Space

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it." Albert Einstein

Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
But what if the Laws of Thermo didn't apply before the Universal distribution of Matter/Energy? Would there need to be a "hole" for Matter/Energy to escape in Space without a driving force to propel it?


When you see the word ENTROPY, just think DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY, it's that simple.

Stars create energy, if that energy does not move away (is distributed) from the point of it's source INSTANT UNITY of ENTROPY is the result because the system shuts down upon UNITY (2nd Law Of Thermodynamic), this because distribution of energy away from the source ceases, it has overheated beyond it's capacity to be cooled.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni
Since the assumed "detailed distribution of Matter" is not uniform, and it is relative to the Space that is held within the Universe's structure, thereby rendering all three finite - Space, Matter, structure - and that is probably a recipe for eventual, complete Chaos where galaxies collide like the colored balls in a game of pool with only the vast regions of Space in between galaxies to prevent total annihilation. Is that the thinking?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2018
OK - got it. And thanks.
I will let myself out of the classroom as it is lunchtime.
TrollBane
5 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2018
Have you ever noticed how close 'dense aether model' is to dense author muddle? Coincidence?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2018
@Benni
Since the assumed "detailed distribution of Matter" is not uniform, and it is relative to the Space that is held within the Universe's structure, thereby rendering all three finite - Space, Matter, structure - and that is probably a recipe for eventual, complete Chaos where galaxies collide like the colored balls in a game of pool with only the vast regions of Space in between galaxies to prevent total annihilation. Is that the thinking?


I have never thought about the vast regions of the Universe in the manner of preventing "annihilation" as you suggest, but it does seem reasonable. I view the Universe as bodies in motion about a barycenter, nothing else to me makes much sense from a gravitational standpoint, but who knows.
arcmetal
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2018
@Arc
@Captain Stumpy
That must be the most backwards understanding of what I wrote. Reread what I had posted, and try again. ... If your second try is just more nonsense, I won't reply.
I stand corrected and apologize - I really did read that wrong

Sorry

Thank you. I am seriously impressed. I have been getting so used to some bad elements here doing nothing but tossing insults whenever someone tries some form of discussion that might seem out of the ordinary. From my side it is why I stop responding, and the discussion ends whenever I see these pointless posts.

My only interest has ever been the discussion of science, its problems, and trying to understand the ultimate truths of the universe.
arcmetal
2.8 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2018
@RealityCheck
Guys! Guys! You're all arguing over simplistic/erroneous 'interpretations' and 'models', rather than observations per se. More recent multi-spectral observational tech/methods/analysis is NOW finding all sorts of ORDINARY 'previously unseen' gas/dust matter...
...

ps: BB etc based claims are NOW also moot! We are NOW realizing that many astrophysical/other processes produce the CMB! No BB/INFLATION needed!


A most impressive post indeed. As someone else mentioned I'd also like to see some links to the new estimates.

I have also never noticed a need for the BB to distribute matter and energy, but rather I've imagined the universe like the surface of a infinitely large boiling pot of water, with bubbles popping in and out of existence like the stars and galaxies popping in an out of existence all powered by some large ever present background energy that can't be destroyed but is only converted and propa
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2018
@Arcmetal
Thank you
you're welcome
I am seriously impressed
I've always tried to own up to my mistakes
everyone makes mistakes, and I messed that up, including tagging Cnut and using your quote

I could make an excuse but ...meh
have been getting so used to some bad elements here doing nothing but tossing insults
sometimes it is necessary

the pseudoscience group follows their belief over fact or science - why is that?
how far does that delusion go?
why would otherwise "rational" people believe the pseudoscience?
Why do they target news aggregates like PO?

more to the point, how can we learn from it?
https://books.goo...;f=false
humy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2018
When you see the word ENTROPY, just think DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY, it's that simple.
Benni

NO Benni NO. "ENTROPY" certainly does NOT equate with "DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY" with the universe as a whole because of the effects of nuclear energy and clamping of mass via gravity means the energy distribution becomes LESS evenly spread over time, NOT MORE, while entropy of the whole universe, without contradicting that, STILL increases. Thus it is NOT "that simple".
Only in a relatively small local isolated system, such as in a thermos flask with initially uneven temperature within it, would the distribution of heat energy tending to become MORE evenly spread over time equates (approximately) with entropy increasing (as required).

Study real physics rather than make up crackpot physics and then come back to us.
Start here;

https://en.wikipe.../Entropy
humy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
When you see the word ENTROPY, just think DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY, it's that simple.
Benni

NO Benni NO. "ENTROPY" certainly does NOT equate with "DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY" with the universe as a whole because of the effects of nuclear energy and clamping of mass via gravity

My above misspelling and missedit;
"clamping" should be "the clumping"

granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2018
Space is a vacuum, not a physical entity

Is every one losing their way in the Vacuum?
Space is by definition a vacuum occupied by protons, electrons, neutrinos and photons
As space is a vacuum and not a physical entity, the correct terminology is called the Vacuum
Where entropy is random dispersion - lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder
alexander2468
3 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2018

Whart1984:- In 1954 Maurice Allais, a French economist decided to observe and record the movements of a pendulum over a period of 30 days. Coincidentally, one of his observations took place during a solar eclipse. When the moon passed in front of the sun, the pendulum unexpectedly started moving a bit faster than it should have done.

Exactly how tides emanate; they are a cyclic gravitational wave, observed with an increasing oscillating pendulum makes the observation more interesting. Using time to detect gravity waves!
arcmetal
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2018
@Captain Stumpy

sometimes it is necessary

the pseudoscience group follows their belief over fact or science - why is that?
how far does that delusion go?
why would otherwise "rational" people believe the pseudoscience?
Why do they target news aggregates like PO?

more to the point, how can we learn from it?
https://books.goo...;f=false

I wouldn't know of a conspiracy against science, it maybe so, but from my part I take issue with those in science that treat their dogma as though it were a religion.

I believe any useful physical observation should be taken seriously, rather than just cast aside, or labeled an anecdote. ... The new science is in those anecdotes. lol.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
Thus it is NOT "that simple".
Only in a relatively small local isolated system, such as in a thermos flask


NO Benni NO. "ENTROPY" certainly does NOT equate with "DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY" with the universe as a whole because of the effects of nuclear energy and clamping of mass via gravity


It's plain to see you've never cracked the covers of a Thermodynamics textbook. If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.

