New evidence reveals how heavy elements were created after the Big Bang

November 27, 2018, University of Western Australia
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The Big Bang theory and the question of how life on Earth began has fascinated scientists for decades, but now new research from The University of Western Australia suggests the conditions that resulted from the Big Bang are different to what we thought.

The Big Bang theory, developed in 1927 is considered the most credible scientific explanation of how the universe was created. It suggests that through a process of expansion and explosion hydrogen gas was created which led to the formation of stars, and their death (supernova) led to the creation of life.

Researchers Professor Snezhana Abarzhi and Ms Annie Naveh from UWA's School of Mathematical Sciences conducted a mathematical analysis of the conditions that were created from a supernova.

Professor Abarzhi said although the supernova explosion was violent it wasn't as turbulent and quick as previously thought.

"It is traditionally considered that turbulence was the mechanism for and accumulation which resulted in chemicals being formed in the supernova," Professor Abarzhi said.

"However our research has revealed it wasn't turbulent but actually a slow process where hot spots of energy were localised and trapped, resulting in the formation of, for example iron, gold and silver from atoms produced by the Big Bang.

"The findings are important because they challenge our understanding of the Big Bang theory and how life formed."

Professor Abarzhi said it was fascinating to see the complexity of how the universe might have been formed.

"Human beings essentially started as hydrogen atoms and energy, swirling around to create other chemicals and these interactions resulted in life," she said.

"The creation of on Earth will always fascinate and challenge us, leaving more questions than answers, but this latest research brings us one step closer to understanding how we came to exist."

Explore further: New theory suggests some black holes might predate the Big Bang

More information: Snezhana I. Abarzhi et al. Supernova, nuclear synthesis, fluid instabilities, and interfacial mixing, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2018). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1714502115

Related Stories

The universe has a lithium problem

February 20, 2017

Over the past decades, scientists have wrestled with a problem involving the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory suggests that there should be three times as much lithium as we can observe. Why is there such a discrepancy ...

Big Bang theory saved

October 26, 2006

An apparent discrepancy in the Big Bang theory of the universe's evolution has been reconciled by astrophysicists examining the movement of gases in stars.

Recommended for you

NASA's Voyager 2 probe enters interstellar space

December 10, 2018

For the second time in history, a human-made object has reached the space between the stars. NASA's Voyager 2 probe now has exited the heliosphere – the protective bubble of particles and magnetic fields created by the ...

Team finds evidence for carbon-rich surface on Ceres

December 10, 2018

A team led by Southwest Research Institute has concluded that the surface of dwarf planet Ceres is rich in organic matter. Data from NASA's Dawn spacecraft indicate that Ceres's surface may contain several times the concentration ...

252 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Anonym518498
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 27, 2018
these folk live in fantasy land
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 27, 2018
This is not a good look for the astrophysics community after the findings from GW 20170817.
Old_C_Code
2.1 / 5 (17) Nov 27, 2018
The evidence suggests the universe is infinite in size and age. What evidence is there of a big bang again? The bible?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (19) Nov 27, 2018
Let's start with the CMBR, @Old_Fart.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (18) Nov 27, 2018
@old c
What evidence is there of a big bang again? The bible?
CMBR

guptm
1.8 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2018
"The creation of life on Earth will always fascinate and challenge us, leaving more questions than answers,..."

Is this lady even close to being a scientist?
guptm
1.7 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2018
"Evidence of creation"? What has happened to these astrophysicists?

create, creation, creator...These words are forbidden in science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 27, 2018
"Evidence of creation"? What has happened to these astrophysicists?

create, creation, creator...These words are forbidden in science.
says guptm

Wrong. There are no words forbidden in science - least of all in the lexicons of real scientists/researchers who are doing the actual studies. It is your own bias against those concepts that would prevent you from accepting scientific research if it doesn't meet your demands and preconceived notions/standards.
guptm
1.4 / 5 (13) Nov 27, 2018
Big bang never happened (in fact cannot happen) because infinite things have no start and no end. It's merely an incorrect inference from the observed data.
guptm
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 27, 2018
To: Professor Snezhana Abarzhi and Ms Annie Naveh

"No one created elements, and no one created life." Please correct yourself before giving public statements. If you have really given such statements, then you don't deserve an article in PNAS.

In the PDF you don't talk about creation, but why on Phys.org?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@guptm, the quotes you are presenting as if they were made by the scientists don't appear in the open paper (note that the DOI link is open, anyone can read it) or in the article above. Either you are lying or you have some other source. I will initially assume you are not lying and see if you give a reliable source. If you do not present one I will immediately assume you are lying and put you on ignore; I have no patience with liars.
Old_C_Code
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
CMBR


Is just the electric "sound" of the universe. No evidence it was created by a big bang.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
Is just the electric "sound" of the universe.
Where does the energy for this "sound of the universe" come from?

You've heard of the whole "conservation of energy" thingie, right? When you were getting your degree and stuff?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2018
From @ld_C_Code:
The evidence suggests the universe is infinite in size and age. What evidence is there of a big bang again? The bible?


Response from @Da Schneib.
Let's start with the CMBR, @Old_Fart.


Guys, in the interests of your discussion, I would point out that mainstream astro/cosmo observations in the Radio-to Far-Infra-Red frequencies have been observing a multitude of PRESENTLY ONGOING processes/features emitting MICROWAVES (microwave frequencies fall within Radio->FIR range of frequencies). These MICROWAVES are from present/ongoing sources/processes in every direction we look now (near and far).

I have previously pointed out (to RNP, EMP-9 etc) many such 'ubiquitous' present/ongoing sources of CMB radiation.

So, it appears that past assumptions/claims/conclusions based on 'interpretation' that COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND can only be from (alleged) Big Bang, is no longer 'the only' explanation/source of CMB.

Enjoy your discussion. :)
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Big bang never happened (in fact cannot happen) because infinite things have no start and no end. It's merely an incorrect inference from the observed data.

The observed data indicates that the universe is not infinite, unless you're claiming that the stars didn't come into existence until "recently" (where "recently" is the last 14 billion years or so). If the stars had existed forever, then the entire universe would be glowing and there would be no night. (I stole this from Hawking's latest book, but it's an obvious consequence of an infinite universe.)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2018
From @guptm:
Big bang never happened (in fact cannot happen) because infinite things have no start and no end. It's merely an incorrect inference from the observed data.
Response from @zz5555:
The observed data indicates that the universe is not infinite, unless you're claiming that the stars didn't come into existence until "recently" (where "recently" is the last 14 billion years or so). If the stars had existed forever, then the entire universe would be glowing and there would be no night.


