Abell 1033: To boldly go into colliding galaxy clusters

November 16, 2018, Chandra X-ray Center
Composite image. Credit: Chandra X-ray Center

Hidden in a distant galaxy cluster collision are wisps of gas resembling the starship Enterprise—an iconic spaceship from the "Star Trek" franchise.

Galaxy clusters—cosmic structures containing hundreds or even thousands of galaxies—are the largest objects in the Universe held together by gravity. Multi-million-degree gas fills the space in between the individual galaxies. The mass of the hot gas is about six times greater than that of all the combined. This superheated gas is invisible to optical telescopes, but shines brightly in X-rays, so an X-ray telescope like NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is required to study it.

By combining X-rays with other types of light, such as , a more complete picture of these important cosmic objects can be obtained. A new composite image of the galaxy cluster Abell 1033, including X-rays from Chandra (purple) and radio from the Low-Frequency Array (LOFAR) network in the Netherlands (blue), does just that. Optical emission from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is also shown. The galaxy cluster is located about 1.6 billion light years from Earth.

Using X-ray and radio data, scientists have determined that Abell 1033 is actually two in the process of colliding. This extraordinarily energetic event, happening from the top to the bottom in the image, has produced turbulence and shock waves, similar to sonic booms produced by a plane moving faster than the speed of sound.

X-ray wavelength. Credit: Chandra X-ray Center

In Abell 1033, the collision has interacted with another energetic cosmic process—the production of jets of high-speed particles by matter spiraling into a , in this case one located in a galaxy in one of the clusters. These jets are revealed by radio emission to the left and right sides of the image. The radio emission is produced by spiraling around magnetic field lines, a process called synchrotron emission.

The electrons in the jets are traveling at very close to the speed of light. As the galaxy and its black hole moved toward the lower part of the image, the jet on the right slowed down as it crashed into hot gas in the other galaxy cluster. The jet on the left did not slow down because it encountered much less hot gas, giving a warped appearance for the jets, rather than the straight line that is typically seen.

This image of Abell 1033 also provides an example of "pareidolia", a psychological phenomenon where familiar shapes and patterns are seen in otherwise random data. In Abell 1033, the structures in the data create an uncanny resemblance to many of the depictions of the fictional Starship Enterprise from Star Trek.

Optical wavelength. Credit: Chandra X-ray Center

In terms of astrophysical research, a detailed study of the image shows that the energy of the electrons in the "saucer section" and neck of the starship-shaped radio emission in Abell 1033 is higher than that found in the stardrive section towards the lower left (see labels). This suggests that the electrons have been reenergized, presumably when the jets interact with turbulence or shock waves in the hot gas. The energetic electrons producing the radio emission will normally lose substantial amounts of energy over tens to hundreds of millions of years as they radiate. The radio emission would then become undetectable. However, the vastly extended radio emission observed in Abell 1033, extending over about 500,000 light years, implies that energetic electrons are present in larger quantities and with higher energies than previously thought. One idea is that the electrons have been given a further boost in energy by extra bouts of shocks and turbulence.

Radio emission visualization. Credit: Chandra X-ray Center

Other sources of radio emission in the image besides the starship-shaped object are the shorter jets from another galaxy (labeled "short ") and a "radio phoenix" consisting of a cloud of electrons that faded in radio emission but was then reenergized when shock waves compressed the cloud. This caused the cloud to once again shine at frequencies, as we reported back in 2015.

The team who made this study will use observations with Chandra and LOFAR to look for further examples of colliding galaxy clusters with warped , to further their understanding of these energetic objects.

A paper describing this result was published in the October 4th, 2017 issue of Science Advances.

Abell 1033: To boldly go into colliding galaxy clusters
USS Enterprise NCC 1701. Credit: Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum

Explore further: Chandra data suggest giant collision triggered 'radio phoenix'

More information: Francesco de Gasperin et al. Gentle reenergization of electrons in merging galaxy clusters, Science Advances (2017). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701634

Related Stories

Making head or tail of a galactic landscape

September 28, 2018

Astronomers have used data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to capture a dramatic image of an enormous tail of hot gas stretching for more than a million light years behind a group of galaxies that is falling into the ...

Unexpected phenomenon in a merger of a cluster of galaxies

October 5, 2017

An international team of astronomers led by Francesco de Gasperin has witnessed a gas tail of a galaxy that slowly extinguished, but then reignited. It is unclear where the energy for the rejuvenation comes from. The researchers ...

Shocking results of galaxy-cluster collisions

November 7, 2017

A giant collision of several galaxy clusters, each containing hundreds of galaxies, has produced this spectacular panorama of shocks and energy. The collisions generated shock waves that set off a celestial fireworks display ...

Recommended for you

An exoplanet loses its atmosphere in the form of a tail

December 6, 2018

A new study led by scientists from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) reveals that the giant exoplanet WASP-69b carries a comet-like tail made up of helium particles escaping from its gravitational field and ...

195 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
From the article:
Multi-million-degree gas fills the space in between the individual galaxies. The mass of the hot gas is about SIX TIMES GREATER THAN THAT OF ALL THE GALAXIES COMBINED. This superheated gas is invisible to optical telescopes, but shines brightly in X-rays, so an X-ray telescope like NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is required to study it.
By combining X-rays with other types of light, such as radio waves, a more complete picture of these important cosmic objects can be obtained.
More confirmation for what I've been pointing out; ie: inter-galactic/inter-galaxy-cluster 'deep space' ALREADY REPLETE with ORDINARY 'low visibility' matter before/after collisions. This should falsify hypothesis/claim that "Exotic DM exists", and that "it passes right through the collision zone".

Many claimed 'Bullet Cluster' observations were 'evidence' for such 'exotic' DM; but I always pointed out they were explicable by 'ordinary' low brightness matter (now observed)! :)
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
Many claimed 'Bullet Cluster' observations were 'evidence' for such 'exotic' DM; but I always pointed out they were explicable by 'ordinary' low brightness matter (now observed)! :)


Complete bollocks. And not a single scientist has ever claimed such a thing. Stop making sh!t up.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
Just for the hard of thinking, the mass of the bullet cluster (which was two colliding galaxies) is offset from the gas, detected due to lensing. How did they see the gas? Through X-ray observations by the very same Chandra observatory that made the observations in the article!
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2018
More confirmation for what I've been pointing out; ie: inter-galactic/inter-galaxy-cluster 'deep space' ALREADY REPLETE with ORDINARY 'low visibility' matter before/after collisions. This should falsify hypothesis/claim that "Exotic DM exists", and that "it passes right through the collision zone".


......not only this RC, but this is a whole cluster of galaxies COLLIDING. Hard to imagine how in a so-called expanding Universe we can look alll over the place & see this but expect to see the opposite according to the Bingo Bango theory. I wonder RC, if maybe jonesy could explain to us how long before all this colliding galaxy stuff ceases?
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
More confirmation for what I've been pointing out; ie: inter-galactic/inter-galaxy-cluster 'deep space' ALREADY REPLETE with ORDINARY 'low visibility' matter before/after collisions. This should falsify hypothesis/claim that "Exotic DM exists", and that "it passes right through the collision zone".


......not only this RC, but this is a whole cluster of galaxies COLLIDING. Hard to imagine how in a so-called expanding Universe we can look alll over the place & see this but expect to see the opposite according to the Bingo Bango theory. I wonder RC, if maybe jonesy could explain to us how long before all this colliding galaxy stuff ceases?


Christ, talk about thick! Lol.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
...the mass of the bullet cluster (which was two colliding galaxies) is offset from the gas, detected due to lensing. How did they see the gas? Through X-ray observations by the very same Chandra observatory that made the observations in the article!
Mate, you are patently mistaken; as even wiki will tell you:
Gravitational lensing studies of the Bullet Cluster are claimed to provide the best EVIDENCE to date for the existence of DARK MATTER.
And IIRC, even Da Schneib cited that to someone as being 'evidence' for (exotic?) DM. :)

Anyhow, the point was, until we DID 'see' it (as I've been predicting for years now), the BC lensing effects WERE touted as 'evidence' FOR 'EXOTIC' (ie, only-gravitationallly-interacting) DM that "passed right through" unaffected by E-M forces/interactions which 'ordinary' low brightness stuff would have been affected by.

Anyway, I WAS correct: it was ALREADY THERE; LOTS and LOTS of it; and it is ORDINARY stuff. :)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Anyway, it's as I said: it was ALREADY THERE; LOTS and LOTS of it; and it is ORDINARY stuff. :)


It was DARK until we found it RC, now it's not DARK anymore. But yeah, these Pop-Cosmologists are rapidly running out of space in which to hide one of those holiest of all of Pop-Cosmology's holy grails. Gosh, am I getting religious by default or what?
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 16, 2018
Anyway, I WAS correct: it was ALREADY THERE; LOTS and LOTS of it; and it is ORDINARY stuff. :)


No you weren't right you jumped up clown. We see the ordinary matter through x-rays, you idiot. Just as in the above article. The mass was offset from that ordinary matter, as observed from the lensing. Ergo, the lensing is not explained by ordinary matter, you numpty, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

Weak lensing mass reconstruction of the interacting cluster 1E0657-558: Direct evidence for the existence of dark matter
Clowe, D. et al.
https://arxiv.org.../0312273

Now, if you want to respond to that paper in the scientific literature, get to it. Otherwise STFU because we are not interested in your false claims, and are sick to death of hearing them.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
Anyway, I WAS correct: it was ALREADY THERE; LOTS and LOTS of it; and it is ORDINARY stuff.
We see the ordinary matter through x-rays,.... Just as in the above article. The mass was offset from that ordinary matter, as observed from the lensing. Ergo, the lensing is not explained by ordinary matter, you numpty, and nobody is claiming otherwise.
Mate, you're now getting as bad as some of the EU 'crowd' with whom you feud incessantly! Calm down. Leave kneejerking aside. Concentrate. :)

Did you READ the wiki on "Bullet Cluster"; and claims as 'evidence' FOR the DM hypothesis? If you DID, then why come back again with that OBVIOUSLY incoherent attempt at denial?

Try again.

It was BECAUSE INITIALLY that ORDINARY (but low brightness) matter was NOT 'seen' in visible light, that Bullet Cluster LENSING observations were 'attributed to' EXOTIC DM!!!

Get it?

It's only RECENTLY that we are 'seeing' ALL THIS EXTRA MATTER EVERYWHERE.