It is Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome that imagines ENTROPY can by some stroke of a magical backward flip be turned into the PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE of Dark Energy. You obviously do not believe the motion of the galaxies in the Universe is caused by DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY, that is ENTROPY.

OK mister Pop-Cosmology genius, elucidate for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist? What's your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it?
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
How is it that this site has become almost completely dominated by idiots?

Is it the fault of phys.org? Or is it the failure of the knowledgeable amongst us who are loosing the will to fight against the idiocy?

I must confess that, particularly in my case, it is the latter.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask", idiot.

https://en.wikipe...traw_man

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


OK Pop-Cosmology genius, spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over? What's your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for it?

What was the cover title of that physics book you said you studied ENTROPY from? Probably written by Fritz Zwicky, the godfather of this dark matter slop & swill, the guy who lectured students in a CalTech classroom in the 1930's that rockets won't work beyond Earth's atmosphere because rocket exhaust needs air as something to push against to create forward momentum, seems to also be your level of comprehensi

Yeah, you're in great company with Zwicky & his demented concept of ENTROPY as well.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2018
Is this true?
Benni> Fritz Zwicky, the godfather of this dark matter slop & swill, the guy who lectured students in a CalTech classroom in the 1930's that rockets won't work beyond Earth's atmosphere because rocket exhaust needs air as something to push against to create forward momentum

"Rockets won't work beyond Earth's atmosphere" and this coming from the disciple of darkmatter Fritz Zwicky, which of his theories hold water!

Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2018
How is it that this site has become almost completely dominated by idiots?


Because those of us who have studied Thermodynamics in a college classroom, taken the final exam & gotten a passing grade are outnumbered by the likes of those of you who have never done so......RNP, humy, stumpy, schneobo, ghosty, ojorf, etc, the usual foul mouthed name calling rant brigade you associate with here.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2018
Benni, it's only a science website. They don't pay your bills. Take it easy man. It's not worth blowing a gasket for.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


...spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over?
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that " ENTROPY ceases to exist" in any context.
Perhaps you care to occasionally actually read what I and other people say?
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


...spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over?
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that " ENTROPY ceases to exist" in any context.
Perhaps you care to occasionally actually read what I and other people say?
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


...spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over?
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that " ENTROPY ceases to exist" in any context.
Perhaps you care to occasionally actually read what I and other people say?
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


...spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over?
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that " ENTROPY ceases to exist" in any context.
Perhaps you care to occasionally actually read what I and other people say?
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


...spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over?
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that " ENTROPY ceases to exist" in any context.
Perhaps you care to occasionally actually read what I and other people say?
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
If the immutable 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not work outside your "thermos flask" NASA could not send rockets to the Moon & far beyond.


Benni
Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics "does not work outside" a "thermos flask",


...spell it out for us for us the point in intergalactic space where ENTROPY ceases to exist & Dark Energy takes over?
Benni

Clearly, neither I or my wiki web link on it said/implied that " ENTROPY ceases to exist" in any context.
Perhaps you care to occasionally actually read what I and other people say?
humy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
I am sorry about that.
I don't know why that posted many times but that was NOT intentional.
That isn't the first time that happened and not sure why that sometimes happens.
It just sometimes goes wrong. Pity there isn't a function to delete posts after you made them.
They should at least remove whatever bug causes that.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
I am sorry about that.
I don't know why that posted many times but that was NOT intentional.
That isn't the first time that happened ometimes happens.
It just sometimes goes wrong. Pity there isn't a function to delete posts after you made them.
They should at least remove whatever bug causes that.


No, it was intentional, just more evidence of how Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome manifests itself when the Rant Brigade living here finds it's pet theories being eviscerated by the Immutable Laws of Physics such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. when they are challenged to prove how ENTROPY functions in a Universe absent closed space boundaries, they start babbling like this.

Righto humboy? Come on here, put up your OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE delineating that point in the Universe where Dark Energy replaces Entropy as the means for ENERGY DISTRIBUTION that keeps the Universe in motion. Hint here humboy, it's not the Perpetual Motion Machine of mere MOMENTUM.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
@arcmetal
I believe any useful physical observation should be taken seriously, rather than just cast aside, or labeled an anecdote. ... The new science is in those anecdotes
this may well be the problem with some, IMHO

case in point: you state "any useful physical observation should be taken seriously"
This is absolutely the case in any science, whether that "useful physical observation" [upo] is supportive of the theory or not

any UPO is part of the testing of the hypothesis and helps to develop (or falsify) the Theory

Summed up:
Whenever confronted by UPO's that falsify, a pseudoscience person clings to the belief
whereas in Science, they take serious consideration (always) and seek to understand why

this is best demonstrated by the electric universe cult - they cling to singular UPO's while ignoring all the UPO's that falsify their beliefs (read the conversation with Thompson here by cantdrive: https://phys.org/...ggs.html )
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP
How is it that this site has become almost completely dominated by idiots?

Is it the fault of phys.org? Or is it the failure of the knowledgeable amongst us who are loosing the will to fight against the idiocy?
it is definitely both

those who love science get tired of making the exact same argument over and over while the trolls (and often the same troll with yet another sock) ignore the evidence and argue from the position of belief

the site is also complicit because they not only allow it, but now actively support it by not adhering to their own Comment Guidelines (deleting pseudoscience)

worse still, they've been offered a means to moderate the comments for "free" with minimal changes in certain known posters permissions (like Thermo, Antialias_P, runrig, Q-Star, axe, etc moderating in their field)

the site still ignores that one

the site doesn't want to lose unique profiles (trolls) as it adds $$ to their bottom line
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
it is definitely both

Agreed, but do you think there is anything the real scientists that post here can do about this surge in idiocy? Or, do we just have to ride it out, or perhaps abandon ship?

Personally, I must confess that I am running out of puff.
hat1208
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP @Cap'n @Da Schneib @humy

I for one hope none of you stop it really helps those of us that don't have the where with all to argue the points being made. I especially like the links and additional information that allows someone such as myself to learn at my speed given the demands from job, family etc.