In the interests of your discussion, I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'; so even in an 'infinite' universal epoch there would always be a degree of 'light' unavailable, and so resulting in universe's present 'look'. Moreover, ubiquitous plasma, dust, attenuates 'brightness' level as seen. And the universe is still 'bright enough' when ALL E-M radiation frequencies are considered.

Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2018
Here comes @102LiarRC bumbling and stumbling up again to lie again.

When we look in dark spots, we see CMBR. That was the whole point of launching Planck and WMAP. There *isn't anything visible there* except CMBR.

You are now 103LiarRC. Thanks for lying in another thread.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2018
I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'
Ummmmwut? You're claiming matter and energy change into one another without any cause at all?

Tell us, how does that work? Because we just don't see it here on Earth. You know, in the real world and stuff.

Is this another one of your "theories" (AKA weird wild and woolly conjectures from nothing anyone has ever observed)?
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Here comes @102LiarRC bumbling and stumbling up again to lie again.

When we look in dark spots, we see CMBR. That was the whole point of launching Planck and WMAP. There *isn't anything visible there* except CMBR.

You are now 103LiarRC. Thanks for lying in another thread.
And there goes the self-admitted troll who is incapable of reading and understanding properly in context before jumping in and making up his own 'strawman version' to attack/insult...as usual.
I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'
Ummmmwut? You're claiming matter and energy change into one another without any cause at all?
No, I am NOT "claiming" the 'strawman nonsense' that your trolling agenda needs to concoct ...as usual.

DS, there is definitely something seriously amiss with your ego-ethics 'balance'. Your demonstrable trolling and malice is not a good look. Make haste to correct it. :)
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2018
Then what are you claiming? Because to me it looks like you're claIming
I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'
So if you're not saying matter and energy are constantly changing into one another, what does "flux" mean?

You know, just askin', since you said it and stuff.

If you don't have an answer I'll note that you seem to be using this word "flux" without knowing what it means or even particularly having a meaning in mind for it.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2018
Maybe you saw something that "looked sciency" somewhere and it said "flux" in it.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
Heh, it's reading the Wikipedia article and realized it's invoked calculus, and not the easy stuff; you gotta do scary surface integrals here. And frightening vectors.

This is going to be amusing, watching someone who doesn't know what the limits of a function are, trying to do integral calculus and vector calculations.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
create, creation, creator...These words are forbidden in science.

Since when? Just because some use such words in their private fan fiction doesn't mean science has to automatically stop using them. That'd be ludicrous.

what does "flux" mean?

Yah...it's funny how the science illiterate will just pick some fancy sounding word (probably from watching "Back to the Future" in this case) and think that makes them sound smart.
They can't even fathom that there are people out there who actually know what these words mean.
arcmetal
2 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2018
@old c
What evidence is there of a big bang again? The bible?
CMBR


The CMBR is a calculation, a computer generated plot, it is not an image of anything. ... I like this comment I just found about this topic:

"I hypothesize that the microwave map of Hubble Deep Field South would show spots of microwave radiation in exactly the same places as the millions of galaxies seen in the Hubble Deep Field South image itself – and essentially no, or very little, microwave radiation where there are no galaxies.

If this indeed occurs, the whole concept of a microwave "background" will evaporate overnight."

-- David, 2014
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
CMBR is a terrible example of the big bang. There's nothing in that noise that indicates a huge big bang. Amazing how the "geniuses" attacked my question of evidence and gave me an acronym which has nothing to do with anything related to the big bang. Dopes.
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
Richard Feynman couldn't explain what "Flux" was, except that it was part of the E&M that bonds all things... genius.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
CMBR


Is just the electric "sound" of the universe. No evidence it was created by a big bang.


Lol. Stop making stuff up, and link us to the study that shows this.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
Lol. Stop making stuff up, and link us to the study that shows this.

It's electric noise. What study should I point you to? One about electrical noise generated by a massive (universe sized) amount of RFI? It's common sense, unless you're a mechanical astrophysicist. :/

And if it's an EU claim, a broken clock is right twice a day. I'll look and get back to you.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
It's common sense, unless you're a mechanical astrophysicist. :/


No, it isn't. That is why nobody has ever proposed it, and you have been forced to make it up, based on no science whatsoever.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
There is no signature of electronic radiation in the universe? You guys are truly EE rocks.
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
No, it isn't. That is why nobody has ever proposed it,


All the radiation emanating from all the various sources in the universe don't leave a trace? lol. You really are an EE rock.

The science is BASIC Electrical Engineering and radio frequency interference, RFI.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
No, it isn't. That is why nobody has ever proposed it,


All the radiation emanating from all the various sources in the universe don't leave a trace? lol. You really are an EE rock.

The science is BASIC Electrical Engineering and radio frequency interference, RFI.


Quit with the word salad, and show us how 'electrical sources' (lol) mimic the CMBR. Simple question. Just link to the model. If it doesn't exist, then just admit that you made it up.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
No, it isn't. That is why nobody has ever proposed it,


All the radiation emanating from all the various sources in the universe don't leave a trace? lol. You really are an EE rock.

The science is BASIC Electrical Engineering and radio frequency interference, RFI.


Really? So show us where it is written up. DaSchneib is an EE, I believe. Perhaps you should check your misunderstandings with him, before further making a fool of yourself.
Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
I don't think it's written up, only a mention of Earth's ocean's noise from an invalid source.

My questioning is basic common sense, not at all foolish, from someone who's not a dope, and no paper to sooth you.

So where is the signature of all the electric noise in the universe, if not the background humm of the universe?

Jones, If CMBR is not the electric "sound" of the universe, then where is the "sound" of the universe?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
I don't think it's written up, only a mention of Earth's ocean's noise from an invalid source.

My questioning is basic common sense, not at all foolish, from someone who's not a dope, and no paper to sooth you.

So where is the signature of all the electric noise in the universe, if not the background humm of the universe?

Jones, If CMBR is not the electric "sound" of the universe, then where is the "sound" of the universe?


I have no idea what you are talking about. What electrical noise? From what, where, when? And the oceans thing was the loon Robitaille, I believe.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
Here is a decent tutorial on what the CMB is, and its history, by Ned Wright;

http://www.astro....CMB.html
Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
I have no idea what you are talking about. What electrical noise? From what, where, when?


LOL, electrical noise! are you serious? What do you think the CMBR is? Gravity? lol

I'll check out your link, but I bet there's nothing there that confirms any of it is from a big bang.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 28, 2018
I have no idea what you are talking about. What electrical noise? From what, where, when?