As I predicted. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
@100Liar_RC is trying to lie again, and failing miserably again. Shall I post another 100 lies, @RC?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
Let's start with another 5 threads where @100LiarRC lies again:
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC tries to support EUdiocy (despite claiming not to): https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100Liar_RC is trying to lie again, and failing miserably again. Shall I post another 100 lies, @RC?
Don't you EVER learn, mate? Stop now before you dig yourself ever deeper again. :)

PS: Has the Bullet Cluster lensing observations been touted as evidence for DM or not, DS? I said "yes"; @jonesdave said "no"; and wiki said "yes". What do YOU say, DS?
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Nov 16, 2018
It's only RECENTLY that we are 'seeing' ALL THIS EXTRA MATTER EVERYWHERE...as I predicted. :)


No, you complete fraud, we saw the ordinary matter in the above article with Chandra in x-ray, you prat. We saw the ordinary matter in the Bullet cluster with Chandra in x-ray. Understand? Why is it seeing it now, but not then? Did they send a f***ing spacecraft to improve the instrumentation in the meantime? No, they didn't thicko. It is the same bloody instrument as it always was, and if this stuff had been in the Bullet cluster, Chandra would have seen it, you idiot.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Don't you EVER learn, mate? Stop now before you dig yourself ever deeper again. :)
They're your documented lies @100LiarRC. I'm not the one who needs to learn. You are the boy who cried wolf a hundred times.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
Again, for the hard of thinking, the first image above is a composite image. The light blue material is a jet from an AGN in radio wavelengths. The purple is from Chandra in x-rays, and the background image is from SDSS.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
@jonesdave.

There has been a concerted effort of late to REVIEW OLD DATA/PICS because of initial naive assumptions/interpretations! Consider again the wiki comments on the BULLET CLUSTER:
the LENSING is strongest in two separated REGIONS NEAR (POSSIBLY COINCIDENT with) the VISIBLE galaxies. This provides support for the idea that most of the mass in the cluster pair is in the form of two regions of dark matter, which bypassed the gas regions during the collision.
See the point? IF those galaxies were IN FRONT of much of the 'lensing' matter, their X-ray etc signals would have swamped/hidden much of the signals from the lensing matter coincident with, BUT BEHIND, them. This is a common and serious problem for astronomy in general, and for longer-distance observations in particular especially when 'images' need to be 'constructed' by 'single-photon-hit' accumulations over long exposure times. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Even more to come with newer scopes. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
^^^^Complete bullshit, you useless fraud. Go write your shit up, yes, and leave the rest of us in peace, you deluded clown. Want me to email the authors? Say the word, chicken shit.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
See the point? IF those galaxies were IN FRONT of much of the 'lensing' matter, their X-ray etc signals would have swamped/hidden much of the signals from the lensing matter coincident with, BUT BEHIND, them.


WTF is that supposed to mean? Seriously, you are bloody clueless, you clown. Go learn some science.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Again, for the hard of thinking, try this article by a real scientist, as opposed to a pretend one;

https://www.forbe...-think/#
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Are you really this unaware/careless of the many problems faced by long-distance astronomy observations/imaging; of which this is only just one, jd? :)

Another problem is the assumptive/interpretational modeling/analysis 'prisms' through which any observations are put and conclusions drawn....all to often ending in GIGO 'publish or perish' offerings by those who are so naive/careless of the dangers of unreliable preconceptions and inbuilt biases.

For example, take the 'work' you linked in your post above (url changed to access pdf):

https://arxiv.org...2273.pdf
Adopting big-bang nucleosynthesis limits on the...
TOO MANY unreliable assumptions, but that one in particular was ESPECIALLY SILLY given recent mainstream discovery of many times more than sufficient ordinary matter to make heretofore "Missing Baryons Problem" a NON-problem after all! Likewise, ALL Big Bang/CMB etc based assumptions are SILLY. :)
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
^^^^Another pile of science-free word salad. P!ss of you deluded fool.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
@jonesdave.
Another pile of science-free word salad. P!ss of you deluded fool.
JD, your kneejerking, denials and insults only confirm that you are not interested in actual science and thinking logically; but only in foul-mouthed ego-tripping. You should know better, jd, IF you were truly an objective scientist, But apparently you are not that yet; far from it. How can you sit there refusing to connect the dots for yourself, mate? I've even pointed out some of the things which make many of the claims you 'believe' just a mish-mash collection of silly and unsupportable 'publish or perish' spiels based on (so many) logically/scientifically questionable assumptions and biases. You are worse than any the religious/EU crowd; they may not know better, BUT YOU SHOULD, jd; IF you were a truly objective thinker/scientist connecting the real dots for yourself; instead of just 'believing' publish-or-perish HACK 'work' by HACK 'paper writers' riddled with HACK assumptions/bias. Sad.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2018
Sigh, apparently we have to do this about once a month.

Another five @100LiarRC lies:
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about an "infinite number of points" having actual physical significance: https://phys.org/...ess.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims time is somehow motion: https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims the polar outflows from a planetary nebula are a Z-pinch (standard EUdiot drivel, despite its claims it's not an EUdiot): https://phys.org/...ula.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims all magnetic fields are due to plasma: https://phys.org/...lts.html

I suppose it's like spraying for bugs.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Sigh, apparently we have to do this about once a month
Thanks for the free publicity and directing readers to my posts; which you and that gang have long been burying under your bot-voting '1's campaign in an attempt to hide it from the readers in the first place. Now they are not 'buried' anymore! Your listing/work on my behalf is much appreciated, DS. Keep it up! You're a treasure; a real pal, DS! lol :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 16, 2018
OK, another 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @100LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Wasn't it claiming the Big Bang is a religion somewhere on here? Looks like it's the real religionist.
Thread where @100LiarRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims a "cloud" of ions is not a plasma: https://phys.org/...gas.html
Thread where @100LiarRC forgets that doppler shift is not visible to the human eye then denies forgetting it: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...cal.html
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2018
JD, your kneejerking, denials and insults only confirm that you are not interested in actual science and thinking logically


F*** off you poser. I am following the science, you are making shit up on a comments section, gobshite. Not a single piece of evidence to support your idiocy, and not a single scientist in agreement. And you want me to say you are right? No, you are bloody clueless, you clown.

I've even pointed out some of the things


No, you have failed to understand a bunch of stuff due to being intellectually incapable in the subject area. Now, why don't you piss off and have the guts to take on the scientists themselves, you posing tosspot? Too bloody chicken, eh? Rather pose on here, and feign knowledge that you don't have. Go post your shit on a physics forum, loony tunes, and you'll get torn to shreds, you f***ing coward.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
I am following the science,
"Following" GIGO exercises/papers riddled with obviously naive/erroneous/questionable scientific/logical assumptions/interpretations and modeling/analysis etc, makes you nothing more than an uncritical "follower" of 'publish-or-perish' crap, jd. That crap is all unraveling before your eyes here on PO with every new report of discovery/review of cosmology/astronomy data/claims. And you refuse to connect the dots for yourself as any truly objective scientist should do. Preferring instead to insult people on the net while the mainstream cosmology paradigm is fast changing under your very nose. Your choice, mate. Too bad.
I've even pointed out some of the things
No, you have failed to understand a bunch of stuff due to being intellectually incapable in the subject area.
Such 'certainty'....from someone who "follows" hack 'publish-or-perish' crap instead of thinking and connecting the new/old dots for oneself! Pity.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
OK, another 5:
Mate, setting aside your obviously insensible errors and cavalier misattributions, you're otherwise doing a great job of directing readers to posts of mine which you and that gang have been trying to bury for years with your bot-voting '1' campaign. Hence your retrieval/publicizing of same now is very much appreciated. Keep it up, DS! You're an (albeit unwitting) pal. lol :)

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Following" GIGO exercises/papers riddled with obviously naive/erroneous/questionable scientific/logical assumptions/interpretations and modeling/analysis etc,


And this is why you are a f***ing coward. Haven't got the balls to spout that shit on a physics forum to real scientists, have you, chickenshit? Because they would rip your idiotic nonsense to shreds, you fake. P!ss off, you coward, and grow a pair.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
That crap is all unraveling before your eyes here on PO with every new report of discovery/review of cosmology/astronomy data/claims.


No it isn't you deluded twat. And not a single scientist is backing you up. You are too thick to understand what you are reading, and haven't got the balls to actually ask a real scientist. You are pathetic, you ignorant blowhard.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
And you refuse to connect the dots for yourself as any truly objective scientist should do.


You are not a f***ing scientist you stupid dick. And you haven't got the balls to confront one. Deluded bloody fool.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Following" GIGO exercises/papers riddled with obviously naive/erroneous/questionable scientific/logical assumptions/interpretations and modeling/analysis etc,
Haven't got the balls to spout that shit on a physics forum to real scientists,
The decades long acquiescence to and promulgation of patently untenable and silly BB assumptions/interpretations etc led to so much BB-biased misrepresentation of CMB/Supernova etc data in order to maintain the obviously false BB paradigms, that it's now most unlikely any truly objective cosmologists can be found running/moderating the forums you are touting, jd. It would be a great waste of time and effort. I prefer to wait until I complete my reality-based maths for modeling my reality-based ToE. That will be complete and reality-consistent from go to whoa (unlike the partial messes you eagerly "follow" at present). That REAL work will stand on its own two reality-based 'feet'; needing no further comment from me. :)
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
^^^^You f***ing chickensh!t, lying b!stard. You want to keep posing on here as if you have a clue about the relevant science, when in fact you are bloody clueless, you cretin. You are just a mealy mouthed, cowardly POS.
TOE? Hahahahahaha. You? Give me a f***ing break. That's hilarious. Sod off you poser.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
You f***ing chickensh!t, lying b!stard. You want to keep posing on here as if you have a clue about the relevant science, when in fact you are bloody clueless, you cretin. You are just a mealy mouthed, cowardly POS.
TOE? Hahahahahaha. You? Give me a f***ing break. That's hilarious. Sod off you poser.
You've becoming more and more indistinguishable from Religionist/EU/AGW-Denialist 'crowd', mate; except for your foul mouth and false sense of 'certainty', which no true objective scientist would display so clearly and disgustingly.