Once again

Thanks very much it is appreciated

I usually keep this account inactive but just had to speak up this time.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP
Agreed, but do you think there is anything the real scientists that post here can do about this surge in idiocy?
yes
for starters, we should join forces, so to speak

then we should perhaps petition the site together to either get rid of the comments or actually moderate them

the only other choice is to start reporting and complain directly to the site using the "contact" button (site problems)
Personally, I must confess that I am running out of puff.
I can understand why
some great *actual* scientists and professors have left (or stopped commenting) because the trolls have banded together to start reporting science posts (or those they dislike)

the only way to make PO listen is to affect their bottom line, IMHO
perhaps we should band together to support a competitor or start our own news aggregate?
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@hat1208
@RNP @Cap'n @Da Schneib @humy

I for one hope none of you stop it really helps those of us that don't have the where with all to argue the points being made. I especially like the links and additional information that allows someone such as myself to learn at my speed given the demands from job, family etc.

Once again

Thanks very much it is appreciated

I usually keep this account inactive but just had to speak up this time.


Wow! It is nice to realise that there are people out there not falling for the idiocy. Thank you for the encouragement.,
RNP
3 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
I like the idea of banding together. So, I have a thought;

If each of the scientifically literate chose a single troll and only responded to THEIR comments the trolls attempts to gain attention would be at least partially thwarted, and the real science could still be presented.

Am I being overly optimistic? Could such a thing work if we publicised it?
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP
Am I being overly optimistic? Could such a thing work if we publicised it?
it would work only if we can convince people to work together which has shown to be problematic given the actual life most posters have

most of the scientists don't like to deal with the trolls simply because they make the exact same arguments over and over while refusing to learn anything of actual scientific value (like here: https://phys.org/...ggs.html )

the basic belief is: it's futile to keep making the exact same argument over and over to a fanatical lunatic

the problem with that view is: the ignorant come to these type sites to "learn" and if there is only pseudoscience in the comments they wrongly assume legitimacy because the site claims "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted"

IMHO only
the first choice of action should be to compel the site to moderate or delete the comments section entirely
RNP
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
I fully understand what you are saying, but I long ago gave up trying to actually change a troll's mind. It is the maintaining of some some connection with reality for those that come here to LEARN some science that I am concerned about.

Hat1208 (post above) is a wonderful case in point.

My problem is that, as someone that has been involved in science and science education his whole life, I feel that I am abandoning my post to just let this nonsense go unchallenged.

Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
Wow! It is nice to realise that there are people out there not falling for the idiocy. Thank you for the encouragement.,
@RNP
there are more than you think, including myself

I've often shared you posts (and others) with my grandchildren to demonstrate how to determine if a user here is posting legit science or not

it teaches them how to do a lot of things from researching facts to an analysis of information

@Hat has posted more than their share of legit posts here too, though oddly enough the profile shows only one link while some comments have been deleted
( https://phys.org/...rts.html )

so the question is: Why would legit be deleted while pseudoscience like realitycheck, zephir, cantdrive et al are promoted?

this is the money question
money being the keyword to think on
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP
but I long ago gave up trying to actually change a troll's mind
that just doesn't happen, IMHO
on order to change their mind, you would have to influence their "peer group", which is a troll army of delusional fanatics

They gain notoriety by trolling legit science and that is a big initial feedback they're addicted to which builds as they're spurned by facts

like benni, rc, cd et al, the more they're spurned, the worse they become, the more popular in their group of nutters, the greater their desire to continue
I feel that I am abandoning my duty to just let this nonsense go unchallenged
I can understand that
the best action is to make the challenge worth the effort

two ways I see of doing that:
posting publicly
challenging the site itself

perhaps the more effective means would be to challenge the site to provide moderation per the plan submitted repeatedly to them?

again, this would mean appealing to everyone you know
and I mean everyone
RNP
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
Well, mainly because of hat1208, for now I am going to keep fighting. I am personally choosing Benni and RealityCheck as my favoured trolls (Let's see how that riles them).

Does anybody else want to join the fight? Choose your troll. It could be fun!!
hat1208
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
The emails must be a flying right now. I smell smoke. Uh, "shit for brains, smoke". @RNP I don't know if you saw it but some time ago, maybe a year, someone gave a very good description of the sociopath, and how what they do feeds their DK syndrome. Maybe something like that could heip the cause?
RNP
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
.... again, this would mean appealing to everyone you know and I mean everyone


Well Captain, maybe that is possible. With voices of reason such as yours and mine, perhaps the sanity of site can be recovered.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP
I am personally choosing Benni and RealityCheck as my favoured trolls (Let's see how that riles them)
some information you will need, should you choose to use it
accurate and up to date as of May 20, 2018 - 1623L, realitycheck had made exactly 7,765 posts while still refusing to produce the 4 fatal flaws (and 4 "other" flaws) in the BICEP info he claimed to have read in their publicly published studies
first made here: https://phys.org/...nal.html

I've been really busy so I've not counted up since then - sorry

That's a lot of posting that has failed to release information that even a troll should have been able to look up

I have a sh*tload of links from benji's BS too

hit me up on sciforums.com ( Truck Captain Stumpy ) and send me a PM for my e-mail address and I will provide
RNP
3 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
@hat1208
I am not sure what you are suggesting. I realise that many of the trolls we have to deal with have something like DK syndrome, but I do not understand what you mean when you sat that is might "help the cause".

Can you explain?
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP
Well Captain, maybe that is possible. With voices of reason such as yours and mine, perhaps the sanity of site can be recovered
one can only hope

just so everyone knows: This conversation will galvanize the trolls into action
you should fully expect the site to delete posts, ding you for off-topic content and maybe even temp-ban you

it happened to a slew of us last year because the trolls started reporting everything we posted
it's why some have just walked away
(me? I'm fascinated by their behaviour and studying it, so I will continue regardless as it's part of my own research)
someone gave a very good description of the sociopath, and how what they do feeds their DK
@Hat
@RNP
likely Otto, or even myself, as I know I've fed research in that area to the site, but I will dig around and see what I can find if yall want it
hat1208
3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP

Yes the description of the symptoms by this poster really seemed to stun them for a while at least on that thread. My have been the ghost but as I recall it was a poster that was not know for posting and I don't think I have seen them post again. The trolls do get to ya sometimes and I get tired of them. Have to be more dedicated I guess. Tried 1 rating for a while didn't seem to make any difference.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
@hat
Have to be more dedicated I guess. Tried 1 rating for a while didn't seem to make any difference
considering the troll tactic of reporting us just recently, why not just start reporting them?

that may make a difference
or it can make people like zeph use their sock army to report (which would tie up a lot of time to log out, log in, report, log out, repeat etc - maybe minimize the pseudoscience a bit?)

