Dark matter 'hurricane' offers chance to detect axions

November 13, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
**Dark matter ‘hurricane’ offers chance to detect axions
Credit: C. O'Hare; NASA/Jon Lomberg, via Physics

A team of researchers from Universidad de Zaragoza, King's College London and the Institute of Astronomy in the U.K. has found that a "dark matter hurricane" passing through our solar system offers a better than usual chance of detecting axions. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review D, the group describes their findings and why they believe their observations could offer help in understanding dark matter.

The evidence for the existence of is very strong, yet scientists are still unable to find a way to actually "see" it. Because of that, they keep trying to find new ways to do so. In this new effort, the researchers have been studying the S1 stream—a collection of stars moving in a way that suggests they were once part of a that was consumed by the Milky Way. The S1 stream was discovered last year by a team studying data from the Gaia satellite. Other such streams have been observed before, but this is the first to cross paths with our own solar system. In this new effort, the researchers have studied the possible impact of S1 as it passed through our region, because it offers a unique opportunity to study dark .

As S1 moved through our area, theory suggests dark matter should have been moving along with it. Calculations by the team suggest it should be moving at approximately 500 km/s. They created several models showing the distribution of the dark matter and its density. Doing so allowed them to create predictions of possible signatures of the stream for researchers to look for. They suggest this event gives those in the field looking for observable evidence of dark matter a better than normal chance to do so. They suggest that it is not likely that WIMP detectors will find anything unusual. But they further suggest that the presence of a dark matter hurricane could increase the chances of detection of axionic dark matter due to possible bumps in the broad spectrum of axions. They note also that the current storm could offer data for use by future detection systems that are more advanced than those in use today.

Explore further: New study suggests galactic bulge emissions not due to dark matter

More information: Ciaran A. J. O'Hare et al. Dark matter hurricane: Measuring the S1 stream with dark matter detectors, Physical Review D (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.103006 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.09004

Related Stories

Does dark matter annihilate quicker in the Milky Way?

June 23, 2017

Researchers at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai have proposed a theory that predicts how dark matter may be annihilating much more rapidly in the Milky Way, than in smaller or larger galaxies and the early ...

Recommended for you

Researchers make shape shifting cell breakthrough

December 11, 2018

A new computational model developed by researchers from The City College of New York and Yale gives a clearer picture of the structure and mechanics of soft, shape-changing cells that could provide a better understanding ...

Novel laser technology for microchip-size chemical sensors

December 11, 2018

Most lasers emit photons of exactly the same wavelength, producing a single color. However, there are also lasers that consist of many frequencies, with equal intervals in between, as in the teeth of a comb; thus, they are ...

165 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Brad Watson MIA
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 13, 2018
74% of everything in this Universe is dark energy (69%) and ordinary matter (5%) with 26% dark matter. 74% of the elemental mass of this Universe is hydrogen. These are BIG examples of GOD=7_4 Theory.
Benni
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
74% of everything in this Universe is dark energy (69%) and ordinary matter (5%) with 26% dark matter. 74% of the elemental mass of this Universe is hydrogen. These are BIG examples of GOD=7_4 Theory.


If it can't be seen it must be GOD, is that it?
Bob West
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
Dark matter is a supersolid that fills 'empty' space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.
Phyllis Harmonic
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 13, 2018
74% of everything in this Universe is dark energy (69%) and ordinary matter (5%) with 26% dark matter. 74% of the elemental mass of this Universe is hydrogen. These are BIG examples of GOD=7_4 Theory.

Uh oh. Yet another one of those "I see numbers!!" people. You should check out Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum" for a very insightful examination of the phenomenon of finding connections that don't exist.
pntaylor
2.7 / 5 (19) Nov 13, 2018
Forgive me, if I am stupid and missed something.
I thought "dark matter" was just theoretic.
"The evidence for the existence of dark matter is very strong"
And including that statement, they claim to have detected a hurricane of it??????
Come on, tell me science is not a religion.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
A hypothetical hurricane of faerie dust, right at the end of the Leprechaun's rainbow.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (19) Nov 13, 2018
Forgive me, if I am stupid and missed something.
I thought "dark matter" was just theoretic.
"The evidence for the existence of dark matter is very strong"
And including that statement, they claim to have detected a hurricane of it??????
Come on, tell me science is not a religion.


It is theoretical. Its nature is not known precisely. The evidence that it exists is strong, though. There are vanishingly small alternatives that make any sense.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (20) Nov 13, 2018
A hypothetical hurricane of faerie dust, right at the end of the Leprechaun's rainbow.


When was Earth orbiting Saturn? When did Venus shoot out of Jupiter? When and how were comets blasted off of planets? Where is the current to power the giant lightbulb at the centre of the solar system? Lol. Your opinions on matters scientific are rendered irrelevant by your loony faith-based beliefs.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) Nov 13, 2018
Forgive me, if I am stupid and missed something.
I thought "dark matter" was just theoretic.

The fact there's something there is indeed "theoretic;" but this doesn't mean what you think it means. A theory is about the strongest statement that science can make; what most people think is a "theory" is actually a hypothesis. Theories have made predictions that have been confirmed by evidence. We can see galaxies and how they move; the matter we see moves in ways that cannot be accounted for by the hypothesis that there is no dark matter.

"The evidence for the existence of dark matter is very strong"
And including that statement, they claim to have detected a hurricane of it??????
Come on, tell me science is not a religion.
They're right; we have multiple lines of evidence that confirm there's something there. For convenience we call it "dark matter." We know it's dark; we can't see it. But whether it's matter or not is still a hypothesis. It certainly has gravity.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
The correct identification of the stages of knowledge in science:
It has feathers and floats on the water.
Conjecture: it's a duck.
Hypothesis: if it's a duck it will quack and dive for food.
It quacks and dives for its food.
Theory: it's a duck.
Further confirmation of the theory: if I shoot one and cook and eat it, it will taste like duck.
I shoot one and eat it. It tastes like duck.
Well confirmed theory: it'a s duck.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (16) Nov 13, 2018
Consider this;

Mainstream science said the Sun was powered by nuclear fusion. The evidence was pretty compelling. Theory said there should be x number of electron neutrinos detected from such fusion. When we built detectors, we found we were ~ 65% short of the predicted detection rates. So, two possibilities - fusion wasn't the only explanation, and we'd screwed up, or we were wrong about neutrinos being massless. Far more likely that the latter was correct. Build more detectors, and other experiments to detect neutrino oscillation, if it happened. It did.
Moral of the story? You don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
ta2025
2.2 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018
through our solar system???

SERIOUSLY?? We have White dwarfs streaming through our SOLAR SYSTEM?
JaxPavan
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
This paper is a suggestion.
Kweden
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
The abstract says this is an observable phenomenon in OUR SOLARSYSTEM, so I assume they are talking about unseen matter/dark matter, or a stream of dark energy/energy that does not emit any light.
Either way, I am wondering if this "stream" could be the link to the observed warming of every object in the solar system, and especially the (rather sudden) increase of helium in the solar system.
Seems to me a ghost galaxy crossing through the sol syst would bring a lot of heat, and helium with it.
Who do I contact to find out? And wheelbarrow them to get on it--if they aren't already.
Kweden
2 / 5 (8) Nov 13, 2018
Forgive me, if I am stupid and missed something.
I thought "dark matter" was just theoretic.
Come on, tell me science is not a religion.


Science IS NOT a religion. However, some follow it religiously, and thus give too much credence to media science because they cite so called scientists. Not everything scietists do is good science, and some of them are religious--very religious.
That said, and admitted...
I concluded that you are an American, not so stupid, but definitely dummed-down, and...
I would like to apologize to you for the failure of American leaders to protect you from this extreme and serious onslaught against americans on behalf and at the behest of the world's undead overlords.
You may be able to catch up a little on Wikipedia.
Again, I am most sorry for your miseducation, lousy leaders, and crooked propaganda media.
Yes, there is a "hurricane" of unseen cause passing thru our system; maybe an absorbed galaxy, and it has undetermined mass.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
Science IS NOT a religion. However, some follow it religiously, and thus give too much credence to media science because they cite so called scientists. Not everything scietists do is good science, and some of them are religious--very religious.


It is the POP CULTURE spinoffs that may start with a grain of physical evidence that becomes blown all out of proportion to the point that the pop-culture spinoffs no longer has anything in common with the physical evidence.

There is physical evidence that all gravitating bodies function EXACTLY in accord with the Immutable Inverse Square Law for Gravity, that ZERO gravity exists at the center of any finite stellar mass. So how does Pop-Cosmology culture come up with the ridiculous concept that INFINITE GRAVITY/DENSITY exists at the center of a finite stellar mass?

Anything FINITE cannot contain attributes of infinity, but try convincing Pop-Cosmology culture of that & that's where the jonesies come from.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
Again, I am most sorry for your miseducation, lousy leaders, and crooked propaganda media.


Somehow it never affected me in getting an education during the six years I spent in Engineering school majoring in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering. I guess I just must have been one of the lucky ones who figured out how to avoid the onslaught of "lousy leaders", "crooked propaganda media" & Pop-Culture Pseudo-Science.