Really, jd, you give ammunition to those real anti-science types who will use your foul-mouthed aggression and stupidity to justify their hatred/mistrust for true science and scientists. You do science/scientists and everyone of good will a disservice, jd. Please stop giving anti-science types such damning 'ammunition' against you and objective science/scientists. You're only making things worse, jd. Stop. Rethinkitall. Try. :)
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
^^^^F*** off coward.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
F*** off coward.
Try, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@100LiarRC is in a manic phase again. It's nearly full moon.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Wow another double post.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
@Benni
The real evidence/Truths are coming in faster and, as more great telescopic instruments are launched, there will be no stopping what is to come in the near future. Forget the past and don't dwell on Bicep2 any longer. That is old already and unimportant compared to all the good new stuff coming our way.
Scientists/Astronomers are working diligently to learn the Truths as they all know that the world is watching and waiting for results.
Perhaps there will come a time when mankind will be united as one because of a discovery that will necessitate a whole new mindset to unite - or perish. And to change our ways for the better.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Maybe they'll come and take @SEU and @100LiarRC and @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist and @cantthink69 away in their spaceships.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC is in a manic phase again. It's nearly full moon.
Stp slacking off, mate. Get to work making that list of links to my posts which readers should search out now that you have been 'un-burying' them from under the bot-voting '1' campaigns by you and that gang. Stop your useless posting, DS, and get to listing those links to all my posts! Time is money! Thanks, mate! lol :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
Perhaps the men in the white coats will bring a straight-jacket for DaJerk to keep him from hurting himself or someone else as he twists and turns and runs away to prevent being kept in a cell all by himself with no one to talk to.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Does anybody know if Dunning-Kruger syndrome is communicable over the internet? I'm trying to work out if RC caught it from Benni, or vice-versa.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
I have just been reading some of those links that Da Jerk is providing here (and everywhere else). I don't see anything wrong with what you posted. Those were/are YOUR OWN opinions and didn't seem to be any skin off anyone else's nose - except for those who don't want your opinions seen by others as the days go by.
This site is becoming like a gulag, and Da Jerk is the warden, deciding who stays and who goes.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Does anybody know if Dunning-Kruger syndrome is communicable over the internet? I'm trying to work out if RC caught it from Benni, or vice-versa.
And where, I wonder, did you catch your foul-mouthed DK+ symptoms from, jd? Please stop this foul senseless behavior which only gives more ammunition to the real anti-science types. Please, mate; for the sake of true science/scientists everywhere. Try.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
I don't see anything wrong with what you posted.


You wouldn't - you're as clueless as he is.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
So, got any astrophysics to talk about?

Or only trolling?

I mean, just askin'.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Does anybody know if Dunning-Kruger syndrome is communicable over the internet? I'm trying to work out if RC caught it from Benni, or vice-versa.


Perhaps it is YOU that is the one who is suffering from Dunning-Kruger and have passed it on to Da Jerk. Might have been all your nasty epithets/insults that has made Da Jerk go off the deep end, where he now requires someone to guard him before he shoots an innocent bystander in the street. That D-K is communicable and no Da Jerk is exhibiting all of its symptoms.
It's a disgrace.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Does anybody know if Dunning-Kruger syndrome is communicable over the internet? I'm trying to work out if RC caught it from Benni, or vice-versa.
And where, I wonder, did you catch your foul-mouthed DK+ symptoms from, jd? Please stop this foul senseless behavior which only gives more ammunition to the real anti-science types. Please, mate; for the sake of true science/scientists everywhere. Try.


Piss off you mealy mouthed prat. YOU are anti-science, you moron. You don't understand it, yet feel the need to call real scientists all sorts of idiots. You are a cretin, and a coward.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
Does anybody know if Dunning-Kruger syndrome is communicable over the internet? I'm trying to work out if RC caught it from Benni, or vice-versa.


Perhaps it is YOU that is the one who is suffering from Dunning-Kruger and have passed it on to Da Jerk. Might have been all your nasty epithets/insults that has made Da Jerk go off the deep end, where he now requires someone to guard him before he shoots an innocent bystander in the street. That D-K is communicable and no Da Jerk is exhibiting all of its symptoms.
It's a disgrace.


Which just shows that you don't even know what D-K syndrome is. Idiot. It is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. You'll find that myself and DaSchneid are not questioning real science on here, mainly defending it. It is idiots like RC and Benni who think they know far more than they obviously do.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
@jonesdave.
Does anybody know if Dunning-Kruger syndrome is communicable over the internet? I'm trying to work out if RC caught it from Benni, or vice-versa.
And where, I wonder, did you catch your foul-mouthed DK+ symptoms from, jd? Please stop this foul senseless behavior which only gives more ammunition to the real anti-science types. Please, mate; for the sake of true science/scientists everywhere. Try.


Piss off you mealy mouthed prat. YOU are anti-science, you moron. You don't understand it, yet feel the need to call real scientists all sorts of idiots. You are a cretin, and a coward.
Silly boy. I am the one being confirmed correct all along, by mainstream discovery/review as reported practically every day now. Meanwhile you're 'stuck' in foul-mouthed troll and denier mode, a diehard "follower" right or wrong of BB-biased/corrupted 'publish-or-perish'
hack 'work' and 'papers' which are falsified GIGO crap from the get-go. Sad.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@jones
Some scientists ARE idiots - in spite of their degrees and years of University education.
I mean, look at YOU - you are spending so much time in physorg that it would be impossible that you could be a real bonafide scientist whose job it is to discover things. About the only thing that YOU could discover is your old lady in bed with some other guy.
But I digress.
Hopefully, you might talk science some day without all that silly cussing and fuming at people who disagree with you.
These forums are supposed to be a friendly give and take of ideas, did you know that?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Silly boy. I am the one being confirmed correct all along, by mainstream discovery/review as reported practically every day now.


No, you are not being proved right, you delusional prick. As I said, you have little to no understanding of the subject matter, and have merely decided that you are right. Not a single scientist would agree with you, which is why you are such a coward about posting your shit on a physics forum. You're an idiot.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
vice-versa.


Perhaps it is YOU that is the one who is suffering from Dunning-Kruger and have passed it on to Da Jerk. Might have been all your nasty epithets/insults that has made Da Jerk go off the deep end, where he now requires someone to guard him before he shoots an innocent bystander in the street. That D-K is communicable and no Da Jerk is exhibiting all of its symptoms.
It's a disgrace.


Which just shows that you don't even know what D-K syndrome is. Idiot. It is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. You'll find that myself and DaSchneid are not questioning real science on here, mainly defending it. It is idiots like RC and Benni who think they know far more than they obviously do.


I know what it is. SpookyOtto has been referring to it in his old posts for years. But your aggressive behaviour and denial of it betrays you.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
@jones
Some scientists ARE idiots - in spite of their degrees and years of University education.
I mean, look at YOU - you are spending so much time in physorg that it would be impossible that you could be a real bonafide scientist whose job it is to discover things. About the only thing that YOU could discover is your old lady in bed with some other guy.
But I digress.
Hopefully, you might talk science some day without all that silly cussing and fuming at people who disagree with you.
These forums are supposed to be a friendly give and take of ideas, did you know that?


I never said I was a scientist, you stupid f***. I just happen to know more about it than idiots like RC, Benni and you. Mind you, that isn't saying much!

P.S. has Voyager got anywhere near the Oort cloud yet? Lol.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Silly boy. I am the one being confirmed correct all along, by mainstream discovery/review as reported practically every day now.
No, you are not being proved right, you delusional prick. As I said, you have little to no understanding of the subject matter, and have merely decided that you are right. Not a single scientist would agree with you, which is why you are such a coward about posting your shit on a physics forum. You're an idiot.
You sound so 'certain', jd...for someone who cannot even be bothered to connect all the new/old dots for himself, instead preferring to abdicate his duty to objective thinking and understanding by uncritically "following" BB-biased/corrupted 'work' and 'papers' by 'publish-or-perish' hacks.

Not a good position from which to be judging me, jd. You don't know the half of it, mate. Wait till you are much better informed before again presuming to do that. Please do/be better than this, jd, for the sake of science. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
OK So we're getting somewhere now. You're NOT a scientist, and yet you defend scientists as though they were gods who can't err in anything they do. That is not how science works, jones.
Scientists are allowed to make mistakes. That is how they know what NOT to do next time.
YOU don't realise how many mistakes they make, since YOU and others are busy talking in these forums and don't know what is really going on in the scientific communities. They hardly ever tell the media when they have wasted materials and resources when they decided on a certain way and it turned out bad. They don't advertise what they have done - UNLESS they had accomplished their goal/discovery.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
.....following" BB-biased/corrupted 'work' and 'papers' by publish-or-perish' hacks.


F*** off, you thick, cowardly prick. Go post that on a physics forum, you f***ing coward. You know why you won't, eh? Because if I can see right through you, they'll kick your uneducated arse from here to kingdom come. Coward.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
That is not how science works, jones.


And how the f*** would you know? You are scientifically illiterate, as proven.

since YOU and others are busy talking in these forums and don't know what is really going on in the scientific communities.


Wrong, dipshit. I read and post on real science forums, and get updates from a number of respectable journals, as well as trawling through abstracts from the latest science conferences. So I know pretty well what is going on in the areas I'm interested in. More to the point, I actually understand most of what I read, unlike some of the thick posers on here.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
They don't advertise what they have done - UNLESS they had accomplished their goal/discovery.


Which again shows that you don't know the first thing about either science or the scientific process.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Dup
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Uhhhh how do you know that RC doesn't communicate on a regular basis with bonafide scientists and only talks to you to get you riled up as the evidence shows you have been doing, eh jones?
Do you follow RC around offline to see where he goes and what he does? How do you KNOW with such absolute certainty that RC isn't working at a lab with all kinds of science instruments?
Perhaps you are an accomplished mind reader or you have hired a detective to follow RC? It does seem strange that you can be so sure. A lot of your insults and innuendos are actionable, do you know that?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Uhhhh how do you know that RC doesn't communicate on a regular basis with bonafide scientists and only talks to you to get you riled up as the evidence shows you have been doing, eh jones?
Do you follow RC around offline to see where he goes and what he does? How do you KNOW with such absolute certainty that RC isn't working at a lab with all kinds of science instruments?
Perhaps you are an accomplished mind reader or you have hired a detective to follow RC? It does seem strange that you can be so sure. A lot of your insults and innuendos are actionable, do you know that?


I only have to look at the shit that he posts to know that he is nothing more than a poser. He hasn't got a bloody clue, as any scientist would tell him, but he's too much of a coward to post on a physics forum.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
sorry double post
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
..following" BB-biased/corrupted 'work' and 'papers' by publish-or-perish' hacks.
F** off, you thick, cowardly prick. Go post that on a physics forum, you f**ing coward. You know why you won't, eh? Because if I can see right through you, they'll kick your uneducated arse from here to kingdom come. Coward.
You're getting hysterical, mate. Calm down. I already explained to you why I will not waste good time and energy on those forums you recommend. Did you properly read/understand that explanation? Lately, except for my occasional comments here, I prefer to concentrate on using available time/energy to complete my reality-based maths for modeling my already-finished reality-based physics ToE. Why waste time/energy getting enmeshed in unending to-and-fro with BB-biased 'gatekeepers' at forums which can just frame-and-ban whenever their biased BB 'beliefs' look like being falsified? It's more productive to do it then publish it all, complete. Patience! :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Then the best thing you should do is to gravitate to those like tbglarsson and AA and a couple of others who do know as much science as you know, and seek them out to converse with, since you seem to have much more respect for them than with most others. I doubt that you will be using foul dirty language on such as tbgl, but I could be wrong.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
You're getting hysterical, mate. Calm down. I already explained to you why I will not waste good time and energy on those forums you recommend. Did you properly read/understand that explanation?