.

just for the record: we actually teach some of them at times
notice that cantdrive has started using different spellings based on interactions with educated scientifically literate people?

the syntax and literacy is improving in some trolls as they try to mimic us to appear intellectual

it's rather fascinating
hat1208
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy

I have notice that Benni is now arguing with his own socks, is that something new?
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
@hat
I have notice that Benni is now arguing with his own socks, is that something new?
Which thread are you referring to?

for a troll to argue or talk to itself via socks isn't anything new, really

Benni isn't all that competent on a computer so I would hesitate to state that he has a sock puppet - he couldn't even figure out that you can contact the site ADMIN once we lost the PM function on PO - but I would also add that even he can learn

socks "converse" with each other to attempt to add legitimacy to their argument, usually
or they do it to confer support for [x] position
Some use socks as a tool to downrate until they get ban-hammered (like zeph)

*most* socks on this site are about conveying support *for* someone by up-rating them and down-rating dissent, especially targeted to a select few, and aren't even used to post

a large number of those have been traced back to a minority few unique IP addresses, like zeph and a few others
hat1208
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy

I though it was the granville###### which seems to simply parrot whatever Benni says. It was not to long ago and had to do with the gravitational lensing of the Einstein cross I think. They argued back and forth and then ta da an epiphany. And Benni was so gracious as to the conveying of the knowledge to granville. It was really strange. I usually don't read the posts. Tried the ignore for a while. But I try not to be close minded so I end up reading them trying to make some sense of what it is he is going on about, alas to no avail.

Thanks
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
for now I am going to keep fighting. I am personally choosing Benni and RealityCheck


Well, won't this just be so much fun & entertainment, a freelance journalist who already has made a Comment above that ENTROPY is "idiocy". Now in all grandeur of his Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome he's gonna explain what humy can't, ENTROPY.

Ok mister freelance journalist, other than "idiocy" tell us what more you know about the definition you've given it.

I repeat from my college textbooks in Engineering School that ENTROPY is the DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY in a closed boundary system.

as my favoured trolls (Let's see how that riles them).
.....well, we know what riles you, ENTROPY for starters.

I realise that many of the trolls we have to deal with have something like DK syndrome,
......for sure you can believe that I look down on ANYONE afflicted with Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome of which you are clearly a victim.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
To be a Heckler is to suffer the symptoms of Dunning–Kruger syndrome
this site has become almost completely dominated by idiots?

Because those of us who have studied Thermodynamics in a college classroom, taken the final exam & gotten a passing grade are outnumbered by the likes of those of you who have never done so......RNP, humy, stumpy, schneobo, ghosty, ojorf, etc, the usual foul mouthed name calling rant brigade you associate with here.

Dunning–Kruger syndrome take many forms Benni, starting by mildly insulting the down trodden mass's from a position of perceived superiority in the belief they know it all, then the mildly insulting becomes potty mouthed, this is when reaction sets in, when those on the receiving end treat the potty mouthed like a heckler - without resorting to expletives give as good as you receive and not to bear grudges -

Otherwise - The heckled becomes the heckler and suffers the symptoms of Dunning–Kruger syndrome!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2018
Captain Stumpy *1 / 5 (1) :- Dunning–Kruger syndrome is derived from a position of perceived superiority in the belief they know it all and by definition Captain Stumpy, they have to let everyone know they feel superior which inevitably leads to potty mouthed insulting expletives, which Captain Stumpy you must have noticed -

As cleanliness is next to godliness in vocabulary!
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
@Gran
Captain Stumpy *1 / 5 (1) :- Dunning–Kruger syndrome is derived from a position of perceived superiority in the belief they know it all and by definition Captain Stumpy
sorry, but no
it is derived from ignorance and a cognitive bias
people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it
http://psycnet.ap...7.6.1121

that means one can be educated - if said person is capable of learning, hence RNP and others posting here on PO

the reason you were downrated is that your demonstrable ignorance lead you to believe you're capable of assessing others when you've just demonstrated the aforementioned ignorance and cognitive bias mentioned in the link

heckling is not the same thing as D-K
See also: DSM-V
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2018
These last few days are remarkably expletive free!
Captain Stumpy> sorry, but no it is derived from ignorance and a cognitive bias people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it

Be that as it may Captain Stumpy, it still does not contradict the afore part, namely Dunning–Kruger syndrome is derived from a position of perceived superiority in the belief they know it all - whether or not their cognitive skills allows them to realise this and because of this perceived reality they have to let everyone know, where they brow beat anyone who disagrees with their perceived reality and when said lower echelon is unable to agree with this brow beating the next resort is taken which gradually descends into an extreme form of expletives!
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2018
@RNP.

Forming 'gangs', colluding, stalking, insulting, trolling etc is NOT part of SCIENTIFIC METHOD or SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE principles/ethics, RNP. :)

By proposing, engaging in, inciting/encouraging others, to do such (as above) you tacitly justify REAL trolls and anti-science types' distrust/contempt for you personally (and for science/scientists generally).

Is that what you wanted, RNP? Because that's what you are 'accomplishing' with your above 'politics/tactics' here, RNP.

Now be a REAL scientist instead of a silly troll and anti-science type yourself, RNP; go respond to my SCIENCE posts in threads:

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

Wherein I tried to educate you re the many ongoing sources/processes for CMB (ie, not needing BB/Inflation/Expansion HYPOTHESES for its cause/interpretation); and also pointed out how/why your 'no gamma rays' objection/argument was not valid.

ps: Show more discernment re 'trolls'. :)
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@arcmetal.

Apologies for my tardy reply; have been busy of late (and still, so can only post occasionally now).

