First science with ALMA's highest-frequency capabilities

August 17, 2018, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Illustration highlighting ALMA's high-frequency observing capabilities. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF, S. Dagnello

The ALMA telescope in Chile has transformed how we see the universe, showing us otherwise invisible parts of the cosmos. This array of incredibly precise antennas studies a comparatively high-frequency sliver of radio light: waves that range from a few tenths of a millimeter to several millimeters in length. Recently, scientists pushed ALMA to its limits, harnessing the array's highest-frequency (shortest wavelength) capabilities, which peer into a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that straddles the line between infrared light and radio waves.

"High-frequency radio observations like these are normally not possible from the ground," said Brett McGuire, a chemist at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia, and lead author on a paper appearing in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. "They require the extreme precision and sensitivity of ALMA, along with some of the driest and most stable that can be found on Earth."

Under ideal atmospheric conditions, which occurred on the evening of 5 April 2018, astronomers trained ALMA's highest-frequency, submillimeter vision on a curious region of the Cat's Paw Nebula (also known as NGC 6334I), a star-forming complex located about 4,300 light-years from Earth in the direction of the southern constellation Scorpius.

Previous ALMA observations of this region at lower frequencies uncovered turbulent star formation, a highly dynamic environment, and a wealth of molecules inside the nebula.

To observe at higher frequencies, the ALMA antennas are designed to accommodate a series of "bands"—numbered 1 to 10—that each study a particular sliver of the spectrum. The Band 10 receivers observe at the highest frequency (shortest wavelengths) of any of the ALMA instruments, covering wavelengths from 0.3 to 0.4 millimeters (787 to 950 gigahertz), which is also considered to be long-wavelength infrared light.

These first-of-their-kind ALMA observations with Band 10 produced two exciting results.

The upper blue portion of this graph shows the spectral lines ALMA detected in a star-forming region of the Cat's Paw Nebula. The lower black portion shows the lines detected by the European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory. The ALMA observations detected more than ten times as many spectral lines. Note that the Herschel data have been inverted for comparison. Two molecular lines are labeled for reference. Credit: NRAO/AUI/NSF, B. McGuire et al.
Jets of Steam from Protostar

One of ALMA's first Band 10 results was also one of the most challenging, the direct observation of jets of water vapor streaming away from one of the massive protostars in the region. ALMA was able to detect the submillimeter-wavelength light naturally emitted by (water molecules made up of oxygen, hydrogen and deuterium atoms, which are hydrogen atoms with a proton and a neutron in their nucleus).

"Normally, we wouldn't be able to directly see this particular signal at all from the ground," said Crystal Brogan, an astronomer at the NRAO and co-author on the paper. "Earth's atmosphere, even at remarkably arid places, still contains enough water vapor to completely overwhelm this signal from any cosmic source. During exceptionally pristine conditions in the high Atacama Desert, however, ALMA can in fact detect that signal. This is something no other telescope on Earth can achieve."

As stars begin to form out of massive clouds of dust and gas, the material surrounding the star falls onto the mass at the center. A portion of this material, however, is propelled away from the growing protostar as a pair of jets, which carry away gas and molecules, including water.

The heavy water the researchers observed is flowing away from either a single protostar or a small cluster of protostars. These jets are oriented differently from what appear to be much larger and potentially more-mature jets emanating from the same region. The astronomers speculate that the heavy-water jets seen by ALMA are relatively recent features just beginning to move out into the surrounding nebula.

These observations also show that in the regions where this water is slamming into the surrounding gas, low-frequency water masers—naturally occurring microwave versions of lasers—flare up. The masers were detected in complementary observations by the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array.

Composite ALMA image of NGC 6334I, a star-forming region in the Cat's Paw Nebula, taken with the Band 10 receivers, ALMA's highest-frequency vision. The blue component is heavy water (HDO) streaming away from either a single protostar or a small cluster of protostars. The orange region is the "continuum emission" in the same region, which scientists found is extraordinarily rich in molecular fingerprints, including glycoaldehyde, the simplest sugar-related molecule. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO): NRAO/AUI/NSF, B. Saxton
ALMA Observes Molecules Galore

In addition to making striking images of objects in space, ALMA is also a supremely sensitive cosmic chemical sensor. As molecules tumble and vibrate in space, they naturally emit light at specific wavelengths, which appear as spikes and dips on a spectrum. All of ALMA's receiver bands can detect these unique spectral fingerprints, but those lines at the highest frequencies offer unique insight into lighter, important chemicals, like heavy water. They also provide the ability to see signals from complex, warm molecules, which have weaker spectral lines at lower frequencies.

