Gravity theory saved from death

Gravity theory saved from death
Credit: University of St Andrews

An international group of astronomers, including physicists at the University of St Andrews, has revived a previously debunked theory of gravity, arguing that motions within dwarf galaxies would be slower if close to a massive galaxy.

The research team examined a theory previously published in the journal Nature which claimed that modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) couldn't be true because the internal motions were too slow within dwarf galaxy NGC1052-DF2, a small galaxy comprising about 200 million stars.

MOND is a controversial alternative to general relativity, the prevailing Einstein-inspired understanding of the phenomenon of gravity, that requires to exist, but this has never been proved. MOND does not require dark matter.

Such theories are essential in understanding our universe, as rotate so quickly they should fly apart, according to known physics.

Various theories have been put forward to explain what holds them together, and debate rages over which is right. The now debunked study claimed MOND was dead. However, this latest study – also in Nature – shows that the earlier work neglected a subtle environmental effect.

The new research argues that the previous work did not consider that the influence of the gravitational environment around the dwarf could affect motions within it. In other words, if the dwarf galaxy were close to a massive galaxy – which is the case here – then the motions within the dwarf would be slower.

Lead author Pavel Kroupa, Professor at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, said: "There have been many premature claims on the death of MOND in very influential journals. So far, none stand up to detailed scrutiny."

Galaxies rotate so quickly that they should fly apart according to known physics. Two current theories explain this – the first places a halo of dark matter around every galaxy. However, dark matter particles have never been discovered, despite many decades of very sensitive searches, often using large detectors.

The second is MOND, which explains a vast wealth of data on galactic rotation speeds using only their visible stars and gas. MOND does this with a mathematical prescription that strengthens the visible material's gravity, but only where this gets very weak. Otherwise, gravity would follow the conventional Newton's law, e.g., in the solar system – or close to a .

Dr. Indranil Banik of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of St Andrews, and soon to be of Bonn University, said: "It is remarkable that MOND still makes such successful predictions based on equations written down 35 years ago."

Dr. Hongsheng Zhao, of the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of St Andrews, said: "Our modeling of the MOND environmental effect was later confirmed by another group."

Hosein Haghi, Professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences, in Iran, said: "This effect has been known for a long time. These Nature authors were unaware of our papers on how to include it."


Explore further

MOND predicts dwarf galaxy feature prior to observations

More information: Pavel Kroupa et al. Does the galaxy NGC1052–DF2 falsify Milgromian dynamics?, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0429-z
Journal information: Nature

Citation: Gravity theory saved from death (2018, September 14) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-09-gravity-theory-death.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
709 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 14, 2018
Glad to see people are still occasionally willing to consider something other than dark matter.

Sep 14, 2018
Glad to see people are still occasionally willing to consider something other than dark matter.


That's why I always preferred the term 'unknown extra gravity causing stuff'.

That said, how serious is MOND really? I never heard of it but if it apparently isn't debunked I guess it should be world news...which it isn't?

Sep 14, 2018
Glad to see people are still occasionally willing to consider something other than dark matter.


That's why I always preferred the term 'unknown extra gravity causing stuff'.

That said, how serious is MOND really? I never heard of it but if it apparently isn't debunked I guess it should be world news...which it isn't?


It is a bit 'fringe' but not totally nutso. Plenty of stuff on it in respectable journals.
That said, there are various flavours of it, and a number of them have taken a bit of a kicking recently, due to the detection of the neutron star merger. A number of their models required the speed of light and the speed of gravity to be considerably different. The detection showed that to be wrong. Also, a number of the surviving flavours require DM, but not as much of it as in the conventional view.
In short, I wouldn't be getting my hopes up for it.

Sep 14, 2018
It is a bit 'fringe' but not totally nutso


......and what is "fringe" is your recent claim to have received a degree in Astronomy 40 years ago from Uni in Auckland, NZ that has never offered such a degree in the history of the institution. Maybe it could be said that it's the claims you make about yourself that come in various "flavours".

Did you ever get that degree in Anthropology you also told us you were studying for at Uni? Or don't you want to brag about that in a science chatroom?


Sep 14, 2018
In order for a theory to supplant an existing theory, it must not only explain EVERYTHING the existing theory explains but also make predictions that the other theory doesn't, which can then be tested.

MOND might explain the motion of stars within galaxies, but what about the motions of galaxies within clusters? Also, does MOND explain the dark matter that has been detected and mapped through gravitational lensing?

Sep 14, 2018

Did you ever get that degree in Anthropology you also told us you were studying for at Uni? Or don't you want to brag about that in a science chatroom?



I said, you useless prat, that my degrees were astronomy based. I quote myself:

And both of my degrees were astronomy related, f***wit. As opposed to the 'how to wash floors' course, which is likely the only course you have ever taken.


So tell us, Benji, who said this, and what establishment do you think they learned it at?

You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Lol. Nuclear engineer my arse. High school drop out, yes?

Sep 14, 2018
Why bother with modified Newtonian gravity when General Relativity has not been tested on a galactic-scale? Modelers resort to Newtonian gravity because GR becomes too difficult with "messy" problems like galactic rotation. Modifying a theory of gravity that we already know needs modifying seems like a colossal waste of effort.

Sep 14, 2018
Plasma is as electrically conductive as a metal. I don't understand why Jones would figure all this metal, 99% of the universe, wouldn't have E&M qualities that effect mass and rotation.

It's kind of stupid, frankly. Especially to assume anyone who thinks this is an EU turd.

Sep 14, 2018
Did you ever get that degree in Anthropology you also told us you were studying for at Uni? Or don't you want to brag about that in a science chatroom?


No, loony boy, I studied evolution as part of a science degree that was based mostly on astronomy/ planetary science. I have studied palaeoanthropology informally for years. Enough to recognise certain traits, even amongst living people. I am currently writing a paper entitled:

'Discovery of a new human variant; Homo Bennii.'

It is about a creature that is superficially similar to Homo sapiens, but has marked traits of incurable Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and comes in on the IQ scale somewhere between hamsters and badgers. I'll post the abstract, if you like.


Sep 14, 2018
Plasma is as electrically conductive as a metal. I don't understand why Jones would figure all this metal, 99% of the universe, wouldn't have E&M qualities that effect mass and rotation.


Instead of just posting junk on here, why don't you link to the paper/s that explain how 'EM forces' affect mass and rotation? I'll pose the same question to you as I've posed before to EU loons;
I have an electron (-), an ion (+), a neutral (=), and a bloody great star. They are all at the same orbital distance from the galactic centre. Please explain why they are all orbiting at the same velocity, in the same direction.
What is the typical magnetic field of a galaxy? Well, the IMF, carried by the solar wind, is p!ss weak, at ~ 5 nT. Galactic fields? Something like 0.1 - 1.0 nT. What would you like them to do?


Sep 14, 2018
Remember jones, that is nT/cm^3 or nanoTesla per cubic centimeter, now, multiply that by the cubic lightyears over which that field extends, what of the effect at that point? Just saying it is in NanoTesla is a strawman, because that is just the per cubic centimeter rate, expanded to galactic scales we are talking a LOT of Tesla. PLENTY enough to have visible effects on the mass that we see. It is just vastly under estimated by folks like you who are so close to right, but have a rectocranial inversion every time someone brings up electric currents in space actually affecting the movement of mass therein with credible science behind it, and you INSIST on trying to debunk it, but instead dig your hole deeper and show just how aged your schooling really is. AND the fact that you have not stayed up to date, despite posting here. Please, take your rants to someplace else where they care, you dont really add to the science discussion, you just rant. None of the rest of us like that

Sep 14, 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.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

Sep 14, 2018
Remember jones, that is nT/cm^3 or nanoTesla per cubic centimeter, .......


Aaaannnndddd...... I was forced to stop reading there, in fear of contracting whatever has taken over Steel's faculties!
In short, no it isn't.

Sep 14, 2018
I said, you useless prat, that my degrees were astronomy based.

Astronomy "based"... LOL! Your special ed class where they taught you how to scribble pictures of the Disney character Pluto doesn't qualify as "astronomy based".

Sep 14, 2018
I said, you useless prat, that my degrees were astronomy based.

Astronomy "based"... LOL! Your special ed class where they taught you how to scribble pictures of the Disney character Pluto doesn't qualify as "astronomy based".


Sorry, woo boy? What did you study for your degrees? Velikovskianism? Is that a subject? Woo? Can you get a degree in that? Never been near a university, have you? What about plasma physics? How come your cult is bereft of such people? Possibly because they look at what your wooists write and just laugh?

Sep 14, 2018
From a Harvard PhD:
Magnetic fields are a major agent in the interstellar medium (ISM) of spiral, barred and irregular galaxies. They contribute significantly to the total pressure which balances the ISM against gravity. They may affect the gas flows in spiral arms, around bars and in galaxy halos. Magnetic fields are essential for the onset of star formation as they enable the removal of angular momentum from the protostellar cloud during its collapse. MHD turbulence distributes energy from supernova explosions within the ISM. Magnetic reconnection is a possible heating source for the ISM and halo gas. Magnetic fields also control the density and distribution of cosmic rays in the ISM.

To be contd

Sep 14, 2018
Here we go again with Newtonian Gravity, GR Gravity, MOND Gravity, etc. There ain't any GRAVITY, its an effect caused by expansion.

Sep 14, 2018


To be contd


Nope, don't bother. As I have linked, we knew this sh1t years ago. Long before the Cult of the Lightning Bolts was invented. So, what is your point?

Sep 14, 2018
"Galactic magnetic fields can be observed in the optical range via starlight which is polarized by interstellar dust grains in the foreground. These grains are elongated and can be aligned by the magnetic field perpendicular to the field lines. Measurements of many stars revealed a general picture of the magnetic field in the Milky Way near the Sun. Aligned dust grains also emit polarized infrared emission, which is very useful to show magnetic fields in dust clouds in the Milky Way. Zeeman splitting of radio spectral lines allows for the measurement of relatively strong fields in nearby, dense gas clouds in the Milky Way. For these three methods results for external galaxies are still difficult to obtain. The fourth method, synchrotron emission, is the most powerful one and can be applied over the whole Milky Way and also to distant galaxies."

Meng Su, PhD

Sep 14, 2018
Here we go again with Newtonian Gravity, GR Gravity, MOND Gravity, etc. There ain't any GRAVITY, its an effect caused by expansion.


Are you using this excuse to explain your expanding waistline to your wife, Reggie boy? Too many burgers, mate. There's your problem. You are just confusing being a greedy bast*rd with some sort of physics of which you have no understanding. Methinks. You'll probably publish a book on some sort of diet that involves being in zero G conditions, or some such. Yes? Lol.

Sep 14, 2018
"Galactic magnetic fields can be observed in the optical range via starlight which is polarized by interstellar dust grains in the foreground. These grains are elongated and can be aligned by the magnetic field perpendicular to the field lines. Measurements of many stars revealed a general picture of the magnetic field in the Milky Way near the Sun. Aligned dust grains also emit polarized infrared emission, which is very useful to show magnetic fields in dust clouds in the Milky Way. Zeeman splitting of radio spectral lines allows for the measurement of relatively strong fields in nearby, dense gas clouds in the Milky Way. For these three methods results for external galaxies are still difficult to obtain. The fourth method, synchrotron emission, is the most powerful one and can be applied over the whole Milky Way and also to distant galaxies."

Meng Su, PhD


Aaaannnndddd.....?

Sep 14, 2018
Also, since the Galactic Mean Magnetic field is an average of 1nT that is 1/30th of Earth's field strength, and that is not that small of an effect, especially over such a broad area as it all adds and multiplies together.

Sep 14, 2018
Jones says: "Instead of just posting junk on here, why don't you link to the paper/s that explain how 'EM forces' affect mass and rotation?"