RE your request for links to more recent ordinary matter discoveries/estimates: there are too many over the last few years to list all here, so will provide one of the most recent instances; and also connect the dots re the ramifications for new estimations (which are still in flux due to the new discoveries still being digested by mainstream and yet to be fully reflected in papers correcting past estimates/claims etc):

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

The Oxygen detected is an indication that much more massive (than the Hydrogen it is mixed in with in vast streams/clouds) ions/atoms, molecules and dust content all over the cosmos make all prior old/naive 'mass' estimates obsolete/misleading (which prompted all those earlier naive/erroneous 'missing baryon problem' and 'exotic dark matter' etc furphies NOW moot). :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@gran
Be that as it may Captain Stumpy, it still does not contradict the afore part
for starters:
you're equating heckling with D-K

you can have D-K and be a heckler, this is true
but the reverse isn't also true: just because you heckle doesn't mean you have D-K

for two:
you stated "Dunning–Kruger syndrome is derived from a position of perceived superiority" whereas it's the superiority that is derived from their ignorance and bias causing D-K

either way you look at it, D-K is derived from (or, to make it more clear, originates from) ignorance and manifests itself in an illusory superiority
https://www.tandf...43000040

the illusory superiority is a manifestation that is derived from ignorance and as such is a condition for naming or indicating D-K

explained here : https://en.wikipe...g_Kruger
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
@idiot sam fodera
By proposing, engaging in, inciting/encouraging others, to do such (as above) you tacitly justify REAL trolls and anti-science types' distrust/contempt for you personally (and for science/scientists generally
what is proposed is more of a peer review

whereas the site, per its own rules and comment guidelines specifically and explicitly states
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)
the site has also reneged on it's implied regulation using said guidelines

as such, the primary purpose of the above is to regulate the site using the only methods available using a peer process

you're a frequent pseudoscience poster and should have been banned long ago like at other sites, so you would feel threatened by such a collusion

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2018
Passing the role on to his subordinates

These last few days are remarkably expletive free! The statement is self explanatory Captain Stumpy,
Where as
Captain Stumpy> you're a frequent pseudoscience poster and should have been banned long ago like at other sites, so you would feel threatened by such a collusion you're a frequent pseudoscience poster and should have been banned long ago like at other sites, so you would feel threatened by such a collusion

Says it all Captain Stumpy, as the statement confirms your observation These last few days are remarkably expletive free!
Why these last few days are remarkably expletive free Captain Stumpy, could it be anything to do with the reformed potty mouth taking a well earned sabbatical

Or is it the case that he is actually passing the role on to his subordinates Captain Stumpy!
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
...what is proposed is more of a peer review....
...
as such, the primary purpose of the above is to regulate the site using the only methods available using a peer process
...
you're a frequent pseudoscience poster and should have been banned long ago like at other sites, so you would feel threatened by such a collusion

And when alleged 'peers' are WRONG? What then, mate? :)

And the only 'peers' you bring/espouse is gangmembers and insults-merchants in lieu of calm and correct science/logics....which is NOT 'doing science peer review' but rather censoring by ignoramuses as bad as any whom you insult in your own ignorance, CS.

As for ME being 'pseudoscience poster', CS, you apparently missed/ignored the latest instance where I am being confirmed correct and RNP incorrect re gamma ray issue:

https://phys.org/...rce.html

Now CS-gangster, please stop your noise-and-bile-clutter tactics. Thanks.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2018
And the only 'peers' you bring/espouse is gangmembers and insults-merchants in lieu of calm and correct science/logics....which is NOT 'doing science peer review' but rather censoring by ignoramuses as bad as any whom you insult in your own ignorance, CS.


........the effects of Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2018
@gran
as the statement confirms your observation These last few days are remarkably expletive free!
so?
what is your point?
Why these last few days are remarkably expletive free Captain Stumpy, could it be anything to do with the reformed potty mouth taking a well earned sabbatical
and who might that reformed potty mouth be?
more to the point: who cares?

I sure as hell didn't take any sabbatical - I was hard at work compiling, sorting and collating data for my studies
Or is it the case that he is actually passing the role on to his subordinates Captain Stumpy!
who the f*ck are you talking about?

I don't "work" for anyone
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
@idiot penguin head fodera
And when alleged 'peers' are WRONG? What then, mate?
The adjustment occurs, just like science
and that is what bothers you the most: you can't get anyone to bite and actually believe your bullsh*te because it contains absolutely zero science, therefore you attack all other science and hope that someone believes your comments

this is best demonstrated by the fact that you've produced zero science anywhere, and you still can't even validate your claims here on PO regarding past science
you bring/espouse is gangmembers and insults-merchants in lieu of calm and correct science/logics
except you're a liar and proven as such
moreover, how does one discuss any science with you when you refuse to actually discuss science?
as noted above: BICEP
you still haven't produced any post that shows the 4 fatal flaws, let alone all 8
you claimed you did, but can't even produce that evidence

conclusion: you're a liar and do pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2018
lastly @idiot sam-you-am
As for ME being 'pseudoscience poster', CS, you apparently missed/ignored the latest instance where I am being confirmed correct
funny how you can seemingly produce any random thread and link it just because you *think* it supports your claims, yet you can't actually validate your claims regarding BICEP and your supposed posting of 8 flaws (4 of which are fatal)

problem with your argument: You just gave a link that RNP makes no comment on
you made two posts
you only make a claim and link yet another PO article
in that other article, I have to agree with RNP - you're obfuscating

that makes you a proven liar again

as for your dislike of me: who gives a shite?
not me
in point of fact, I take your dislike of me as a badge of honour proving you're a pseudoscience liar

it can't be anything else
otherwise, you would have produced the BICEP 4 fatal flaws

http://phys.org/n...fic.html
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2018
In 007 Parlance No Body Does It Better
Captain Stumpy > what is your point?
Why these last few days are remarkably expletive free Captain Stumpy, could it be anything to do with the reformed potty mouth taking a well earned sabbatical
and who might that reformed potty mouth be?
more to the point: who cares?
I sure as hell didn't take any sabbatical - I was hard at work compiling, sorting and collating data for my studies

granville5837362> Or is it the case that he is actually passing the role on to his subordinates Captain Stumpy!

Captain Stumpy > who the f*ck are you talking about?
I don't "work" for anyone

While denying all knowledge of the potty mouth in question Captain Stumpy, by stating - and who might that reformed potty mouth be - more to the point: who cares I sure as hell didn't take any sabbatical – We all know who we are talking about
Because Captain Stumpy, In 007 Parlance No Body Does It Better expletive wise!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
While denying all knowledge of the potty mouth in question
sigh

I can't deny something that you refuse to clarify

I asked a question. if you can't answer, just admit you're a troll so I can ignore you

if you can answer, then, by all means, answer
We all know who we are talking about
is this, perchance, related to your inability to translate correctly?

or is this an ignorant belief like the backwards D-K comment you made above?