Using Band 10, the researchers were able to observe a region of the spectrum that is extraordinarily rich in molecular fingerprints, including glycoaldehyde, the simplest sugar-related molecule.

When compared to previous best-in-the-world observations of the same source with the European Space Agency's Herschel Space Observatory, the ALMA observations detected more than ten times as many spectral lines.

"We detected a wealth of complex organic molecules surrounding this massive star-forming region," said McGuire. "These results have been received with excitement by the astronomical community and show once again how ALMA will reshape our understanding of the universe."

ALMA is able to take advantage of these rare windows of opportunity when the atmospheric conditions are "just right" by using dynamic scheduling. That means, the telescope operators and astronomers carefully monitor the weather and conduct those planned observations that best fit the prevailing conditions.

"There certainly are quite a few conditions that have to be met to conduct a successful observation using Band 10," concluded Brogan. "But these new ALMA results demonstrate just how important these observations can be."

"To remain at the forefront of discovery, observatories must continuously innovate to drive the leading edge of what astronomy can accomplish," said Joe Pesce, the program director for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory at NSF. "That is a core element of NSF's NRAO, and its ALMA telescope, and this discovery pushes the limit of what is possible through ground-based astronomy."

This research is presented in a paper titled "First results of an ALMA band 10 spectral line survey of NGC 6334I: Detections of glycolaldehyde (HC(O)CH2OH) and a new compact bipolar outflow in HDO and CS," by B. McGuire et al. in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Explore further: First light for band 5 at ALMA

More information: First results of an ALMA band 10 spectral line survey of NGC 6334I: Detections of glycolaldehyde (HC(O)CH2OH) and a new compact bipolar outflow in HDO and CS, Astrophysical Journal Letters (2018). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad7bb , https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.05438

Related Stories

First light for band 5 at ALMA

December 21, 2016

ALMA observes radio waves from the Universe, at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum. With the newly installed Band 5 receivers, ALMA has now opened its eyes to a whole new section of this radio spectrum, creating ...

ALMA reveals sun in new light

January 17, 2017

New images from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) reveal stunning details of our Sun, including the dark, contorted center of an evolving sunspot that is nearly twice the diameter of the Earth.

ALMA reveals inner web of stellar nursery

March 7, 2018

This spectacular and unusual image shows part of the famous Orion Nebula, a star formation region lying about 1350 light-years from Earth. It combines a mosaic of millimetre-wavelength images from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter ...

ALMA discovers dew drops surrounding dusty spider's web

July 1, 2016

Astronomers have spotted glowing droplets of condensed water in the distant Spiderweb Galaxy – but not where they expected to find them. Detections with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) show that ...

Recommended for you

Matter waves and quantum splinters

March 25, 2019

Physicists in the United States, Austria and Brazil have shown that shaking ultracold Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can cause them to either divide into uniform segments or shatter into unpredictable splinters, depending ...

How tree diversity regulates invading forest pests

March 25, 2019

A national-scale study of U.S. forests found strong relationships between the diversity of native tree species and the number of nonnative pests that pose economic and ecological threats to the nation's forests.

83 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SkyLight
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2018
Don't you just love the way the Americans claim ownership
That is a core element of NSF's NRAO, and its ALMA telescope
of projects where they're just one of many participant organizations? From the ALMA website:
The Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) is an international partnership of the European Southern Observatory (ESO), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Natural Sciences (NINS) of Japan, together with NRC (Canada), NSC and ASIAA (Taiwan), and KASI (Republic of Korea), in cooperation with the Republic of Chile.
It's just cheap to claim ascendancy over the other organizations contributing to ALMA, especially considering that the NSF/NRAO's contribution to the funding of ALMA is set at 37.5%, and that contribution covers the US in collaboration with Canada and Taiwan. So the contribution of the US alone is probably around 20% - 25%. And they say "NRAO, and its ALMA telescope". Big deal!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2018
Starwater is real, and this is the last bit of confirmation that confirms the processes and phenomena of starwater.

https://www.suspi...arwater/
SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (22) Aug 18, 2018
@cd
Starwater is real, and this is the last bit of confirmation that confirms...
Only if you're incapable of thinking in an objective, scientific, manner.