LOL, electrical noise! are you serious? What do you think the CMBR is? Gravity? lol



Whut??!!! You still have not defined what 'electrical noise' is. What is it coming from? Where? When? Just answer the question.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2018
I'll check out your link, but I bet there's nothing there that confirms any of it is from a big bang.


No, why would we believe this guy;

http://www.astro....tro.html

when we have an unqualified anonymous poster on a comments section to tell us that it is 'electrical noise', whatever the hell that is?

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy

http://www.astro....-DT.html
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
The noise is the summation of all the electrical radiation, you really are an EE dope aren't you?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 28, 2018
The noise is the summation of all the electrical radiation, you really are an EE dope aren't you?


What f***ing electrical radiation? From what? Jesus christ, just explain what you mean. This is absolutely nothing to do with EE. It is an irrelevance. Now spell it out. What noise? From what process? At what wavelengths?: You don't have anything, do you? Just the usual EU 'it's electric' crap.
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
God damn man, radiation from all the CME's, and supernova's for starters. In all galaxies everywhere. Not EU you dumbazz. This is simple EE, you are an EE rock.
Calling basic EE EU...lol, what a chithead. E&M in various frequencies emanating from every pucking place you nit wit.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
God damn man, radiation from all the CME's, and supernova's for starters. In all galaxies everywhere. Not EU you dumbazz. This is simple EE, you are an EE rock.
Calling basic EE EU...lol, what a chithead. E&M in various frequencies emanating from every pucking place you nit wit.


EE is nothing to do with astrophysics. Zilch. And you seriously think all those sky maps haven't accounted for foreground noise? Do me a favour. You haven't got a bloody clue.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
Tell you what OCC; why don't you go post your ill-thought out woo on a physics forum? Too chicken, I'm guessing. I would seriously advise you to actually get off your lazy arse and research what the CMB maps are, how they're compiled, and what extractions are made, before making a tit of yourself somewhere more serious than here.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
What f***ing electrical radiation? From what?


This is why you're probably working as a parking attendant. lol, Serioulsy no Jones, I've got real work to do, real accomplishments to achieve, I'm just using common sense. But you don't even know stars and galaxies create massive amounts of electrical energy at many frequencies, seen in the CMBR.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
What f***ing electrical radiation? From what?


This is why you're probably working as a parking attendant. lol, Serioulsy no Jones, I've got real work to do, real accomplishments to achieve, I'm just using common sense. But you don't even know stars and galaxies create massive amounts of electrical energy at many frequencies, seen in the CMBR.


Nope, you are totally clueless about astrophysics, and have just been making sh!t up. Pathetic. Go learn some science, instead of posting inane, scientifically illiterate crap on here.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Nope, you are totally clueless about astrophysics, and have just been making sh!t up. Pathetic. Go learn some science


You are totally clueless about EE science. E&M radiation emanating from all places is not make believe you dope. You can't make a sensible debate, just claim "no science" like you do anyone you disagree with. As if you don't even know the CMBR is an electrical signal.
FredJose
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2018
the question of how life on Earth began has fascinated scientists for decades

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."
Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, "we don't really know how life originated on this planet".
A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
How did natural processes overcome the chirality problem with no intelligence involved?
How did the code in DNA get coded and decoded without intelligence?
How did the incredible amount of information get into that DNA?
Abiogenesis? NOT.
jimmybobber
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@Old_C_Code You mean "electromagnetic radiation" in this context. Not "electrical energy" which is the flow of charge. And the CMBR is not electrical "noise". You are using Electrical Engineering terminology in the wrong context.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
Nope, you are totally clueless about astrophysics, and have just been making sh!t up. Pathetic. Go learn some science


You are totally clueless about EE science. E&M radiation emanating from all places is not make believe you dope. You can't make a sensible debate, just claim "no science" like you do anyone you disagree with. As if you don't even know the CMBR is an electrical signal.


So, tell us, oh thick one, what wavelengths do photons from E*M* interactions occur at? Because what you are seeing in those maps is EM at ~ 1 mm. Which equals a temperature of ~ 3 K. Over the whole sky. With variations of ~ 1 in 100 000. Please tell us, for the umpteenth time; what current EM process is causing that? Hmmm? In the real world, it is from the recombination era, mostly p + e = H, What is the wavelength emitted for that? Why are we now seeing it at ~ 1 mm, across the whole sky?
Take your time.
FredJose
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
New evidence reveals how heavy elements were created after the Big Bang

This is a rather interesting heading. The article goes on to describe a mathematical analysis of conditions in a supernova that could possibly explain how heavy elements arose and then follows sheer speculation as to how life could form naturalistically given those heavy elements.

But, here's the thing: NO EVIDENCE was provided for anything, only a further hypothesis for the formation of heavy elements during a supernova process.

No evidence for the creation of life was supplied here, yet rife speculation was offered with absolutely no scientific justification. In fact lots of the commentators here thought it was so nonsensical it was just plain daft .

Then people call it science, as long as it supports the big bang.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
You are totally clueless about EE science

I just told you; EE is irrelevant to astrophysics.
theredpill
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@OldCcode - Conversing with Jones is the equivalent of standing at a fence while on the other side of it a rabid dog barks and snarls at you. He is literally clueless as to the entire branch of physics which governs most observable phenomenon, hence his rabid hatred of it and why he calls anything to do with EM "woo". In this section you have presented logical remarks and even though dealing with an abusive idiot have kept it civil. Well done.

Moderators, why is this useless tool still here aside from the entertainment value for people who like watching a daily train wreck unfold?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
In this section you have presented logical remarks


No he hasn't. He is talking sh!t, and cannot explain the observations, nor provide a mechanism for the all-sky microwave emission. He has been given every chance to do so, but is incapable, due to not having a clue about astrophysics. He keeps blathering on about EE, which is about as relevant to astrophysics as neurology is.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Moderators, why is this useless tool still here aside from the entertainment value for people who like watching a daily train wreck unfold?


Sorry, sh!tforbrains? Show me where I have been wrong about anything that you have brought up, you uneducated tool.

Old_C_Code
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
What is the wavelength emitted for that? Why are we now seeing it at ~ 1 mm, across the whole sky?


You see all wavelengths across the whole sky. See the CMBR graph.

https://en.wikipe...Cmbr.svg

Cosmic rays go from 1khz to 10^20 hz

y p + e = H


And what does this have to do with a spectrometer's output? A photon is an electron at a frequency the human eye can detect, that's all a spectrometer cares about, it's an electron.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
What is the wavelength emitted for that? Why are we now seeing it at ~ 1 mm, across the whole sky?