This is important because either your translation software isn't working up to par or you're ignorant of a considerable amount of information
Because Captain Stumpy, In 007 Parlance No Body Does It Better expletive wise!
well that incredibly vague statement narrows it down to almost every veteran, cop, firefighter, EMS, emergency service worker, ICE, and any other poster who is related to a high-stress field - and they are all posting toned down expletives for public consumption, mind you

granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2018
Those rare few who lead monastic lives in the confines of their spiritual cells

Really Captain Stumpy, I know some of us lead a monastic life in the confines of their spiritual cells for the purposes of cleansing the soul and godly thoughts
But I don't think that applies to our vexing expletive problem; do you Captain Stumpy.
As you're a fully paid up member of the five star club, you're privy to the force full language used on the lower echelons of physical life Captain Stumpy

In other words Captain Stumpy, you have been around the block and well experienced in the vagaries of life who call a spade a spade, as to not pussy foot about what you are unsuccessfully trying to feign all innocence of, the potty mouth in question Captain Stumpy.

You don't believe your innocence and neither does anyone else as your reputation precedes you and it is certainly not an angelic reputation Captain Stumpy!
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2018
Captain Stumpy, the potty mouth in question is not your good self, but you know that already as your attempt to feign all innocence of the potty mouth in question proves the point
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
As you're a fully paid up member of the five star club
there is no "5 star club" - there are posters who prefer science or evidence-based posts and there is pseudoscience or religious
In other words Captain Stumpy, you have been around the block and well experienced in the vagaries of life who call a spade a spade, as to not pussy foot about what you are unsuccessfully trying to feign all innocence of, the potty mouth in question
and who, pray tell, is the potty mouth in question
by all means, be explicit and quit beating around the proverbial bush

if you're going to all a spade a spade, then get on with it
You don't believe your innocence and neither does anyone else as your reputation precedes you and it is certainly not an angelic reputation
I've never claimed to be angelic or innocent

I do, however, think you're trolling now - so if you don't explicitly answer then I'll just ignore your BS because your translation software really sucks
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
you said
Captain Stumpy, the potty mouth in question is not your good self, but you know that already as your attempt to feign all innocence of the potty mouth in question proves the point
I am not feigning anything

you've not made any attempt to clarify your statements, nor have you introduced any evidence that points to any individual in any form, and my magic 8-ball is broken so I can't tell what the hell you're on about

for all I know you are talking about the pope!

and for the record, I have a potty-mouth and I know it, but usually, I am civil until said troll or pseudoscience person starts ignoring evidence

spit it out or STFU about it already, ok?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2018
You don't believe your innocence and neither does anyone else as your reputation precedes you and it is certainly not an angelic reputation Captain Stumpy!


His problems lie far deeper than the perpetual motion topics advanced by Pop-Cosmology Derangement so evident by others here in this chatroom.

The first time I ever saw that "Stumpy" moniker I knew something else was up with this guy, and the thing is he not at all embarrassed by the moniker, he gets off running that red flag right up the flagpole for all to see.
hat1208
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2018
Benni backing up his sock puppet classic. Maybe you should argue with it to give it some credence.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2018
And he says it so convincingly!
Captain Stumpy> there is no "5 star club"

You do not know whether to enrol him as a lifelong member of monastic order of purity, innocence and light or make an appointment for him with Beelzebub to atone his sins in the eternal fires!
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2018
In a nut shell Captain Stumpy
This is what this caper is about "the five star club"
Without this rating system every participant would have to simply state in words what it is the point of disagreement.
In other words, simply sit down and inkly type their point of view.
And then Captain Stumpy, there would be no five star club!
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
for starters, you still never answered my question: who is the potty mouth?
for two, your translation software sucks
"the five star club"
Without this rating system every participant would have to simply state in words what it is the point of disagreement
wrong
the rating system is used in conjunction with the slider at the beginning of the article
ratings are peer given

with rare exception:
a lower rating is typical of those who choose to post unsubstantiated conjecture as "fact" while arguing from an untenable position

a higher rating is reserved for people who post evidence-based arguments

getting rid of the rating system only opens the floodgates to view bullsh*te
it's bad enough the site refuses to mod

moreover, you can't just "simply sit down and inkly type their point of view" a refute to the pseudoscience crowd because they will simply refuse to accept empirical evidence

thus the only tenable method to combat this is unification against them
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
My statements are crystal clear
Captain Stumpy> you've not made any attempt to clarify your statements, nor have you introduced any evidence that points to any individual in any form, and my magic 8-ball is broken so I can't tell what the hell you're on about

Your continued feigning of purity, innocence and light is already stoking the eternal fires, as Beelzebub is creating a spectacular welcoming party for you Captain Stumpy!
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
here is an example
you state
You do not know whether to enrol him as a lifelong member of monastic order of purity, innocence and light or make an appointment for him with Beelzebub to atone his sins in the eternal fires
my contention is: you still aren't making sense

and you still haven't named your nemesis (that would be your enemy whom you've labelled the potty mouth that you still refuse to actually state, even when asked repeatedly)

the ratings and slider only prevent others from seeing and reading your BS (except when quoted by that are rated higher)

getting rid of the ratings serves no purpose except to assuage the ego of the idiot troll who can't post empirical evidence for a claim and thus gets downrated for their trolling

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
My statements are crystal clear
no, they're not
they're not even translated well