Yes, there is a "hurricane" of unseen cause passing thru our system; maybe an absorbed galaxy, and it has undetermined mass.
......so how do you know this? You stated it has "undetermined mass", I take it this means there is no associated field of gravity with this mass which is why it is undetermined, or the opposite of this?

How much of the visible matter do you expect it to replace? Eighty percent? Maybe enough to alter the orbits of all the planets & maybe throw Earth into the Sun? Or to Pluto?

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 13, 2018

Either way, I am wondering if this "stream" could be the link to the observed warming of every object in the solar system

Not every object in the solar system is warming and the planets that are warming are warming for different reasons (e.g., Neptune appears to be warming because it's approaching summer there, there's no evidence of Mars or Pluto warming long term, climate models predict warming of Jupiter, but it hasn't been observed yet): https://skeptical...iate.htm .
valeriy_polulyakh
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
Recently two papers have been published. The first one deals with the measurement of the speed of rotation of galaxies and, in our view, closes the issue of the existence of dark matter. The second one argues that the expansion of the universe is not accelerating. However, this fact does not answer the question as to what in general is the cause of the universe's expansion and does not address the widespread opinion that 70% of the universe consists of dark energy.
https://www.acade...k_Energy
https://www.acade...ilky_Way
pntaylor
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
@Kweden:
Yes, I am in American. I don't know where you are
from and I really don't give a shit, because you are
nothing more than an lowbrow, ignorant, fuck.
I posted my comment (somewhat coarse as it was),
looking for correction/enlightenment and all you offer
is insults and ridicule, about my education and a bunch
political bullshit.
So, wherever you are, keep your comments There.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2018
@pntaylor, I hope you found my comment in reply respectful, even if I didn't agree with you.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
@Kweden:
Yes, I am in American. I don't know where you are
from and I really don't give a shit, because you are
nothing more than an lowbrow, ignorant, fuck.
I posted my comment (somewhat coarse as it was),
looking for correction/enlightenment and all you offer
is insults and ridicule, about my education and a bunch
political bullshit.
So, wherever you are, keep your comments There.


He's from Indonesia.
JaxPavan
2.2 / 5 (15) Nov 13, 2018
@pntaylor

The short answer is science is a religion when it comes to big bang theology (and global warming for that matter).

Reason is the big bang supplies a creation event that is essential for half the world's population of monotheistic Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism). It's the last front for religion after Copernicus and Galileo.

And, it is no coincidence the church has endorsed big bang theory.

Throw enough money around and even scientists will tell you whatever you want to hear.
Make it grant money and the idiots will conclude they are the ones gaming you!

Imaginary stuff making up 70% of the universe is simply top down justification to save an irreconcilable big bang theory. Come up with a ridiculous theory that backstops the big bang and see if you can get funded too. Apparently, for some, this beats having to do real science.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
The short answer is science is a religion when it comes to big bang theology (and global warming for that matter).
See? Tolja he's a YEC.
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2018
74% of everything in this Universe is dark energy (69%) and ordinary matter (5%) with 26% dark matter. 74% of the elemental mass of this Universe is hydrogen. These are BIG examples of GOD=7_4 Theory.

"23" was a movie...
Actually, GOD = (G)eodesically (O)rdinated (D)ata
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 13, 2018
Science IS NOT a religion. However, some follow it religiously, and thus give too much credence to media science because they cite so called scientists. Not everything scietists do is good science, and some of them are religious--very religious.

...
There is physical evidence that all gravitating bodies function EXACTLY in accord with the Immutable Inverse Square Law for Gravity, that ZERO gravity exists at the center of any finite stellar mass.

Nope. You are trying to reverse engineer the ISL - incorrectly.

So how does Pop-Cosmology culture come up with the ridiculous concept that INFINITE GRAVITY/DENSITY exists at the center of a finite stellar mass?

THis line of BS is so last year, Benni. Move on with something new...

Anything FINITE cannot contain attributes of infinity, but try convincing Pop-Cosmology culture of that & that's where the jonesies come from.

What about stupidity?
JaxPavan
2 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
@Da Schneib

I don't know how the universe was formed. I will say, the idea that it was formed a few thousand years ago seems like complete nonsense to me, even less likely than the big bang. So, I'm not sure how you can conflate my comments with YEC? If anything, it's closer to the opposite; a direct criticism of religion encroaching on science.

For the record I'm leaning towards a steady state or even a contracting universe. But we may not get any coherent theories in our lifetime if this Big Bang theory funding deluge persists.

I am also fully aware that conflating any critic of the Big Bang theory with YEC is a the standard method for defining the borders of the narrative, in other words, a conspiracy theory controlled dialect. Am I the first to call you a troll?
JaxPavan
2.6 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2018
These clowns jumped the shark when they used the term "hurricane" of dark matter in our solar system.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2018
Sorry, @Jax, you are fully sussed. It was a nice try but buddying up with the rest of the YECs gave you away.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 13, 2018
Recently two papers have been published....


Really? Which publication were they published in? Seems to me that somebody just uploaded a bunch of crap to the internet. Please give me the DOI for these papers.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2018
Somehow it never affected me in getting an education during the six years I spent in Engineering school majoring in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering.


No, you dreamed that, you imbecile. You left school at 15, and flipped burgers for a living, until you got a job mopping the floors at a power station. Remember? Quit with the lying, D-K boy. You do not know the first thing about science, and are crap at maths. As proven. Want some links? No? Then STFU, you psychotic piece of sh!t.

JaxPavan
2 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
@Da Schneib

How on earth did I give you the impression I was "buddying up with the rest of the YEC."? Or, are you trolling again?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
I read your prior posts here and linked the one where you gave yourself away, @Jax. I ain't doin' it twice, YEC.

As far as who you're associating yourself with it's perfectly plain. Now stop lying for jebus or brahma or whatever.
Da Schneib
2 / 5 (4) Nov 14, 2018
Huh, another double post.
Old_C_Code
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Other such streams have been observed before, but this is the first to cross paths with our own solar system


Observe what?
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
Stars, dust, and gas. We can see those you know. It's called "spectroscopy." Maybe you've heard of it.
JaxPavan
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2018
@Da Schneider

You are a troll.
JaxPavan
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2018
The important takeaway here is that these articles about "dark matter" "hurricanes" and such, the reason there are so many comments on this article and so many trolls on this article compared to the all the other science articles on phys.org with zero comment. . . the reason is because dark stuff is crap. Normal folks have a visceral reaction to crap, and paid trolls try to get them to swallow it.
FredJose
2.6 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
Stars, dust, and gas. We can see those you know.

Interesting that that is what is actually observed and supposedly tracked.
But just HOW does that translate into the dark matter hurricane except by inference which could well be a complete farce?
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (14) Nov 14, 2018
the reason is because dark stuff is crap.

The reason is because people don't bother to look at the science. Instead they see "dark" and "matter" (or in your case "hurricane") and immediately form some (false) preconceptions which precludes them from ever understanding...well..anything.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2018
@Da Schneider

You are a troll.
No, sir. You are the troll. You come on a science site with outmoded theories fifty years old, trying to make FUD about the Big Bang because you want us all to believe your Babble about the super magic daddy in the sky by the drunken sheep herders, and expect not to get reviled.

You are a POS. Now go away. We're not buying any here, YEC troll.

Honestly, lying and trolling for jebus. How disgusting can you get? It's like beating someone up for not believing in Buddha.
michele91
2.3 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
The important takeaway here is that these articles about "dark matter" "hurricanes" and such, the reason there are so many comments on this article and so many trolls on this article compared to the all the other science articles on phys.org with zero comment. . . the reason is because dark stuff is crap. Normal folks have a visceral reaction to crap, and paid trolls try to get them to swallow it.


that's because in astronomy there's still a huge lack of knowledge.
then, physicists tries to work on, other people (like you, redpills and other illitterate guys) tries to fill that lack with their preferred theory, usually the mighty fairy bearded guy in the sky
Benni
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
The important takeaway here is that these articles about "dark matter" "hurricanes" and such, the reason there are so many comments on this article and so many trolls on this article compared to the all the other science articles on phys.org with zero comment. . . the reason is because dark stuff is crap. Normal folks have a visceral reaction to crap, and paid trolls try to get them to swallow it.


that's because in astronomy there's still a huge lack of knowledge.
then, physicists tries to work on, other people (like you, redpills and other illitterate guys) tries to fill that lack with their preferred theory,


.......and your"preferred theory" is all about creating simulated models for things you HOPE exist but for which there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.

Here's one for you: show us OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for a black hole? You can't, so why would you not expect to be made fun of for believing in things you can't prove the existence thereof?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist, we got the observational evidence. We can see flares in the accretion disk circling the event horizon at 30% of the speed of light.

Remember this thread? https://phys.org/...ole.html

Yep, there it is.

Oh, and then there's this one: https://phys.org/...ers.html

No simulations required. Lots of observational evidence you're denying. You're a loser, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist. No observational evidence will ever convince you; you're a denier troll. You'll always have some specious argument.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
We can see flares in the accretion disk circling the event horizon at 30% of the speed of light.


Where's the ACTUAL pic of the accretion disc? Yeah schneibo, simulations required.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
"then, physicists tries to work on, other people (like you, redpills and other illitterate guys)"

I will let the above identify who is illiterate.