You see all wavelengths across the whole sky. See the CMBR graph.

https://en.wikipe...Cmbr.svg

Cosmic rays go from 1khz to 10^20 hz


No, you can't even read a graph properly! Lol. And cosmic rays have sod all to do with the CMB.
That graph is a black-body curve, going from ~ 5mm to ~ 0.5 mm. That is microwave. It is very long wavelength.
See the label beneath the x-axis? 1/ cm? So it goes from 1/2 to 1/20 cm. Did you not learn this at school? Why do you think it is called the cosmic **microwave** background?
Deary me. No wonder you believe all that electric woo. What energy ids the photon emitted during p + e recombination? About 121 nm, from memory. How do you shift that to microwave frequencies? Because that is what we are seeing. Think redshift, and you might start getting a clue.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
And what does this have to do with a spectrometer's output? A photon is an electron at a frequency the human eye can detect, that's all a spectrometer cares about, it's an electron.


Whaaaaattt? A photon is an electron? Jesus H. Christ! You are dumber than I gave you credit for! Lol.

Old_C_Code
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2018
The link below the graph actually has the answer you should have given all a long Jones..

https://en.wikipe...Cmbr.svg

99.97% of the energy in the CMBR is from the big bang because 99.97% of it correlates exactly with theoretical blackbody math. So the effect of the current universe on the CMBR is only .03% of it... but it's there, you arrogant genius!!! hehe
Old_C_Code
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
Whaaaaattt? A photon is an electron? Jesus H. Christ!


As far as the spectrometer is concerned I noted. That's what was taught in EE 30 years ago, a photon is an electron visible by the human eye. This was always just an approximation of course. My point was the spectrometer measures photons like electrons.
And I'm an atheist, no desire to be Jesus.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
A photon is an electron at a frequency the human eye can detect...


Right. Ahuh. So, when did you last see an x-ray photon? Or a gamma-ray photon? Et cetera. Stop now, OCC, you are making a serious tit of yourself.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
99.97% of the energy in the CMBR is from the big bang because 99.97% of it correlates exactly with theoretical blackbody math. So the effect of the current universe on the CMBR is only .03% of it... but it's there, you arrogant genius!!! hehe


Errr, no, you halfwit. You are simply not understanding a single thing about it. If the current contribution is 0,03%, where is the rest of it coming from, you moron? As they say;

These precise CMB measurements show that 99.97% of the radiant energy of the Universe was released within the first year after the Big Bang itself. All theories that attempt to explain the origin of large scale structure seen in the Universe today must now conform to the constraints imposed by these measurements. The results show that the radiation matches the predictions of the hot Big Bang theory to an extraordinary degree.


jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
As far as the spectrometer is concerned I noted. That's what was taught in EE 30 years ago, a photon is an electron visible by the human eye.


Then whoever told you that was a f***ing moron. Wasn't Don Scott, was it? Photons have all sorts of energies, and therefore wavelengths. And a spectrometer can detect those wavelengths, including the ones we can't see. Depending on the instrument. If you want to do IR spectroscopy, you build one capable of detecting those wavelengths. Etc. Photons are not electrons, nor anything like them. Electrons have mass, for a start. Dear me.

Old_C_Code
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Azzhole, everything about stars living and dying emits radiation, now and then. Then, happens to be 99.97% of the total effect, I'm outta here, 134 IQ'a are morons now.
theredpill
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
"Sorry, sh!tforbrains? Show me where I have been wrong about anything that you have brought up, you uneducated tool."

Sorry hobo, nobody has that kind of time.You are a complete moron.

Everything you think is real is a result theoretical math, you cannot be proven correct or wrong about anything you believe because the theories you support have yet to be verified. But off the top of my head, you demonstrated your understanding of what a magnetosphere is by denying it was magnetic field and couldn't fathom that an increase in photon production meant that an object was getting brighter (because you couldn't wrap your head around the spectra including more photon wavelengths than visible light).

Basically, you only understand math...and not well enough to know when it's wrong. Have nice day idiot.

Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@ Old-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing just fine, thanks for asking.

a photon is an electron visible by the human eye


That is a really good theory Cher. I like it a lot. So when they was teaching you that in the EE school did they teach you how to cypher out the E = m c squared thing? I am not a scientist-Skippy like you seem not to be either, but I keep coming up with a really crazy number for the E when I try to work him out. I keep having trouble getting the m to move as fast as the c squared and don't know how to fix him.

If something like that was visible to my eyeball my whole eyeball and head would explode like the most hugest atomic bomb ever made (even if the Skippy in EE school made him 30 years ago.)
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
"Sorry, sh!tforbrains? Show me where I have been wrong about anything that you have brought up, you uneducated tool."

Sorry hobo, nobody has that kind of time.You are a complete moron.

Everything you think is real is a result theoretical math, you cannot be proven correct or wrong about anything you believe because the theories you support have yet to be verified. But off the top of my head, you demonstrated your understanding of what a magnetosphere is by denying it was magnetic field and couldn't fathom that an increase in photon production meant that an object was getting brighter (because you couldn't wrap your head around the spectra including more photon wavelengths than visible light).

Basically, you only understand math...and not well enough to know when it's wrong. Have nice day idiot.



So, a false claim then. Actually, you're just butt-hurt because you cannot explain galaxy rotation curves with magnetic woo, and I showed you why.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
Azzhole, everything about stars living and dying emits radiation, now and then. Then, happens to be 99.97% of the total effect, I'm outta here, 134 IQ'a are morons now.


Wrong. Not across those wavelengths, across the whole sky. Idiot. And I got 157 on Cattell B.:)
guptm
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2018
@guptm, the quotes you are presenting as if they were made by the scientists don't appear in

@DS

Lines in quote are mine. After that, indent is missing. I am referring to all the quotes mentioned in the article by Snezhana Abarzhi and Ms Annie Naveh.

I read the PNAS paper, there is not a single mention of 'creation, were created, creation of life,...'. You check it too, please.

I guess it is the fault of Phys.org writer who chose such a humiliating language to explain real physics to people in their own poor childish terminology. I am not sure what a non-scientific person would take away from this article.

I truly expect from Phys.org to keep the language as scientific and simple as possible. I have reported the issues in this article to the Editor of Phys.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
I truly expect from Phys.org to keep the language as scientific and simple as possible. I have reported the issues in this article to the Editor of Phys.