No need, from a very general view, it's just common EE sense. Since plasma is conductive as metal, huge circuits could be created spanning thousands of light years.
This is NOT saying the galaxy powers the Sun either.

Sep 14, 2018
Also, since the Galactic Mean Magnetic field is an average of 1nT that is 1/30th of Earth's field strength, and that is not that small of an effect, especially over such a broad area as it all adds and multiplies together.


Errrrrm.............nope. Maths not your thing, is it Steel? The Earth's magnetic field is ~ 25 - 65 microtesla. 1000 nanotesla = 1 microtesla. So, the galactic field is ~ 1/25 000th to 1/65 000th of the Earth's magnetic field. Correct? Don't bother apologising. We all know EUists are sh1t at maths, as well as science. Eh?

Sep 14, 2018

Did you ever get that degree in Anthropology you also told us you were studying for at Uni? Or don't you want to brag about that in a science chatroom?



I said, you useless prat, that my degrees were astronomy based.


Wait... so for all of the insulting and shaming that you do, jonesdave, you have a 40yr old anthropology degree? LMAO. Isn't that a B.A.?

Sep 14, 2018
Also, since the Galactic Mean Magnetic field is an average of 1nT that is 1/30th of Earth's field strength, and that is not that small of an effect, especially over such a broad area as it all adds and multiplies together.

....the same magnetic field adds and multiplies together? huh?

Sep 14, 2018
JDs anthropology degree in crankiness
Wait... so for all of the insulting and shaming that you do, jonesdave, you have a 40yr old anthropology degree

Being put to good use in JDs crankiness, now we know why he thought it necessary to study anthropology, because it is being used in good stead, in his cranky implementation!

What next, he will come back from among the kiwi's with a degree in Insulting and Shaming, knowing JD as we all do, his in degree in Insulting and Shaming will be just a formality!

Sep 14, 2018
I dunno, dark matter and dark energy have always struck me as a kludge placeholder until we get a better understanding of the cosmos. Kinda like when they claimed the existence of 'luminiferous aether' as an medium for light propagation in the late 19th century.

Sep 14, 2018
I have to tip my hat to jd on my math flub has been long, bad day (never break your neck), however the basis of what am saying still holds very true, look how, in this article, they specifically state that the magnetic field adds greatly to the total pressure that balances the IMF against gravity (in other words, keeps galaxies from exploding due to rotational forces):
http://www.schola...c_fields

And it is not just one little thing jd, they specifically exclude the highly magnetic Active Galactic Nucleus crowd, but they still figure that the best answer to galactic magnetics is the old Alpha-Omega dynamo in action, which means there HAS to be imbalances in the system or there can be no flux, and that can mean some rather massive charge disparities on local scale, so while average effect is in the 1nT range, it can be much higher, depending the location.

Sep 14, 2018
Considering that The SI unit of tesla is equivalent to (newton·second)/(coulomb·meter) the newtons can most certainly add up as well as the seconds and that most certainly multiplies the meters involved. Correct? So I was not at all wrong in stating about adding and multiplying in the field numbers. It is not incorrect and was meant as humor for those that Do some math. jd does enough trolling that I do try to lighten the mood.

Sep 14, 2018

Did you ever get that degree in Anthropology you also told us you were studying for at Uni? Or don't you want to brag about that in a science chatroom?



I said, you useless prat, that my degrees were astronomy based.


Wait... so for all of the insulting and shaming that you do, jonesdave, you have a 40yr old anthropology degree? LMAO. Isn't that a B.A.?


What are you talking about, thicko?

Sep 14, 2018
Considering that The SI unit of tesla is equivalent to (newton·second)/(coulomb·meter) the newtons can most certainly add up as well as the seconds and that most certainly multiplies the meters involved. Correct? So I was not at all wrong in stating about adding and multiplying in the field numbers. It is not incorrect and was meant as humor for those that Do some math. jd does enough trolling that I do try to lighten the mood.


Steel? Give up mate, this sh1t is way beyond you, yes? Seriously, if you had any scientific understanding, you loon, you'd be nowhere near this EU sh1te. Yes?

Sep 14, 2018
I have to tip my hat to jd on my math flub has been long, bad day (never break your neck), however the basis of what am saying still holds very true, look how, in this article, they specifically state that the magnetic field adds greatly to the total pressure that balances the IMF against gravity (in other words, keeps galaxies from exploding due to rotational forces):
http://www.schola...c_fields

Yada, yada, yada.........


Nope, you haven't got a clue, mate. Go back to primary school, and start again, you loser.

Sep 14, 2018
Considering that The SI unit of tesla is equivalent to (newton·second)/(coulomb·meter) the newtons can most certainly add up as well as the seconds and that most certainly multiplies the meters involved. Correct? So I was not at all wrong in stating about adding and multiplying in the field numbers. It is not incorrect and was meant as humor for those that Do some math. jd does enough trolling that I do try to lighten the mood.


Another one that tries to pretend that his inability to understand primary school maths was all a bit of a joke! Lol. Give up, buddy, you are fooling nobody. You have displayed your idiocy for all to see. Bookmarked, and copy/ pasted. Just like the idiot Benji's lunacy.
Sh1t you people are crap at science. Eh? Is that why you were drawn to the idiot Thornhill and his cretinous mate? Made you feel better after flunking pretty much everything possible at school?
Very, very sad.

Sep 15, 2018
@tblakely1357 and everyone.
I dunno, dark matter and dark energy have always struck me as a kludge placeholder until we get a better understanding of the cosmos.
Actually, the 'exotic' (ie, non-electromagnetically-interacting, gravitational-only-interacting dark matter) HYPOTHESES are effectively reaching 'falsified' level now that mainstream's new instruments/searches/reviews are finding 'previously dark' (ie, faint/cold/diffuse etc) ORDINARY stuff (gas, dust, plasma, pebbles etc) everywhere; which was previously missed/left out of matter estimates that led to those naive/simplistic/GIGO 'missing baryons' and 'exotic dark matter' furphies. Galaxies have been found to be at least twice the mass/extent previously 'seen' to be; and intergalactic medium contains at least that much MORE ORDINARY matter/mass again. All that increasingly found ORDINARY stuff/mass, plus PROPER application of GR to obviously non-Keppler matter distributions/motions, explains it all now. :)

Sep 15, 2018
...MOND, which explains a vast wealth of data on galactic rotation speeds using only their visible stars and gas.


Cool, but huge problems will always remain for MOND.
Rotation speeds are but one off 11 observations that need explaining. DM theories, on the other hand, are capable of explaining all 11.

https://en.wikipe...evidence

Sep 15, 2018
...MOND, which explains a vast wealth of data on galactic rotation speeds using only their visible stars and gas.


Cool, but huge problems will always remain for MOND.
Rotation speeds are but one off 11 observations that need explaining. DM theories, on the other hand, are capable of explaining all 11.

https://en.wikipe...evidence

True. Yet more measurements at very low accelerations need to be done in order to clearly exclude MOND. That is very hard to do, since an inertial reference frame is hard to obtain on Earth, in the Solar System or maybe even farther away.

Sep 15, 2018
@ RealityCheck

Have you seen this or something similar?

https://www.scien...2745.htm

Sep 15, 2018
plasma is conductive as metal, and 99% of the universe.

Jones, you're an idiot if you think this has no effect on mass and rotation.

Sep 15, 2018
A plasma is as electrically conductive as metal, and 99% of the universe.

Anyone with a brain should be able to realize by now, they should look into E&M more than silly dark matter.

When you realize the entire f**king universe is ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE! ... dopes.

Sep 15, 2018
Flowing electric currents in the plasmatic clouds

Plasma clouds making up these tenuous galactic clouds in the vacuum, that though they are plasmatic being ions, they are only a few 100ths of a degree above absolute freezing, existing as tenuous filamentary glowing strands of matter.

A rare peculiar property of plasmatic clouds is being ionic they are generally attracive to the little conducting beasties, the free electrons in these clouds, being ejected in the process of transforming these dusty galactic regions into glowing filamentary plasma

A conductive nature arises in these plasmatic clouds, as the ions are attracted to these electrons whose magnetic fields multiply into galactic magnetic fields by reason of these ionic electric flows in the ionic plasma where electric currents flow.

Sep 15, 2018
galaxies rotate so quickly they should fly apart, according to known physics, theories have been put forward to explain what holds them together
Millgrom's law of MOND theory says, the galaxies are hold together by weak deceleration, which is product of Hubble constant and speed of light, i.e. a = H * c. Which is logical, because in expanding universe distances between objects gradually increase which means, you're traveling gradually more and more slowly (and stationary objects are gradually shrinking). So that the MOND theory is compelling consequence of Universe expansion and if we wouldn't account to it, it would mean, we just don't trust the expanding Universe model. The only problem is, the dark matter doesn't always behave so. The expansion is supposed to be omnidirectional and the dark matter forms filaments BETWEEN galaxies similar to streams of plasma particles - not just spherical blobs AROUND them.

Sep 15, 2018
Jones have you done the calculation of the very weak galactic magnetic field F => qv x B on a (say iron) mass, to newtons F=Gm1m2/(r*r)?

Gravity is a super weak force too, and you say it does everything.

Sep 15, 2018
dark matter = empty space inside a genius's head.

Sep 15, 2018
Rotation speeds are but one off 11 DM observations that need explaining. DM theories, on the other hand, are capable of explaining all 11
That's correct - but only in principle. The particle models of dark matter are still very qualitative: they don't enable to calculate rotational curves anyway, because they don't provide any clue for distribution of dark matter across galaxy. If the dark matter is formed by massive particles, what prohibits them to condense around center of galaxy like any others? Whereas the MOND explains, why dark lensing concentrates at perimeter of galaxies easily and it provides at least some numbers for it and these numbers often work quite well - they just don't fit another qualitative observations of dark matter.

Sep 15, 2018
"The particle models of dark matter are still very qualitative"

Right, dark matter has still yet to be discovered. MOND better.

Sep 15, 2018
There is no invisible (dark) mass at the edge of galaxies, I like L. Krauss, but he's nuts. heh

Sep 15, 2018
Lawrence Krauss has more in common with Harvey Weinstein than just physiognomy - maybe hormonal unbalance leading to self-indulgence and compensation of inferiority complex?

Sep 15, 2018
Jones have you done the calculation of the very weak galactic magnetic field F => qv x B on a (say iron) mass, to newtons F=Gm1m2/(r*r)?

Gravity is a super weak force too, and you say it does everything.


I'm sure lots of people have done it, which is why nobody thinks that EM forces have anything to do with rotation curves. Why don't you attempt it, given that you're the one proposing an impossible mechanism? Start with neutrals. Then move on to stars. Get them to orbit at the same velocity. Having done that, try it with ions and electrons.

Sep 15, 2018
look how, in this article, they specifically state that the magnetic field adds greatly to the total pressure that balances the IMF against gravity (in other words, keeps galaxies from exploding due to rotational forces)


The generation of ENERGY throughout the Universe comes about in many different ways -e.g., fission, fusion, mag fields, plasma fields, gravity field friction, & many other ways unaccounted for. Of probably dozens of ways mass can be transformed to energy it may very well be that no single one of these transformation methods DOMINATE.

Even inside stars there are three DIFFERENT types of fusion processes going on in addition to many types of fission processes. Different types of stars have their own unique MASS to ENERGY transformation process, E.g. high metallicity stars fuse & fission much differently than low metallicity stars, and even so within the same star not all fusion & fission events are the same all the time..........Cont'd


Sep 15, 2018
...........Cont'd

Keeping in mind that it may very well be no single mass/energy transformation method may dominate it is even more important to remember that the result of all these processes creates KINETIC ENERGY (WORK), and it is this WORK that creates ALL the motion that occurs within the context of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Mechanical motion due to Kinetic Energy cannot occur in an unbounded system, Entropy must be established between a value greater than zero but less than one or MOTION within a system ceases, this is why we know the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is what causes the motion of all galaxies, the Universe is a closed & bounded system.