" tries to fill that lack with their preferred theory"

It has to be filled with something, preferably physics based. After all we are commenting under an article about dark matter hurricanes. Let that sink in for as long as it takes.

" usually the mighty fairy bearded guy in the sky"

Far more apt to exist than dark matter.

"there is no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. "
As usual, the only thing that need be said when rebutting any point put forth by the proponents of DM, BH's and any other mathematical construct the physical world has yet to provide.

And now for the replies from the programmed sheep, Cmon morons, tell me I need to be educated as you were so that I can "understand physics".... because I really wanna see a DM hurricane get swallowed by a BH so I can see the gravity bolts from collisionless shocks.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
And now for the replies from the programmed sheep, Cmon morons, tell me I need to be educated as you were so that I can "understand physics".... because I really wanna see a DM hurricane get swallowed by a BH so I can see the gravity bolts from collisionless shocks.


Give up you uneducated cultist. Figured out what little 'm' is yet? Lol. Understand the difference between weightless and mass? Sorry, you are too thick to take seriously, just like the idiot who posted above you.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
We can see flares in the accretion disk circling the event horizon at 30% of the speed of light.


.....and according to Pop-Cosmology gospel brought to us by that infamous 19th Century BH Pseudo-Scientist moniker of Schneibo............. anytime a flare occurs anywhere in the galaxy that is proof of the existence of a nearby black hole.

Our Sun broadcasts flares out into our solar system on a regular basis, maybe our resident 19th Century
BH Pseudo-Scientist can tell us where to look for the BH causing it?
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
Our Sun broadcasts flares out into our solar system on a regular basis, maybe our resident 19th Century BH Pseudo-Scientist can tell us where to look for the BH causing it?


At the 4m solar mass object that has to be there. What is it in mop-world, fruitloop?

Benni
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
tell me I need to be educated as you were so that I can "understand physics".... because I really wanna see a DM hurricane get swallowed by a BH so I can see the gravity bolts from collisionless shocks


Well you of little faith, it should be forthcoming shortly.

Schneibo, our resident 19th Century BH Pseudo-Scientist has declared that whenever a flare is imaged anywhere in outer space, that such occurances can never occur except in the presence of a nearby BH. So it is with eager anticipation that we should be awaiting this brilliant discovery by the guy who uses 19th century black hole math as his ONLY EVIDENCE that such stellar mass can exist.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
Our Sun broadcasts flares out into our solar system on a regular basis,


Not at 0.3c it doesn't, you dense prick.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
We report the detection of continuous positional and polarization changes of the compact source SgrA* in high states ('flares') of its variable near-infrared emission with the near infrared GRAVITY-Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) beam-combining instrument. In three prominent bright flares, the position centroids exhibit clockwise looped motion on the sky, on scales of typically 150 micro-arcseconds over a few tens of minutes, corresponding to about 30% the speed of light. At the same time, the flares exhibit continuous rotation of the polarization angle, with about the same 45(±15)-minute period as that of the centroid motions. Modelling with relativistic ray tracing shows that these findings are all consistent with a near face-on, circular orbit of a compact polarized 'hot spot' of infrared synchrotron emission at approximately six to ten times the gravitational radius of a black hole of 4 million solar masses.


jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
^^^^^ https://www.eso.o...835a.pdf

Now, which part of 'clockwise looped motion on the sky', and 'At the same time, the flares exhibit continuous rotation of the polarization angle, with about the same 45(±15)-minute period as that of the centroid motions', are those with a sub-human IQ struggling with? Do we need to spell it out in terms that 12 year olds could understand?
Benni
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Our Sun broadcasts flares out into our solar system on a regular basis


Not at 0.3c it doesn't, you dense prick.
Correction to your error, even faster:

"300,000 kilometers per second
Since the particles all travel at the speed of light -- 300,000 kilometers per second -- the solar flare energy takes 500 seconds to arrive at Earth -- a little more than eight minutes after it leaves the sun.Apr 25, 2017
How Long for a Solar Flare to Reach Earth?"
| Sciencing

https://sciencing...732.html
theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
"At the 4m solar mass object that has to be there."

And here we see why our only recourse is to laugh at, make fun of and denigrate the idiot brigade. "It has to be there"....what a joke. Why does it have to be there?
Because we did math that everything moves because of gravity.

But how do you know?
Because earth has gravity and sucks things towards it...so that is how everything works, we can even figure out the mass of anything because of this.
Oh cool! How did you test that everything in the universe moves because of gravity?
We did the math.
No...how did you TEST that?
We did the math.
Ummm...OK. So, no confirmation available...but all the math works out right?
Of course!!! We even added 5 X more mass to the universe because of it.
You did, why?
Well...the math didn't work out when the scales changed so we added a variable to make the math work out.
Ahhhh, makes sense. And you confirmed the existence of the variable?
YES!!
How?
Mathematically.
LMAO...morons.
jimmybobber
4.2 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2018
@bennie. Did you read that link you posted. The electromagnetic radiation from the flare travels at the speed of light. The particles from the flare can take days to reach us.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018

"300,000 kilometers per second
Since the particles all travel at the speed of light -- 300,000 kilometers per second -- the solar flare energy takes 500 seconds to arrive at Earth -- a little more than eight minutes after it leaves the sun.Apr 25, 2017
How Long for a Solar Flare to Reach Earth?"
| Sciencing

https://sciencing...732.html


Lol. Bloody idiot. That is the light, you moron! We are talking about the detection in IR of the fecking gas in the accretion disk.! From the article you linked, you moron;

The speed of the particles depends on the strength and rapidity of the flare that sends them flying. The highest energy particles from a flare can arrive in as little as two minutes after the electromagnetic radiation, while CMEs take up to ***three or four days*** to arrive at Earth.

jonesdave
2.9 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
.
LMAO...morons.


You are the moron here, as proven. There is no other way of achieving those orbits. End of story. And not a single scientist is saying otherwise. Just a bunch of uneducated, unqualified cultists on a comments section. Those are the morons.
jimmybobber
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 14, 2018
Benni literally just copied the paragraph from the top of the search results page without even going to the link and reading the article.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
Benni literally just copied the paragraph from the top of the search results page without even going to the link and reading the article.


Yes, well, science and comprehension aren't his strong points! Lol.
theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
" There is no other way of achieving those orbits."

Of course there is. There HAS to be, because black holes don't exist. ( If you have a problem with the "unscientific" nature of this statement, stop making your own ridiculous versions of them f88cktard)

" End of story."

If only that post was the last thing you ever said

" And not a single scientist is saying otherwise. "
You really are simple.
https://phys.org/...les.html
" Just a bunch of uneducated, unqualified cultists on a comments section. "

Every time you claim to be educated I nearly piss myself laughing, you have been indoctrinated, not educated. Spaz.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
" There is no other way of achieving those orbits."

Of course there is. There HAS to be, because black holes don't exist. ( If you have a problem with the "unscientific" nature of this statement, stop making your own ridiculous versions of them f88cktard)

" End of story."

If only that post was the last thing you ever said

" And not a single scientist is saying otherwise. "
You really are simple.
https://phys.org/...les.html
" Just a bunch of uneducated, unqualified cultists on a comments section. "

Every time you claim to be educated I nearly piss myself laughing, you have been indoctrinated, not educated. Spaz.


Nope, you dumb f***, you are too thick to realise that a) she is probably wrong, and b) she is not proposing anything other than mass, and therefore gravity for stellar orbits. And nor is any scientist. There is no other mechanism, you thick prick. If you think otherwise, then f***ing link to it, you uneducated moron.
Benni
2.9 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
@bennie. Did you read that link you posted. The electromagnetic radiation from the flare travels at the speed of light. The particles from the flare can take days to reach us.


......and maybe you should take a little time & read the entire paragraph, not just cherry pick it for whatever false premise you want to purvey: https://sciencing...732.html

"The speed of the particles depends on the strength and rapidity of the flare that sends them flying. The highest energy particles from a flare can arrive in as little as two minutes after the electromagnetic radiation, while CMEs take up to three or four days to arrive at Earth."

Hey? Do you see it? "Highest energy PARTICLES arrive two minutes after......" . You missread your reading assignment.

jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2018
Hey? Do you see it? "Highest energy PARTICLES arrive two minutes after......" . You missread your reading assignment.


Lol. Trying to cover his f*** up. So why did you claim it was travelling at c? Stupid prick. And your article must have f***ed up also. No way is anything arriving in 2 minutes! It takes light 8.3 minutes! Are they claiming particles are travelling at 4c? Go find some actual papers, bozo. You'll probably find that it is 2 HOURS.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
You really are simple.
https://phys.org/...les.html


I think you'll find she is in a minority of 1, and probably screwed up;

https://arstechni...k-holes/

theredpill
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
"Nope, you dumb f***, you are too thick to realise that a) she is probably wrong"

You were so stupid as to make the statement that not a single scientist is saying otherwise, I don't care if she is right or wrong or how she arrived at her conclusions, my point is that as usual you don't have a clue how false your statements are when you are trying to be definitive. Or you do and you are straight up lying. You like to present mainstream physics as a united front where everyone agrees, one of many indicators you aren't a part of that community as much as you would like to be, basically, you are a blowhard poser.

I can link studies from the Neils Bohr institute where a team of physicists wrote a paper on why LIGO doesn't work. How many "theories" are there on DM properties? Obviously if there is more than one then they don't all agree do they f**ktard?