Phys. org don't write these things. This one is from the U of Western Australia.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2018
Duplicate.

granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2018
In This Sceptered Isle

In This Universe
that is theorised to expand
expand in the infinite vacuous vacuum
that is occupied by the proton and its scrumptious electron
from these two particles occupying the vacuum
in their multitudes create the universe
that from the proton and its scrumptious electron
their marriage we are created in their image
because we surely are
as every bone in our body
is constructed and held together
by the proton and its scrumptious electron
so as this universe of galactic galaxies we inhabit
expanding in this infinite vacuous vacuum
gravity in its infinite force
takes an infinitely long distance
to bring this expanding universe to a halt
so that once again gravity will accelerate this universe to its next fate
gravity will collapse this universe to its almighty big crunch
to expand its universe once again
so we can again ask the question
Were heavy elements created after the Big Bang
guptm
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@gran
Brevity is the soul of wit.
granville583762
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2018
Our Universe expands once again

Which gravity has brought for the umpteenth time to a halt
for the expansion to continue its eternal cycle
as when this universes galaxies collapsed
and its stars came into contact
with neighbouring stars
as stars explode in supernova explosions
in their trillions
as the galaxies collectively explode
and scatter their elements
into the vacuous vacuum
expanding outwards at the speed of light
this is the reality of the expanding universe
the big crunch is a descriptive
to describe a complicated series of events
as the big crunch is not literally an impossibly small identity
but the radius that stars in contact make
as their galaxies come together in contact
gravity has halted its universe
the big crunch is measured in billions of Lys
so as these trillions of stars go supernova
they spread their heavy elements into the vacuous vacuum
as now at a universe of only billions of Lyrs
in supernova it expands in heavy elements
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@guptm, fair enough, but as @Jones points out it's probably not going to help because the author of the piece doesn't work here and the staff here can't edit it.
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
And if it's an EU claim, a broken clock is right twice a day. I'll look and get back to you.

@OCC:
Not even this statement is true. A stopped clock is correct twice a day, but is a clock which is slowing 1 sec/min (i.e. broken) correct twice a day?
It is nit-picking on my part, yes. But this is an example of how your general statements can be proven false relatively easily. Also, the statement of photons being electrons the eye can see is pretty funny.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
I have no idea how anyone completed an EE degree without learning that electrons are not photons. Electrons are charged; photons are not. Electrons have mass; photons do not. Electrons must always move at less than the speed of light; photons must always move at the speed of light. I cannot imagine an EE teacher saying such a thing to a student, going all the way back to where there wasn't Electronics Engineering, it was called Electrical Engineering because transistors hadn't been invented yet.

As for the CMBR, it's not just undifferentiated radiation; it has a very sharp peak at 160.4 GHz, corresponding to a wavelength of 1.9 mm. These are simple calculations for anyone who has an EE background. You can easily see this in the graph you yourself posted (if you still remember how to do algebra (snicker)- or actually had an EE education). Sorry if you are having trouble with wavenumber. Convert to m^-1 and multiply by c.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@Jones, many things in an EE education can help in understanding astrophysics; it is, after all, the same physics. But you do have to have actually been awake in class when you were taught it, and many EEs seem to have been more interested in transistor theory and digital logic rather than in math and the underlying physics. I was lucky; I had been a physics buff for 15 years before I completed my EE, so I was alert and paying attention in the physics classes. The physics and math were A classes for me, and I got the transistor theory and digital logic too.

By the time they get into their 40s and 50s, most EEs have half forgotten the physics and math because they never use it. And what they remember of it is often broken fragments. I have encountered many EEs with flawless understanding of transistor theory and digital logic who can't remember the Maxwell equations. This probably is the cause of the weird astrophysics of many EEs.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
So, here we have a sharp peak at 160.4 GHz, according to @Old_Fart, coming from nowhere. What radiates at 160.4 GHz, so strongly that it forms a precise Wien's Law blackbody peak? That's the question I asked @Old_Fart above, put in more precise terms. Ever heard of conservation of energy, @Old_Fart? If not you're no EE.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
So if you're not saying matter and energy are constantly changing into one another, what does "flux" mean?
What it "looks like" to YOU is a figment of your own too frequently demonstrated tendency to misconstrue others posts into your own strawman version to spuriously and vexatiously attack, troll and insult, DS.

I never said/implied anything remotely like what you tried to sneakily imply in your strawman:
You're claiming matter and energy change into one another without any cause at all?
THAT is what I was NOT claiming, DS. I pointed out that unceasing change (ie, constantly IN FLUX) interchanging/transformational processes involves energy-matter conversions (as in E=mc2) all the time; which 'ties up' a certain proportion of the universal energy into 'intermediate' matter-energy processes/products which effectively reduce the availability of free-energy/free photon radiation not only in visible light range but in all wavelengths...as I said. :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@691, were you a nuke?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
You are now @104LiarRC.

"Flux" has a very specific meaning in physics. You appear not to know what it is. That means you were trying to use a "buzzword" to prove how smart you are and tripped over the actual definition of flux. Furthermore, your statement that
I pointed out that unceasing change (ie, constantly IN FLUX) interchanging/transformational processes involves energy-matter conversions (as in E=mc2) all the time
is another lie.

There are very specific instances in which matter can transform into energy, and energy into matter transformations are even more restricted. You appear from your statements to think there are no such restrictions, and this is unphysical.

You're just digging yourself in deeper, trolling and lying whenever your wild ideas run up against real physics which falsifies them. And accusing others of being alcoholics or other even more scurrilous smears in order to avoid discussing your very obvious scientific and mathematical errors.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Oh, and @104LiarRC, it's not a strawman. It's basic physics. That's two lies in one post.

Stop lying @104LiarRC. You got away with this for a long time; that's why I had to go dig up your lies and make a list of them. Now you get it in real time, lie by lie. Two so far in this thread (maybe three but I'm being charitable). We're up to 18 lies in this thread: https://phys.org/...ole.html Just in case the documented threads in which you lied were one lie per thread.

I am watching you and will respond when you lie, troll, insult, and deflect every time. I suggest you give up trolling. It doesn't seem to be working out well for you.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.

Are you ever going to start reading and understanding properly in context, mate? :) Here, try again to read what I actually wrote, in context:
...transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'...
See where I wrote 'flux' in INVERTED COMMAS? Why do you think I did that, DS?....because I wanted t make clear that I was using 'flux' IN MY CONTEXT; and NOT as YOU would likely read it in YOUR 'strawmanned context'; which you OBVIOUSLY DID DO anyway DESPITE inverted commas and immediately preceding context provided!

See? Your whole history here, DS, is replete with such instances; where YOU misconstrue due to your lack of attention to actual usage and context. And hence your interminable trolling and insults BASED ON YOUR OWN STRAWMEN 'versions' of what was actually said/meant IN CONTEX.

How many years have you been doing that, DS? I have been patient and forgiving for far too long, DS; wake up to yourself, you twerp. Sober up OR fix your character. :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@104LiarRC claims "context" again.