The website you link to is yet another in a seemingly endless and tiresome series of personal web-based viewpoints on matters scientific, interspersed with yet more Thunderdolts/EU quackery. As the website creator says, he's a lawyer and has worked in the field of investment - hardly the background for hard scientific research. But you guys would follow a poodle around if it barked "Plasma".

Starwater is a piss-poor hoax, like all the unsubstantiated EU twaddle which has no predictive theories or evidence to back it up, and holds about as much water as a rusty sieve.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 18, 2018
Starwater is a piss-poor hoax

From the article:
the direct observation of jets of water vapor streaming away from one of the massive protostars in the region. ALMA was able to detect the submillimeter-wavelength light naturally emitted by heavy water

LOL!
SkyLight
3.4 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2018
Yes, the water is seen streaming away in jets from the protostar, but you are arguing that the protostar has CREATED the water, whereas that is not the case. The water has been redirected from the disk surrounding the star. The water was created elsewhere, as part of the build-up of chemical species occurring in molecular clouds, on dust grains surrounding protostars, and so on. Plenty of water to be seen in such places, even where there are no stars or protostars in the near vicinity.

Your big mistake is seeing the jets as proof positive of your starwater theory, wihich is not at all a predictive theory, has no math and therefore cannot prove or disprove anything. As usual, you, and the rest of your EU crackpot buddies, fail abysmally to prove anything at all.

The only reason for the pathetic starwater idea is to add further "proof" to your already totally discredited comet theory, where the comet is supposed to pick up water from the solar wind. You people never learn, do you?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2018
Your big mistake is seeing the jets as proof positive of your starwater theory

Your big mistake is projecting, attempting to think you know what is being suggested. The fact that you need to resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling shows you see this new paradigm as a threat. You dread to accept the realization that your cosmology is a pseudoscientific pipedream.
The only reason for the pathetic starwater idea is to add further "proof" to your already totally discredited comet theory, where the comet is supposed to pick up water from the solar wind.

Once again, your projection is bupkis. Comets need only pick up H ions from the solar wind. Electrochemistry creates the water using the O and heat provided by the discharges occurring on the surface of the comet.
Before you try to 'debunk' that which you don't comprehend you should try and get a clue.
SkyLight
3.1 / 5 (17) Aug 19, 2018
The "clue" comes directly from the undeniable fact that none of your theories hold water. They make no quantitative predictions which could be tested experimentally. There's a word for such nonsense, and that word is "bunkum".
You dread to accept the realization that your cosmology is a pseudoscientific pipedream.
Pull the other leg, Susan!
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (19) Aug 19, 2018
Comets need only pick up H ions from the solar wind
Uh-huh - you must mean those very few that can make it past the gigantic streams of electrons pouring into the solar system from ALL directions at once (from where?), and at speeds which must be in excess of 99.9999% of the speed of light in order to have any chance of having enough energy to sustain the nuclear reactions which your playground theorists insist occur at the surface of the Sun, even though no evidence has been found of such electrons, nor of any nuclear reactions at the sun's surface(where are the gamma rays?), nor any hint from experiments that high-speed electrons are even able to initiate such nuclear reactions, since they don't participate in the strong nuclear force, and... Well, folks you get the idea.

Anybody believing in such tripe for more than a minute is a complete fool, and has the scientific knowledge and comprehension of a gnat. Do you really believe such nonsense, @cd?
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2018
Strawman to the left, erroneous claims to the right, name calling up and down. You are either a jonesdumb disciple or cockpuppet. You use the same flawed reasoning based on dramatic misinterpretation of the proposals and a series of logical fallacies to protect you from progress. Clearly you are an ideologue of the Church of Sciencism.
SkyLight
3.2 / 5 (20) Aug 19, 2018
And true to form, neither you nor your EU pals have ever shown ANY scientific grounds for your vague, no-numbers, no-predictions, no-clue EU balderdash. Always the same ducking and weaving, hand-waving and calling "mainstream" science a "church" of "pseudoscience" when your own theories are as moribund and as unscientific as pulp trash, hogwash dressed as science, could ever be.