Even Hawking changed his tune on how the imaginary BH's work 3 times before he died you indoctrinated wannabe poser.
Spacebaby2001
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2018
@theredpill

Come on Theredpill, it's ok. The acid will wear off and you'll be back to normal. I know, I know, the bad scientists are out to get everyone with their maths. But I promise you its ok. Look Theredpill, math made the little boxes you are using right now to share your bad trip with everyone possible. It made phones, rockets, and satellites alllll possible. It's not perfect but its good enough to get us to where we are today and it will only get better, I promise. It will be ok.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
Hey? Do you see it? "Highest energy PARTICLES arrive two minutes after......" . You missread your reading assignment.


Lol. Trying to cover his f*** up. So why did you claim it was travelling at c? Stupid prick. And your article must have f***ed up also. No way is anything arriving in 2 minutes! It takes light 8.3 minutes! Are they claiming particles are travelling at 4c? Go find some actual papers, bozo. You'll probably find that it is 2 HOURS.



Actually, they say 2 minutes ***after*** the EM radiation. These are SEPs, not the ionized gas seen in the paper I linked. And they tend not to travel in a clockwise fecking circle!
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Hey? Do you see it? "Highest energy PARTICLES arrive two minutes after......" . You missread your reading assignment.


Lol. Trying to cover his f*** up. So why did you claim it was travelling at c? Stupid prick. And your article must have f***ed up also. No way is anything arriving in 2 minutes! It takes light 8.3 minutes! Are they claiming particles are travelling at 4c? Go find some actual papers, bozo. You'll probably find that it is 2 HOURS.


.....and so you too misread the reading assignment: "The highest energy particles from a flare can arrive in as little as two minutes after the electromagnetic radiation"

Do you see the word "after"? Not till I just pointed it out, it's been there all along, but as one could expect from neophytes like the two of you, no capiche.

I guess you don't know mass cannot have FTL velocity? Or EQUAL? But can have 99% of light.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
Even Hawking changed his tune on how the imaginary BH's work 3 times before he died you indoctrinated wannabe poser.


You are the poser, you uneducated POS. There is not a single scientist claiming that those stars' orbits are due to anything other than gravity. End of story. And you have conspicuously failed to show any alternative explanation. Because there isn't one.

As she said herself;

Responding to this, Mersini-Houghton told Ars that these observed objects are "The same massive objects as we thought before, except that they do not have an event horizon and a singularity in the center. We have to find a suitable name for black holes without horizons and singularities. Obviously they won't be black."


And the evidence against her proposal is likely under review right now.

jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
I guess you don't know mass cannot have FTL velocity? Or EQUAL? But can have 99% or greater than light.


And still has nothing whatsoever to do with the paper I linked. So what is your point, dumbass? What is it travelling clockwise around, and why?

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
You really are simple.
https://phys.org/...les.html



Actually, 4 years on, and the paper still hasn't made it past Arxiv. I'd say it is dead in the water. EHT results will soon likely kill it off.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
"Look Theredpill, math made the little boxes you are using right now to share your bad trip with everyone possible."
No it didn't actually, a decades long process involving experimentation (both successful and failed) engineering and theory that was falsifiable.
" It made phones, rockets, and satellites alllll possible. "
Nope same process I listed above.
It's not perfect but its good enough to get us to where we are today and it will only get better, I promise."
You aren't in a position to make that promise
" It will be ok. "
I know. Now excuse, Jones is having another stroke, gonna see if I can snap him out of it..or amplify it...hopefully one of the 2 will put him out of his misery.

"Actually, 4 years on,...."

Excuse me sir, do you need assistance? I can come and read this out loud if the letter symbols don't make sense to you.
"You were so stupid as to make the statement that not a single scientist is saying otherwise, I don't care if she is right or wrong..."
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
You were so stupid as to make the statement that not a single scientist is saying otherwise, I don't care if she is right or wrong.


When are you going to figure out how to use quote tags, you imbecile? And no scientist is saying those orbits are caused by anything other than a 4m solar mass object. Which part of the following are you having trouble with, moron?

The same massive objects as we thought before, except that they do not have an event horizon and a singularity in the center. We have to find a suitable name for black holes without horizons and singularities


Comprehension not your thing, is it?

And have you figured out what little 'm' is yet, sh!tforbrains? Still think you can move stars around with a 1 nT field, because they're 'weightless'? Thick b*stard! Which university did you learn that at? Thunderdolts? When was Earth orbiting Saturn, again? Lol. Loon.

Spacebaby2001
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2018
Alright, can you explain to me the direct unbroken chain of trial and error that lead to understanding fission and the very real technologies that sprang from that understanding? Seems like there are some pretty large gap there without math, and models.
theredpill
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
"When are you going to figure out how to use quote tags, you imbecile?"

Tomorrow...
" And no scientist is saying those orbits are caused by anything other than a 4m solar mass object. Which part of the following are you having trouble with, moron?"

How about the part where I linked a paper by a scientist who says they don't exist mathematically? Still trying to wriggle out of your stupidity eh? Sorry Jones, it's on tighter than your skin...you can't. Then we have a second quote that isn't even mine followed by a response as though it was...are you that confused that you can't keep track of 2 commenters? Pretty tough sell on your math and cognitive abilities, good thing you have a plucky attitude to compensate. How many years did you study at the university of f**ked to acquire these "skills"?

Nice to see you and ojorf had a spacebaby back in 2001, and passed along your "gift" of understanding. This kid is going places....

theredpill
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
"Alright, can you explain to me the direct unbroken chain of trial and error that lead to understanding fission and the very real technologies that sprang from that understanding? Seems like there are some pretty large gap there without math, and models. "

Sure, as soon as you show me a picture Galileo took of the computer his math skills built using the camera his math skills built because all it takes is math right?

Seems like a lot of engineering, experimentation and understanding of physical processes are pointless because math is all it takes.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2018
Seems like a lot of engineering, experimentation and understanding of physical processes are pointless because math is all it takes.


Dickhead. How did Newton describe the orbits of the planets? Or Kepler? Think they got Jupiter in a lab? How was Halley able to predict the return of the comet named after him? Guessed, did he?
Your problem is that you are sh!t at maths, and sh!t at science, and have a chip on your shoulder about it. You have found similarly afflicted idiots in the EU cult, and fit right in. Make up any old sh!t and it'll escape any sort of rigorous scrutiny with those loons. So that's what you do - make sh!t up.

JaxPavan
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
@Da Schneider

Besides misreading my posts criticizing all religious interference with science, you have offered nothing previously supporting your accusations.

My point is that religion has no place backing one scientific theory of the universe over another, well, not to the point of mental gymnastics and dark matter/energy/stuff. That includes Buddhism or any other religion you want to claim I support.

Abrahamic religions have made clear since Copernicus and Galileo that they want a creation event and they want the earth to be the center of the universe, regardless of what science has to say.

It is no coincidence that various churches have endorsed the big bang theory because it has a creation event and places everywhere as the center of the universe, including the earth.

The problem with the Big Bang theory isn't religion; the problem is that the theory is falling apart. Now, 90% of the universe has to be imaginary in order to fix it?
JaxPavan
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Look at all the Trolls here pretending to argue about minor erudite scientific points while swearing at each other and name calling?

Does anyone suppose that scientifically minded people concerned with those erudite points would normally go about swearing and name calling each other? Does anyone suppose that is what they would find in the emails of the academics in this field? Of course not.

Rather, this type of arguing with name calling is a standard and proven troll tactic to shut down critical thinking and dissuade others from participating in the debate.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
..... the problem is that the theory is falling apart.


Errrr, no it isn't. Whatever gave you that idea?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
Rather, this type of arguing with name calling is a standard and proven troll tactic to shut down critical thinking and dissuade others from participating in the debate.


Critical thinking? Where did this happen? Lol. No, we are just treating proven idiots as idiots. If they knew anything they'd be debating scientists, and not spamming their ignorance on here.

Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2018
This article is roughly about axion detection as a result of a cosmic wind gust.
Can anybody just talk about that instead of fucking?
(Wife is way past menopausal, so it's a touchy subject for me...)
theredpill
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
"Dickhead. How did Newton describe the orbits of the planets? Or Kepler? Think they got Jupiter in a lab? How was Halley able to predict the return of the comet named after him? Guessed, did he?"

For the mental midget Jones, I was responding to a post where it was stated tech advances were solely because of math, or mostly because of math, when the reality is, as today, it is a descriptive language with predictive ability when the variables are measured. When the variables are a guess or inference, a physical verification is required to confirm the value of the variable, not another inference or a conglomeration of inferences..VERIFICATION.

"Your problem is that you are sh!t at maths, and sh!t at science, and have a chip on your shoulder about it."

No my problem is that what you call science is just plain shit.

jimmybobber
4 / 5 (12) Nov 14, 2018
@theredpill: I'm speechless at your lack of understanding of science and technology in relation to mathematics.
JaxPavan
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
@jonesdave

"Critical thinking? Where did this happen? Lol. No, we are just treating proven idiots as idiots. If they knew anything they'd be debating scientists, and not spamming their ignorance on here."