Yes, you are a coward. If we can have idiots like Jeffrey Wolynski and Sol88 posting mindless, unscientific crap on ISF, then I don't see why you can't subject your own unscientific crap to scrutiny on there either. Same goes with Cosmoquest. And the forum attached to this site. You are making excuses so that you can carry on your Dunning-Kruger fuelled shit on here, whilst slagging off real scientists with impunity, you f***ing cowardly POS.

Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
sorry double post

You mean - TRIPLE post... :-)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
I doubt that you will be using foul dirty language on such as tbgl, but I could be wrong.


Why would I? He knows what he's talking about, and isn't trying to overthrow well established science, unlike the unqualified nutjobs like RC.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
sorry double post

You mean - TRIPLE post... :-)
says Whyde

Yes, I did it for emphasis. Then thought better of it and had to apologise for taking up more characters than allotted. My bad.
:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Yes, you are a coward. If we can have idiots like Jeffrey Wolynski and Sol88 posting mindless, unscientific crap on ISF, then I don't see why you can't subject your own unscientific crap to scrutiny on there either. Same goes with Cosmoquest. And the forum attached to this site. You are making excuses so that you can carry on your Dunning-Kruger fuelled shit on here, whilst slagging off real scientists with impunity, you f***ing cowardly POS.
This sort of twisting of the facts is why you betray yourself as no scientist at all, let alone a fair discourser on science/logics posted. It's quite obvious that YOU are INCAPABLE of comprehending that a thorough, serious minded, objective scientist/theoretician may prefer to properly finish his COMPLETE reality-based maths/ToE work BEFORE finally publishing it complete. Eg, it took Darwin/Newton DECADES before their respective magnum opus was ready to publish. Be patient, jd. Some things are worth the wait, mate. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
Looks like @SEU and @100LiarRC are now buttbuddies.

Predictable.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
This sort of twisting of the facts is why you betray yourself as no scientist at all, let alone a fair discourser on science/logics posted. It's quite obvious that YOU are INCAPABLE of comprehending that a thorough, serious minded, objective scientist/theoretician may prefer to properly finish his COMPLETE reality-based maths/ToE work BEFORE finally publishing it complete. Eg, it took Darwin/Newton DECADES before their respective magnum opus was ready to publish. Be patient, jd. Some things are worth the wait, mate. :)


Sod off, you deluded clown. Go and finish the piece of crap, and stop posting on here, if your time is so f***ing precious. The fact that you do post on here, and slag off real scientists in the process, shows you up for the gobsh!te lying poser that you are.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
I doubt that you will be using foul dirty language on such as tbgl, but I could be wrong.


Why would I? He knows what he's talking about, and isn't trying to overthrow well established science, unlike the unqualified nutjobs like RC.
says jones

Well established science? Even scientists don't regard science as "well established". The very idea of well established anything means that the status quo is good enough and doesn't need further improvements/findings/discoveries, unless what was thought to be well established turns out to be nothing of the kind.
You say that you read all of the science journals and so on, but what you can't read is what they don't wish for anyone to know - if at all possible. It is NOT all well established, else they can sit on their laurels and accept all the awards and praise and never do another damn thing wrt science.
What you seem to be relating to is all that you have learned in the past, and don't desire any of it to change.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Looks like @SEU and @100LiarRC are now buttbuddies.

Predictable.
The 'buttbuddies' franchise here at PO (and elsewhere) was established/cornered long ago by the gang of bot-voting trolls who have been desperately attempting to bury/sabotage my posts/discussions via their '1' "downvote right or wrong" buttbuddy circle-jerking. It seems that you and they have still got the buttbudy-ism market cornered , DS; so you may not want to attract any more attention to that fact than you have already done by your above silly-butt post. Now, DS, get back to that 'job' I'm 'paying you for'; listing/linking of my past posts so that readers can then see what you and that gang have been trying to bury under your '1' downvote campaigns for so long! Thanks again, DS. lol :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
Neither of you wants to talk about astrophysics.

Both of you troll.

We done here?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Looks like @SEU and @100LiarRC are now buttbuddies.

Predictable.
says Da Jerk

It appears that Da Jerk has an obsession with butts, as Da Jerk often refers to butts in many of its own posts. Perhaps Da Jerk is anal retentive?

@jones
You may need to pry Da Jerk away from your bum (or butt, as Da Jerk prefers). Schneibo seems the type who likes to talk about "butts", so if you have an occasion to meet him in person - you might want to stay at his side, instead of in front or in back of him. Never can tell with these folks.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
desperately attempting to bury/sabotage my posts/discussions via their '1' "downvote right or wrong"


Nobody gives a toss about your delusions. No need to bury the crap, as it is never going to be seen by real scientists anyway.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
If you wanna talk astrophysics, get to it. And not weird shiit about the allness pulling hydrogen out of its azz and turning it into plasma either. Just straight up standard astrophysics, like about why one of these jets got kinked, which is what this article is about.

Otherwise fuuck off and expect more five-shots of you lying.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
What you seem to be relating to is all that you have learned in the past, and don't desire any of it to change.


Nope, that is just an uneducated tosser making shit up. I know far more about the science than you, and have a better idea of what's coming up than you. Nothing is going to be changed by unqualified, scientifically illiterate loons posting on here. If they amounted to anything, they'd be involved in science, and writing things up in journals. The fact that they have to resort to posting their drivel on here, tells you everything you need to know - they are just D-K affected blowhards.

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Neither of you wants to talk about astrophysics.

Both of you troll.

We done here?
My, you are 'hard of seeing' as well as butt-silly, DS. If you checked, I started out talking about astrophysics...then you and jonesy turned the thread into your usual personal-insults-and-trolling-butt-buddy-fest. How can such an otherwise smart feller like you, DS, be so blatantly and consistently wrong and hypocritical on so many levels? Amazing. Are you posting while drunk/drugged again? That might explain why you 'didn't see' that it was you and jones who were the ones derailing/sabotaging polite and on-topic science discourse, again. Try not to do that again, DS. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
@100LiarRC, you started pulling hydrogen out of your azz again and claiming it turns into plasma.

You always lie. Every time. It's why no one trusts you.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC, you started pulling hydrogen out of your azz again and claiming it turns into plasma.

You always lie. Every time. It's why no one trusts you.
That clinches it; you are posting drunk/drugged again. You've lost touch with reality again. Go sober/clean up before even thinking of posting again, DS. Go on.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Look, here's the deal: galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, galaxy cluster dynamics, and baryon acoustic oscillations all show dark matter in near spacetime. The CMB shows it in far spacetime. It's real; there's something there. Every attempt to explain it any other way has failed; I even advocated some of them, but they've all gone tits up. Is it matter? Hell, we dunno, we just know we see mass there. What is it? We dunno, we just see mass there. We looked for MACHOs and that failed. We looked for enough intergalactic hydrogen to account for it and that failed. We tried modified gravity and that failed.

Sorry if that makes you all butthurt and stuff. Get over it.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
I started out talking about astrophysics...


No, you misinterpreted the article, and claimed it vindicated some shit or other that you have dreamed up. It doesn't, so we told you so.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
What you seem to be relating to is all that you have learned in the past, and don't desire any of it to change.


Nope, that is just an uneducated tosser making shit up. I know far more about the science than you, and have a better idea of what's coming up than you. Nothing is going to be changed by unqualified, scientifically illiterate loons posting on here. If they amounted to anything, they'd be involved in science, and writing things up in journals. The fact that they have to resort to posting their drivel on here, tells you everything you need to know - they are just D-K affected blowhards.

says jones

Before you submitted your post, did you stop to first review what you had said? I doubt that you did, else you might have omitted the last 2 sentences. What you said there also applies to you. Have YOU written things up in journals? etc etc etc
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
BTW, what's "butt-silly" mean?

Just askin'.

Are you a native English speaker? Doesn't look that way.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Have YOU written things up in journals? etc etc etc


No, why would I? I'm not the one claiming all scientists are idiots, and that well established science is all wrong. Cranks are obvious, as they always spam their shit in places like this. They rarely get any notice taken of them by real scientists, and rightly so.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
@SEU is very slow. I wonder how its internet connection works. Always seems to be at least one post out of date.

Whatcha usin', a 56k modem from North Korea or something?

Or is thinking that hard for you?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
Have YOU written things up in journals? etc etc etc


No, why would I? I'm not the one claiming all scientists are idiots, and that well established science is all wrong. Cranks are obvious, as they always spam their shit in places like this. They rarely get any notice taken of them by real scientists, and rightly so.
says jones

Can you provide the evidence and link to the person who "claimed" that all scientists are idiots? I have never read of such an assertion.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
And 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet one more time that DM doesn't exist due to "recent discoveries" that it has no documentation to support: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are no lab experiments in magnetic reconnection before 2016, despite the PPPL experiments: https://phys.org/...its.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims DM and DE are "aether:" https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims energy in space can somehow create charge from nothing: https://phys.org/...cle.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@SEU posts there's no dark matter and no dark energy and no black holes and then claims it didn't say all scientists are idiots.

Just so we're clear.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
No, you misinterpreted the article, and claimed it vindicated some shit or other that you have dreamed up. It doesn't, so we told you so.
The "we" in your response were you (someone who does not want to connect the new/old dots) and DS (someone who jumped in drunk/drugged and unheeding).

Neither of you bothered to consider ALL the possibilities/problems I tried to point out for your benefit. You just went into egotistical disregard and insults mode as usual.

The increasing mainstream observations of previously missed low-brightness 'ordinary' DM everywhere we look now (and more to come with new scopes) doesn't seem to register at all in your considerations. You don't seem to realize that many of the old/naive/erroneous BB-engendered estimates/assumptions etc are fast being overtaken by events. That's why all BB-biased exercises/papers are moot now that we are getting reliable data on actual, real, 'ordinary' matter/dynamics. Be brave, mate. Rethinkitall. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@100LiarRC claimed in the first post on this thread that there's no dark matter.

This denies galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster dynamics, the virial theorem (note closely, this is not a theory, it's a provable theorem in math that's well established in the lab as well not to mention widely used in engineering), the CMB, the baryon acoustic oscillations and filaments, and gravitational lensing.

We done here?

No, we're not. Now @100LiarRC is denying the Big Bang again too.

I mean, come on. Next you'll be denying Newton.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Neither of you bothered to consider ALL the possibilities/problems I tried to point out for your benefit.