Your continued feigning of purity...
stopped there
I'm just going to start reporting all your posts that contain this bullsh*te since you've demonstrated that you're incapable of providing evidence to back your claim

you made the claim - you provide the evidence

you've refused
that means, by definition, you're a liar and default to trolling to distract and obfuscate

moreover, your comments are based upon religious deification and belief
that isn't science based in any form
ever

anything else to add to your grave?
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
Theoretically yes Captain Stumpy, but when the disagreements turn into expletives and Dunning-Kruger syndrome is brought out the hat, any theoretical rating system turns into *1 / 5 (3) which is used with abandon!
And by the way Captain Stumpy, Benni has no difficulty reading my texts, where a lot of these explitive missiles are aimed for -
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2018
And by the way Captain Stumpy, I was unaware of Dunning-Kruger syndrome until the potty mouth in question mentioned it Captain Stumpy that you are unsuccessfully trying to feign all innocence of!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
Captain Stumpy, some of your credibility will be restored when you refrain from trying to feign all innocence of the potty mouth in question!
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
@gran
And by the way Captain Stumpy, Benni has no difficulty reading my texts
I am not benji
nor am I a sock
nor am I randomly using words that make no f*cking sense in context of the conversation like you're doing which prompted me to state your translation software sucks

arguing that I should understand you because Benji does is like saying you should be able to kick an 8 and a half foot tall person in the face because Bruce Lee could

or it would be like assuming you know how to drive a Fire Truck because I can drive one

it makes no sense and it's idiotic
some of your credibility will be restored when you refrain from trying to feign all innocence
reported for being a f*cking idiot and continuing to lie without evidence for your claims

expletives are useful when you are making a point, especially when someone like you repeatedly lies and can't provide evidence for a claim, let alone name a person when asked

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
This is not the Captain Stumpy your reputation purports!
Captain Stumpy> arguing that I should understand you because Benji does is like saying you should be able to kick an 8 and a half foot tall person in the face because Bruce Lee could

Not more than a handful of texts have changed hands Captain Stumpy, your reputation purports to a really stout fellow of iron clad constitution, I know the saying is the pen is mightier than the sword but to be arguing semantics that only Benni can understand is stretching the imagination a tad, don't you think
Even Benni would concede that point Captain Stumpy!
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2018
Polite expletive free texts reported in preference for rude expletive abusive texts!
Captain Stumpy> I'm just going to start reporting all your posts that contain this bullsh*te since you've demonstrated that you're incapable of providing evidence to back your claim

I don't think so Captain Stumpy, unless you're asserting that phys.org would rather see extremely rude, abusive comments in preference to intellectual esoteric comments!
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2018
And by the way Captain Stumpy, Benni has no difficulty reading my texts, where a lot of these explitive missiles are aimed for -


Correct, no "difficulty" whatsoever.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
The adjustment occurs, just like science...
Recent history shows that 'self-correction' is far too slow in coming because of arrogant-in-ignorance mindsets like yours, CS. :) Moreover, while waiting for that mainstream 'self-correction' you and those like you maliciously and insensibly insult and attack the messengers who WERE correct all along.

the fact that you've produced zero science anywhere, and you still can't even validate your claims here on PO regarding past science
And there you demonstrate your studied lying campaign while ignoring the earlier links to the thread wherein I provided @RNP with correct science and even pointed out that his 'no gamma rays' objection/argument was invalid. So much for your Trumpian-quality "fact", CS.
except you're a liar and proven as such
Your above lies tells the forum all they need to know who the liar is, CS.
...and do pseudoscience
More lying, CS? Have you no shame, CS?

Get honest, CS. :)
Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2018
More lying, CS? Have you no shame, CS?

Get honest, CS. :)


When are you gonna get it RC? It's called Pop-Cosmology Derangement Syndrome. The cure is Real Science, but the big stumPling block is their limited comprehension of it & that will never change.
IwinUlose
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
Keep up the good fight Captain; a Stump > Needle, always.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2018
Keep up the good fight Captain; a Stump > Needle, always.
......... >Stub
arcmetal
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2018
@RealityCheck
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@arcmetal.

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

The Oxygen detected is an indication that much more massive (than the Hydrogen it is mixed in with in vast streams/clouds) ions/atoms, molecules and dust content all over the cosmos make all prior old/naive 'mass' estimates obsolete/misleading (which prompted all those earlier naive/erroneous 'missing baryon problem' and 'exotic dark matter' etc furphies NOW moot). :)


Thank you. This actually reminds me of a funny idea I had a long time ago that "dark matter" was just a bunch of tiny pebbles out in space, dark and difficult to see, and therefore missed completely.

Like the positron. It was always there, even before it was discovered.
arcmetal
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
I believe any useful physical observation should be taken seriously, rather than just cast aside, or labeled an anecdote. ... The new science is in those anecdotes
this may well be the problem with some, IMHO

case in point: you state "any useful physical observation should be taken seriously"
This is absolutely the case in any science, whether that "useful physical observation" [upo] is supportive of the theory or not

any UPO is part of the testing of the hypothesis

This may only be true in theory, or in the ideal, but I'm afraid is not always how it works out in practice. I've seen it not work out at the micro level, and macro levels of science. It is great when it does work this way, but sometimes other human factors get in the way.

But I am optimistic since I know that the truth is immutable and out of reach. And so, as hard as some may try to hide it, the truth is discovered eventually.
hat1208
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2018
@arcmetal

How do you know the truth is "immutable and out of reach"?
arcmetal
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
@arcmetal

How do you know the truth is "immutable and out of reach"?


Just like: how do you know it was you that typed your question?
arcmetal
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2018
@hat1208
@arcmetal

How do you know the truth is "immutable and out of reach"?


Just like: how do you know it was you that typed your question?

I'm sorry if I was curt, but your tone was one of irreverence.
The real answer would be: do enough experiments and you'll see that this is just how the universe is. It is simply the nature of physics. Extend Godel's incompleteness theorems to physics and you get the answer to your question.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
This may only be true in theory, or in the ideal, but I'm afraid is not always how it works out in practice. I've seen it not work out at the micro level, and macro levels of science. It is great when it does work this way, but sometimes other human factors get in the way.
@arcmetal
I know that it's not how it *always* works in practice, but I also know that Scientists compete

something to watch about that:
Dr. Tyson @3 min scientists COMPETE to prove each other wrong
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

But I am optimistic since I know that the truth is immutable and out of reach
depends on your definition of truth, really

if you use definition 2 (here: https://www.merri...ry/truth ) then truth can be defined culturally
;-)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
@arcmetal
I'm sorry if I was curt, but your tone was one of irreverence.
The real answer would be: do enough experiments and you'll see that this is just how the universe is. It is simply the nature of physics. Extend Godel's incompleteness theorems to physics and you get the answer to your question
I don't think he was being irreverent so much as asking a legit question

not everyone posting here is a PhD like antialias_physorg
arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2018
But I am optimistic since I know that the truth is immutable and out of reach


depends on your definition of truth, really

if you use definition 2 ... then truth can be defined culturally
;-)

hehe, yes it would depend on my definition of it. In this context I wouldn't mean the definitions you've linked to, but rather I was thinking more along the lines of the mechanisms which make the universe function. ... For example, what is it that keeps the atoms so stable. What is it about the electron near a nucleus that makes it so stable ... and all the deeper mechanisms that make that work, and so on.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2018
Is this true?
Captain Stumpy > not everyone posting here is a PhD like antialias_physorg