These science articles are written for the general public. Otherwise, folks would just read the research publications directly. Some members of the general public and the scientific community might go further and read up on any articles outside of their field to follow up by reading the research publications that interests them directly.

You use the worst language here, which is not a good way to separate yourself from any other "idiot" but perhaps where you give yourself away is the use of the word "we".

No, what you are doing with the language and the harsh treatment is shutting down debate as well as any other putative commentators.
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
@theredpill: I'm speechless at your lack of understanding of science and technology in relation to mathematics.

Well then jimmybob, it's a good thing you can still type and were able to convey your speechlessness. But please, enlighten me as to what my understanding is...because I thought I had made it pretty clear what my understanding of math is as it relates to science and technology, I mean I have only posted the definitions of physics vs. mathematics here about 7 times now because anyone who thinks math is anything but a language needed clarification...do you need clarification?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
what you are doing with the language and the harsh treatment is shutting down debate as well as any other putative commentators.


.....which is the entire purpose for the reason he does it. Ever notice when he's on exchanging with his brother Schneibo that nary one utterance of profanity, except of course to aim it at someone else.

@theredpill: I'm speechless at your lack of understanding of science and technology in relation to mathematics.
......and this comes from a guy who claims he took Differential Equations in a high school Algebra class.

JaxPavan
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
@theredpill

Math is a both a beautiful language of elegant truths and (so far) a source of models for describing the physical universe.

So far, whenever we believe that one particular aspect of the universe can be completely described by a mathematical model, often there is some discrepancy, which often calls for another mathematical model as a refinement.

Are there aspects of the universe that cannot be mathematically modelled? Are there aspects that behave exactly as predicted 100%? Many models are not solvable (so far) in a meaningful or elegant way beyond brute force computation in a computer simulation.

I prefer to believe that the universe is real. If the universe could be completely modeled with mathematics, then there would be no difference between reality and, say, a simulation of reality in a large enough computer. Thus, "reality" may depend on if there will always be another (smaller) refinement necessary to describe it.

Reality is in the margin.
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
"Rather, this type of arguing with name calling is a standard and proven troll tactic to shut down critical thinking and dissuade others from participating in the debate."

Or, it is a response to a troll tactic when the troll deserves the same discourse they provide. I started posting here politely, in both debate and opinion. Not required when interacting directly with certain posters here, they get what they give.

"Does anyone suppose that is what they would find in the emails of the academics in this field? Of course not."

Actually, if you ever have the opportunity to sit in on physics debate over a hotly contested theory, do it...those guys are as ruthless and gruff as anything you see here. (And yes, despite what others claim they do disagree with each other about a myriad of unresolved issues...it is how the BICEP conclusions were falsified, why string theory exists, why papers have been written questioning LIGO's claims...)

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
.....and this comes from a guy who claims he took Differential Equations in a high school Algebra class


And where did he claim this, sh!tforbrains? You obviously don't understand even basic maths. As proven.

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
........why papers have been written questioning LIGO's claims...)


Since the neutron star merger? I very much doubt that. That shut a lot of cranks up, as well as tearing a fair few MOND theories to shreds.
jonesdave
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
No my problem is that what you call science is just plain shit.


It's not what I call science, thicko, it is what the vast majority of scientists call science. And you are scientifically illiterate, as you have amply shown, so who gives a toss about your uneducated opinion?
And guess how many devices are based on quantum? Did you do that at university? How did you manage without maths, dumbo?
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Are there aspects of the universe that cannot be mathematically modelled? Are there aspects that behave exactly as predicted 100%? Many models are not solvable (so far) in a meaningful or elegant way beyond brute force computation in a computer simulation.


.....but this is different than what schneibo, jones, etc do here. They challenge the other persons credibility to participate in discourse based on an image of their presumed competence in Math skills, this of course while they themselves have no such math skills & never claim to except to screw it up when they try.

For example, jonesy claims he took Differential Equations in an Algebra course in High School, and he got caught by none other than me, he's been pissed about it ever since. So just let me ask you, do you know what was wrong with his statement of response?
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
@theredpill: I'm speechless at your lack of understanding of science and technology in relation to mathematics.

Well then jimmybob, it's a good thing you can still type and were able to convey your speechlessness. But please, enlighten me as to what my understanding is...because I thought I had made it pretty clear what my understanding of math is as it relates to science and technology, I mean I have only posted the definitions of physics vs. mathematics here about 7 times now because anyone who thinks math is anything but a language needed clarification...do you need clarification?


You cannot do physics without maths. Ask a physicist. Why not ask on a physics forum, gobshite? Too chicken, eh? Figured out what the little 'm' was yet, sh!tforbrains?
granville583762
4.1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Darkmatter Hurricane this way pass's

The evidence for the existence of dark matter is very strong
Scientists are still unable to find a way to actually see it
So what is this strong evidence
As S1 moved
Theory suggests
Dark matter should have been moving along with it
Calculations by the team suggest
It should be moving at approximately 500 km/s.
They created several models
Showing the distribution of the dark matter
Its density
Allowed them to create predictions
Of possible signatures of the stream
They suggest this event gives
For observable evidence of dark matter
A better than normal chance to do so
They suggest that it is not likely
That WIMP detector will find anything unusual

An Exercise in Darkmatter Semantics
Of ifs, buts maybe's, possible, suggest, create, predictions, should, unable, approximately
A more positive outlook
In darkmatter is required
theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
"Math is a both a beautiful language of elegant truths and (so far) a source of models for describing the physical universe"

It is a beautiful language, unfortunately as with all languages, misuse detracts from it's elegance. The truth part requires the same thing any statement in any language requires, verification. Without it, math is a complicated sales pitch and just like in reality, the more complicated the pitch, the more "accurate" it is believed to be. You hit the nail on the head with this:
"Reality is in the margin."

Math has the ability to describe a physical reality in a way no other language can, detailed and astoundingly accurate given our ability to measure. I was never presented a math problem that said "solve for X and infer any variables you need to". X has one answer no matter who is solving the equation. The value of any inferred variable must be physically verified before the equation can be said to describe reality, as it truly is the margin.

theredpill
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
"You cannot do physics without maths."

Well you can dumbf**k...just not as accurately as you can with it.

" Ask a physicist."

How about I ask the opposite of one? Hey Jones, can you do physics without math?

" Why not ask on a physics forum, gobshite? Too chicken, eh?"

Because, once again...what you claim I "think" and what I do are as far apart two things can be (unless we count the one brain cell you have left in your head and the location of what used to be the rest of it...wherever it may be)

Figured out what the little 'm' was yet, sh!tforbrains?

monocell - you named the last one...very cute

jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
For example, jonesy claims he took Differential Equations in an Algebra course in High School, and he got caught by none other than me,


Caught by you, you lying f***wit? Haha. I did differential equations at Auckland Grammar school in 6th form, end of story. Numerous schools offer such things outside of the educational backwater that you obviously inhabit.

Benni
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
For example, jonesy claims he took Differential Equations in an Algebra course in High School, and he got caught by none other than me,


Caught by you, you lying f***wit? Haha. I did differential equations at Auckland Grammar school in 6th form, end of story. Numerous schools offer such things outside of the educational backwater that you obviously inhabit.


> theredpill, JaxPavan, etc. Now do you see better here what we're dealing with here?
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
@Da Schneider
I rest my case. You're a troll.

We done here?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
Look, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist, you said you wanted images of black holes, here they are: https://phys.org/...ers.html

From the article:
"Seeing the pairs of merging galaxy nuclei associated with these huge black holes so close together was pretty amazing," Koss said. "In our study, we see two galaxy nuclei right when the images were taken. You can't argue with it; it's a very 'clean' result, which doesn't rely on interpretation."
No math, no simulations. You were last seen claiming these were "globes" after which you were chased off with your tail between your legs.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Here's the deal: when multiple lines of evidence all lead to the same conclusion, it's probably the right conclusion. Lack of understanding either of the lines of evidence or the way they lead to the conclusion indicates lack of cognitive skills, not incorrectness of the conclusion.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
This article is roughly about axion detection as a result of a cosmic wind gust.
Can anybody just talk about that instead of fucking?
@Whyde, the contention is that we should be looking for axion dark matter. The spectrum of expected axions is not well tested.

It's a suggestion for the direction of research. They may be right.
MrBojangles
3.2 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Somehow it never affected me in getting an education during the six years I spent in Engineering school majoring in Nuclear & Electrical Engineering.


I just checked, and University of Phoenix does not offer a degree in Nuclear and Electrical Engineering.

As usual, the only thing that need be said when rebutting any point put forth by the proponents of DM, BH's and any other mathematical construct the physical world has yet to provide.


Was the detection of the Higgs boson what created it? Do exoplanets spring into existence when we observe them? Show me pictures of an electron.

People like Benni and redpill are old crusties that have been rejected by society, and now see fit to brood like children on their computers exclaiming how the whole world is wrong, but they are so smart. It's a pathetic defense mechanism used to justify why they are isolated and "misunderstood." Quit acting like children, and society will welcome you back. You don't have to be alone.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
I just checked, and University of Phoenix does not offer a degree in Nuclear and Electrical Engineering.


Did you check for :
I did differential equations at Auckland Grammar school in 6th form, end of story. Numerous schools offer such things outside of the educational backwater that you obviously inhabit.
......so says jonesy. Or maybe you too don't know what Differential Equations are?