I read it. It was shit. I decided this due to knowing more about the subject than you do, and therefore made a rational decision that you were talking crap. I was right.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
You don't seem to realize that many of the old/naive/erroneous BB-engendered estimates/assumptions etc are fast being overtaken by events. That's why all BB-biased exercises/papers are moot now that we are getting reliable data on actual, real, 'ordinary' matter/dynamics. Be brave, mate. Rethinkitall. :)


Nope, and not a single scientist is claiming such a thing. The only one claiming it is a non-event loon on a comments section, who can therefore be safely, and rightly, ignored.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
And another 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims gravity and EM can engage in "feedback loops" with no evidence: https://phys.org/...tar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims plasma is a "force:" https://phys.org/...ism.html
Thread where @100liarRC claimes magnetism makes radiation by some unspecified means: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies again about the Big Bang and supports LaViolett, a known crank: https://phys.org/...tar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there's enough baryonic matter to explain dark matter: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Oh, and that last one? Same lie as on this thread. It uses the same lies over and over and hopes no one will notice. So much for that.

Go take your medicine @100LiarRC. You're manic again.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC claimed in the first post on this thread that there's no dark matter.

This denies galaxy rotation curves, galaxy cluster dynamics, the virial theorem (note closely, this is not a theory, it's a provable theorem in math that's well established in the lab as well not to mention widely used in engineering), the CMB, the baryon acoustic oscillations and filaments, and gravitational lensing.

We done here?

No, we're not. Now @100LiarRC is denying the Big Bang again too.

I mean, come on. Next you'll be denying Newton.
What sort of drink/drugs are you on, mate? Can't you get anything right? I explicitly keep pointing out we ARE FINDING DM all over the place!....and that it is 'ORDINARY' matter; and NOT 'EXOTIC' as was being claimed until now.

Stop drinking/drugging; start reading/understanding, DS. Else your posts will just be 'drunken noises from the corner'. And stop lying about what I said/claimed, DS. Try to be/do better than this, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
We're not "finding ordinary matter all over the place." We'd be able to see it, in IR, radio, and X-rays. And we don't.

You're just lying again. Take your meds.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
And another 5:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims LIGO gravitational wave detections are due to coincidences: https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC advertises its supposed "Theory of Everything" (ToE) which it has never provided even an explanation of, then tells the Steinhardt lie again: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC makes more unsupported claims about BICEP2 and again claims Steinhardt denies the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims redshifts are "highly unreliable:" https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims EUdiots have "provided learning opportunities" for professional astrophysicists without evidence: https://phys.org/...big.html
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
What sort of drink/drugs are you on, mate?
Not as good as the stuff they give you for manic depression.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
We're not "finding ordinary matter all over the place." We'd be able to see it, in IR, radio, and X-rays. And we don't.

You're just lying again. Take your meds.
What do you think all those recent finds of low-brightness galaxies, clouds etc etc are all about, DS? :)

We ARE NOW looking in multiple wavelengths, and ARE seeing much more stuff, both near and far, previously missed.

Hence, all previous 'ordinary' matter estimates were OFF by a LOT. And that ordinary galactic/intergalactic/intergalactic-cluster dust/gas/plasma 'stuff' we are NOW seeing (that was previously missed' because it was too faint for our scopes to register until recently) is only the TIP of the 'iceberg'.

Newer scopes will soon 'see' even MORE ordinary material all over the place, near and far.

So, to be clear:

ORDINARY (not 'exotic') DM DID EXIST (as I said all along); and WE ARE FINDING IT where previously it was missed by our old scopes (as I predicted all along). :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
To be clear, none of what you're talking about adds up to anywhere near enough. This isn't 20% vs 21%, it's 20% vs 70%. You can find all the dwarf galaxies you like and they will be far, far short.

You're just lying manically again. Take your medicine.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
We ARE NOW looking in multiple wavelengths, and ARE seeing much more stuff, both near and far, previously missed.


Nope, and nobody is claiming this is doing away with the need for DM. This is just missing baryonic matter, which we know is there and is already factored into the calculations. It alters nothing. Of course, the Bullet Cluster is not the only observation of its kind to show DM lensing, and this is not the only way of estimating the DM contribution. See this, for instance;

http://scienceand...ark.html

The link to the paper no longer works on that page, but it is here;

https://www.hayst...ep05.pdf

And here is a summary paper from 2012;

Astrophysical and cosmological probes of dark matter
Roos, M.
https://arxiv.org...3662.pdf

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Just so you know, I'm listening to "Lucky Man" by ELP and reading "The Algebraist" by Iain M. Banks while I watch you flail. And every so often I reach over and scratch my cat's ears or the back of his head.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
To be clear, none of what you're talking about adds up to anywhere near enough. This isn't 20% vs 21%, it's 20% vs 70%. You can find all the dwarf galaxies you like and they will be far, far short.
All those low-brightness galaxies are adding up to a LOT.

Then add all those humongous inter-galaxy clouds/streams of DUST/GAS/PLASMA also missed previously because of low-brightness or inadequate scopes/wrong wavelength used.

The intra-galactic contents, and galaxy sizes themselves, have been recently revised upwards too. It all adds up. And much more will be 'seen' with newer scopes/wavelengths/techniques.

Once we have realistic estimates of how much ordinary stuff is actually out there, we can CORRECTLY apply GR to whatever actual (non-Kepler) distributions/dynamics we observe NOW.

Then, taken together, the newly re-estimated 'ordinary matter' mass AND proper application of GR to actual non-Kepler distributions of same, should explain motions/orbits. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
Bah. Link papers or stop lying. @Jones is right, there just isn't enough matter out there by like an order of magnitude.

Now listening to "Sultans of Swing" by Mark Knopfler and Dire Straits. Segueing into "Industrial Disease."
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Bah. Link papers or stop lying.
It's all been reported in PO articles, mostly over the last few years, and, lately, almost daily! There are too many instances/links. If you are not up to speed on all these findings, then it's time you started to seriously and diligently read up on same, mate. I only have so much time that I can spare for reading/commenting here. You will therefore have to do your own 'due diligence', DS. Sorry. :)
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
Then, taken together, the newly re-estimated 'ordinary matter' mass AND proper application of GR to actual non-Kepler distributions of same, should explain motions/orbits. :)


Nope. You just made that up. Not a single scientist agrees with you. You are in fantasy land. This is missing baryonic matter that is predicted to exist, and is already in the calculations for DM, as I have already told you.

https://www.natur...-05432-2

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Bah. Link papers or stop lying.
It's all been reported in PO articles, mostly over the last few years, and, lately, almost daily! There are too many instances/links. If you are not up to speed on all these findings, then it's time you started to seriously and diligently read up on same, mate. I only have so much time that I can spare for reading/commenting here. You will therefore have to do your own 'due diligence', DS. Sorry. :)


Crap. Show us the maths. Show us the scientific support for your misunderstandings. Not a single scientist is using these detections to claim DM is not needed. You simply do not know enough about the subject, nor the papers you read, assuming you actually reads the scientific literature.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
It's all been reported in PO articles
No it hasn't. Like I said, 21% vs 20%. Show this ten times more visible matter or stop lying. Not that I expect you'll do either given your track record.

"Black Water" by the Doobies playing now. Just listened to "Layla" and "Midnight Rider." Sorry to leave you to shoulder the load, @Jones. Kinda intense part of the set there. :D

By the hand (hand), take me by the hand pretty momma
Come and dance with ya daddy all night long
I'd like to hear some funky Dixieland
Pretty momma come and take me by the hand

Ha!
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Nope. You just made that up. Not a single scientist agrees with you. You are in fantasy land. This is missing baryonic matter that is predicted to exist, and is already in the calculations for DM, as I have already told you.

https://www.natur...-05432-2

You keep missing the wider implications, mate. :)

The review of this X-ray data gives a "HOT GAS" estimate...
...about SIX TIMES times greater than that of all the galaxies combined
... and there must also be a LOT more 'cooler' dust/gas/plasma content not being seen, probably coinciding (remember?) with the two main galaxy distributions (again, especially if much of that cooler material is mostly behind each of those two main galaxy distributions).

ps: While we're at it, note what I already long pointed out: RADIO WAVELENGTHS spectrum from all these features and from NS/BH jets; PLUS emissions from very close to all the innumerable NS/BH surfaces, INCLUDES CMB wavelengths. :)
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@100LiarRC claims that the linked article accounts for the discrepancy. Actually what it does is bring the matter up to the predicted 5% of the mass of the universe.

By combining the X-ray data with measurements of the ultraviolet emissions from 1ES 1553+113, Nicastro et al. estimated the density of the baryons associated with the X-ray absorbing features, and found that they account for 9–40% of the *cosmic baryon density* — suggesting that these features are a substantial reservoir of the missing baryons.
This is the missing part of the 5%. Not the other 95%, for that you need dark matter and dark energy. The key words in this quote are "cosmic baryon density." That's the 5%.

Speaking of the wider implications. Maybe you should read the articles linked a little more carefully.

You're lying again.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@jonesdave.
Crap. Show us the maths. Show us the scientific support for your misunderstandings. Not a single scientist is using these detections to claim DM is not needed.s you read, assuming you actually reads the scientific literature.
How long ago was it that I urged YOU all to do the maths for all that DUST which has been found in quantities many times greater and more widely within galaxies and between galaxies and between galactic clusters etc than was previously ever suspected/estimated based on old/naive visible light surveys which were also much underestimated using earlier scopes/assumptions? Do it now. Even the smallest dust particles contain millions/billions times the mass of a Hydrogen/helium atom. And since the dust is now found to be much prevalent in, and mixed with hydrogen/helium etc 'gas' clouds, the total mass contribution of dust particles can comprise many times MORE of a 'dirty plasma' cloud's MASS than is estimated from the HI signal. See?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Now listening to the whole Fourplay first (self-titled) album. "Bali Run." Nathan East and Bob James absolutely nail the intro, and Rit totally kills the opening and the solo. Harvey Mason just does his thing.

Damn, good stuff, nearly forgot to 1 @100LiarRC it's so good.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@100LiarRC claims that the linked article accounts for the discrepancy. Actually what it does is bring the matter up to the predicted 5% of the mass of the universe.

By combining the X-ray data with measurements of the ultraviolet emissions from 1ES 1553+113, Nicastro et al. estimated the density of the baryons associated with the X-ray absorbing features, and found that they account for 9–40% of the *cosmic baryon density* — suggesting that these features are a substantial reservoir of the missing baryons.
This is the missing part of the 5%. Not the other 95%, for that you need dark matter and dark energy. The key words in this quote are "cosmic baryon density." That's the 5%.

Speaking of the wider implications. Maybe you should read the articles linked a little more carefully.
Please see my reply to @jonesdave above. The fuller picture is: what is 'not seen' may be many times the mass of what 'was seen'. Thanks. :)
Steelwolf
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
I find it sad that DS and jd have yet to move into Modern Science as these papers are:

https://arxiv.org...4401.pdf

https://arxiv.org...4916.pdf

And see that science has been moving in leaps and bounds as we get the equipment that can identify the structure of magnetic fields at distances we are finding them to be ubiquitous, stretching farther than gravity effects by themselves and influencing galactic formation, quenching and young star making.