You sir have as much substance as your preposterous so-called theories and your true Church of Unscience, the EU. Which is: none at all. You're a flat joke, a bad smell in a closed room, a pathetic waste of space. End of.
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (16) Aug 19, 2018
^^^
Thank you. Well said.
yep
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2018
The three stages from modern cosmology consensus stooges.
1.There is no current in space!
2.There is current in space, but it doesn't do anything!
3.We knew it all the time.
That's why science advances one death at a time. Old f*cks so set in their ways unable to process new information even when proven they revert to their old belief system. We get it we have the history of science. It's the ongoing story.
Math is not empirical evidence, there is no 1 to 1 correlation to reality. Your Big Bang space magic is nonsense. There is no need for dark matter except under modern cosmologies assumed priori.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2018
Easy claims to make if you wilfully ignore the experimentally based plasma science of Birkeland, Alfvén, Langmuir coupled with well developed electrical engineering concepts. Those are the giant shoulders with which the Electric Cosmology community stand upon. Claiming there is no science is just a lie.
However, black holes, dark, matter, dark energy, GW's, and any other non-physical maths constructs are decidedly pseudoscientific claptrap. Maths is a tool, it doesn't define reality.
Ojorf
3.8 / 5 (16) Aug 20, 2018
^^^
Yeah, easy claims to make if you willfully ignore the data and the thoroughly tested science in favor of crackpottery.

"non-physical maths constructs" indeed. Math constructs based on solid data and observation, unlike your crazy ideas.
yep
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
Math is not and will not ever be empirical evidence.
Crack Pottery is blind faith in an assumed priori based at a time before we had instruments in space to know what was even there.
691Boat
5 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2018
Math is not and will not ever be empirical evidence.
Crack Pottery is blind faith in an assumed priori based at a time before we had instruments in space to know what was even there.

Good thing none of those instruments in space need or use math! whew! /sarc
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2018
@691Boat.
Math is not and will not ever be empirical evidence.
Crack Pottery is blind faith in an assumed priori based at a time before we had instruments in space to know what was even there.
Good thing none of those instruments in space need or use math! whew! /sarc
Being an atheist myself (since age 9), I can sense your eagerness to ridicule everything posted by @yep or other 'god-believing religionists', but this is a science site where impartial, objective consideration of posted comments is encouraged. I can sense your frustration, intention to ridicule via sarcasm, rather than actually try to get the point @yep was making; which is: suitable/accurate instruments/measurements, empirical evidence, are necessary to input into the analysis; which must be done using the correct/applicable algorithms and mathematical techniques. Bicep2 saga is a cautionary tale about 'cavalier' use of insufficient/incorrect assumptions/data etc for analysis/maths. Be fair. :)
yep
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2018
Thanks that's the point, garbage in is garbage out.
Never been grouped in with God-believeing religionists before. Most of my post are making fun of the consensus science dogma using religious terminology because of it's constrained thinking. This usually gets me lumped into anti math and anti science crowd because of the lack of historical perspective that today's truths are tomorrows myths.You wouldn't think that concept to be a hard thing to wrap the brain around except people's authority worship and attachment to belief is a big part of the ego.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2018
Comets need only pick up H ions from the solar wind.


Idiot. The solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet for months on end. Even if it did, your pathetic, unscientific idiocy fails by many orders of magnitude to produce even 1 litre of water per second. And then there is the problem of no O- to combine with. And the problem of the D/H ratio of the water being considerably different from the SW value. Apart from that....................... it was a dumb idea, dreamed up by scientifically illiterate nobodies. Stick to mythology, woo boy.
Ojorf
3.9 / 5 (15) Aug 21, 2018
Math is not and will not ever be empirical evidence.
Crack Pottery is blind faith in an assumed priori based at a time before we had instruments in space to know what was even there.


The math is not the evidence you idiot, the data is. The real empirical evidence.
The fact that the math corresponds to the data is a clue that the models the maths represents is a fair approximation of reality.
Our current best "math approximations" DO correspond to tested realty so your objections are baseless (never mind illogical).
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2018
Most of my post are making fun of the consensus science dogma using religious terminology because of it's constrained thinking.


Lol. Does the idiot Thornhill write your scripts for you?

SkyLight
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 21, 2018
Math is more than just a tool - it's the backbone, or the life-blood, of science. Without math, science would just be a mish-mash of speculation about reality - bascially, on a par with religion. Which is, incidentally, the state of play as regards the "theories" of the EU - no math, no science.

Math is at the same time the only language in which science can properly be expressed - math enables us to build theories with quantitative predictions, and hence quantify relationships between objects, forces and other phenomena. Math enables the predictions of science to be tested: "scientific" systems of theories or beliefs lacking math - such as those of the EU - cannot be tested, and hence are simply collections of vague ideas about the nature of reality.