Kweden
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2018

Either way, I am wondering if this "stream"..

Not every object..is warming ..the planets..different reasons (e.g., Neptune...summer , there's no evidence..https://skeptical...iate.htm .

From papers and articles I've seen the warming was first noticed many decades ago, which is the findings the current watches are funded for. Now, they can't really claim "all" objects are warming, because they haven't been observed. Including the sun.
There are many causes for planetary warming and each planet is different; the skeptic article does not address what I am talking about, as a contribution.
All observations indicate that there is an energetic increase, thruout the system--one may say theyre not conclusive since they are not longterm enough, but the evidence is there.
The mathematics also suggests that if there is dark stuff with this galaxy, then it could increase temperatures, and other energetic factor
MrBojangles
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
......so says jonesy. Or maybe you too don't know what Differential Equations are?


It's weird that you have a pet name for him. In all seriousness though, if you stop directing your anger and frustration at society, and instead use it as an opportunity to reflect inward, maybe you wouldn't be at odds with everyone.
Kweden
3 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2018
Yes, there is a "hurricane" of unseen cause
......so how do you know this? You stated it has "undetermined mass", I take it this means there is no associated field of gravity with this mass which is why it is undetermined, or the opposite of this?
How much of the visible matter do you expect it to replace? Eighty percent? Maybe enough to alter the orbits of all the planets & maybe throw Earth into the Sun? Or to Pluto?
I trust the sources that observed & reported it, and it makes sense to me.
The reason they suspect dark, is because what they are observing does not follow the common model w/out dark. (You answered your own question there)
I do not expect dark matter, mass, or energy to replace visible matter--from what I know of it--rather to explain the behavior that is seen.[ I'm confident that dark stuff has more than 1d energetic influence]
if the galaxy passes directly thru the center of the galaxy, all would go awry; now, is just a stream from it.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
......so says jonesy. Or maybe you too don't know what Differential Equations are?


It's weird that you have a pet name for him. In all seriousness though, if you stop directing your anger and frustration at society, and instead use it as an opportunity to reflect inward, maybe you wouldn't be at odds with everyone.
.......sure, you, jonesy & schniebo should practice what you preach to others. I catch one of your pet ranters making an obviously false claim about his education in math & your pathetic response is to turn your anger to Benni, the person calling out jonesy for the phony even you can see that he is, or maybe you can't because you too are clueless about Differential Equations?
Kweden
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
through our solar system???

SERIOUSLY?? We have White dwarfs streaming through our SOLAR SYSTEM?

It is not a white dwarf, it is the remnants of a galaxy that was absorbed by the Milky Way [I should find out when, and it would be good to know when it was first in our region.]
Kweden
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2018
@Kweden:
Yes, I am in American. I don't know where you are
from and I really don't give a shit, because you are
nothing more than an lowbrow, ignorant, fuck.
I posted my comment (somewhat coarse as it was),
looking for correction/enlightenment and all you offer
is insults and ridicule, about my education and a bunch
political bullshit.
So, wherever you are, keep your comments There.

I answered your questions in the fashion you asked.
You insulted yourself insinuating you're stupid; I insulted the system--not you--surely, you know about the dumming down, criminalizing, punking, and enslavement of America. Or at least the dumming down part--that is all over the media for decades. It is supposedly to provide servants, soldiers, and get away with criminalizing American culture.
If I'd anticipated in any way to get a literal assault from you, I'd have left you where you lie. (Believing science is a religion. Thats classic.)
Kweden
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2018
[q...no OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.

show us OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE ... You can't,...
Youre not up with the latest telescope images, are you? It has already been shown; exactly where they all are and how they affect things has not established, but the influence and their existence is out there.
Also, Einstein was the first to make the theorem that they could exist, even though he did not believe it was possible. IE--using accepted theories of gravity, if the gravitational mass is great enough then any substance (wave, particle, or mass) would be pulled toward it at such a rate that the angular momentum would throw it out of the middle--after crushing it to oblivion--and what would be in the middle is an empty space. For Einstein theory, this would make an actual hole in spacetime.
Dark matter, dark energy, and dark mass are not the same thing. A true black hole would be the one Einstein theorem shows, but his relativity is not perfect it is just more precise.
Kweden
1 / 5 (3) Nov 14, 2018
Our Sun broadcasts flares out into our solar system on a regular basis


Not at 0.3c it doesn't, you dense prick.
Correction to your error, even faster:

"300,000 kilometers per second
Since the particles all travel at the speed of light -- 300,000 kilometers per second -- the solar flare energy takes 500 seconds to arrive at Earth -- a little more than eight minutes after it leaves the sun.Apr 25, 2017
How Long for a Solar Flare to Reach Earth?"
| Sciencing

https://sciencing...732.html

you miss the point. From suspected blackhole the speed is so much less because the gravity is pulling back on it--even stopping, and making light go backwards...also x-rays. [Observed]
Kweden
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
This article is roughly about axion detection as a result of a cosmic wind gust.
Can anybody just talk about that instead of fucking?
(Wife is way past menopausal, so it's a touchy subject for me...)

"Gyre" would have been better than hurricane, but I suppose Cosmic Gyres have more hurricane like energies than ocean gyres, and would give a major misunderstanding. How about "crazy-wild insane super-radical gyre agitating the b-heesus out of the outer solar system" Probably wouldn't pass the typesetters, even if the editor didn't catch it.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
ur Sun broadcasts flares out into our solar system on a regular basis


Not at 0.3c it doesn't, you dense prick.
Correction to your error, even faster:

"300,000 kilometers per second
Since the particles all travel at the speed of light -- 300,000 kilometers per second -- the solar flare energy takes 500 seconds to arrive at Earth -- a little more than eight minutes after it leaves the sun.Apr 25, 2017
How Long for a Solar Flare to Reach Earth?"
Sciencing

https://sciencing...732.html


you miss the point. From suspected blackhole the speed is so much less because the gravity is pulling back on it--even stopping, and making light go backwards...also x-rays. [Observed]


No, what you miss is the fact that gravity has ZERO effect on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave, there is no equation for such a thing, unless you're invoking schneibo's 19th Century black hole math & aether theory.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
@Lenni_The_LIar_And_Plaigiarist lies again. Why do you even bother posting here? You don't understand what you're talking about, let alone anyone else.

https://en.wikipe...chanics)
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
back on it--even stopping, and making light go backwards...also x-rays. [Observed]

No, what you miss is the fact that gravity has ZERO effect on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave, there is no equation for such a thing, unless you're invoking schneibo's 19th Century black hole math & aether theory.

On EM? No.
But on the particles that CARRY it, yes.
YOu could even call it an emergent property of a particle...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist seems to have confused rotational motion around a gravity well with motion outward from a gravity well. It's kinda like confusing RPM with MPH.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
seems to have confused rotational motion around a gravity well with motion outward from a gravity well


......there is no such thing except as found in your 19th Century Black Hole Math. You have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for this? No, you don't, put up or show us a picture.

Electro-magnetic waves do not have an Escape Velocity governed by gravitational field strength, that's just a fantasy of 19th century cosmology & you can't prove differently.
Whydening Gyre
2.8 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
seems to have confused rotational motion around a gravity well with motion outward from a gravity well


......there is no such thing except as found in your 19th Century Black Hole Math. You have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for this? No, you don't, put up or show us a picture.

Electro-magnetic waves do not have an Escape Velocity governed by gravitational field strength, that's just a fantasy of 19th century cosmology & you can't prove differently.

Actually... It's a "fantasy" of gravity governing mass, relative or otherwise...
EM has only 1 velocity - C. At C, photons (the carriers of EM) have relative mass. Ergo, affectible by gravity.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
there is no such thing except as found in your 19th Century Black Hole Math

@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist, is that like the difference between half-life and average lifetime?

Dumb as a bag of hammers.

Just to make it clear, @Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist claimed either that RPM and MPH are the same, or that one of them doesn't exist.

Now that's stupid. Must not ever have driven a car.
Benni
2 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2018
Actually... It's a "fantasy" of gravity governing mass, relative or otherwise...
EM has only 1 velocity - C. At C, photons (the carriers of EM) have relative mass. Ergo, affectible by gravity.
.......psycho-babble, even you don't comprehend what you wrote. Dumb as a bag of hammers.

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2018
Dude, how do you eat without sticking the fork up your nose?
Benni
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Dude, how do you eat without sticking the fork up your nose?


.....by never being in your company or those akin to you, this is to say: No distractions from the land of fantasy.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And Plagiarist, the "land of fantasy" is the one where you can't tell the difference between RPM and MPH. Or between half-life and average lifetime. Or between a disk and a globe.

You can't even put what you claim to believe into words, much less math.

Go mop the toilets.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2018
Oh, and BTW @Lenni_The_Liar_And Plagiarist, whether you can successfully guide a fork full of food into your piehole or not has nothing to do with who you're eating with.

Damn you're stupid.
Whydening Gyre
3.6 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Actually... It's a "fantasy" of gravity governing mass, relative or otherwise...
EM has only 1 velocity - C. At C, photons (the carriers of EM) have relative mass. Ergo, affectible by gravity.
.......psycho-babble, even you don't comprehend what you wrote. Dumb as a bag of hammers.