Plasma/Electric Universe is Not 'Woo'. it is merely mainstream science that you seem to either disregard because it does not fir Your model, or you may find some spelling error, as is your typical wont and use of misdirection and subject change.

But this is Papers and Data for you. Do enjoy!

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
BTW, here's the first paragraph of the article making it obvious that baryonic matter is what's talked about in the rest of the article, and that this comprises 5% of the mass of the universe:

We live in a dark Universe: just 5% of it consists of ordinary matter such as that found in atoms, whereas the rest is 'dark' matter and energy that cannot currently be detected directly1. However, observations of the nearby Universe suggest that up to 40% of this ordinary matter — which is made up primarily of particles known as baryons — is missing2–5. Baryonic matter is thought to be distributed through the Universe like a cosmic web, and the missing baryons are predicted to be located in the filamentary structures that connect the web, and in intergalactic space4. In a paper in Nature, Nicastro et al.6 report the detection of the X-ray absorption signatures of baryons in the spectra of a bright background object.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Oh, stop lying, @100LiesRC. You can't account for more than 5% of the mass in the universe with your dwarf galaxies. The plasma is concentrated into filaments. This paper says so. Maybe you missed the last 20 years of astrophysics and cosmology. Maybe I'm uncharitable saying you lied. I'm thinking not.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
BTW, here's the first paragraph of the article making it obvious that baryonic matter....and that this comprises 5% of the mass of the universe:
We live in a dark Universe: just 5% of it consists of ordinary matter such as that found in atoms, whereas the rest is 'dark' matter and energy that cannot currently be detected directly1. However, observations of the nearby Universe suggest that up to 40% of this ordinary matter — which is made up primarily of particles known as baryons — is missing2–5. Baryonic matter is thought to be distributed through the Universe like a cosmic web, and the missing baryons are predicted to be located in the filamentary structures that connect the web, and in intergalactic space4. In a paper in Nature, Nicastro et al.6 report the detection of the X-ray absorption signatures of baryons in the spectra of a bright background object.
That's all based on old/BB assumptions/estimates etc increasingly being found naive/wrong.
Steelwolf
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
And so far the biggest liars, libelers and slanderer is DS, by far

I do wonder if he will be picked up one day by the Internet Interpol for his damning slander and innuendo against others here, that and trolling and stalking.

There have been recent court cases won against online activities like that DS, might want to rethink your whole BS attack on RC, who is a lot more lucid than jd and many others here.

As all new readers find they soon have to put JD, Benni and CD on mute, then follows their sock puppets and anti-cheering section of DS, Stumped and others.

But as I posted above, the view is, by necessity, changing to include a much heavier magnetic component to the gas clouds, plasma and most stellar gas/plasma environments as a Single co-moving item due to interconnecting and turbulence strengthened Magnetic fields and finding this directly affects galaxy formation,and even planetary/solar formation. Just different scales, and gravity Cannot account for it all.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
All those low-brightness galaxies are adding up to a LOT.

Yes! A lot of *dark matter*, as these galaxies tend to have high DM content.
The review of this X-ray data gives a "HOT GAS" estimate...

...about SIX TIMES times greater than that of all the galaxies combined

Yes! But we have known about this component of baryonic matter for years, It is just that it was recently realized it had been significantly underestimated. This was a major part of the solution to the missing baryon problem. The masses detected still are still not large enough to be significant to the DM issue.

Then add all those humongous inter-galaxy clouds/streams of DUST/GAS/PLASMA also missed.......

They are NOT "humongous". They constitute only tiny fractions of the galaxies in their vicinity.

So, all the claims you make above are fallacious.

For the umpteenth time, PLEASE learn more about the astrophysics before making such claims.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
And another 5 since I don't seem to be making my point with this fool:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @100LiarRC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @100LiarRC has never said what three of them are.
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html
Last one in the next post.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
And the fifth:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html

C'mon, @100LiarRC. Give it up. You lie like a rug. "BB estimates" are not wrong. You keep making the same lying claims over and over and over and keep getting pwnt over and over and over. You are ridiculous.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
And a favorite: "Max-o-man." About Harvey's kid. I can see him crawling around on the floor just listening to it.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@Da Schneib.
You can't account for more than 5% of the mass in the universe with your dwarf galaxies. The plasma is concentrated into filaments. This paper says so. Maybe you missed the last 20 years of astrophysics and cosmology..
Please stop misstating what I said, mate. It's NOT just all those newly found galaxies of low-brightness material; it's ALSO vast clouds of dirty plasma and cold material too, which includes LOTS OF DUST particles, each having millions/billions of times the mass of hydrogen/helium etc 'gas' particles. PLEASE read what I said to @jonesdave just above re 'ding the maths' for all that dust component which is only NOW now just beginning to be 'seen' at all at properly. All you just regurgitated is old/naive stuff based on old/naive and erroneous BB/incomplete data modeling/assumptions etc. All that old/naive expectations/interpretations etc now under review using ever newer, more realistic, data/understandings from ever newer observations/scopes.
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
ADDENDUM
Then add all those humongous inter-galaxy clouds/streams of DUST/GAS/PLASMA also missed.......


If, when you said "inter-galaxy" you meant to include large scale (inter-cluster) filaments, then you should realize they too have high DM contents.
Steelwolf
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
From the above article's paper's introduction:

"The role of nonthermal components (for example, relativistic particles and magnetic fields) in galaxy clusters is poorly understood because of observational and theoretical difficulties in studying these plasmas on large scales. However, the nonthermal component contributes to the intracluster medium (ICM) pressure biasing hydrostatic mass reconstruction by 10 to 20% (1), and in the era of precision cosmology, this contribution cannot be neglected."

So they are talking 10 to 20% of their pressure biasing comes from the non-thermal, of which the magnetic field, acting through plasma reach, has a far greater effect that people have been giving it the weighting in their math workups, which is so many fail because they are missing 10 to 20% of what is acting on everything in the cosmos.

I think the weighting for the magnetic field effects is actually quite low as anything with a charge has polarity and acts on all other charges.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RNP.
Yes! A lot of *dark matter*, as these galaxies tend to have high DM content.
Which is increasingly being found to be ORDINARY stuff, not 'exotic' as has been claimed. That's been my point all along. :)
The review of this X-ray data gives a "HOT GAS" estimate...about SIX TIMES times greater than that of all the galaxies combined
Yes! But we have known about this component of baryonic matter for years, It is just that it was recently realized it had been significantly underestimated.
As I have been saying for years. Underestimation was even greater than that, because dust/other low-brightness material still being missed/not included in modeling/interpretations.
They are NOT "humongous". They constitute only tiny fractions of the galaxies in their vicinity.
That's all assumptions based modeling/interpreting from hangover old/naive BB etc biases. Reality NOW includes a LOT MORE DUST (please read my post to @jonesdave re doing the maths for that). :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@RNP.
@RC
ADDENDUM
Then add all those humongous inter-galaxy clouds/streams of DUST/GAS/PLASMA also missed.......
If, when you said "inter-galaxy" you meant to include large scale (inter-cluster) filaments, then you should realize they too have high DM contents.
And again, I remind all here that I always AGREED that DM WAS needed/existed...BUT that it is ORDINARY (ie, em AND grav interacting) stuff...which is now being increasingly found everywhere we look with newer and better scopes...INCLUDING deep space regions BETWEEN visible 'filaments/cell-walls'; which deep space regions were previously thought to have sparse material content! :)
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
Let me couch this in terms that might make it easier for you to understand by summarizing recent history.

Until recently, when the total baryonic mass of the universe was estimated from observations they were found to be only 6% of the total matter (baryon+DM) content. This is less than half of that expected from cosmological estimates (e.g. primordial nucleosynthesis and structure formation). This was called "the missing baryon problem".

The recent discovery that hot gas components of galaxies and galaxy clusters had been underestimated by a factor of ~2 significantly reduced the discrepancy

With *all* recent discoveries, the current status is that we observe ~13% of total mass as baryonic (90% of the cosmological expectations). However, note that we need another 87% to account for DM.

So to be concise, recent discoveries have brought us closer to resolving the missing baryon problem, but do not in any way account for DM.
RNP
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
stuff...which is now being increasingly found everywhere we look with newer and better scopes...INCLUDING deep space regions BETWEEN visible 'filaments/cell-walls'; which deep space regions were previously thought to have sparse material content!


LISTEN!!!

These "deep space" discoveries ALSO CONTAIN DARK MATTER!!!

They make NO contribution to reducing the need for it.

Sorry for shouting, but I obviously need some new way of making you pay attention to what I am saying.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RNP.
Until recently, when the total baryonic mass of the universe was estimated from observations they were found to be only 6% of the total matter (baryon+DM) content. This is less than half of that expected from cosmological estimates (e.g. primordial nucleosynthesis and structure formation). This was called "the missing baryon problem".
I've long understood that, mate; and long pointed out that it was a NON-problem because all earlier BB/CMB etc based estimates were useless.
With *all* recent discoveries, the current status is that we observe ~13% of total mass as baryonic (90% of the cosmological expectations). However, note that we need another 87% to account for DM.
Again, all that you have just said merely 'echos' estimates/assumptions which previously did NOT, and STILL do NOT, make allowance for MASSIVE contribution of DUST being increasingly found all over; EACH dust particle contributing MILLIONS/BILLIONS of times the mass of any 'gas' particle. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RNP.
LISTEN!!! These "deep space" discoveries ALSO CONTAIN DARK MATTER!!!
I said that too....and I said it was ORDINARY not 'exotic' DM that is being found everywhere we look. :)
They make NO contribution to reducing the need for it.
Please read what I have been trying to get through to you, jd, etc above; re DUST contribution to MASS distributions in reality. We NOW KNOW that dust is much more prevalent/ubiquitous than old/naive mainstream modeling etc ever assumed/estimated. :)
Sorry for shouting, but I obviously need some new way of making you pay attention to what I am saying.
I know what you mean, mate; I too sometimes find it necessary to CAPITALIZE; mainly because SOME people here seem 'determined' to MISS the actual points I keep making again and again and again. Anyhow, no offense taken at my end, mate! G'night. :)
RNP
4 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
Again, all that you have just offered is estimates/assumptions which previously did NOT, and STILL do NOT, make allowance for MASSIVE contribution of DUST now being increasingly found all over; EACH dust particle contributing MILLIONS/BILLIONS of times the mass of any 'gas' particle. :)


ANOTHER ridiculous claim!!! Dust (in the quantities we are talking about here) would be the EASIEST thing to detect. Note that even in local gas clouds that contain only ~1% dust, the dust has a powerful blocking effect for background light. Dust also, even at low densities, GLOWS in the infrared.

You are going to hide six times the visible matter in dust? What a ridiculous suggestion!