Pop-Cosmology aficionados are those who comprehend absolutely zero about Thermodynamics, & are the ones who come to this chatroom with their nonsensical GIGO about dark energy.

Sep 15, 2018
I'm sure lots of people have done it, which is why nobody thinks that EM forces have anything to do with rotation curves.


.......of course you don't think this.

Your Anthropology studies at Uni in Auckland, NZ did not include a Thermodynamics course which would have taught you how Kinetic Energy is derived from the Mass/Energy Transformation process to create MOTION (WORK).

Rotating galaxies are the result of Kinetic Energy (WORK) which in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is ENTROPY, Distribution of Energy. When GRAVITY & ENTROPY are in perfect balance to one another the motion of all in the UNIVERSE will be in perfect harmony, let that harmony go out of balance & chaos at zero entropy will occur.

Sep 15, 2018
I said, you useless prat, that my degrees were astronomy based. I quote myself:

And both of my degrees were astronomy related, f***wit.


....and now they are "astronomy based".

It was just a few days ago you were telling the chatroom you HAD an actual degree in astronomy from Uni in Auckland, NZ, then when a few of us started checking out the curriculum at that Uni we discovered there is not presently, or ever has been in the past such a degree available from that institution, thus forcing you to change your story yet again to "astronomy based".

Hey, post a list of those "astronomy based" courses you claim you took, otherwise we can only view you as a shining example of what Pop-Cosmology is all about...make it up as you go along.

I guess until you can post us with your list of astronomy based courses we should just continue believing your original assertion that you spent one year at Uni Auckland studying Anthropology which is an actual course offerring there.

Sep 15, 2018
" Why don't you attempt it",

... it's a difficult calculation for a layman because you have to come up with a mass to plug into the "qv", charge at a velocity part.

But stars don't have to be effected by a magnetic field to keep their initial velocity. Clearly all stars that form are flying around at their initial velocity, regardless of their distance from the center. Nothing in space to slow them down. To think dark matter speeds them up is stupid.

Sep 15, 2018
Ok ok, go back to your dark matter, a subject that has truly ruined astrophysics. I can at least conceptualize an expanding universe. But dark matter is utterly insane.

Sep 15, 2018
I....chatroom you HAD an actual degree in astronomy from Uni in Auckland, NZ, then when a few of us started checking out the curriculum at that.....


Hey, sh1t for brains! Still got the cheek to keep posting on here afrter your horrifiic gaffs? Lol. Talk about thick skin. The D-K syndrome must be deeply embedded, eh?
And, for the second time, here is what I said:

Go read the literature, thicko. Plenty of scientific, peer-reviewed papers on it. And both of my degrees were astronomy related, f***wit. As opposed to the 'how to wash floors' course, which is likely the only course you have ever taken.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

And here is what you said:

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Lol. What a pillock.


Sep 15, 2018
" Why don't you attempt it",

... it's a difficult calculation for a layman because you have to come up with a mass to plug into the "qv", charge at a velocity part.

But stars don't have to be effected by a magnetic field to keep their initial velocity. Clearly all stars that form are flying around at their initial velocity, regardless of their distance from the center. Nothing in space to slow them down. To think dark matter speeds them up is stupid.


Yes, it is stupid. And that is why nobody is saying it except you. And you're stupid. Hence why you said it.
Dark matter speeds things up! Jesus, where do these people get this crap from?
Here's a clue, for the educationally challenged; at the velocity of the rotation, the galaxies should be flying apart. They aren't. There must therefore be more mass than we can detect directly.

Sep 15, 2018
plasma is conductive as metal, and 99% of the universe.

Jones, you're an idiot if you think this has no effect on mass and rotation.


Nope, you are an idiot. Show us the calculations. Somebody must have done them, yes?
A link will be fine.

Sep 15, 2018
The passionate debate inspired by this article is....
-encouraging?.....Sure. Exercising a freedom is what forums like this are for.
-constructive?.......Not if you choose to take and make it personal.
-advancing the evolution of a concept?....Ugh..Let's not get carried away here.
The title alone seems to promote delineation.
Perhaps a distinction should be made between "saved from death"....
and the equivalent of Galvani's electrode to the Frogs leg experiment?

Sep 15, 2018
This is boring, and then I mean both the nut thread and the bad science of that extremely diffused galaxy in general and this article specifically.

Generally, it is known that characterization of this hard to observe galaxy suffers from bad statistics. "Thus, instead of a definitive answer about NGC 1052-DF2's dark-matter content, we are left with a tale of caution and a hope of future work on the subject. Frustrating? Perhaps — but that's science!" This and much more references here: https://aasnova.o...-debate/ , https://astrobite...he-dark/

Specifically, it is not as if Milgrom himself has not made the exact same point earlier: "However, the correct prediction of MOND depends on both the internal field of the dwarf and the external field caused by its proximity to the giant elliptical NGC1052." https://arxiv.org...04.04167

Sep 15, 2018
Nope, you are an idiot. Show us the calculations. Somebody must have done them, yes?
A link will be fine.


So, why then don't you take a "calculations" challenge and list for us by course number all those "astronomy based" subjects you've been claiming you took to get that Astronomy degree at Uni Auckland that offers no such degree presently, or the 40 years ago that you said you were there.

Math is such an ardent topic with you that you're even finding it impossible to list your course numbers to back up your braggadocio about courses you've taken at Uni that has no such courses.

So c'mon you filthy foul mouthed wierdo, take the next step for making us believe why you are so immensely smarter than EVERYONE ELSE in this chatroom, list your study courses.


Sep 15, 2018
So it is about 12:35pm in New Zealand right about now. I suppose jones might be at church service of a Sunday. Probably serving as an altar boy - or something relative to a religion of sorts.
Well, who knows? Anything can happen with jones.

Sep 15, 2018
@TJLarsson
How are you? I've heard that the Far Right Party in your country may win the election. Yes?

@Benni
jones may be on his knees at this time - getting religion.
:)

Sep 15, 2018
Orbital gyroscopic processional galaxies
(pyhs.org> Galaxies rotate so quickly that they should fly apart according to known physics)
Why the Galaxies rotate at their rotational speed which on first glance the galaxies give the appearance that they are spinning at a speed that the stars that make up the up the galaxy. It is not what we call the galaxy that is rotating but the individual stars that are rotating and any mass that spins has a processional velocity, processional rotating mass's all rotate at the same speed irrespective of the number of stars in the Galaxy
Stars are an average distant apart which is the same in all Galaxies, in the gyroscopic world of spinning mass's as long as two spinning mass's make one complete revolution, 2 stars in binary orbit 7 light years apart take 250milliom years for one orbit they are in gyroscopic motion they make 1 complete revolution as all the individual stars are orbitaly bound the galaxy remains intact for 13billion years

Sep 15, 2018


So c'mon you filthy foul mouthed wierdo, take the next step for making us believe why you are so immensely smarter than EVERYONE ELSE in this chatroom, list your study courses.



Hey, shit for brains! Strill here, you uneducated moron? Tell me, why don't you tell us which institutions you attended that taught you this:

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Or this;

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.


Lol.

Sep 15, 2018
So it is about 12:35pm in New Zealand right about now. I suppose jones might be at church service of a Sunday. Probably serving as an altar boy - or something relative to a religion of sorts.
Well, who knows? Anything can happen with jones.


Creepy f***, I haven't lived in NZ for years. Who are you going to stalk next, you weird sod? Don't like being shown up for the ignorant blowhard that you are, do you? Diddums.

Sep 15, 2018
@Benni
It seems that jones took only 2 semesters of Astronomy/Astrophysics. The rest in Physics.
And this list is for 2018 - 2019

PHYSICS 107G Planets, Stars and Galaxies

PHYSICS 107G | ARTS, BE, EDSW, LC | Semester One & Semester Two 2019 | City Campus

Description

This course introduces astronomy and astrophysics.

Learning outcomes

By the end of the course you should have a good understanding of modern astronomy and astrophysics.

Topics covered

History of astronomy
Techniques used in astronomy
Contents and formation of the solar system
Structure and evolution of the Sun and stars
Properties of galaxies
History of the universe
Assessment

Term tests in class (20%)
Assignments (20%)
Labs (10%)
Final exam (50%)

Sep 15, 2018
^^^^Sorry? What was the curriculum for 1979? Wanker!

Sep 15, 2018
A diminishing online presence due in part to JDs relentless tirade as of May 29, 2015
SEU> @TJLarsson
How are you? I've heard that the Far Right Party in your country may win the election. Yes?
@Benni
jones may be on his knees at this time - getting religion.:)

A reformed JD, channelling that entire Dunning Kruger syndrome affliction in a positive fashion as he has always held deeply religious beliefs in his dunning Kruger syndrome affliction can be channelled in the pulpit in hell fire and Beelzebub in relentless sermons that will result in diminishing congregations consisting of as many friends as he makes with his online presence


Sep 15, 2018
The current curriculum is available only for 2018 - 2019. What you did in 1979 could have been altogether different than what is offered this year. But that is YOUR problem. Show us the curriculum in 1979. I have no intention of taking the time to look for it.

Sep 15, 2018
The current curriculum is available only for 2018 - 2019. What you did in 1979 could have been altogether different than what is offered this year. But that is YOUR problem. Show us the curriculum in 1979. I have no intention of taking the time to look for it.


In which case, STFU, yes? What degrees do you have in science, and where and when did you take them? If you have none, what compels you to comment on science stories? And make a complete tit of yourself in the process?

Sep 15, 2018
In any case - the term "half-life" is a misnomer when it is obvious that it exceeds more than half of the life of a free Neutron in beta decay.

"A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."

It fully decays in ~14.7 minutes (or 14.42)

Sep 15, 2018
In any case - the term "half-life" is a misnomer when it is obvious that it exceeds more than half of the life of a free Neutron in beta decay.

"A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."

It fully decays in ~14.7 minutes (or 14.42)


Wrong. As usual. The half-life is mean lifetime (look up the word 'mean' in its mathematical sense) x ln (2). ln (2) = 0.693. Do the maths.

Sep 15, 2018
My qualifications are none of your concern. Why do you ask? Will it affect your sorry life in any way? And, I might ask you why YOU are here. Is this forum the sum total of what YOU have accomplished in your sorry pock-arsed life?

I have said many times that I am an interested observer and a scholar. If you have a problem with that, then too bad.

Sep 15, 2018
The "mean" lifetime of a free Neutron is 14.7 or 14.42 minute. And that still makes the term "half-life" a misnomer since 10.3 minutes is far from half. New students in Physics would be left wondering at the terminology...unless they look it up like I did.

Sep 15, 2018
My qualifications are none of your concern. Why do you ask? Will it affect your sorry life in any way? And, I might ask you why YOU are here. Is this forum the sum total of what YOU have accomplished in your sorry pock-arsed life?

I have said many times that I am an interested observer and a scholar. If you have a problem with that, then too bad.


You seem overly concerned with my qualifications, you hypocritical prick. And where I live, creep.
You are no scholar, and I seriously doubt you are capable of learning. Witness your previous post. Could have easily checked that on the web, but you chose to make a tit of yourself. Again. If you were really interesated in learning, you'd be on a physics forum that has a Q & A section.

Sep 15, 2018
The "mean" lifetime of a free Neutron is 14.7 or 14.42 minute. And that still makes the term "half-life" a misnomer since 10.3 minutes is far from half. New students in Physics would be left wondering at the terminology...unless they look it up like I did.