Math can also go further - it can be used to predict phenomena which have not yet been observed.

(TBC)
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2018
(...continued...)

So, Maxwell's equations predicted the existence of EM waves; Special Relativity predicted time dilation (tested a billion times every day!) and the equivalence of mass and energy (E=mc^2); General Relativity predicts, or can be used to predict, the existence of many phenomena which, during 100 years of scientific endeavour, have yet to be disproved; the math of Quantum Mechanics is spectacularly successful at explaining many physical phenomena, and predicting others. Dirac's math led to the discovery of anti-matter; Feynman's math and QCD similarly have led us into new areas of research and discovery. And so on...

So, looking to the future, the math being developed now may well lead us to the discovery of phenomena of which we at present have no inkling. However, those with no faith in the power of math to reveal hidden aspects of reality, can only look forward to speculation lacking any kind of predictive power, or formal structure.
SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2018
With all these EU people braying like adolescent donkeys about the importance of experimentation and empirical evidence - which is absolutely correct: it's a necessary, albeit not sufficient, component of scientific enquiry - I thought they might actually like an opportunity to "get their hands dirty", with some real scientific experimentation

Reading the paper behind this article (we've all done that right? - for those who haven't yet done so, it can be found on arxiv: https://arxiv.org...5438.pdf ), the authors
stress the need for dedicated THz laboratory spectroscopy to support and exploit future high-frequency molecular line observations with ALMA
and that there is a
need for accurate, high-resolution gas phase spectra of complex molecules from laboratory studies in these frequency ranges
So, what are you guys waiting for? Put those formidable lab skills to use and get some good THz spectra for some of the molecules mentioned in the paper.
691Boat
5 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2018
@RC:
@691Boat.Being an atheist myself (since age 9), I can sense your eagerness to ridicule everything posted by @yep or other 'god-believing religionists', but this is a science site where impartial, objective consideration of posted comments is encouraged.

my comment had absolutely nothing to do with religion. It was about math. Quit being a retard. Nearly everything you have ever written in these comment sections is worthless and really does absolutely nothing for the advancement of the discussions. I was pointing out the obvious failure of the poster to recognize the fact that math was needed to design the instrument, operate the instrument and measure/interpret data from the instruments that gather his oh so vital imperical data.
Also, I could not care care less that you or anyone here is atheist or not. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2018
Math is not and will not ever be empirical evidence.


Sounds like more of Thornhill's dogma. You know why he shies away from it, don't you? Because it can be shown that such silly ideas as electric Suns and electric comets and electric gravity don't even get out of the starting blocks, when you start to do a few BOTE calculations to test his unscientific nonsense.
That is why EU cultists seem, almost to a man/ woman, to be both scientifically and mathematically incompetent. You couldn't believe that crap if it were otherwise. And that is what he relies on to sell his Velikovskian woo.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2018
The three stages from modern cosmology consensus stooges.
1.There is no current in space!
2.There is current in space, but it doesn't do anything!
3.We knew it all the time.


Wrong. Just more of Thornhill/ Scott's strawman dogma.
1. Simply not true.
2. It does some things, but nothing like EU loons claim.
3. We did in many cases.

References available, but I might need special dispensation to make a post of ~ 10 000 characters. Minimum.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 21, 2018
@691Boat
Also, I could not care care less that you or anyone here is atheist or not. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself
when the delusional make these type comments they assume it presents them in an objective manner

they think that, by claiming to be atheist, it makes them " impartial, objective" and gives them more influence in their "consideration" of topics

they wrongfully ASSume that the word atheist is synonymous with impartial, scientific objectivity and logic when everyone knows that the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only scientific and objective church

all hail the FSM
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 21, 2018
@691Boat.
nothing to do with religion.
True. I just wanted to again stress for you/all, that a poster's religious/scientific 'beliefs' should play no part in calm/fair consideration of the scientific/logical tenability (or not) of what they submit for scientific/logical scrutiny.
Nearly everything you have ever written in these comment sections is worthless
"Nearly everything"? This implies "some was valuable"! Thanks. :)
I was pointing out the obvious failure of the poster to recognize the fact that math was needed to design the instrument, operate the instrument and measure/interpret data from the instruments that gather his oh so vital imperical data.
No argument, insofar as that goes. But claiming theoretical validity without tenable scientific evidence (as has been happening with BB, Inflation, CMB etc) is the real worry, because maths is 'prostituted' via GIGO 'analysis' etc (eg Bicep2 saga).