It has in fact been repeatedly shown that observations rule out a significant fraction of the DM content being in the form of dust,

For the zillionth time, you need to learn some astrophysics if you want to avoid making such silly claims.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
LISTEN!!! These "deep space" discoveries ALSO CONTAIN DARK MATTER!!!

I said that too....and I said it was ORDINARY not 'exotic' DM that is being found everywhere we look. :)


I don't care what you said, they contain *non-baryonic* (dark) matter. So they do not affect the need for *non-baryonic* (dark) matter.

You really are a time wasting troll, so I will have no more truck with you.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
LISTEN!!! These "deep space" discoveries ALSO CONTAIN DARK MATTER!!!

I said that too....and I said it was ORDINARY not 'exotic' DM that is being found everywhere we look. :)


I don't care what you said, they contain *non-baryonic* (dark) matter. So they do not affect the need for *non-baryonic* (dark) matter.

You really are a time wasting troll, so I will have no more truck with you.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
@RNP.

Lucky I checked!
ANOTHER ridiculous claim!!! Dust (in the quantities we are talking about here) would be the EASIEST thing to detect. Note that even in local gas clouds that contain only ~1% dust, the dust has a powerful blocking effect for background light. Dust also, even at low densities, GLOWS in the infrared. You are going to hide six times the visible matter in dust? What a ridiculous suggestion!
What is it about
EACH dust particle contributing MILLIONS/BILLIONS of times the mass of any 'gas' particle.
that eludes you, mate? :)

Really, RNP; all the estimates to date were based on wrong modelings and assumptions/interpretations of light signals received. What makes you think that what you just said was in any way reliable. Why do you think the Planck survey was done? And why do you forget that the dust content models bicep2 used were also wrong? They STILL have no real idea of just HOW much dust IS out there in 'dirty plasma' etc.

G'night, RNP. :)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
@Benni
The real evidence/Truths are coming in faster and, as more great telescopic instruments are launched, there will be no stopping what is to come in the near future. Forget the past and don't dwell on Bicep2 any longer. That is old already and unimportant compared to all the good new stuff coming our way.
Scientists/Astronomers are working diligently to learn the Truths as they all know that the world is watching and waiting for results.


......and this is what frightens the schneibos & jonesies who live in the Pop-Cosmology land of fantasy.

These neophytes know they're living on the precipice of watching their antiquated math model simulations being totally exposed to the cold cruel light of day by real OBSERAVATIONAL EVIDENCE, that which will finally put to rest their antiquated 19th century black hole math concepts of electro-magnetic waves somehow subject to the Escape Velocity math derived from kinetic energy equations.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
These neophytes know they're living on the precipice of watching their antiquated math model simulations being totally exposed to the cold cruel light of day by real OBSERAVATIONAL EVIDENCE


News for you, uneducated tosspot - no we aren't, because the observational evidence is making the standard theories stronger. That is why they are standard theories; for no other reason than they work, and the evidence backs them up. See the upcoming EHT results, and then read and weep, woo boy. See the GW detections from merging BHs. See the GW and EM detections from merging neutron stars. See the DM evidence from gravitational lensing in galaxy mergers. Et cetera. On the other hand, idiots like you have nothing.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
ADDENDUM
Then add all those humongous inter-galaxy clouds/streams of DUST/GAS/PLASMA also missed.......


If, when you said "inter-galaxy" you meant to include large scale (inter-cluster) filaments, then you should realize they too have high DM contents.


Indeed, as seen from weak lensing surveys. Also, the cosmic web as revealed very well matches simulations. And the only way they can get those simulations to reflect observation is to include DM at the ratio that fits with current understanding. Take it out, and the sims do not match observation. I'll look for the relevant papers.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
.....and there must also be a LOT more 'cooler' dust/gas/plasma content not being seen, probably coinciding (remember?) with the two main galaxy distributions.


Nope, you are reaching beyond your knowledge level (early high school?) again. Cool matter is, by definition, less ionised. It is also, by definition, made up of the universe's most common element (hydrogen, for the hard of thinking). Do you know what the 21 cm line is? Do you know what the Lyman-alpha forest is? In short, if it was there, it would be seen.
You really don't have a clue.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
And let us not forget that we do not need to go looking for matter at high z to realise that DM is needed. Our own galaxy, and other nearby ones, would fly apart without it. We only need to look in our own backyard for this non-existent ordinary matter. And it isn't there.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
I'll look for the relevant papers.


Here's one;

The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org...3236.pdf

We start with data provided by a subhalo catalog constructed from the Illustris cosmological simulation that traces the growth of large scale structure, galaxy formation and evolution from 2Gy after the Big Bang to the present epoch, incorporating both baryons and dark matter.


And;

It is particular encouraging that the network characteristics of the cosmic web, from the degree distribution to the clustering and degree correlations, show remarkable agreement between simulations and observations.

Benni
2 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
And let us not forget that we do not need to go looking for matter at high z to realise that DM is needed. Our own galaxy, and other nearby ones, would fly apart without it. We only need to look in our own backyard for this non-existent ordinary matter. And it isn't there.


I'm just waiting for the next concept of DM, lifeforms living on DM planets orbiting DM stars, won't that be a hoot to read about?

Yep, true Cosmic Fairies made from their very own dust just as we are made from baryonic dust. Of course we will never be able to communicate with them, unless they have other powers superior to ours, like maybe they could read our minds?

> granDy, ...........we need a poem about dark matter lifeforms. Isn't it so nice I can stay so many steps ahead of the Pop-Cosmology Culture here in this chatroom, giving them so many good ideas as to where they can go next? But you watch, a year from now schneibo & jonesy will claim this was their idea.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018
I'll look for the relevant papers


Here's another;

The baryon content of the Cosmic Web
Eckert, D. et al.
https://europepmc...c4894470

Warm-hot baryons comprise 5-10 per cent of filaments in the cosmic web.


jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2018


I'm just waiting for the next concept of DM, lifeforms living on DM planets orbiting DM stars, won't that be a hoot to read about?

Yep, true Cosmic Fairies made from their very own dust just as we are made from baryonic dust. Of course we will never be able to communicate with them, unless they have other powers superior to ours, like maybe they could read our minds?

> granDy, ...........we need a poem about dark matter lifeforms. Isn't it so nice I can stay so many steps ahead of the Pop-Cosmology Culture here in this chatroom, giving them so many good ideas as to where they can go next? But you watch, a year from now schneibo & jonesy will claim this was their idea.


More science-free, puerile crap from our resident D-K loon.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
jd really needs to do some serious reading here, and look at the problems and massive irregularities that come up in the math that he happens to back, and the things he says are not studied and have no numbers for, are largely accounted for herein, IFF one actually reads and understands what one is reading:

https://pdfs.sema...f5a0.pdf
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2018
To boldly go where astrophysicists reside, deeply into the "science" of darkness, faerie dust, and the folly of reified abstract maths concepts.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
jd really needs to do some serious reading here, and look at the problems and massive irregularities that come up in the math that he happens to back, and the things he says are not studied and have no numbers for, are largely accounted for herein, IFF one actually reads and understands what one is reading:

https://pdfs.sema...f5a0.pdf


And distance measurement is not always or only based on redshift. And I see no particular insurmountable problems. Nobody has got any better ideas. And it has nothing to do with this article/ paper, or what I have posted.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
To boldly go where astrophysicists reside, deeply into the "science" of darkness, faerie dust, and the folly of reified abstract maths concepts.


And another science-free, puerile comment from a resident loon, who has no science to offer. Just another chip on the shoulder, anti-science gobsh!te.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
jd really needs to do some serious reading here, and look at the problems and massive irregularities that come up in the math that he happens to back, and the things he says are not studied and have no numbers for, are largely accounted for herein, IFF one actually reads and understands what one is reading:

https://pdfs.sema...f5a0.pdf


That is a non-peer reviewed summary from an alternate cosmologist. Why should I bother with it? Arp tried this stuff, and was shown to be wrong.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
@SEU posts there's no dark matter and no dark energy and no black holes and then claims it didn't say all scientists are idiots.

Just so we're clear.
says Da Jerk

Nope, I have never said that ALL scientists are idiots. I said SOME scientists are idiots, and it is the scientists themselves who will admit that SOME scientists are idiots. Da Jerk has trouble comprehending what has been said and what was/is meant.

Just so we're clear - there is no such thing as DARK Matter or DARK Energy. There is only regular, normal and usual Matter that has the ability to CHANGE from one form into another form. Matter into Energy and back into Matter again.

The DM and DE myth was a false claim WITHOUT ANY PREVIOUS EVIDENCE of its existence before it was put out there. And non-scientists like jonesy and Da Jerk jumped onto the bandwagon and there they remain to this day - believing wholeheartedly that the myth of DM and DE is real.

Black Holes may or may not exist. And I hope not
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018


The DM and DE myth was a false claim WITHOUT ANY PREVIOUS EVIDENCE of its existence before it was put out there. And non-scientists like jonesy and Da Jerk jumped onto the bandwagon and there they remain to this day - believing wholeheartedly that the myth of DM and DE is real.

Black Holes may or may not exist. And I hope not


Frankly, who gives a toss what a scientifically illiterate nutjob like you thinks? If you don't like what myself and DaSchneid are saying, then go to a physics forum, and ask real scientists. And get your uneducated arse kicked. Not going to happen, is it, because you know, deep down, that you are, indeed, scientifically illiterate. You just want to pose on here. Pretending you know stuff. Like the idiots Benni, RC and cantthink. Cowards to a man/ woman.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Four lines of observational evidence with extensive confirmation support dark matter; and dark energy is the only known explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is supported by three separate lines of evidence; two are observational and one is theoretical. All three are separate from the lines of evidence that support dark matter.

Now you're welcome to think whatever you like, but if you're going to argue about it, you need to be able to refute those lines of evidence, and you appear incapable of doing so, primarily because you don't sufficiently understand physics or cosmology. If you have physics or cosmology skills that you have not revealed, now is the time.

But just bloviating about it without providing any evidence isn't going to convince anyone. I have evidence; observational evidence. I'm willing to discuss it, but I see little point in doing so for someone who appears to be on this site to disrupt and troll.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2018
Frankly, who gives a toss what a scientifically illiterate nutjob like you thinks? If you don't like what myself and DaSchneid are saying


Whoops. Should have been 'Da Schneib.' Apollywoggies.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Bored now. Anybody belong to the Judean People's Front?

https://getyarn.i...bd00aa72
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Bored now. Anybody belong to the Judean People's Front?

https://getyarn.i...bd00aa72


'Tis hardly surprising that that film was banned in numerous U.S. states! They do tend to love their religion.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
Frankly, who gives a toss what a scientifically illiterate nutjob like you thinks? If you don't like what myself and DaSchneid are saying


Whoops. Should have been 'Da Schneib.' Apollywoggies.