Jesus! The stupid runs deep with this one! Have a look at decay curves. The mean lifetime is the average lifetime of an individual neutron (or whatever else, such as 14C). The half-life is the time taken for half of a number of neutrons to decay.
It only seems a misnomer to you because you have never studied science.

http://www.bbc.co...v7.shtml

Note that the link is for GCSE students!

Sep 15, 2018
The actual Neutron decay process occurs in 4.4 minutes
"
SEU> A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."It fully decays in ~14.7 minutes

So that is what it this is all about, the time the actual decay process takes to complete its task is 14.7minutes minus 10.3minutes equals 4.4minutes in which it takes 4.4minutes to transform neutrons into pristine protons, electrons and neutrinos

Sep 15, 2018
I have had 5 yeas at a prestigious university and have graduated with honors. I don't discuss my qualifications as this is a public chatroom and I prefer not to reveal much of my life's work. I own my own successful business, and that is all you need to know.

Sep 15, 2018
My qualifications are none of your concern. Why do you ask? Will it affect your sorry life in any way? And, I might ask you why YOU are here. Is this forum the sum total of what YOU have accomplished in your sorry pock-arsed life?

I have said many times that I am an interested observer and a scholar. If you have a problem with that, then too bad.


You seem overly concerned with my qualifications, you hypocritical prick. And where I live, creep.
You are no scholar, and I seriously doubt you are capable of learning. Witness your previous post. Could have easily checked that on the web, but you chose to make a tit of yourself. Again. If you were really interesated in learning, you'd be on a physics forum that has a Q & A section.


You have given indications that you have lived in NZ and had regrets that you left the South Island. You also gave information that you studied Anthropology and your major was Astronomy even though there are only 2 semesters for it.

Sep 15, 2018
You have given indications that you have lived in NZ and had regrets that you left the South Island.


Errm, Auckland is in the North Island. Geography not your cup of tea either?

Sep 15, 2018
But it is obvious that you majored in Physics since Astronomy was relatively minor, but you have given indication here that you are an astronomer. If you were an astronomer as a profession, then you certainly would not be using up your time in a chatroom. Instead, you would be at Atacama or the Keck telescope in Hawaii. Or any other large telescope looking at the stars, instead of living in this website.

Sep 15, 2018
The actual Neutron decay process occurs in 4.4 minutes
"
SEU> A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."It fully decays in ~14.7 minutes

So that is what it this is all about, the time the actual decay process takes to complete its task is 14.7minutes minus 10.3minutes equals 4.4minutes in which it takes 4.4minutes to transform neutrons into pristine protons, electrons and neutrinos


Oh dear! Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse! Lol.

Sep 15, 2018
You have given indications that you have lived in NZ and had regrets that you left the South Island.


Errm, Auckland is in the North Island. Geography not your cup of tea either?


But you also indicated that you had left the south island for Auckland and regretted it. You even said that cantdrive85 was write about you - that you ARE dumb. It is all here in the physorg forums. What is said here, stays here.

Sep 15, 2018
... but you have given indication here that you are an astronomer.


No, I f***ing haven't.

Sep 15, 2018
But you also indicated that you had left the south island for Auckland and regretted it. You even said that cantdrive85 was write about you - that you ARE dumb.


And more lies from this creepy prick. WTF is wrong with you, you uneducated loon?


Sep 15, 2018
The actual Neutron decay process occurs in 4.4 minutes
"
SEU> A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."It fully decays in ~14.7 minutes

So that is what it this is all about, the time the actual decay process takes to complete its task is 14.7minutes minus 10.3minutes equals 4.4minutes in which it takes 4.4minutes to transform neutrons into pristine protons, electrons and neutrinos
says granville

LOL yes. that's about right. Silly, isn't it. But that's why "half-life" as a term is incorrect. I wonder who it was that decided to give it such a moniker.

Sep 15, 2018
LOL yes. that's about right.


No it isn't you moron. Not even close.

Sep 15, 2018
@jonesdave.

Just curious. Do you post on any other physics forum(s); and if so, can you say which one(s)? No ulterior motive behind that question, mate; I only asked because you piqued my natural curiosity with your insistent exhortations to others here to join (an)other forum(s). That's all. Thanks. :)

Sep 15, 2018
... but you have given indication here that you are an astronomer.


No, I f***ing haven't.


Of course you have. You were just too busy being an arise-wipe that you could not foresee the impression you had been giving to others in physorg. Saying that your 2 degrees were in Astronomy. You didn't mention that the Astronomy course consists of only 2 semesters.
You are very good at convincing others as to your "qualifications" in your arguments. Given everyone that impression, you did.

Sep 15, 2018
Relevant points of interest and an expletive decaying husk!
SEU:- This is what interested me when Benni emerged with his Neutron - the time when a neutron starts it decay process and when it completes its decay process and why neutrons exist in neutron stars under 1x10-15N per neutron without decaying!

Which unfortunately, as is now obvious, has led to JD down fall, as he now has no creditability left?
An expletive decaying husk is all that is left!

Sep 15, 2018
The Stones that Rule the Roost
RealityCheck> @jonesdave. Just curious. Do you post on any other physics forum(s); and if so, can you say which one(s)? No ulterior motive behind that question, mate; I only asked because you peaked my natural curiosity with your insistent exhortations to others here to join (an)other forum(s). That's all. Thanks. :)

RealityCheck:- if every one followed JDs advice, pyhs.org would be a very lonely place, as only his cohorts would be left with JD ruling the roost - I thought everyone knew this!

Sep 15, 2018
You didn't mention that the Astronomy course consists of only 2 semesters.


It didn't, you creepy f*ck. First off Isaid it was astronomy based, and I have never said what courses I took. No why don't you take your own advice, and keep your f***ing nose out, you deranged tosser?

Nope, only the fruitloops on here seem to have a problem. i.e. the ones that keep getting shown up due to their pretended knowledge in certain areas, where they quite obviously don't have a clue.

Sep 15, 2018
That is true, granville. jones had so many convinced that he is invincible in the field of Astronomy, and it is all a lie.
Neutrons are only safe from beta decay as long as they are "caged", so to speak. But when they are free, they are at the mercy of a sort of ... I'm not entirely sure WHY they have to decay outside of the nucleus. I will look for the answer.

Sep 15, 2018
The half-life is the time taken for half of a number of neutrons to decay.
It only seems a misnomer to you because you have never studied science.


One, or one million, free neutrons that come into existence at the same exact moment in time will beta decay at the same exact moment in time, ~14.7 minutes, no exceptions.

It must be those astronomy course numbers that's confusing you into thinking that a neutron undergoing beta decay has an average lifespan, that half decay above a certain number & half decay below a certain number, but no such number has ever been forthcoming from the LHC in Cern.

Sep 15, 2018
@jonesdave.

Just curious. Do you post on any other physics forum(s); and if so, can you say which one(s)? No ulterior motive behind that question, mate; I only asked because you piqued my natural curiosity with your insistent exhortations to others here to join (an)other forum(s). That's all. Thanks. :)


And another creepy prick! I asked why they insisted on posting on a comments section, when they could easily confront real scientists on physics forums. I think we all know the answer as to why they don't. Just look at the preceding bunch of scientifically illiterate nonsense from SEU and Granny. They post here because they can get away with it. Elsewhere they would be left in no doubt of the inability to understand the first thing that they are talking about.

Yes, I do post elsewhere.

Sep 15, 2018
You didn't mention that the Astronomy course consists of only 2 semesters.


It didn't, you creepy f*ck. First off Isaid it was astronomy based, and I have never said what courses I took. No why don't you take your own advice, and keep your f***ing nose out, you deranged tosser?

Nope, only the fruitloops on here seem to have a problem. i.e. the ones that keep getting shown up due to their pretended knowledge in certain areas, where they quite obviously don't have a clue.


2 DEGREES that are Astronomy-based? You could have said that your 2 degrees were in Physics and that would have included the 2 semesters of Astronomy. But instead you said "2 degrees" Astronomy-based. You cannot get a degree in Astronomy, especially when it's ONLY Astronomy-BASED, and after only 2 SEMESTERS, arse-wipe.

Sep 15, 2018
One, or one million, free neutrons that come into existence at the same exact moment in time will beta decay at the same exact moment in time, ~14.7 minutes, no exceptions.


Hahahahaha. Jesus, what an idiot. And this loon claims to understand nuclear physics! Lol.
Why do you think it is called 'mean' lifetime, you donkey? Did you never do maths? Do you know what 'mean' means? Never finished high school, did you Benji?

http://hyperphysi...lif.html


Sep 15, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@ RealityCheck

Have you seen this or something similar?

https://www.scien...2745.htm
For some reason not yet clear, my customized computer setup/browser system can't or won't establish a connection to that site at present. So I'd appreciate it if you would post the title and/or abstract and/or quote an excerpt explaining the gist/thrust/point of that article so that I can answer your question before I log off for the day. Thanks. :)

Sep 15, 2018
.......and after only 2 SEMESTERS, arse-wipe.


No, you deranged f***wit, YOU said I only did two semesters. I said nothing of the f***ing kind, you thick prick. All you need to know is that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do. As should be obvious, by now.

Sep 15, 2018
You told many here in physorg that you took Anthropology. And then you said that you also received 2 degrees in an Astronomy-based course. You don't get 2 DEGREES in an Astronomy-based anything. You would have to major in PHYSICS with a possible minor in Astronomy.

Sep 15, 2018
@jonesdave.

Just curious. Do you post on any other physics forum(s); and if so, can you say which one(s)? No ulterior motive behind that question, mate; I only asked because you piqued my natural curiosity with your insistent exhortations to others here to join (an)other forum(s). That's all. Thanks. :)


Again no stars for you RC, but why did you need to beat me to my next question to this foul mouthed ranter? Anyway, perfect question.

By the way, when are you gonna learn the Star system here. You will continue never getting any from me until you learn it. I mean. surely if you can learn the next step in pinning jonesy to his words, you should be able to figure the star system within the chatroom, not just what's beyond the chatroom where you do a fairly decent job.

Sep 15, 2018
Were here JD; because pyhs.org hosts the latest scientific articles and that is it JD, no more, no less, as there is no compunction required by pyhsic.org that you have to have the genius of Albert Einstein to comment on these boards JD.

Sep 15, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@ RealityCheck

Have you seen this or something similar?

https://www.scien...2745.htm
For some reason not yet clear, my customized computer setup/browser system can't or won't establish a connection to that site at present. So I'd appreciate it if you would post the title and/or abstract and/or quote an excerpt explaining the gist/thrust/point of that article so that I can answer your question before I log off for the day. Thanks. :)
says RC

I will do that and post it in THIS forum soon.

Sep 15, 2018
You told many here in physorg that you took Anthropology.


No, I f***ing didn't you creepy cnut. Now f*ck off with your lies, you moron. Go get an education.

Sep 15, 2018
@jonesdave.
Just curious. Do you post on any other physics forum(s); and if so, can you say which one(s)? No ulterior motive behind that question, mate; I only asked because you piqued my natural curiosity with your insistent exhortations to others here to join (an)other forum(s). That's all. Thanks. :)
Yes, I do post elsewhere.
Can you say where? No need for username(s) or any 'identifying info' as such. I'm just curious which forum(s) you frequent other than this one, that's all. Thanks. :)

Sep 15, 2018
and after only 2 SEMESTERS, arse-wipe.


I said nothing of the f***ing kind, you thick prick. All you need to know is that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do. As should be obvious, by now.


>jonesy "I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do." ..........the subject being:
thick prick
?

Sep 15, 2018
.......and after only 2 SEMESTERS, arse-wipe.


No, you deranged f***wit, YOU said I only did two semesters. I said nothing of the f***ing kind, you thick prick. All you need to know is that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do. As should be obvious, by now.