Tell us how the electrons and protons are emitted by electric lights and TV sets.

And how "flux" explains there is no CMBR.

"Flux" is a physics term you do not understand and your own statements have demonstrated that. You must have had indigestion when you found out you had to do surface integrals in order to describe it.

And you're still telling the "alcoholic" lie. Over and over, like anyone's going to believe it after you screwed up again.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@691 I won't criticize you for not answering. My query was probably out of line.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2018
That is a badly worded press release. Besides the confusions between old big bang and modern inflation cosmology, hot big bang and supernova nucleosynthesis more specifically: how supernova explodes and not form black holes at times, is an open question.

The evidence suggests the universe is infinite in size and age. What evidence is there of a big bang again? The bible?


First, like a later comment you confuse the nucleosynthesis science of the observable universe - which is likely finite in volume and decidedly finite in age (14 Gyrs) - with physics of the inflationary universe (that is now consensus) and is likely infinite in size and age (but that is still open re consensus).

Evidence for the hot big bang is the nucleosynthesis - as the article discuss - and the CMBR - which a later comment of your's show a reference discussing it. Your later comments imply you are not really asking, and you are definitely not understanding modern cosmology. Try a MOOC on it.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC claims "context" again.

Tell us how the electrons and protons are emitted by electric lights and TV sets.
What are you babbling about now, DS? Make your point-----if you can find one that is NOT a strawman, that is-----instead of issuing random/vacuous 'challenges' that you have not made clear how they apply in the context of what I was talking about.

And how "flux" explains there is no CMBR.
Who the Fu*k said there was "no CMBR", you twerp? :)

That's is YOUR STUPID STRAWMAN, DS.

Are you really so drunk/stupid/dishonorable (take your pick, DS) that you would even attempt that OBVIOUS LIE, DS? Apparently so.
"Flux" is a physics term you do not understand and your own statements have demonstrated that. You must have had indigestion when you found out you had to do surface integrals in order to describe it.
You didn't read where I put 'flux' IN INVERTED COMMAS; nor did you read it in immediately provided context, you twerp, DS. :)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2018
Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."

Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, "we don't really know how life originated on this planet".


I allow this question even though the subject does not touch it, just the awful article on open physics. You want to make this a question about irrelevant religion, which is not science but has a scam ideological core - we have observational evidence from this year that there are no gods and from last year that there are no souls/eternal life, in both cases you need to replace the last century of physics to change the results.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.9 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
[ctd] Davies is not a biologist (evolution is the basic process in life) but a physicist with astrobiology interests and he looks to me to be a deist - due to his speculation in many emergencies despite the overwhelming evidemce of just one for extant life - i.e. an ideological creationist like you.

Andrew Knoll however is a paleontologist and biogeochemist, which has famously proposed fossils there later research showed were are none. There are two fundamental schools of astrobiology, one chemist and one biologist. The former claim it is an open question, the latter now seem to think it is closed: life split from a geological "sister" of alkaline hydrothermal vents. In any case the latter is evidenced by evolution "all the way" [ https://www.natur...l2016116 ].

So we do currently know, at least as far as evolution goes.

While creationists have not nothing but overwhelming evidence that they are subject to a scam.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
Noted @104LiarRC returns to the alcoholic insult.

And still can't describe or explain flux.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
From @Old_C_Code to @jonesdave:
... radiation from all the CME's, and supernova's for starters. In all galaxies everywhere.


Response from @jonesdave to @ld_C_Cde:
...And you seriously think all those sky maps haven't accounted for foreground noise?


In the interests of your discussion, I would point out that from here to the farthest observable space regions there are 'local' features/processes everywhere whose Microwave emissions are received HERE as CMB 'background'.

So removing OUR 'local' MW signals from observations merely hones in on the CMB signal from all those ongoing FARTHER 'local' sources of CMB we detect from ubiquitous/countless sources/processes producing the SAME CMB wavelengths range we DO see along any line-of-sight.

PS: Which obviously implies that, even in non-BigBang universe, we WOULD see exactly the CMB we ARE seeing now from here.

PPS: I previously pointed out the many ONGOING (non-BB) CMB sources/processes to @RNP etc. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@104LiarRC, you mean there's something out there in the dark spaces between galaxies?

Why can't we see it?

Third lie on this thread.

@104LiarRC now finds itself trapped where it will have every lie challenged, and where the number of threads on which it lies will be continuously tracked.

You want it, you got it, ohhh
You want it, you got it And now you know

When you wake in the morning,
When you find you're covered in cellophane
There's a hole in there somewhere
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC, you mean there's something out there in the dark spaces between galaxies?

Why can't we see it?

Third lie on this thread.
Stop trolling/strawmanning, DS. Make your point clearly in the context of what was actually said, not whatever your random misconstruction of it you always tend to come up with in your ego-jerking habit. Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@104LiarRC, I am trolling your lies with science.

And you still have no answers.

Limits? Surface integrals? Flux? Infinite zero? Mysterious energy from nowhere between galaxies?

Your problem is that every time you make some wild conjecture and it gets shot down with real science, you perceive it as a personal attack. Sounds like paranoid ideation to me.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@Forum.
@104LiarRC, I am trolling your lies with science.

And you still have no answers.

Limits? Surface integrals? Flux? Infinite zero? Mysterious energy from nowhere between galaxies?
And there you have it again, ladies and gentlemen, from the troll's own mouth. When politely asked to make his point in context instead of just trolling and strawmanning, DS merely replies that he is trolling based on what he, DS, the self-admitted troll, 'strawmanned' into what he lyingly calls "lies" by others. And to compound the tragedy, he then deludes himself that he has "shot down with real science" his own strawmen in the belief they are what was actually said by others! The insensibility and ego-nastiness of this DS troll is staggering. One would not have believed it possible it could get so bad, except there it is, demonstrated for years now in all its tragic personification in one particularly incorrigible internet troll calling itself "Da Schneib". Truly sad.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@104LiarRC all you need to do is explain flux, and your other comments on this and other threads.

The fact is you can't and you're making up lies to avoid it. Here is lie number four from this thread:
When politely asked
While being accused of alcoholism. Fact is, you wouldn't know a polite if it jumped up and bit you on the azz.

That's four lies on this thread. You're up to nineteen on the other thread. Perhaps I'll start counting your lies instead of the threads you lied on. The total will go up very fast then.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@104LiarRC has not yet figured out that I can go back to the 100 threads where it lied and come up with 10,000 lies. Quoted and refuted. And if sufficiently riled, I will.

Nor that descending to personal issues is a clear giveaway that this deflection means I am right in every instance.