That "atheist" was a disclaimer; like my disclaimer re EU. :)
yep
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2018
yep
1 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2018

The math is not the evidence you idiot, the data is. The real empirical evidence.
The fact that the math corresponds to the data is a clue that the models the maths represents is a fair approximation of reality.
Our current best "math approximations" DO correspond to tested realty so your objections are baseless (never mind illogical).


Data is subjective to the priori. Sydney Chapman's math describing the northern lights was considered correct for decades, even after proven false it took several more decades for Birkelands work to be accepted some 70 years after his death. Your assumptions are laughable as are modern cosmologies physics defying space magic. "Give us one miracle and we'll explain the rest" Ok smart guy, math is not science.
http://www.dnva.n...id=72968
SkyLight
3.6 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2018
@yep, thanks for the link. It's all very well to point the finger and say that physics at the fringes is going in directions some feel uncomfortable with, but that's the state of play these days, like it or not. For the vast majority of physics research - I'd guesstimate that to be 99% and counting, it's business as usual.

So why do you EU adherents makes such a fuss about the BB, Inflation, CMB, black holes and so on? It's a rhetorical question so I'll just state the answer for those with an interest in such things. The answer: it's because High Priest Uncle Wal Thornhill and his motley crew of Uber-Velikovskian "theorists" tell you so.

Add to that the almost palpable fear you guys have of anything mathematical, unless it's figuring out currents in a circuit. And, jewel in the shit crown - NONE of the EU's decrepit theories have any math in them at all, so can't be used to prove or disprove anything at all. Deal with the holes in your own theories before calling others out!
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2018
The answer: it's because High Priest Uncle Wal Thornhill and his motley crew of Uber-Velikovskian "theorists" tell you so.


Precisely. And because their beliefs involve no maths or science, then they can only be considered a religion.
Thornhill is an idiot, as is Talbott. One allegedly has a Bachelor's degree in physics and computer science from the 60's, the other has no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

Here is the idiot Thornhill from way back (on Wayback!);

https://web.archi...rse.html

Now, if that ain't religion, I don't know what is!

SkyLight
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 22, 2018
@jd - As I read the contents of the link you provided, I had to crouch down to stop the strange shuddering in my body and to hide from the dreadful screams echoing in my ears. It was only later - much later - when help arrived, that I discovered I had been laughing so hard I had shat myself a weeks-load in one fell, foul, swoop.

***Please*** put a health warning on such links if you post similar ones in the future. But, Good God Almighty, that Thornhill is one crazy loon. And anyone following such a basket-case is, well, a dyed-in-the-wool fruitcake.

Ta muchly, anyhoo ;-)
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Aug 22, 2018
***Please*** put a health warning on such links if you post similar ones in the future. But, Good God Almighty, that Thornhill is one crazy loon. And anyone following such a basket-case is, well, a dyed-in-the-wool fruitcake.

Ta muchly, anyhoo ;-)


:)

You may find the following of interest, from around the same era. This is a chap called Tim Thompson, who was an astrophysicist at JPL (now retired), who was jumping all over Thornhill on a newsgroup (remember them?) back in the day. He later carried on his trashing of all things EU elsewhere, such as Cosmoquest (formerly BAUT), and at International Skeptics. He even made an appearance on here some time back. Captain S may have the link;

http://www.tim-th...eas.html

The above link comes from this page:
http://www.tim-th...aqs.html
SkyLight
3.6 / 5 (17) Aug 22, 2018
@jd - Read the first link, thanks for that. Well, Thompson really takes a scientific bat to the Thornhill fluff and quite right too! I especially liked Thompson's last comment:
when your theory remains qualitative for 50 years, maybe it's time to get quantitative or get a new theory.
and that was written 20 years ago, so it's now 70 years of Electric Hoohah, and still no substance!
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 23, 2018
@SkyLight
@jd - Read the first link, thanks for that. Well, Thompson really takes a scientific bat to the Thornhill fluff and quite right too! I especially liked Thompson's last comment
you should take a look at
another beatdown of electric woo here: http://www.tim-th...sun.html

he also came to PO for a while to teach the eu loonies: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
A conciliatory observation
@SkyLight
@jd - Read the first link, thanks for that.