Problem is.... YOU don't understand what I wrote...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
Actually... It's a "fantasy" of gravity governing mass, relative or otherwise...
EM has only 1 velocity - C. At C, photons (the carriers of EM) have relative mass. Ergo, affectible by gravity.
.......psycho-babble, even you don't comprehend what you wrote. Dumb as a bag of hammers.

Problem is.... YOU don't understand what I wrote...
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
Gravities Light Radius

The mathematical formula R=2GM/C*
Gravity can only compress inertial mass no greater than its light radius
This is the escape velocity of light
Where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
And the surface of the star
Has an escape velocity C, the speed of light
And as the star accretes mass
It's radius grows
Accordingly, as its radius doubles
It's density reduces by 1/4
Because gravity cannot compress matter
To an escape velocity, greater than the speed of light
A singularity cannot form
Because that requires an escape velocity, greater than light
As gravity travels at the speed of light
Gravity can only compress matter to the speed of light
This is its light radius
Commonly known as the event horizon
Because gravity is zero at the centre of mass
The star is physically incapable in collapsing into a singularity
As a singularity is forbidden under Albert Einstein's absolute velocity of the universe
The speed of light
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
I just checked, and University of Phoenix does not offer a degree in Nuclear and Electrical Engineering.


Did you check for :
I did differential equations at Auckland Grammar school in 6th form, end of story. Numerous schools offer such things outside of the educational backwater that you obviously inhabit.
......so says jonesy. Or maybe you too don't know what Differential Equations are?



Haha. Listen to this retarded fool! Can't even do basic maths. AS PROVEN. Claims to have studied nuclear physics. Doesn't know what a half-life is. AS PROVEN. Was obviously brought up in an educational backwater, if its falsely claimed introduction to calculus didn't happen until tertiary education. Too thick for words, and a liar, to boot.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2018
Here you go Benni the Liar;
'A' Level maths from the UK. That is for students aged 16-18;

https://revisionm...calculus

Now, please show the curriculum for equivalent students in whatever educationally backward part of the world you live in. I suspect it's similar, but you were in a lower grade or stream, and were still playing with wooden blocks, when the bright kids were doing calculus. Correct?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2018
Oh, and here is the maths curriculum for Auckland Grammar School;

https://www.ags.s.../show/28

I feared they might have dumbed down in the intervening decades, but no. Still offer calculus, including differentiation.
It would appear that Benni the Liar, was either too dumb to do such courses, or was in an educational backwater that didn't offer such courses. I'll leave the reader to decide. My bet is on the former, given that the loon cannot even do basic maths. AS PROVEN.
DarkHorse66
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
@jonesdave
If memory serves me correctly the term 'form' has been obsolete for quite a while in a few countries& has never been used in most other countries. More than likely, '6th form' has been misunderstood by others as meaning '6th grade', when in fact it is an old high school designation for what is now known as 'year 12'.(hint: if one is using older terms as a descriptor, make sure that it is still in use, &not ambiguous, else use now current equiv. term) Different countries will have completely different schoolyear naming systems. For example, in France they count down instead of up. In that system, eg 'la troisieme' or ''3ieme' is 'year 10'. In Germany, there is a year 13, with year 11 being primarily for preparing for the last 2 years.
cont...
DarkHorse66
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
...cont
Don't forget too, America has a 'college' system &even 'college' does mean different things in different countries. Oh, &as for differential equations being taught in year12, yes it can get taught already then, eg:
http://ncerthelp....ad+PDF+C

Best Regards :), DH66
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2018
@jonesdave
If memory serves me correctly the term 'form' has been obsolete for quite a while in a few countries& has never been used in most other countries.


Indeed, although it still gets used at my old school, as per;
https://www.ags.s.../show/28

They now call it Form 6 or Form 7. In Britain they have mostly moved on to 'Year,,,,,', as you say. Also, when I was at school in NZ, there were 'streams', and levels within those streams. My fifth form class was 5 Sci 1. There was also a 5 Sci 2, for those who didn't quite make 5 Sci 1. And so on.
Apropos of nothing much, my rugby coach at school was Graham Henry, World Cup winning coach of the All Blacks in 2011! Was a half-decent coach!
DarkHorse66
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Form 7? Is that equivalent to 'year 13' (like in Germany). or is it part of some kind of subdivision of the equivalent of year 12? I could not quite make out the distinction from the web page. I am not that familiar with the NZ version of secondary school. :)

Cheers, DH66
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2018
Form 7? Is that equivalent to 'year 13' (like in Germany). or is it part of some kind of subdivision of the equivalent of year 12? I could not quite make out the distinction from the web page. I am not that familiar with the NZ version of secondary school. :)

Cheers, DH66


Yes, that would be for ages ~ 17 - 18. Not everybody does it. Most will go to Uni after 6th Form. Certainly back in my day.
https://en.wikipe...Thirteen
Benni
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Actually... It's a "fantasy" of gravity governing mass, relative or otherwise...
EM has only 1 velocity - C. At C, photons (the carriers of EM) have relative mass. Ergo, affectible by gravity.
.......psycho-babble, even you don't comprehend what you wrote. Dumb as a bag of hammers.
Problem is.... YOU don't understand what I wrote...


.......then write it so it can be understood even by yourself.

Of course if you rewrite it so even you can understand it, what's to say that anybody would understand it anyway, that's the way the culture of Pop-Cosmology is INTENDED to work by default.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Did you check for :

I did differential equations at Auckland Grammar school in 6th form, end of story. Numerous schools offer such things outside of the educational backwater that you obviously inhabit.
......so says jonesy.
..."Grammar school"?

Form 7? Is that equivalent to 'year 13' (like in Germany). or is it part of some kind of subdivision of the equivalent of year 12? I could not make out the distinction from the web page. I am not that familiar with the NZ version of secondary school.
....and so what level is "Grammar school"? Why are you just reading over stuff that is obviously self contradictory from the start of his statement to the end of it? You just want to focus on something about "Form 6 or 7" & ignore "Grammar school", the context of which implies just what he stated that can't be factually correct because there is no place on planet Earth where Differential Equations are taught in "Grammar school", it's just another jonesy fantasy.

DarkHorse66
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
Grammar schools are selective schools. Rather easy to google...
https://en.wikipe...r_school

Regards DH66
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
and so what level is "Grammar school"? Why are you just reading over stuff that is obviously self contradictory from the start of his statement to the end of it? You just want to focus on something about "Form 6 or 7" & ignore "Grammar school", the context of which implies just what he stated that can't be factually correct because there is no place on planet Earth where Differential Equations are taught in "Grammar school", it's just another jonesy fantasy.


And I just linked you to the webpages that show that it is most definitely taught at high school in both NZ and the UK. Are you blind as well as stupid? Not everywhere is as educationally backwards as where you live, dumbo.


jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Grammar schools are selective schools. Rather easy to google...
https://en.wikipe...r_school

Regards DH66


Generally true. However, not in the case of Auckland Grammar. That is/ was just a regular, albeit high achieving, secondary school. In the UK it used to be that you took an exam at 11 years old, and that decided whether or not you were offered a Grammar school place, or went to a 'regular' secondary school. Before emigrating to NZ I passed that exam, and spent one year at an English Grammar school. NZ had no such distinctions, and used streaming to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
DarkHorse66
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
Grammar schools are selective schools. Rather easy to google...
https://en.wikipe...chool...


Generally true. However, not in the case of Auckland Grammar. That is/ was just a regular, albeit high achieving, secondary school. In the UK it used to be that you took an exam at 11 years old, and that decided whether or not you were offered a Grammar school place, or went to a 'regular' secondary school. Before emigrating to NZ I passed that exam, and spent one year at an English Grammar school. NZ had no such distinctions, and used streaming to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

Still rather easy to google. Not only does the wikipage explain the general history of grammar schools, but it explains what you just said for NZ AND it mentions your alma mater. As it stands, a more general description would be that such schools are designed to cater for the higher achievers. Clearly somebody would have missed out. Jealousy maybe?
Best Regards, DH66.
jimmybobber
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
@Benni Grammar school is equivalent to high school in some countries. Your thinking its elementary school like in the US.
DarkHorse66
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
@jimmybobber
I tried to make that very point earlier:
@jonesdave
.... More than likely, '6th form' has been misunderstood by others as meaning '6th grade', when in fact it is an old high school designation for what is now known as 'year 12'.(hint: if one is using older terms as a descriptor, make sure that it is still in use, &not ambiguous, else use now current equiv. term) Different countries will have completely different schoolyear naming systems. For example, in France they count down instead of up. In that system, eg 'la troisieme' or ''3ieme' is 'year 10'. In Germany, there is a year 13, with year 11 being primarily for preparing for the last 2 years.
cont...

I even added a link to explain what a grammar school is
https://en.wikipe...r_school But (after watching Benni's responses to those last few posts), it is distinctly beginning to look like he is doing it on purpose, just for the sake of riling jonesdave.
Best Regards, DH66
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
@Benni Grammar school is equivalent to high school in some countries. Your thinking its elementary school like in the US.


There is not a high school level of education on Planet Earth that teaches Different Equations as part of an Algebra course as jonesy claims he learned them in his grammar school.

but (after watching Benni's responses to those last few posts), it is distinctly beginning to look like he is doing it on purpose, just for the sake of riling jonesdave
Best Regards, DH66
.....and you as you keep trying to defend his inflating psycho-babble.