Limits? Surface integrals? Flux? Infinite zero? Mysterious energy from nowhere between galaxies?
691Boat
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib,
I was a nuke. After that I got my BS and MS in applied physics, emphasis in optics and elctro-optic devices.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2018
@691Boat
I got my BS and MS in applied physics, emphasis in optics and elctro-optic devices.
know anything about "The latest developments in EDS hardware and software technology for the TEM"?

There is a webinar that is free if you're interested
learn about the effect of detector design on solid angle, and how these designs can be optimised to maximise solid angle for a number of different applications in the TE
http://view6.work...=3055277

Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@691, cool. That must have been memorable, by all accounts.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC all you need to do is explain flux,...
I did, the FIRST time; using 'flux' in inverted commas and immediate context for others to 'read' its intended meaning in that context.
When politely asked...to make his point
While being accused of alcoholism.[/qThat was in other posts, where the choice for explaining your self-admitted nastiness and trolling was EITHER you were (1) 'drunk posting' OR (2) 'intentionally and soberly exhibiting your true self'. Are you saying it really was (2) and not (1), DS?
@104LiarRC has not yet figured out that I can go back to the 100 threads where it lied and come up with 10,000 lies.
The intelligent readers are already fully apprised of your FALSE claims re "lies" etc. They have only to recall your insensible trolling/lying/insulting in the following thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Your insults and "lies" accusations etc were PROVEN WRONG therein, DS. Lear]
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Here comes

When we look in dark spots, we see CMBR. That was the whole point of launching Planck and WMAP. There *isn't anything visible there* except CMBR.
And there goes the self-admitted troll who is incapable of reading and understanding properly in context before jumping in and making up his own 'strawman version' to attack/insult...as usual.
I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'
Ummmmwut? You're claiming matter and energy change into one another without any cause at all?
No, I am NOT "claiming" the 'strawman nonsense' that your trolling agenda needs to concoct ...as usual.

DS, there is definitely something seriously amiss with your ego-ethics 'balance'. Your demonstrable trolling and malice is not a good look. Make haste to correct it. :)
says RC

Flux
noun
1 the action or process of flowing or flowing out:
-contd-
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'
Doesn't say anything there about transformation or interchange. The only possible interpretation of transformation or interchange is that energy and matter are causelessly transforming into one another and interchanging.

This is ludicrous, ridiculous, and obviously wrong considering we don't die of radiation poisoning from sitting under electric lights.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
EDIT:
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC all you need to do is explain flux,.
I did, the FIRST time; using 'flux' in inverted commas and immediate context for others to 'read' its intended meaning in that context.
When politely asked...to make his point
While being accused of alcoholism.
That was in other posts, where the choice for explaining your self-admitted nastiness and trolling was EITHER you were (1) 'drunk posting' OR (2) 'intentionally and soberly exhibiting your true self'. Are you saying it really was (2) and not (1), DS?
@104LiarRC has not yet figured out that I can go back to the 100 threads where it lied and come up with 10,000 lies.
The intelligent readers are already fully apprised of your FALSE claims re "lies" etc. They have only to recall your insensible trolling/lying/insulting in the following thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Your insults and "lies" accusations were ALSO PROVEN WRONG there, DS.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
That was in other posts
No, it was in the post I replied to. That's lie number five on this thread alone. So far in the last week you have lied over twenty-five times.

And gratis, here's the sixth lie on this thread:
Your insults and "lies" accusations were ALSO PROVEN WRONG there, DS.
No, they weren't. Do you really want to challenge me and have me go back through those 100 threads and extract all the lies you've told? Because you're pushing for it.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
I would point out that matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'
Doesn't say anything there about transformation or interchange. The only possible interpretation of transformation or interchange is that energy and matter are causelessly transforming into one another and interchanging.

This is ludicrous, ridiculous, and obviously wrong considering we don't die of radiation poisoning from sitting under electric lights.
. READ in context as the mentioned universal processes BEING IN FLUX. The other meaning of flux was never implied in that context. Understand now, DS?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
We're talking astrophysics here and in astrophysics flux has a very well defined meaning. So you're now claiming you lied when you used flux in your post. That's seven on this thread alone.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@D Schneib.
That was in other posts
No, it was in the post I replied to. That's lie number five on this thread alone. So far in the last week you have lied over twenty-five times.
My request was:
Stop trolling/strawmanning, DS. Make your point clearly in the context of what was actually said, not whatever your random misconstruction of it you always tend to come up with in your ego-jerking habit. Thanks. :)
No mention of your alcoholism there, DS. As for the 'preferred' choice of 'explanation' for your trolling and insulting (without any real basis, only your own misconstruings/strawmen), which 'explanation' would you prefer we apply: posting while drunk OR being an 'azzhole' on sober purpose? Anyway, were your many mentions over the years, alluding to this-or-that Whisky/Wine etc you were imbibing while posting, just more ego-tripping BS from you, DS? Stop digging, DS. :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Gonna talk about flux now? How about zero being infinity or whatever it was you were spouting?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
-contd-
@RC
Your quote: "...matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'" is essentially correct, except for claiming that it is "constantly" in a state of_____
Depending on the conditions, Matter/Energy transitions one into the either, such as in the Nuclear Fusion process in Stars where Matter transitions into Energy UNDER the RIGHT conditions and proceedings which are entirely natural.
While in the case of Matter into Energy as in Nuclear Fission, i.e. atomic and hydrogen bombs - those are most often under the control of scientists and/or military and is not a part of the natural forces per se, but instead is contrived.
A "constant state of flux" must indicate that there is no cessation of such changes, but it may accept 'something' into it from outside of itself.
Could you give an example or two of something that is in a 'constant state of flux'? Besides the weather, of course.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
We're talking astrophysics here and in astrophysics flux has a very well defined meaning. So you're now claiming you lied when you used flux in your post. That's seven on this thread alone.
The context of my comment was re the UNIVERSAL PROCESSES mentioned being IN FLUX as described, DS. You cannot just say "astrophysics" and then proceed to 'read everything' WITHOUT FURTHER CONTEXT which identifies the issues/aspects actually under discussion, DS.

And your desperate accusations of "lying" are worth less than nothing, DS. You have OVER-USED that tactic badly, as demonstrated in the thread:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Wherein you were PROVEN WRONG after your insensible trolls and baseless accusations of "lies", DS.

That you have never learned from that and the (too) many other instances when your "lies" accusations were PROVEN WRONG, tells the intelligent readers you are either drunk or incorrigible. Which, DS?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
-contd-
@RC
Incidentally, weather - winds - atmosphere - lightning, etc. are all good examples of Matter/Energy, as the molecules of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and trace elements are atomic in nature, and exude Energy as wind and lightning.