Captain Stumpy> you should take a look at http://www.tim-th...sun.html


From a cursory glance expletive free as it is increasingly found the further back in time from May 29, 2015 the comments are expletive free, as May 29, 2015 is dividing line from when the expletives became increasingly obvious because from March 9, 2013 they remained expletively free till the appearance of May 29, 2015 from which they increasingly became expletive where now presently they have become expletive free
So in conclusion it was never really March 9, 2013 who brought these boards to a demonic, state as it was the influence of May 29, 2015
A conciliatory observation conclusion if these boards remain from this moment in time till immortality, continue in their harmonious state and please don't use this observation to regress
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2018
Why it printed in faded grey instead of bold black print I do not know, as I put all the little [[[[ q and /// in the necessary order.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2018
@idiot gran
Why it printed in faded grey instead of bold black print I do not know, as I put all the little [[[[ q and /// in the necessary order
well, that's obviously a false statement - likely because you don't pay attention and you're so focused on finding data for your dogma that you can't comprehend reality

if you have to many bracketed "q" while not enough bracketed "/q" then you get grey text as a quote

granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2018
@idiot gran
Why it printed in faded grey instead of bold black print I do not know, as I put all the little [[[[ q and /// in the necessary order
well, that's obviously a false statement - likely because you don't pay attention and you're so focused on finding data for your dogma that you can't comprehend reality

if you have to many bracketed "q" while not enough bracketed "/q" then you get grey text as a quote


Thanks stumps, I'll keep an eye on it....
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
@gran
Thanks stumps, I'll keep an eye on it....
you're welcome

just remember that they have to be equal - for every quote you open you must have a closing quote, just like in English, otherwise, it's assumed that the entire thing is the quote

the reference to English is important as it lays the ground rules
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
Lil Timmy Thompson is a hack, a disreputable moron continuously misapplying physics in his attempts to debunk that which he doesn't have a clue. And here are the two of you regurgitating his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2018
@cantthink the eu cult acolyte
is a hack
he presented verifiable, validated evidence from plasma physics and you presented your delusional belief
seems the "hack" is you, scott and the other idiots
continuously misapplying physics
you do this a lot, so this claim is demonstrably false as well as projection

the rest of your post is also patently false

if you had the ability to debunk the validated plasma physics you would do that... you know, like Jones, Thompson and JeanTate did to you? (Links provided upon request as there are too many to link in a single post - but start with the above Higgs post)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
Lil Timmy Thompson is a hack, a disreputable moron continuously misapplying physics in his attempts to debunk that which he doesn't have a clue. And here are the two of you regurgitating his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.


Lol. Tim Thompson is just one person who has debunked this EU crap. Guess what a number of them have in common, that is lacking in the EU cranks? Yes, they are qualified in the relevant areas. You, and none of your high priests, are. Just a bunch of mythologists and engineers without a scooby about astrophysics or plasma physics.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2018
Timmy Thompson is almost qualified to carry the trash to the dumpster.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
....debunk that which he doesn't have a clue.


And we keep asking you loons - where is this stuff that we don't understand? We can only go on the garbage propagated on crank sites, and spewed out in places like this. Otherwise it doesn't exist. So, from what has been made public, yes, it has been trivially debunked. Are you keeping something back? If so link to it. I hope it doesn't involve dinosaurs, or Earth orbiting Saturn, because that has nothing to do with science. You do realise that, don't you?
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 24, 2018
Timmy Thompson is almost qualified to carry the trash to the dumpster.


Pathetic, unqualified wooist - what are you qualified in? Are you an astrophysicist, woo boy? A plasma physicist? Are any of the Velikovskian loons in your cult? No, is the answer to that, for obvious reasons. Hell, even Peratt put a health warning on his site about your cult!

Here are Tim's contributions and qualifications - perhaps you could do likewise for any of the EU astro/ plasma physicists, yes?
http://www.tim-th...rch.html
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2018
You could quite easily say star-liquid-hydrogen cantdrive
cantdrive85> Starwater is real, and this is the last bit of confirmation that confirms the processes and phenomena of starwater. https://www.suspi...arwater/