The Physics course at U of Auckland shows only 2 semesters of Astronomy, and you say that you had gotten TWO DEGREES from an Astronomy-based course. How the hell did you get away with THAT? Pay the Dean off, eh?

Sep 15, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@ RealityCheck

Have you seen this or something similar?

https://www.scien...2745.htm
For some reason not yet clear, my customized computer setup/browser system can't or won't establish a connection to that site at present. So I'd appreciate it if you would post the title and/or abstract and/or quote an excerpt explaining the gist/thrust/point of that article so that I can answer your question before I log off for the day. Thanks. :)


The paper is here:

https://arxiv.org...4448.pdf

Sep 15, 2018
.......and after only 2 SEMESTERS, arse-wipe.


No, you deranged f***wit, YOU said I only did two semesters. I said nothing of the f***ing kind, you thick prick. All you need to know is that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do. As should be obvious, by now.


The Physics course at U of Auckland shows only 2 semesters of Astronomy, and you say that you had gotten TWO DEGREES from an Astronomy-based course. How the hell did you get away with THAT? Pay the Dean off, eh?


Sorry, what courses did I take in 1979-81? Do please spell it out. Why don't you concentrate on your scientific illiteracy, instead of worrying about what I did. Hmmm?

Sep 15, 2018


@Benni
It appears that jones studied Physics with only 2 semesters in
astronomy. That is, course #s 107 and 107G

Astronomy-based, he says.

Foundation Physics 1
Preparatory Physics 1
Foundation Physics 2
Basic Concepts of Physics
107 Planets, Stars and Galaxies = Astronomy
107G Planets, Stars and Galaxies = Astronomy
Advancing Physics 1
Advancing Physics 2
Digital Fundamentals
Physics for the Life Sciences
Classical and Thermal Physics
Electromagnetism
Relativity and Quantum Physics
Electronics and Imaging
Frontiers of Physics
Special Study
Classical Mechanics and Electrodynamics
Fluid Mechanics
Lasers and Electromagnetic Waves
Statistical Physics and Condensed Matter
Quantum Mechanics
Electronics and Signal Processing
Particle Physics and Astrophysics

and over 30 other courses in Physics

Sep 15, 2018
>jonesy "I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do." ..........the subject being:


The subject in this case being nuclear science, thicko. It wasn't me who said this:

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Was it?
Come on Benji, don't be shy, tell all the boys and girls which particular institution you learned that at? Possibly it was an institution, but I'm guessing not an educational one, eh?

Sep 15, 2018
@RC
A galactic test will clarify the existence of dark matter
A new study found a way to determine whether the mysterious 'star putty' really exists
Date:
June 25, 2018
Source:
University of Bonn
Summary:
Researchers used sophisticated computer simulations to devise a test that could answer a burning question in astrophysics: is there really dark matter? Or does Newton's gravitational law need to be modified? The new study shows that the answer is hidden in the motion of the stars within small satellite galaxies swirling around the Milky Way.

Sep 15, 2018
@RC
A galactic test will clarify the existence of dark matter
A new study found a way to determine whether the mysterious 'star putty' really exists
Date:
June 25, 2018
Source:
University of Bonn
Summary:
Researchers used sophisticated computer simulations to devise a test that could answer a burning question in astrophysics: is there really dark matter? Or does Newton's gravitational law need to be modified? The new study shows that the answer is hidden in the motion of the stars within small satellite galaxies swirling around the Milky Way.


Bit late, I linked the paper.

Sep 15, 2018
-contd-
Researchers at the University of Bonn and the University of California at Irvine used sophisticated computer simulations to devise a test that could answer a burning question in astrophysics: is there really dark matter? Or does Newton's gravitational law need to be modified? The new study, now published in the Physical Review Letters, shows that the answer is hidden in the motion of the stars within small satellite galaxies swirling around the Milky Way.
Using one of the fastest supercomputers in the world, the scientists have simulated the matter distribution of the so-called satellite "dwarf" galaxies. These are small galaxies that surround, for instance, the Milky Way or Andromeda.
The researchers focused on a relationship called "radial acceleration relation" (RAR). In disk galaxies, stars move in circular orbits around the galactic center. The acceleration that forces them to constantly change direction is caused by the attraction of matter in the galaxy.

Sep 15, 2018
-contd-
The RAR describes the relationship between this acceleration and the one caused by the visible matter only. It provides an insight into the structure of galaxies and their matter distribution.
"We have now simulated, for the first time, the RAR of dwarf galaxies on the assumption that dark matter exists," explains Prof. Dr. Cristiano Porciani of the Argelander Institute for Astronomy at the University of Bonn. "It turned out that they behave as scaled-down versions of larger galaxies." But what if there is no dark matter and instead gravity "works" differently than Newton thought? "In this case the RAR of dwarf galaxies depends strongly on the distance to their parent galaxy, while this does not happen if dark matter exists," explains the researcher Emilio Romano-Díaz.

Sep 15, 2018
This difference makes the satellites a powerful probe for testing whether dark matter really exists. The Gaia spacecraft, which was launched by the European Space Agency (ESA) in 2013, could already provide an answer. It was designed to study the stars in the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies in unprecedented detail and has collected a large amount of data.
However, it will probably take years to solve this riddle. "Individual measurements are not enough to test the small differences we have found in our simulations," explains doctoral student Enrico Garaldi. "But repeatedly taking a close look at the same stars improves the measurements every time. Sooner or later it should be possible to determine whether the dwarf galaxies behave like in a universe with dark matter -- or not."

Sep 15, 2018
The cement that holds galaxies together
This question is one of the most pressing issues in cosmology today. The existence of dark matter was already suggested more than 80 years ago by the Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky. He realized that galaxies move so fast within galaxy clusters that they should actually drift apart. He therefore postulated the presence of invisible matter which, due to its mass, exerts sufficient gravity to keep galaxies on their observed orbits. In the 1970s, his US colleague Vera Rubin discovered a similar phenomenon in spiral galaxies like the Milky Way: they rotate so quickly that the centrifugal force should tear them apart if only visible matter was present.
Today, most physicists are convinced that dark matter makes up about 80 percent of the mass in the universe. Since it does not interact with light, it is invisible to telescopes.

Sep 15, 2018
Yet, assuming its existence provides an excellent fit to a number of other observations -- such as the distribution of background radiation, an afterglow of the Big Bang. Dark matter also provides a good explanation for the arrangement and formation rate of galaxies in the universe.

However, despite numerous experimental efforts, there is no direct proof that dark matter exists. This led astronomers to the hypothesis that the gravitational force itself might behave differently than previously thought. According to the theory called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics), the attraction between two masses obeys Newton's laws only up to a certain point. At very small accelerations, such as those prevailing in galaxies, gravity becomes considerably stronger. Therefore, galaxies do not tear apart due to their rotational speed and the MOND theory can dispense with the mysterious star putty.

Sep 15, 2018
The new study opens up the possibility for astronomers to test these two hypotheses in an unprecedented regime.

Story Source:
Materials provided by University of Bonn. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Sep 15, 2018
@ @Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
@ RealityCheck

Have you seen this or something similar?

https://www.scien...2745.htm
For some reason not yet clear, my customized computer setup/browser system can't or won't establish a connection to that site at present. So I'd appreciate it if you would post the title and/or abstract and/or quote an excerpt explaining the gist/thrust/point of that article so that I can answer your question before I log off for the day. Thanks. :)
I will do that and post it in THIS forum soon.
I saw your quoted excerpts in reply. Thanks.

PS: @jonesdave; thanks for providing the arxiv link!

PPS: @ @S_E_Unit: To answer your original question, yes, I read that before. It was an unusual approach to the problem of distinguishing between MOND and LCDM 'expectations' for GR dynamics due to 'location' within/around matter/gravitational field distributions. Thanks. Gotta go. Back tomorrow. :)

Sep 15, 2018
^^^^^Or RC could just read the paper I linked before you decided to waste a shed load of pixels;

On the radial acceleration relation of ΛCDM satellite galaxies
Garaldi, E. et al.
https://arxiv.org...4448.pdf

Sep 15, 2018
Have a pleasant evening, RC

Sep 15, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^Or RC could just read the paper I linked before you decided to waste a shed load of pixels;

On the radial acceleration relation of ΛCDM satellite galaxies
Garaldi, E. et al.
https://arxiv.org...4448.pdf
We submitted our respective posts within seconds of each other! I can tell that your post was in response to @Surveillance_Egg_Unit's posts. But newbies and casual readers may be confused/misled by your use of "^^^^^" in lieu of naming the intended recipient. Can you address you address your intended recipient using the standard "@[insert name]" method to help avoid possible confusion in future? Thanks.

By the way, I already read that study/paper, thanks. FYI, I earlier included a PS to my above reply to SEU, thanking you for the arxiv link for the study/paper SEU's reference was alluding to. Thanks again; much appreciated. :)

PS: @jd: gotta go now.

PPS: @S_E_U: Thanks. But much work offline this afternoon before I even think of sleep! Bye.

Sep 16, 2018
A very weak magnetic field could hold the outer stars (huge electrical conductors) in the galaxy.

To say it's too weak is kind of silly, since GRAVITY IS VERY WEAK too.

I'm guessing the calculation hasn't been done yet, because the galactic magnetic field is a new thing. Jonesy asked me to do the calculation, lol, so I figure it hasn't been done.

Sep 16, 2018
Design Lead for IBEX. "It suggests that the galactic magnetic fields are much stronger and exert far greater stresses on the heliosphere than we previously believed."

https://www.scien...2630.htm

Sep 16, 2018
Jonesy asked me to do the calculation, lol, so I figure it hasn't been done.


..........certainly not by jonesy, having only an Anthropology degree, a so-called field of Science requiring absolutely zero math (maths, for those outside the USA) skills.

Sep 16, 2018
Jonesy asked me to do the calculation, lol, so I figure it hasn't been done.


..........certainly not by jonesy, having only an Anthropology degree, a so-called field of Science requiring absolutely zero math (maths, for those outside the USA) skills.


Hey, sh1t for brains! Still here? Want me to link to your total inability to do even basic maths? Again? How come you are so interested about my qualifications, when it is blindingly obvious to anyone here that you have none? Hmmm? Yet keep feeling the need to lie about being a nuclear engineer? And lying about understanding nuclear physics, whilst making idiotic comments such as this;

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


What institution did you attend to learn that pile of schoolboy fail? Lol.

Sep 16, 2018
A very weak magnetic field could hold the outer stars (huge electrical conductors) in the galaxy.

To say it's too weak is kind of silly, since GRAVITY IS VERY WEAK too.

I'm guessing the calculation hasn't been done yet, because the galactic magnetic field is a new thing. Jonesy asked me to do the calculation, lol, so I figure it hasn't been done.


Nope, the field strengths have been known for some time. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks EM has anything to do with rotattion curves, other than loons on here.

Sep 16, 2018
SEU:- This is what interested me when Benni emerged with his Neutron - the time when a neutron starts it decay process and when it completes its decay process and why neutrons exist in neutron stars under 1x10-15N per neutron without decaying!

Which unfortunately, as is now obvious, has led to JD down fall, as he now has no creditability left?
An expletive decaying husk is all that is left!


> granDy.............I'm the first person in the history of MY presence in this chatroom to have EVER brought up the process of FREE NEUTRON BETA DECAY. Now why do you think this is? No one else has EVER alluded to it.

If the stumpys, jonesies, schneibos, ojorfs, nimaths, etc were such brainiacs in nuclear physics, why did they never bring up the subject? Why is it that whatever the latest Pop-Cosmology fad that comes along they blindly jump right onto the bandwagon? Simple answer, no background in nuclear physics, and you won't get one taking a couple of basic Asronomy courses.