Accepted without prejudice. ;) You're doing fine. You may save some keystrokes and call me "Schneib."
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
@RC
Is there any possibility that the mythical Dark Matter could be comprised of silica? Transparent silica, that is.

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

--"We've shown for the first time that the silica produced by the supernovae was significant enough to contribute to the dust throughout the Universe, including the dust that ultimately came together to form our home planet," said Haley Gomez, from Cardiff University's School of Physics and Astronomy.--
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
Is there any possibility that the mythical Dark Matter could be comprised of silica? Transparent silica, that is.
No. We'd be able to see it in infrared. Just like @Jones said.

You neither know any astrophysics nor want to learn any. You are here to troll because you are a YEC lying and trolling for jebus.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
I wasn't asking YOU. I asked RC. Why do you seem to always jump at the chance to interfere in my conversations with RC, Benni and a few others? Go talk to jones.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
Troll all you like, YEC. It will be identified as trolling at every turn and you will be rated 1 every time.

The truth is the truth, no matter how you attempt to troll your way out of it.

Silica would be identifiable by its IR signature, just as it was in the above article which you either did not read or did not understand.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2018
Good. Who cares - certainly not me.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Then why are you here? Because if you're not reading the articles or reading the papers, you're just talking out your azz.

What do you expect anyone rational is going to think of an individual who doesn't know any physics and doesn't read the articles they're babbling about bloviating about stuff they obviously don't understand?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2018
Quite frankly, @SEU, you have no idea whether there is dark matter or dark energy or not. You don't know enough and you're proud of the fact you don't. Ignorance can be cured; stupid cannot. Stupid is not merely incapable of but resistant to understanding the evidence. Those who worship the false jebus are pretty much all like that, and like you.

The Dominicans of the Catholic Church tried this stuff about 500 years ago. It didn't work out very well. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Maybe you'd like to burn some people alive too. I wouldn't put it past you.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Ever heard of the Inquisition? Maybe you'd like to burn some people alive too. I wouldn't put it past you.


https://media1.te...=8602896

dsylvan
5 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2018

"No you weren't right you jumped up clown."
--jonesdave

Nice!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2018

Number of Witches in U.S. on the Rise, May Surpass 1.5 Million

https://www.cnsne...yterians

""It makes sense that witchcraft and the occult would rise as society becomes increasingly postmodern," author Julie Roys, formerly of Moody Radio, told the Christian Post. "The rejection of Christianity has left a void that people, as inherently spiritual beings, will seek to fill."
Roys added that witchcraft is especially attractive to Millenials because it has been "effectively repackaged."
"No longer is witchcraft and paganism satanic and demonic," said Roys. "[I]t's a 'pre-Christian tradition' that promotes 'free thought' and 'understanding of earth and nature.'""

Perhaps jones and DaJerk and some others on physorg are members of Wicca, etc. which could be the reason why they express such an abnormal hatred of Christianity in their posts.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2018
Witches?

Really?

Really?

And I only hate fake "Christians" like you, who lie and troll for jebus.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Perhaps jones and DaJerk and some others on physorg are members of Wicca, etc


Over the years I've noticed some of the monikers some people use. It seems "dark" something comes up a lot, like "Darkhorse", others. Such witchy cultists certainly seem to have a penchant for Cosmology simply because it so frequently falls into the same mind bending patterns of dis-associating their thinking from the immutable laws of physics.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2018
Perhaps jones and DaJerk and some others on physorg are members of Wicca, etc

The connotation of evil ascribed to witches (or sorcerers or wizards or whatever) was a cleverly manipulated linguistic vehicle, used by clever (religious) power mongers to engender fear in people fearful of looking to deeply into the world around them or their own minds to see the myriad connections of everything.
Witches, alchemists, et all were the "scientists" of a less informed age.
SEU, your provocateur is showing...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2018
Are we seriously talking about notions of witches first made up by drunken stone age sheep herders in their Babble about the super magic sky daddy, on the physics site?

What's next, feng shui? Dowsing? Tarot?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2018
Are we seriously talking about notions of witches first made up by drunken stone age sheep herders in their Babble about the super magic sky daddy, on the physics site?

What's next, feng shui? Dowsing? Tarot?

Ooooo… DARK magic.... :-)
michele91
3 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2018
i feel both scared and amazed about how many americans, in 2018, still believes in deeply stupid religions.
not only christianity (which is still stupid enough) but also the percentage of scientology / mormons / jeovah witnesses / other idiotic stuff.
It's terrifying that such an ignorant populations lead the world
dsylvan
5 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2018

Ooooo… DARK magic.... :-)


Thanks Wydening Gyre.
The comment world has become so dismal of late--even just a little intelligent humor like this makes it bearable.
IwinUlose
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2018
If I didn't read it in the Necronomicon, it didn't m-phagn tekeli-li!
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2018
In the vacuous vacuum

or more exactly in the matter that occupies the vacuum
that of all the matter that occupies the vacuum
humans occupy a minute percentage
in fact the percentage humans occupy
consists only of matter
the very same matter that stars and humans are created
but humans are but only a minority
in their imagination as humans
because humans imagine the majority of matter
not as matter
but as matter that is dark
so by our twisted dark logic
80% of matter is actually dark
we humans have in the vacuum of our minds
created a fictitious vacuum
created of darkmatter we cannot see
by consequence
20% of the humans that occupy the vacuum
have created an invisible race of dark materialistic peoples
that only humans can envisage
as to the humans that exist in the galaxies that exits
we humans have created a whole universe of darkmatter galaxies
for dark materialistic peoples to live
non of which exists
except in our human imagination
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
Yes granville - the Dark forces have cast their dark spells over that percentage of humankind who inadvertently or willingly accept the powers of the evil one, who sets his snares and lies in wait for those such as Da Schneibo aka DaJerk who reject the very idea that Satan's acolytes are now 1.5 million strong in the US - not counting those witches in so many other nations. And then Da Jerk says this:

Are we seriously talking about notions of witches first made up by drunken stone age sheep herders in their Babble about the super magic sky daddy, on the physics site?


which has been a favorite mantra of DaJerk's in so many words which has been repeated in many forums of physorg, so as to convince all physorg posters, as well as the evil one who also dwells in science websites like physorg, that DaJerk cares not a whit whether Satan exists, as long as DaJerk's favorite, Jebus is not spoken of in these forums - while never explaining who this Jebus person is.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
LOL

Everyone who believes in physics is a witch, according to the YEC nutjob. Tell me, nutjob, does that include all the engineers?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
Perhaps jones and DaJerk and some others on physorg are members of Wicca, etc


Over the years I've noticed some of the monikers some people use. It seems "dark" something comes up a lot, like "Darkhorse", others. Such witchy cultists certainly seem to have a penchant for Cosmology simply because it so frequently falls into the same mind bending patterns of dis-associating their thinking from the immutable laws of physics.
says Benni

Notice how DaJerk appears to be in panic mode when he repeats "Really" twice after having read the news link wrt Witches in the US.

And then DaJerk says:
And I only hate fake "Christians" like you, who lie and troll for jebus.


in spite of the fact that I have said many times that I am not a religionist and that I don't know anyone named Jebus.
Hating "fake" Christians. Perhaps DaJerk is not aware that there is no such thing as a "fake" Christian. Neither is there a "fake" atheist nor a "fake" Jew or Muslim.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
You're a YEC and you're here to disrupt this site because you think it's full of "witches." You probably shouldn't have said that if you wanted anyone here to take you seriously again.

I don't think we need to know anything else about you.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
It is quite evident that DaScheibo has some psychological problems concerning religions, specifically Christianity. Those humans who have turned to atheism to help relieve themselves of whatever it is about religions, specifically Christianity, that they find so distasteful, should clear their "mind" of everything of a religious nature and avoid discussing religious matters at all. In the event that such a person continually is motivated to rail against Christians and their religion, there may be a possibility that that person is in the grips of the Satanic forces already - which is why he would feel a strong urge to vilify certain religions rather than concentrating on the religion of atheism itself.
It is a well known fact that Satan/Devil/Lucifer loves atheists and their struggle against the Creator and His Holy Angels. It is a struggle that has been going on for millennia and will not cease until one side or the other is victorious.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
From the dark side this one is.
Cloud your mind with tales about witches it will.
No physics does it know.
Science it hates because its lies it shows.
Believe it not unless you worship the dark side, or your soul it will capture.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
LOL DaJerk is delusional. I have never said that I believe that physorg is full of witches. Anyone who reads my posts will know for certain that I have never claimed what DaJerk said. If there are any witches posting on physorg, it is news to me. I will ignore Schneibo's comments now since he is evidently a crackpot who is trolling after me.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
Said it up there you did.
Like to deny it now you would.
Sure sign of the dark side this is.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
"Satan" is a boogeyman out of the Babble by the drunken neolithic sheep herders about the super magic daddy in the sky.

Just like "witches."

I've never been called a "witch" before. Amusing.

U r a nutjob. And an evil one.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2018
i feel both scared and amazed about how many americans, in 2018, still believes in deeply stupid religions.
not only christianity (which is still stupid enough) but also the percentage of scientology / mormons / jeovah witnesses / other idiotic stuff.
It's terrifying that such an ignorant populations lead the world
says michele91

What they choose to believe is their choice. Why do you feel scared and amazed about someone else's choice? Does it affect YOU in any way, and does what they choose to believe cramping your style somehow?
Have you heard that there is a separation between Church and State in the US? It is written in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which is why I have been concerned with how some of the newly elected younger members of Congress are pushing for the right to wear the Islamic hijab when Congress convenes.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
What they choose to believe is their choice. Why do you feel scared and amazed about someone else's choice?
Because the several most recent times they did this they started burning people alive. Ever heard of the English Civil War? How about the Thirty Years' War?

Nutjobs like you have to be rejected, reviled, and ejected from the democratic states you hate.

Tell us, YEC nutjob, do you feel as much fear about Jewish yarmulkes as about hijabs in the Congress?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
How about people being Congresspeople while black or female? Does that scare you too?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
Tell us why you hate the US Constitution, YEC nutjob. Is it because you hate not being able to nail peoples' tongues to the roofs of their mouths before burning them alive so they can't shout their beliefs before they die, because they're so scary?

And if anyone thinks that's hyperbole, see Giordano Bruno.

These people are The Evil. Masquerading as some sort of "Christians."
jonesdave
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
It is a well known fact that Satan/Devil/Lucifer loves atheists..


Nope, not a fact. Please point to the evidence. You made that up.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
A person without a religion is like a fish without a bicycle.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2018
Yes granville - the Dark forces have cast their dark spells over that percentage of humankind who inadvertently or willingly accept the powers of the evil one, who sets his snares and lies in wait for those such as Da Schneibo aka DaJerk who reject the very idea that Satan's acolytes are now 1.5 million strong in the US - not counting those witches in so many other nations.

Why are all witches considered Satanist?
We Humans were ALL wizards once...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.