Come on, stop trying to defend absolute psycho-babble braggadocio because you love reading jonesy's foul mouthed rantings just because you have the same problem he does.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
There is not a high school level of education on Planet Earth that teaches Different Equations as part of an Algebra course as jonesy claims he learned them in his grammar school.


Yes there is. I have linked to the webpages for schools in both the UK and NZ. Are you blind, thicko? And who says it is in algebra class? Don't be so f***ing stupid, you idiot. Read and weep;

https://revisionm...quations

Now, why would 'A' level students be revising something which isn't taught, you moron? 'A' level students are at high school, from 16 - 18 yrs. I don't care what is NOT taught in your educational backwater - it is irrelevant to the rest of the advanced world.

jimmybobber
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 15, 2018
@benni Some high schools in the US teach Calculus. I have no doubt that those courses might teach some differential equations. After all a differential equation is an equation with a derivative. If one can take a derivative it's easy to imagine one can understand how to solve a basic differential equation.
DarkHorse66
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
@benni
you clearly did NOT read the link that I posted earlier:
http://ncerthelp....quations
here are some more:
In the US, no less!:
https://www.kings...20171213
Anothe one!:
https://www.georg...ards.pdf
(PS K=Kindergarten)
https://www.ck12....gration/
As a general interest item, even found this:
http://www.opencu...extbooks
Are you claiming these links are fakes?
Regards, DH66
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
@benni
you clearly did NOT read the link that I posted earlier:


.....and you clearly are not reading what I wrote about what jonesy has stated, that: "There is not a high school level of education on Planet Earth that teaches Different Equations as part of an Algebra course as jonesy claims he learned them in his grammar school."

.......there is an OPERATIVE word in there that all of you neophytes continue reading right over, and you read right over it because all of you are as deficient in your math skills as he is, also being the reason he made such a blunderous statement about taking Differential Equations in a high school algebra course, capiche? No, probably you still don't.
DarkHorse66
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2018
@benni
you clearly did NOT read the link that I posted earlier:


.....: "There is not a high school level of education on Planet Earth that teaches Different Equations as part of an Algebra course as jonesy claims he learned them in his grammar school."

.......there is an OPERATIVE word in there that all of you neophytes continue reading right over, and you read right over it because all of you are as deficient in your math skills as he is, also being the reason he made such a blunderous statement about taking Differential Equations in a high school algebra course, capiche? No, probably you still don't.

ACTUALLY READ THE LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They GIVE you the evidence ON A PLATTER.
Maybe your reading glasses are broken and you can't admit it.
Or would that deflate your ego too much?
DH66
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
such a blunderous statement about taking Differential Equations in a high school algebra course,


WTF are you talking about, sh!tforbrains? To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as an algebra course. It is called 'mathematics'. You go to school, look at your timetable, and find out if you are about to be doing science, maths, phys. ed, geography, etc. And then you go to class. You learn algebra from an early age in mathematics class. By the time you get to more advanced mathematical topics, such as calculus, you are expected to know sh!t like that.
DarkHorse66
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
http://www.openculture.com/faq
http://www.opencu...extbooks
That is certainly an interesting site...
Free movies, free textbooks, free audiobooks (not just maths), free MOOC couses, lectures by the greats.
Eg, here is Feynman, complete with the full set of video lectures:
http://www.opencu...964.html
This site looks pretty awesome. I stumbled on to it, while looking for sites to refute Benni. Thanks Benni!
Cheers, DH66
Phyllis Harmonic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 15, 2018
Dude, how do you eat without sticking the fork up your nose?

LOL- that's great- thanks for the laugh! \ (•◡•) /
Phyllis Harmonic
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2018
@benni Some high schools in the US teach Calculus. I have no doubt that those courses might teach some differential equations. After all a differential equation is an equation with a derivative. If one can take a derivative it's easy to imagine one can understand how to solve a basic differential equation.

My high school taught calc - it was available to accelerated 11th graders and any 12th grader that previously passed advanced algebra and analytical geometry. We did dynamics and differentiation in the calc class.

Not sure why Bunnie Mathless is so hung up on diffs- he's like the kid on the playground trying to prove how smart he is by spelling "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis."
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
@Lenni_The_Liar_And_Plagiarist has a nasty habit of misconstruing what people say deliberately and then continuing to lie about it no matter what explanation is given. It's a trolling tactic. Take for example his constant harping on my "18th century math." He claimed black holes had never been imagined before the 20th century and I showed him the dark star article and mentioned Mitchell and LaPlace. Above I linked the Wikipedia article and that seems to have temporarily settled his hash.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Nov 15, 2018
As I have said, repeatedly.
90% of the rhetoric in these comments are a direct result of poor word choices when scientists are attempting to label their findings.

"Dark Matter Hurricane" is hyperbole.

A piss-poor attempt to gain clickbait headlines and public notice. For efforts that would usually gain no more popular expression of interest than loud snores!
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 15, 2018
@rrwillsj, you are making a false equivalency.

On this side: peer reviewed scientific papers.

On that side: nutjob conspiracy web sites.

Defend yourself. Please no one rate @rrwillsj's comment until some defense has been presented. I haven't.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2018
As I have said, repeatedly.
90% of the rhetoric in these comments are a direct result of poor word choices when scientists are attempting to label their findings.

"Dark Matter Hurricane" is hyperbole.



Yes, it is hyperbole. The press officer at the institutions involved want their stories covered. It always happens when there is a new, spectacular or unexpected discovery. The only people who would read these things otherwise are fellow scientists in the dry academic literature, where things are written purely with other scientists in mind, rather than Joe Public.
I've heard scientists themselves who get annoyed about this, but it is what it is.
The bottom line is to read the paper before commenting, where possible, rather than articles which are often misleading, as the POs are often not qualified in the relevant area.
Nobody references articles on phys.org in papers. Well, EUist Don Scott did, but he's a crank!
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2018
DS, thank you for asking people not to rate my comment. That entire system has been broken since the nineties, Becoming a useless twaddle of egotistical masturbation that fails to have any real meaning to the subjects at hand.

And jd, thank you for your explanation. Cause I'm too lazy a satirist to respond to DS challenge.

Your comment is more coherent and efficient a response than I would be capable of.
Kweden
not rated yet Nov 15, 2018
ur ...basis


Not at 0.3c....
Correction to your error...:

"300...per second
Since ...
...

https://....html


you miss the point. From suspected blackhole the speed is so much less because the gravity is pulling back on it--even stopping, and making light go backwards...also x-rays. [Observed]


No, what you miss is the fact that gravity has ZERO effect on the velocity of an electro-magnetic wave, there is no equation ...eory.


But there are OBSERVATIONS of the affect, and that is the point of the slowed down flare (which is many millions times larger and stronger than those of the sun). There are also observations of x-rays going backwards into the same super massive object.
Math DOES exist for it in string, membrane, and brane theories. [and even E=MCC, does if you raise the mass high enough with gravity as the E.
Kweden
not rated yet Nov 15, 2018
......well


......there .....

Electro-magnetic waves do not have an Escape Velocity ....


Actually... It's a "fantasy" of gravity governing mass, relative or otherwise...
EM has only 1 velocity - C. At C, photons (the carriers of EM) have relative mass. Ergo, affectible by gravity.


Absolutely untrue: gravity has mass, lots of gravity has lots of mass. Common accretion physics is that matter gets greater gravity the more is accreted, but super massive object is too small for any observable matter/energy to account for the mass--thus "dark" theories. EM has many velocities besides C, even light travels at different speeds according to elevation, humidity, refraction--it has been stopped and then continued on one photon at a time when trapped in super cooled trap. [The speed o light is definitely not constant, C is used because it increases accuracy and precision--and Einstein used it for the E of light: from E=MVV.]
Kweden
4 / 5 (1) Nov 15, 2018
@the person I can't find is this mess, who wanted to discuss the axioms

Yes, this article states, the hurricane (if caused by a dark matter stream) should emit axioms among the hurricane, and earth can't generate energy needed to conduct the experiment, so if observe for them (and axioms actually exist) then they should be observed.
And, as the article/paper/research shows, it would be MORE evidence for dark matter and that the hurricane is actually caused by a dark matter stream.
I wonder which way and where the stream is flowing; I wonder (if as someonelse claimed) it has happened before, whether it was at the time of increased warming; especially since the ghost galaxy is in our local and has been for some time. Could the streams, or its proximity be the source of temperature fluctuations here--this is a logical, reasonable suspicion (especially if that galaxy is warmer than ours).
btw--the physiscists do fight and argue and pose at each other exactly like these guys do.
rrwillsj
4.5 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2018
Mass does not exist without Gravity. Even an infinitesimal nass has a infinitesimal gravity. To claim EM is not effected by gravity? Is to deny the gravitational lens effect. Also denying the measurable effect of Dark Matter on the gross structure of galaxies.

And if you insist on uttering the tiresomely stupid shibboleth that we still lack the technology to "see" Dark Matter?

I want you to point out to me where you "see" gravity. And for all the electric woomongers infesting this site? Point to where you "see" electricity coursing through a wire.

"Gravity Rules! All the rest is god drool."

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.