Sep 16, 2018
Design Lead for IBEX. "It suggests that the galactic magnetic fields are much stronger and exert far greater stresses on the heliosphere than we previously believed."

https://www.scien...2630.htm


IBEX RIBBON: WHAT COULD IT TELL ABOUT THE LOCAL INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD?
Grygorczuk, J. et al.
https://www.resea...0000.pdf

The best fit to the observed ribbon was obtained for the local interstellar magnetic field B ∞ = 3.0 ± 1.0 μG


So, that is 0.3 nT! Wow. The solar wind is about 5 nT. What do you want to do with that, and how do you want to do it?

Sep 16, 2018
........no background in nuclear physics


Neither have you. After all, it was you who said this, right?

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Thereby proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have never studied nuclear physics. Dumbo.

Sep 16, 2018
I'm the first person in the history of MY presence in this chatroom to have EVER brought up the process of FREE NEUTRON BETA DECAY. Now why do you think this is? No one else has EVER alluded to it.


Why would anybody bring it up? And the only reason you brought it up was to show your complete ignorance of it. Not really something to brag about, is it?

Getting any therapy for the D-K yet, Benji? I would seriously consider it, if I were you.


Sep 16, 2018
granDy.............I'm the first person in the history of MY presence in this chatroom to have EVER brought up the process of FREE NEUTRON BETA DECAY. Now why do you think this is? No one else has EVER alluded to it.


Great minds think alike. Every crackpot has a different "theory". Exhibit A: Benni

jonesdave has a patience of a saint to even engage with the BS spewed in the comments section

Sep 16, 2018
no background in nuclear physics

Neither have you. After all, it was you who said this, right?
"Niether have you", is more a statement of admission about your own lack of education when comparing yourself to me.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate


proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have never studied nuclear physics.


Those of you in the Pop-Cosmology crowd living here on this website are still in a state of shock recovering from learning that a free neutron has a mere ~15 minute lifetime decay rate. Not just the Pop-Cosmology aficionados but even ALL those who do not identify with that crowd, I'm talking about RC, etc. who have been at a total loss in countering the arguments Pop-Cosmology advances for all their exotic fiction, I know how to do it.


Sep 16, 2018
^^^^^^See what I mean about this uneducated fool having severe D-K syndrome? Benni, we have learned nothing from you. You are an idiot. Lol.

Sep 16, 2018
It takes 4.4minutes to decay
Benni> > granDy.............I'm the first person in the history of MY presence in this chatroom to have EVER brought up the process of FREE NEUTRON BETA DECAY. Now why do you think this is? No one else has EVER alluded to it.

Half-life is probability
When SEU pointed out "A free neutron will decay with a half-life of about 10.3 minutes but it is stable if combined into a nucleus. This decay is an example of beta decay with the emission of an electron and an electron antineutrino."It fully decays in ~14.7 minutes" it was obvious that as decay is not
The half-life works on large numbers but otherwise it's probably
This is where the difference is, Half-life decay and Decay - Half-life decay follows the exponential curve and is probability – DECAY is a specific time dependant on how long it takes to process neutrons to pristine protons which is 4.4minutes to transform neutrons into pristine protons, electrons and neutrinos

Sep 16, 2018
Great minds think alike. Every crackpot has a different "theory". Exhibit A: Benni


......and you could never have come up with a bettter "Exhibit A".

All I can say is 'it ain't braggin' if you can do it, I can & I do'.

I know it just galls the hell out of those of you living inside the bubble world of Pop-Cosmology to see Benni destroy one of the holy grails of Pop-Cosmology, NEUTRON STARS.

I just love watching the meltdowns you Pop-Cosmology aficionados go through just trying to muster up a cogent thought for the first time in your residence in this chatroom, you are MY ENTERTAINMENT, I get off watching the jonesys melt so far down that all they have left with are their profanity laced foul mouthed rantings, just like this one of yours.


Sep 16, 2018
^^^^^Hi, idiot! Still here? Tell us, oh polymath janitor that you are, who said this?

.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Oh dear! And he fails to see the irony of carrying on posting here, pretending that he has any knowledge of nuclear physics whatsoever.

Sep 16, 2018
The Neutron decaying and the decaying expletive husk
Benni, SEU brought the first actual time of decay, as all through all the Obfuscation of JD, RNP, antialias_physorg, Ojorf the list is long; quoted the text book half-life decay with no intention of discussing the actual time the neutron decays, because it appears it does not have a half-life!
This attracted me to your idea and the Obfuscation of everyone suggested you had an idea, that for some unfathomable reason they could elaborate.
Which Benni, has had the unforeseen consequences of JD descending into an abyss of his own making with no credibility left, where as now he has added crankiness to his swearing

Sep 16, 2018
Which Benni, has had the unforeseen consequences of JD descending into an abyss of his own making with no credibility left, where as now he has added crankiness to his swearing


Granville, why don't you p1ss off? You understand nothing about the relevant science, nor any other, as far as I can see. You are a waste of pixels.

Sep 16, 2018
The Husk and the Neutron
Your idea on this neutron Benni, is only beginning - it has legs Benni, you have only scratched the surface as what is possible and the radio-active fallout from this neutron has spectacular consequences, were all waiting agog Benni, for the next episode in the decaying neutron, as it has real life consequences that has produced a living decaying husk all be it cranky!

Sep 16, 2018
Jones says: "Nope, the field strengths have been known for some time. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks EM has anything to do with rotattion curves, other than loons on here."

No research done on the mag field's relevance to rotation you BS artist.

Sep 16, 2018
The Husk and the Neutron
Your idea on this neutron Benni, is only beginning - it has legs Benni, you have only scratched the surface as what is possible and the radio-active fallout from this neutron has spectacular consequences, were all waiting agog Benni, for the next episode in the decaying neutron, as it has real life consequences that has produced a living decaying husk all be it cranky!


Yeah, you phony Astronomer, the 14.7 minute beta decay rate spells the death knell for the existence of neutron stars from which form Pop-Cosmology's greatest fantasy, black holes from which it is claimed neutron stars form the basic underlying structure.

This is just so much fun watching phony Astronomers twist & twitch looking for ways to be Pop-Cosmology's echo chamber.

Sep 16, 2018
The Husk and the Neutron
Your idea on this neutron Benni, is only beginning - it has legs Benni, you have only scratched the surface as what is possible and the radio-active fallout from this neutron has spectacular consequences, were all waiting agog Benni, for the next episode in the decaying neutron, as it has real life consequences that has produced a living decaying husk all be it cranky!


Sorry granDy, didn't mean to hit you with a 1 Star on this, accidental on my part.

You're right on the money about the "next episode". The ultimate theory in the destruction about neutron star hypothesis is yet to be produced, and by whom? Yes, you guessed it, Benni.

Eventually I expect to get to how Pop-Cosmology concocts the DEGENERATE NEUTRON theory they claim is based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Sep 16, 2018
Jones says: "Nope, the field strengths have been known for some time. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks EM has anything to do with rotattion curves, other than loons on here."

No research done on the mag field's relevance to rotation you BS artist.


Huh? What are you talking about? Nobody is suggesting it, because it is a bloody stupid idea that simply doesn't work, you cretin. If you think otherwise, write it up and show us, instead of talking crap.

Sep 16, 2018
Yeah, you phony Astronomer, the 14.7 minute beta decay rate spells the death knell for the existence of neutron stars from which form Pop-Cosmology's greatest fantasy, black holes from which it is claimed neutron stars form the basic underlying structure.


Hahaha. What a fraud! You don't understand the science, D-K boy. As shown. You are an uneducated gobsh1te on a comments section with not the tiniest bit of understanding of nuclear physics. Or any other kind of physics. You are mentally ill.


Sep 16, 2018
You're right on the money about the "next episode". The ultimate theory in the destruction about neutron star hypothesis is yet to be produced, and by whom? Yes, you guessed it, Benni.


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Like I said - mentally ill.


Sep 16, 2018
Yeah, you phony Astronomer, the 14.7 minute beta decay rate spells the death knell for the existence of neutron stars from which form Pop-Cosmology's greatest fantasy, black holes from which it is claimed neutron stars form the basic underlying structure.


Hahaha. What a fraud! You don't understand the science, D-K boy. As shown. You are an uneducated gobsh1te on a comments section with not the tiniest bit of understanding of nuclear physics. Or any other kind of physics. You are mentally ill.


Sez the phony astronomer.

Sep 16, 2018
Yeah, you phony Astronomer, the 14.7 minute beta decay rate spells the death knell for the existence of neutron stars from which form Pop-Cosmology's greatest fantasy,...


And not a single scientist agrees with you. The only person saying this is a mentally deranged tosspot, on an irrelevant comments section. Why don't you go write it up, you uneducated fraud? And all this from the cretin who said:

.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Christ, what a bloody loon! Sad to see.


Sep 16, 2018
Yeah, you phony Astronomer, the 14.7 minute beta decay rate spells the death knell for the existence of neutron stars from which form Pop-Cosmology's greatest fantasy, black holes from which it is claimed neutron stars form the basic underlying structure.


Hahaha. What a fraud! You don't understand the science, D-K boy. As shown. You are an uneducated gobsh1te on a comments section with not the tiniest bit of understanding of nuclear physics. Or any other kind of physics. You are mentally ill.


Sez the phony astronomer.


Who knows far more than you about nuclear physics. Correct? So, what does that make you, you sad muppet? Never got beyond high school did you, D-K boy? You live in a little Walter Mitty-esque bubble, in a world where only D-K Benni knows anything about science.
In reality, you are an uneducated poser. Correct? The question mark is essentially superfluous.

Sep 16, 2018
" stupid idea that simply doesn't work, you cretin."

Jones you moron, stupid is DARK MATTER, the mag field would be elegant, you fraud.

Sep 16, 2018
" stupid idea that simply doesn't work, you cretin."

Jones you moron, stupid is DARK MATTER, the mag field would be elegant, you fraud.


If it's so elegant, you numpty, go write it up. Nobody has seen fit to bother so far. Ergo, there is no hypothesis, no mechanism and no evidence. Just you, making stupid, extremely vague assertions on a comments section.

Sep 16, 2018
Jones says: " Ergo, there is no hypothesis, no mechanism and no evidence."
F = qv x B ... you dope, we went through this already.

Sep 16, 2018
Dark Matter is the only plausible theory and it makes only one assumption: that gravity exists throughout the universe and that relation between gravity and mass is the same anywhere in the universe. Observational data contrary to the former has not been observed. Only mass can account for the observed rotation curve of the milky way. Everyone calls this unknown mass dark matter. It is theory that can co-exist with all observation. Any other theory is either unobservable or does not agree with all observations. Dark matter is way of sticking with observational data; science.

Sep 16, 2018
"Dark Matter is the only plausible theory"

No, It's the most unimaginative, stupid theory ever proposed.

Sep 16, 2018
Dark Matter makes sense on so many levels from the inception of the Big Bang or Crunch Bang to the rotation curve observed in the Milky Way. Whilst the universe was an infinitely small pool of energy its presumed that it was a balance particles and anti-particles. The birth or rebirth of the universe is presumed to be the result of imbalance; to what extent no-one can know. You can see a lot of particle annihilation happening however information or energy in the universe cannot be lost so its likely that most of particles became dark matter, and what wasn't annihilated became visible matter. So you gravity forming elements out of visible matter, time stretching the universe (dark energy) and dark matter forming the galaxy haloes; the original galaxies where haloes and through collisions and other phenomenon you get every other variant. Without substantial extra mass no galaxy would be able to hold onto it's stars; no observation has required "new physics" to explain it.

Sep 16, 2018
"Dark Matter is the only plausible theory"

No, It's the most unimaginative, stupid theory ever proposed.