As a Cambridge graduate who thinks Kings Parade is a shopping centre, so why are cars driving down Kings Parade
That he is also a PhD, I find his statement all the more surprising, not a remark one would expect from anyone who has walked down past all the arts shops, cafes, with Kings on your left with the Senate straight ahead where the graduation ceremonies he attended are held Captain Stumpy.
Is someone telling you porkies Captain Stumpy, or is this actually true?
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
Is someone telling you porkies Captain Stumpy, or is this actually true?
@gran
is it true that antialias_physorg has a PhD?
yes, it is true

I know who he is, where he lives and works, and I've seen some of his work
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2018
Is this true?
Is someone telling you porkies Captain Stumpy, or is this actually true?
@gran
is it true that antialias_physorg has a PhD?
yes, it is true
I know who he is, where he lives and works, and I've seen some of his work

Apparently, a master's degree in EE and PhD involved image processing and feature recognition from Cambridge – his own words
It's just these little inconsistencies don't tie together very well; it is only lately that they have been emerging into the light of day becoming noticeable.
But as you say "You know who he is, you've I've seen some of his work"
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2018
Is this true?
Is someone telling you porkies Captain Stumpy, or is this actually true?
@gran
is it true that antialias_physorg has a PhD?
yes, it is true
I know who he is, where he lives and works, and I've seen some of his work

Apparently, a master's degree in EE and PhD involved image processing and feature recognition from Cambridge – his own words
It's just these little inconsistencies don't tie together very well; it is only lately that they have been emerging into the light of day becoming noticeable.
But as you say "You know who he is, you've I've seen some of his work"


He doesn't have a degree in Electrical Engineering, I've tripped him up many times in just basic fundamentals for solutions in electronic circuit design.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2018
Is this true - it depends if you're conversing with someone holding a degree in Electrical Engineering
Benni> He doesn't have a degree in Electrical Engineering; I've tripped him up many times in just basic fundamentals for solutions in electronic circuit design

Benni:- that's why I said - Apparently, a master's degree in EE and PhD involved image processing and feature recognition from Cambridge – his own words
He thinks the lion yard is where they keep lions, this is the shopping centre in Cambridge, as I am fairly new here I soon noticed who for unknown reasons was taking all the flack and you appear to be the last one standing after this yearly 10 rounds, It appears to have gone strangely silent over the last few days - you cannot be versed in every subject there's no shame in it, this is that dreaded Dunning–Kruger syndrome, when we don't know we don't pretend, we defer to others that do
I am of still of the view it is porkies
Edenlegaia
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2018
Is this true?
Is someone telling you porkies Captain Stumpy, or is this actually true?
@gran
is it true that antialias_physorg has a PhD?
yes, it is true
I know who he is, where he lives and works, and I've seen some of his work

Apparently, a master's degree in EE and PhD involved image processing and feature recognition from Cambridge – his own words
It's just these little inconsistencies don't tie together very well; it is only lately that they have been emerging into the light of day becoming noticeable.
But as you say "You know who he is, you've I've seen some of his work"


He doesn't have a degree in Electrical Engineering, I've tripped him up many times in just basic fundamentals for solutions in electronic circuit design.


When and where? Even i feel curious about those times.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
Catch 22 – Is this true
Is this true - it depends if you're conversing with someone holding a degree in Electrical Engineering

Benni> He doesn't have a degree in Electrical Engineering; I've tripped him up many times in just basic fundamentals for solutions in electronic circuit design

granville543762> Benni:- that's why I said - Apparently, a master's degree in EE and PhD involved image processing and feature recognition from Cambridge – his own words
- You cannot be versed in every subject there's no shame in it, this is that dreaded Dunning–Kruger syndrome, when we don't know we don't pretend, we defer to others that do
I am of still of the view it is porkies

No rating is equivalent of *1 / 5 (1) which is catch 22
The solution is not in the rating system, it only serves to perpetuate this anomaly
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
@gran
No rating is equivalent of *1 / 5 (1) which is catch 22
when you talk bullshite, then it deserves a rating of 1
that is not a catch 22, that is how life works: your boss doesn't reward shite work, neither should you be rewarded for shite comments

moreover, the rating system is entirely subjective to the reader and their moods, mind you
IMHO, and the reason for your downrate, is that your comment has no value and it provides no evidence except your opinion, yet it's stated as fact

Benji has never once "tripped him up" and that is a great example of D-K
this is evident on this site alone and there is plenty of empirical evidence demonstrating that benji doesn't know jack about engineering, let alone physics, nuclear physics, astrophysics or computers

this isn't debatable as I've linked those many times
it is, however fascinating that you are always shined-on by benji, and vice versa

that *is* indicative of collusion [etc] considering the evidence
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2018
He doesn't have a degree in Electrical Engineering, I've tripped him up many times in just basic fundamentals for solutions in electronic circuit design.


When and where? Even i feel curious about those times.

Have fun doing the Comments search history if you're so curious about "when and where", I'm not doing homework for lazy people.
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2018
He doesn't have a degree in Electrical Engineering, I've tripped him up many times in just basic fundamentals for solutions in electronic circuit design.


When and where? Even i feel curious about those times.


> Eden: Have fun doing the Comments search history if you're so curious about "when and where", I'm not doing homework for lazy people.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2018
@benji-TROLL
Have fun doing the Comments search history if you're so curious about "when and where", I'm not doing homework for lazy people
so, you make the claim but you refuse to actually post the evidence?

is it because it doesn't exist?
or is it because you know the above to be a completely fraudulent claim based upon your own D-K?

there is ample evidence proving you're not an EE, starting with your basic math fails

links provided upon request

and I have plenty to demonstrate your historical fallacious claims not only of past "jobs" that you claim to be trained in (nuclear engineering) but in most areas you claim proficiency
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
@RNP.

An FYI for you, everyone, re (finally!) mainstream efforts to specifically detect/attribute ongoing CMB emissions that have nothing to do with BB/Inflation etc; see:

https://phys.org/...mic.html

Cheers all. :)

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.