You could quite easily say starliquidhydrogen cantdrive, as when the hydrogen ions in the wind succumb to the coldness of the vacuum the hydrogen atom temperature drops to liquid hydrogen or liquid helium, and as there is water in the wind why not oxygen then we will have liquid oxygen cantdrive,
Or as you have named it starwater becomes starliquidoxgen, starliquidhelium or starliquidhydrogen or any other atom or molecule becomes a prefix of star...
An interesting play on words cantdrive!
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2018
^^^^^^ Don't waste time and effort on this, Granville. It is just more unpublished EU nonsense. We know that H+ from the solar wind can create water on the Moon, for instance, but the amounts created are pretty trivial, taken over 4.5 Ga.
When it comes to water at comets, or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn, it is easy to show that they are not related to any putative solar wind mechanism. Just off the top of my head, you can measure the D/H ratio of the H in the water, and that of the solar wind. They are far apart. Then there is the nuclear spin temperature and Ortho to para ratios of the water. This has been measured at a number of comets, for example, and shows formation temperatures of ~ 30 K. You have to be a fair old way from a star to get those temperatures.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2018
Modern cosmology finds 95% of the universe missing and you call EU pathetic.
Considering modern theory was proposed without the consideration of EM and on the construct of theology I would say the adage you can't teach an old dog new tricks is about right.
The world is changing better catch up.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2018
Modern cosmology finds 95% of the universe missing and you call EU pathetic.
Considering modern theory was proposed without the consideration of EM and on the construct of theology I would say the adage you can't teach an old dog new tricks is about right.
The world is changing better catch up.
yep
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2018
hate these cookies
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2018
Modern cosmology finds 95% of the universe missing and you call EU pathetic.


Yes, I do. It has no science, and believes in scientifically impossible woo, such as that of Velikovsky. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science. It is a cult.
flueninsky
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2018
A Summary of Modern Cosmology
Modern cosmology finds 95% of the universe missing and you call EU pathetic.
Considering modern theory was proposed without the consideration of EM and on the construct of theology I would say the adage you can't teach an old dog new tricks is about right.
The world is changing better catch up.

Modern cosmology begins with the heritage of ancient and mediaeval cosmology. The issues can be divided into essentially metaphysical questions about space and time and then observational issues about the content and structure of the universe. With space and time, the questions had always been whether they are finite or infinite, and what kind of thing, if anything, space was. The peculiarities of time, its directionality, and whether the past and the future can be said to exist http://friesian.c...olog.htm
Modern Cosmology:
- METAPHYSICAL - wizardry and sorcery just about sums it up!
SkyLight
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it...
SkyLight
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it...
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it...
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
2 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
2 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
SkyLight
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Show us the mechanisms and hypotheses, complete with sufficient supporting math to provide solid quantitative predictions. Then show us the astronomical/astrophysical observations you have performed, plus any lab work, to support turning those hypotheses/mechanisms into working theories.

A hint to anyone - anyone at all - who might be reading this: neither @cd nor @yep, nor any of the EU cosmo-illogical "experts", will step up to the line and provide these. Since those people - desperate to be taken for real scientists, and the vanguard as they see it of the move to depose "mainstream" cosmology and astrophysics from their lofty perches, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but talk. And a whole lot of that. But zero science worthy of the name.

Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it.
flueninsky
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
putting your point of view
his strawman arguments which have no basis in the actual mechanisms being proposed.
Once more: these electrical engineers, sparkies, and EU hangers-on, have no science at all. If I'm wrong, here's the EU's big chance to prove it...

27 and counting - how many repetitions are needed before your point is finally put SkyLight
SkyLight
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2018
I went away to do some stuff after writing the post and returned to find all these multiple posts - I have no idea as to how this has happened!!!

So, sorry indeed for the multiple posts :(
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2018
Don't worry. The comment section sometimes gets the hiccups (If you notice it quickly you can sometimes at least delete the text from the double posts)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2018
I went away to do some stuff after writing the post and returned to find all these multiple posts - I have no idea as to how this has happened!!!

So, sorry indeed for the multiple posts :(


Well, the site has been playing up for me too. I can reach it no problem from my bookmarks, but for a while I was getting a 504 bad gateway whenever I clicked on a particular story. Seems to be fine now.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2018
@SkyLight, @JonesDave
I have no idea as to how this has happened!
Well, the site has been playing up for me too
Sometimes it's the site, sometimes the ISP, sometimes the computer

Have you tried turning it off and turning it back on? https://www.youtu...FB1P_Mn8

LMFAO

but seriously, clear out the cookies and cache and do a reboot
SkyLight
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2018
clear out the cookies and cache and do a reboot
Well, not being a computer person, I called the IT department...

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.