Nope you are simply as ignorant and unknowledgeable as they come and so too anyone who agrees with you. Whatever your perception is, it is not based on reality and or a complete accurate understanding; it is necessarily rubbish. Go hug yourself.

Sep 16, 2018
Jones says: " Ergo, there is no hypothesis, no mechanism and no evidence."
F = qv x B ... you dope, we went through this already.


Yes, we did. And I'm sure I linked you to the calcs by Ziggurat at ISF. If not, read on.

qv x B. So, what is q? That is the charge on the Sun. ~ 100C.
v = 220 km/s. (the velocity of the SS around the galactic centre).
B = 0.1 - 1.0 nT. (Galactic field strength). Let's call it 1 nT.

So, F = 100 x (2 x 10^5 m/s) x (10^-9)
= 2 x 10^-2 N(ewtons).

The acceleration provided by such a force?

a =F/m. -> a = 2 x 10^-2/ 2 x 10^30 kg (mass of sun).
= 10^-32 m/s^2. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our actual acceleration around the galactic centre? 1.7x10^-10 m/s2.

So, even being generous with the field strength, you are 22 orders of magnitude short. That is so trivial as to be ignorable. Which is why it is ignored. It is a really, really silly idea.

Sep 16, 2018
eric96TheKnowItAllPunk says:
"Nope you are simply as ignorant and unknowledgeable as they come"

You dumbchit, dark matter has not even be discovered.

Just add mass, never observed, just magic material, what an utterly lame theory. And it's just a theory dumbazz.

Sep 16, 2018
Jones says: "qv x B. So, what is q? That is the charge on the Sun. ~ 100C.
v = 220 km/s. (the velocity of the SS around the galactic centre).
B = 0.1 - 1.0 nT. (Galactic field strength). Let's call it 1 nT.
So, F = 100 x (2 x 10^5 m/s) x (10^-9)
= 2 x 10^-2 N(ewtons).
The acceleration provided by such a force?
a =F/m. -> a = 2 x 10^-2/ 2 x 10^30 kg (mass of sun).
= 10^-32 m/s^2. !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Our actual acceleration around the galactic centre? 1.7x10^-10 m/s2.
So, even being generous with the field strength, you are 22 orders of magnitude short. "

Nice job jones.

Sep 16, 2018
Nice job jones.


I know! This is similar to EU stuff. < 5 minutes, and a BOTE calc, and it can be discarded.
Of course you could always up the magnetic field by 10^22, or increase the charge on the Sun by the same. Or split the 22 oom between the two, arbitrarily. Whatever you do, it doesn't work.

Sep 16, 2018
..
..Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Christ, what a bloody loon! Sad to see.
..........yeah, someone like you claiming to have an Astronomy degree from Uni of Auckland where no such degree has ever been offered, yet you claim to be competent in all things nuclear physics.

Sep 16, 2018
..
..Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Christ, what a bloody loon! Sad to see.
..........yeah, someone like you claiming to have an Astronomy degree from Uni of Auckland where no such degree has ever been offered, yet you claim to be competent in all things nuclear physics.


Far more competent than you. As proven. Eh? Stick to whatever you're good at, Benji. Zilch, yes?

Sep 16, 2018
..Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Christ, what a bloody loon! Sad to see.
..........yeah, someone like you claiming to have an Astronomy degree from Uni of Auckland where no such degree has ever been offered, yet you claim to be competent in all things nuclear physics.


Far more competent than you. As proven. Eh? Stick to whatever you're good at, Benji. Zilch, yes?


Interesting that you don't think lying about your educational past at Uni of Auckland, NZ doesn't mean you are incompetent to judge other people's competency. Now, what is this D-K thing you've been harping for so long?

Sep 16, 2018
A very weak magnetic field could hold the outer stars (huge electrical conductors) in the galaxy.

To say it's too weak is kind of silly, since GRAVITY IS VERY WEAK too.

I'm guessing the calculation hasn't been done yet, because the galactic magnetic field is a new thing. Jonesy asked me to do the calculation, lol, so I figure it hasn't been done.


Nope, the field strengths have been known for some time. Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks EM has anything to do with rotattion curves, other than loons on here.
says jones

Then how about THIS?

https://arxiv.org...08.09514

A hypothetical effect of the Maxwell-Proca electromagnetic stresses on galaxy rotation curves
Dmitri D. Ryutov, Dmitry Budker, Victor V. Flambaum
(Submitted on 31 Aug 2017 (v1), last revised 15 Aug 2018 (this version, v2))


Sep 16, 2018
-contd-
The Maxwell-Proca electrodynamics corresponding to a finite photon mass causes a substantial change of the Maxwell stress tensor and, under certain circumstances, may cause the electromagnetic stresses to act effectively as "negative pressure." The paper describes a model where this negative pressure imitates gravitational pull and may produce forces comparable to gravity and even become dominant. The effect is associated with the random magnetic fields in the galactic disk with a scale exceeding the photon Compton wavelength. The presence of a weaker regular field does not affect the forces under consideration. The stresses act predominantly on the interstellar gas and cause an additional force pulling the gas towards the center and towards the galactic plane.

-contd in the link-

Sep 16, 2018
2000billion orbital stars into a combined singular galactic orbital

While everyone is getting a tizzy with their rotational curves giving galactic orbitals two or more galaxies in a single orbital they are orbiting in Keplerian orbits as planets orbit their star because each galaxy is acting as a point like single mass.

But inside each galaxies comprising 2000billion stars each concentrated in spiral arms, a more complicated dynamic applies due to the spiral arm wave nature of concentration of stars that requires modern supercomputing complexity to compute 2000billion orbits into a combined singular galactic orbital

Sep 16, 2018
Keep in mind that most of the mass of the Universe is tied up in ELLIPTICAL galaxies, 2/3 of it. By comparison only 1/3 of the mass of the Universe is found in SPIRAL GALAXIES.

Elliptical galaxies are well known to function in accordance with Newtonian gravity, therefore all the mindless boondoggling around with associating them with dark matter, they don't need it because orbitals of Ellipticals are perfectly well organized gravitationally that is no different than a star with a planetary system, such as ours.

What we thus learn from the fundamentals of the observed gravitational dynamics of Elliptical galaxies is that 2/3 of the Universe does not require some kind of inferred gravitational input to keep those kinds of galaxies from flying apart so to speak.

Therefore, if 2/3 of the structure of the Universe does not require inferred gravity how is it Pop-Cosmology continues to push that vaunted 80% number? The 12% difference close to an offsetting difference.

Sep 16, 2018
From Egg link: "Maxwell-Proca electrodynamics ...The paper describes a model where this negative pressure imitates gravitational pull and may produce forces comparable to gravity and even become dominant. "

This is much more elegant than magic matter that is invisible and can't be discovered.

Sep 16, 2018
I advise you that bothering to respond to trolls gives them cred.

Just state the facts without reference to the trolls and move on.

Sep 16, 2018
LOL I see that you enjoyed the .pdf also, granville.
I have learned more, but am still not satisfied. I will anxiously await their next .pdf providing further proofs of their hypotheses being correct and unassailable. They are on the right track.

Sep 16, 2018
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy. https://www.acade...k_Energy

Sep 16, 2018
From Egg link: "Maxwell-Proca electrodynamics ...The paper describes a model where this negative pressure imitates gravitational pull and may produce forces comparable to gravity and even become dominant. "

This is much more elegant than magic matter that is invisible and can't be discovered.

says C_Code

It appears that the more we know - the more there is to know. It's just never-ending.
Humanity is blessed to have such intelligent, dedicated, skilled scientists who are searching for Truth. They surely need our support.

Sep 16, 2018
Galaxies are created from the dust clouds in the vacuum containing only Matter

Another interesting point concerning rotational curves are the individual stellar nurseries, the stellar clouds of dust are the same mass as the stars they form, so are subject to the same velocity curves as dust clouds as the stars they form.

Then there is the matter the dust clouds consist of - as they construct stars that are darkmatter free, this implies the stellar nursery dust clouds are darkmatter free - all in all the galaxy is consequently constructed from clouds of dust from the vacuum that contain only Matter!

As this applies to - Benni:- Keep in mind that most of the mass of the Universe is tied up in ELLIPTICAL galaxies, 2/3 of it. By comparison only 1/3 of the mass of the Universe is found in SPIRAL GALAXIES - as to all galaxies

Sep 16, 2018
I advise you that bothering to respond to trolls gives them cred.

Just state the facts without reference to the trolls and move on.


We know schneibo, your aficionados who show up here claiming to have Astronomy degrees from far away universities that don't offer such a degree are not those whose Comments are subject to scrutiny, it's the ones of us who expose such phony Commenters who are the problem, right? Yeah, right, and you know it because you too are one who is just such a person with all the same foul mouthed rantings that jonesy has taken lessons from.

Sep 16, 2018
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy. https://www.acade...k_Energy


What are you talking about?

Sep 16, 2018
Squirrels and trolls
(Da Schneib Jun 28, 2018:- @granville, I was speaking of your sarcasm, not @jonesey's. His sarcasm is pretty blunt; you tend to get a bit more esoteric. And you have quite a lot to learn about physics, I've observed. But I've noticed you seem to be generally sincere. I am now testing that with you, so don't get squirrely with me.)
As long as the Trolls remain under the Ugly Trolls Bridge DS, that fine and dandy and then squirrel nutkin is happy in his tree!


Sep 16, 2018
Advice and the Time Line Continuum
(Da Schneib Jun 27, 2018:- In my observation @granville needs tutoring, not pushing. But you'll do as you will, @jonesey. Bear sarcasm in mind.)
DS, if only JD had followed your intuitive advice, the Time Line Continuum would have tread a completly different path, but maybe this is proof DS, that the Time Line Continuum cannot be tampered with as the paths, we lead are written in the quantum fluctuations and cannot be altered.

Sep 16, 2018
Advice and the Time Line Continuum
Da Schneib:- this leads to some interesting conclusions DS, mainly that you have you have that rare quality of being psychic, it is as though you were foretelling JDs footsteps through time to this very point in time.
We all encourage you to nurture your sixth sense, as you have already proved it in the field with astonishing accuracy, with a scientifically proven psychic talent as yours, it is an indispensible asset on these boards!

Sep 16, 2018
LOL #granville
You've got them dead to rights. You know DS and jones like the back of your hand, which is easy enough that almost anyone but the newest posters could see right through them, since jones and Da and their 5-star Club menagerie are so hateful of real competition to their own outdated ideas that they can't help telling lies while ranting and releasing their f-bomb expletives toward their betters. Which only means that we are more than a cut above these pu$$ies.

Sep 16, 2018
@valeriy_polulyakh.
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy. https://www.acade...k_Energy
Thank you for your link. You and other interested readers on the subject are invited to read Physorg forum poster comments made on that study/paper back in September, 2016; in discussion thread:

https://phys.org/...ark.html

Welcome and good luck. :)

Sep 16, 2018
Going with the Flow
SEU:- I'm used to commentators not needing written proof, as lately there seems an insistence on written proof, excepting Bennies neutron, as though without the internet there would be lost souls wondering around clueless.
The internet is essential like an online library, but it is not the be all and end all, science without ideas will be lifeless and soulless as it is the acceptance of ideas that is the course of a lot of upheaval
The hint needs to be taken as in reality there are no trolls and goblins, except in the mind of the detractors; times have changed as you just go with the flow. Da Schneib could see these months ago!

Sep 16, 2018
It's amazing how some people can shove a discussion on a science article totally off topic and into an extravagant dick waving contest.

For those that aren't waving around dicks, may I suggest just using the "ignore" function on those who are involved in such antics...

Sep 17, 2018
@granville
I fully agree. And science is not only about facts and maths, but also the imagination that is recorded onto paper or computer models that will take something imagined in one's mind and, along with all possible workable materials/situations, may have incredible promise for future or present endeavours. The imagination produces wonderful science in many fields - Medicine, Physics, Engineering, Industrial, and other disciplines. And it all comes from the Mind - that all-powerful cage of great and little ideas trying to find a way to express itself.

With regard to Da, it is easy to see that the internet Search engines are his main venue. I have noted quite a bit of hubris and no small bit of resentment from Schneib toward other posters. I have wondered, after reading many years' worth of old physorg posts why it is that such people have a "prima-donna complex" or competing to be the "great Diva" in physorg. It is amusing and I do laugh while turning this site off.

Sep 17, 2018
It's amazing how some people can shove a discussion on a science article totally off topic and into an extravagant dick waving contest.

For those that aren't waving around dicks, may I suggest just using the "ignore" function on those who are involved in such antics...
says meddling meerling

Funny how my Spell Check keeps changing meerling to meddling. Perhaps Spell Check knows something?
You do resemble thegrossofotto1923 or one of his aliases in your hysteria and your mention of male genitalia.

Or perhaps you just could not be bothered to read the full page to see all of the discussions of the science topics. Surely you came in here to add at least one of your science opinions. But as I don't see anything in your post that could pass for a science opinion, I can only surmise that you came in here to talk about male genitalia, yes?


Sep 17, 2018
LOL #granville
You've got them dead to rights. You know DS and jones like the back of your hand, which is easy enough that almost anyone but the newest posters could see right through them, since jones and Da and their 5-star Club menagerie are so hateful of real competition to their own outdated ideas that they can't help telling lies while ranting and releasing their f-bomb expletives toward their betters. Which only means that we are more than a cut above these pu$$ies.


Says a complete tosser who happens to be scientifically illiterate. As proven.

Sep 17, 2018
I advise you that bothering to respond to trolls gives them cred.

Just state the facts without reference to the trolls and move on.


We know schneibo, your aficionados who show up here claiming to have Astronomy degrees from far away universities that don't offer such a degree are not those whose Comments are subject to scrutiny, it's the ones of us who expose such phony Commenters who are the problem, right? Yeah, right, and you know it because you too are one who is just such a person with all the same foul mouthed rantings that jonesy has taken lessons from.


Says a complete idiot, who falsely claims to have spent 6 years studying a subject, but doesn't even know what a half-life is. Sad muppet. And still refuses to tell us who gave him this non-existent qualification. Want me to quote your schoolboy errors again, thicko?

Sep 17, 2018
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy. https://www.acade...k_Energy


Get back to us when it has been published. Yes? I'm about to upload my theory of a unicorn dominated universe to dropbox. Couldn't be bothered with ApJ, MNRAS, A & A, etc. Figured I'd just avoid the whole peer review thing. Safer. Lol.

Sep 17, 2018
LOL #granville
You've got them dead to rights. You know DS and jones like the back of your hand, which is easy enough that almost anyone but the newest posters could see right through them, since jones and Da and their 5-star Club menagerie are so hateful of real competition to their own outdated ideas that they can't help telling lies while ranting and releasing their f-bomb expletives toward their betters. Which only means that we are more than a cut above these pu$$ies.


You don't know the first thing about science, SEU. Do you? As proven. So, what are you doing here? Waving something around, methinks, you ignorant troll.
How long to travel 40m light years? Lol. Back to school for you, boy.

Sep 17, 2018
Simply a Commentary Observation

meerling September 29, 2010
Comments:74
Comments rating:4.1

When a commenter choosing to make phys.org their home; they are entitled to make a comment whenever they wish, but there are provisos, namely the record above, 74 comments since 2010, as it now 2018 and we are in the Fall, which as these golden colours will soon be replaced by the crystalline firs a laden with snow, it will after St Nickolas midnight from the Pole, be 2019 with 74 comments accrued over time as to the presently 74 comment was, after a thoroughly exhaustive of board, is to choose his time to singularize a commenter aside for rebuke, who is to the theme of galactic gravitas – the observational point is abundantly clear, as this is how with only 74 over eight yearly years clear, it clear he is ensuring his starry five star club membership clear!

Sep 17, 2018
Simply a Commentary Observation

And how appropriately placed, as the Cranky of Husk is making it abundantly clear his intentions of late, to make phys.org his Home!

Sep 17, 2018
@RealityCheck

From the physorg link that you provided to valeriy_polulyakh, I followed the link to the paper and then downloaded the .pdf. Then from there I had access to other articles that also offered access to other papers with their pdf.
So I gathered more pdfs going all the way back to 2011 which serves as a history of sorts with Stacy McGaugh and his team leading the way wrt MOND. And I will add these to the pdf which I provided here in this forum. Although a different team, they are both working basically on the same problem.
I just want to thank you for enabling me in acquiring all this information.
:)

Sep 17, 2018
LOL #granville
You've got them dead to rights. You know DS and jones like the back of your hand, which is easy enough that almost anyone but the newest posters could see right through them, since jones and Da and their 5-star Club menagerie are so hateful of real competition to their own outdated ideas that they can't help telling lies while ranting and releasing their f-bomb expletives toward their betters. Which only means that we are more than a cut above these pu$$ies.


You don't know the first thing about science, SEU. Do you? As proven. So, what are you doing here? Waving something around, methinks, you ignorant troll.
How long to travel 40m light years? Lol. Back to school for you, boy.
says stupid jones

You haven't proven a damn thing. I have also asked YOU what are YOU doing here, but you seem reluctant to answer. Just admit that you have nothing better to do than use this site as your soapbox to get attention and interfere in discussions.

Sep 17, 2018
Simply a Commentary Observation

And how appropriately placed, as the Cranky of Husk is making it abundantly clear his intentions of late, to make phys.org his Home!
says granville

OR the Husk of the World of Cranks. Remember - when the corn comes off the cob, all there is left is the Husk. jones fits that perfectly - the Husk who fell from grace, OR the deadly Husk from Outer Space,
jones' whole world just fell apart, as though a dagger's in his heart,
he hates the living, prefers the dead, the 5 star club's his daily bread
he thinks that he is super smart, but we all know he's just an old fart
when one day soon old jones will die, there willl be no one here to cry
for poor old arse-wipe jones can't see, that we're used to idiots like he

Sep 17, 2018
More Interesting Observations of JDs Expletive Husk and Children Perusing Phys.org
SEU> says stupid jones
You haven't proven a damn thing. I have also asked YOU what are YOU doing here, but you seem reluctant to answer. Just admit that you have nothing better to do than use this site as your soapbox to get attention and interfere in discussions.

As Children can peruse phys.org, as meerling of September 29, 2010 has so eloquently proved by more observation than commenting as it is entirely his own choice, meers clearly proves the point that children can peruse this site, as jonesdave as of May 29, 2015 has shown by his colourful communication as he descends into his expletive husk it is not what is expected for aspiring children perusing phys.org!

Sep 17, 2018
Like Scrooge once was before he was blinkered by those Golden Stars
SEU> OR the Husk of the World of Cranks.

It does not have to be like this, as this is a deliberate act by jonesdave, at any moment of his choosing SEU, when it pleases JD; he reverts to days of old when he was the heart and soul of the party.

Sep 17, 2018
The Conundrum of jonesdave and Children who peruse this site!

It is jonesdave derogative that is making it unacceptable for children perusing phys.org and uncomfortable for everyone else, now if phys.org effectively bans children from perusing phys.org, as we are all adults, JD receives what he serves, but unfortunately phys.org cannot ban children because by sciences scientific nature, science is free and open and phys.org has made sure this site is free and open as it is and should be; therefore phys.org cannot ban children from this site, so there lies the conundrum!

Sep 17, 2018
You haven't proven a damn thing. I have also asked YOU what are YOU doing here, but you seem reluctant to answer. Just admit that you have nothing better to do than use this site as your soapbox to get attention and interfere in discussions.


Yes, proven. As in your ridiculous suggestion that we should send a telescope 40m ly to see a GRB!
Not knowing how far the Oort cloud is. Etc. I'm sure I can find more.
As for me using this site, I use it to look at the latest science stories. I rarely post on a story unless some crank has already done so, and then only to point out the idiocy of what they are suggesting. If the cranks stop posting, then you'll rarely see me comment. If they keep posting sh1te, then you better get used to having it ridiculed. And not just by me.


Sep 17, 2018
If they keep posting sh1te, then you better get used to having it ridiculed. And not just by me.


Case in point:

https://phys.org/...ure.html

I don't think anything more needs to be said!

Sep 17, 2018
It's amazing how some people can shove a discussion on a science article totally off topic and into an extravagant dick waving contest.

For those that aren't waving around dicks, may I suggest just using the "ignore" function on those who are involved in such antics...


No, the Ignore doesn't fix the problem.

In addition to the Report button, another thing that can be done is to send an email to Physorg via their Contact at the bottom of this page. Do a Copy & Paste of the offending Comment into the box that comes up, be sure you include the moniker's name. I want to emphasize it is important the offending Comment be included in it's entirety so that the person reading it can just immediately click on it to verify the Comment is on the Physorg site, otherwise it will be treated no differently than if you're clicking on Report which almost never fixes things like jonesy.

Sep 17, 2018
For those that aren't waving around dicks, may I suggest just using the "ignore" function on those who are involved in such antics...


............however, I for one have NEVER clicked the Report on jonesy, nor have I submitted his moniker via email of this site's Contact.

We need headcases like jonesy, stumpy, schneibo, etc to show up from time to just to be the example of the kind of people Pop-Cosmology draws into it's orbits of fantasyland. It gives me something to bounce off so that points I make will show the sharpest contrast possible between reality & totally made up fiction, like for example jonesy's claim of an Astronomy degree from Uni of Auckland, NZ where no such degree has ever been offered.

Sep 17, 2018
^^^^Hey, sh1t for brains! Still here? Why? You have been shown repeatedly to be scientifically illiterate, and have never formally studied any science in your life, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't be so thick.


Sep 17, 2018
I have never seen anyone gets so owned as this dimwit jonesdave did
I'm laughing my behind off

Sep 17, 2018
I have never seen anyone gets so owned as this dimwit jonesdave did
I'm laughing my behind off


Aaaannnd another sh1t for brains. Hey, dummy, it wasn't me who said this:

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


Or this:

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.


Or this:

.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Who got owned? Lol.

Sep 17, 2018
Who got owned? Lol.


You jonesy!!!!!!

I live in your head day & night rent free & you can't shake it. You spend the greater portion of a day obsessing about Benni more than any other person you hate here.

Here you are, a 70 yo man, consumed by so much hate because I've uncovered you for the fraud you are by exposing your fraudulent claim to having an Astronomy degree from Uni of Auckland that has NEVER offered such a degree.

Of course all you can do is get so bent out of shape that the only thing you can dream about is what you wished you could do to me if it were within your power.

Look, you petulant little wisp of hot air, we can plainly see your downward spiral into a self-made abyss of emotional distress. We find it ENTERTAINING watching you fall apart while you falsely imagine every name calling rant serves to resuscitate & restore yourself as some kind of shining example everybody should be proud to imitate & be a follower of.

Oh, what's your BMI?


Sep 17, 2018
Look, you petulant little wisp of hot air, we can plainly see your downward spiral into a self-made abyss of emotional distress. We find it ENTERTAINING watching you fall apart while you falsely imagine every name calling rant serves to resuscitate & restore yourself as some kind of shining example everybody should be proud to imitate & be a follower of.


Benni, you are a tosser, and know nothing about science, and have never attended any place of tertiary education, have you? That is why, you jerk, you keep making horrendous blunders for all to see, as pointed out above. Care to defend yourself, you scientifically illiterate blowhard?