Uhhh possibly a Compulsive-Obsessive?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit.
-contd-
@RC
Your quote: "...matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux'" is essentially correct, except for claiming that it is "constantly" in a state of_____
The context I made my in flux comment in was that of INFINITE UNIVERSAL EPOCH during which the universal processes never cease 'overall' when talking of all the universal space/processes, irrespective of any one particular transient 'local' interaction/phenomenon being in any one particular STAGE of the IN FLUX change-trajectories I alluded to overall in the original context of my original comments. Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Gonna talk about flux now? How about zero being infinity or whatever it was you were spouting?
How about you actually make an actually contextually consistent point/comment instead of just throwing in random/spurious strawman/irrelevant 'challenges' and 'trivia' re things that I did not actually have a problem with in my relevant comments in original context, DS? Go on, break the habit of a (seeming) lifetime, DS...actually be polite, relevant and NOT TROLL anymore. That would be a good start.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2018
Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, "Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell."

Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, "we don't really know how life originated on this planet".


I allow this question even though the subject does not touch it, just the awful article on open physics. You want to make this a question about irrelevant religion, which is not science but has a scam ideological core - we have observational evidence from this year that there are no gods and from last year that there are no souls/eternal life, in both cases you need to replace the last century of physics to change the results.

[tbctd]
says tbgl

I am not aware that anyone has ever said that "science is religion, or religion is science". Perhaps you could provide the "observational evidence that there are no gods" and also any validated/substantial proofs that there are no souls/eternal life?
guptm
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2018
Perhaps you could provide the "observational evidence that there are no gods" and also any validated/substantial proofs that there are no souls/eternal life?


You are saying as if god and soul are everywhere. Provide reproducible/repeatable evidences of existence of each. Ball is in your court. No one has to give any proof of non-existence of anything.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
No mention of your alcoholism there, DS
Are you really so drunk
You lied again, @104LiarRC. That's eight on this thread so far.

The context of my comment was re the UNIVERSAL PROCESSES mentioned being IN FLUX as described, DS
Oh, so you don't understand what flux means. Noted.

You cannot just say "astrophysics" and then proceed to 'read everything' WITHOUT FURTHER CONTEXT which identifies the issues/aspects actually under discussion, DS.
And you cannot use technical physics terminology without understanding it without being challenged on it.

Wherein you were PROVEN WRONG
Yes, and admitted it, because I'm not arrogant like you.

actually be polite, relevant and NOT TROLL anymore. That would be a good start.
As soon as you stop trying to be the boss of everyone, I'll get right on it.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
And just as a reminder:

Thread where @100LiarRC claims math is philosophy: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC lies about the possibility of the Sun having an electric charge: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that galaxy dynamics can be explained without dark matter, and claims "the latest research: shows it: https://phys.org/...ole.html
When pressed to provide this research of course it can't.
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that dark matter should visibly influence Solar System dynamics: https://phys.org/...ong.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims again to have been "right all along:" https://phys.org/...ies.html

Isn't this fun? :D
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
And moving right along,

Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet again that there's no need for DM due to "discoveries over the last few years:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @100LiarRC defends @Zeph, who has been kicked off physorg more times than anyone: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims magnetic fields can create plasmas: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims LISA GW detections are "noise" despite the fact they are thousands of miles apart and the ringdown sequence is predicted by GRT: https://phys.org/...ime.html
Thread where @100LiarRC denies DM exerts gravity despite that being its signature: https://phys.org/...ack.html

Note that the troll could not figure out how flux actually works nor do the needed math so now it's in full-on troll mode.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Now, to dig right down into the gory details, your claim that flux (which you have admitted you don't understand) was causing matter and energy to transform into one another, or "interchange" as you put it. Flux has nothing to do with this; there are very specific circumstances under which matter can turn into energy, and even more restrictive ones on which the reverse can happen, and instead of showing that any of these circumstances apply you invoked flux, which again, you do not understand.

@104LiarRC, you are exposed. You make up wild conjectures and when you are challenged on them with scientific facts you lie and troll. You use terminology you don't understand the meaning of and when challenged on that you also lie and troll. You have lied on 104 threads, and on the ones now being watched by the forum you've so far lied 27 times over the last week.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Worth noting that @SEU doesn't seem to understand flux any better than @104LiarRC.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
Perhaps you could provide the "observational evidence that there are no gods" and also any validated/substantial proofs that there are no souls/eternal life?


You are saying as if god and soul are everywhere. Provide reproducible/repeatable evidences of existence of each. Ball is in your court. No one has to give any proof of non-existence of anything.
says guptm

Nope. The "ball" is in tbgLarsson's court since I made those inquiries of HIM - not you.
You did not read my comment if you thought that I'd said (as if) that a god and soul are everywhere. Here is tbgl's comment again:

I allow this question even though the subject does not touch it, just the awful article on open physics. You want to make this a question about irrelevant religion, which is not science but has a scam ideological core - we have observational evidence from this year that there are no gods and from last year that there are no souls/eternal life, in both cases you......
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
-contd-
tbgl said "we have OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE FROM THIS YEAR that there are no gods - and FROM LAST YEAR that there are no SOULs/ETERNAL LIFE.

You do understand what "observational evidence" implies, don't you??l
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2018
@torbjorn, I am leaving this @SEU azzhat to your mercy. I'm willing to pitch in but don't want to steal your thunder. Don't misinterpret that as disdain; I'm standing aside for your sword.
arcmetal
2 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
...

... farthest observable space regions there are 'local' features/processes everywhere whose Microwave emissions are received HERE as CMB 'background'.

So removing OUR 'local' MW signals from observations merely hones in on the CMB signal from all those ongoing FARTHER 'local' sources of CMB we detect from ubiquitous/countless sources/processes producing the SAME CMB wavelengths range we DO see along any line-of-sight.

I had noticed a while back that this process of editing out the foreground provides a manufactured image of the cmbr. Even this recent lecture notes below suggests a bit of "cleaning" is required to get the cmbr:
http://www.cpt.un...doso.pdf

From the lecture:

"Getting rid of all (?) foregrounds: the noble art of component separation.
Or is it just CMB cleaning ?"

Has anyone ever actually seen the CMBR, or is it all just foreground noise?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@arc, I'd say pointing your high resolution microwave antenna at a blank spot where no one has seen anything and getting a blackbody peak at 160 MHz pretty much answers that question. Perhaps you claim to have seen more than the Hubble.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@arcmetal

https://www.space...und.html

The CMBR seems to be almost everywhere in the known Universe, discounting any presence within material bodies such as Earth. And why not - if it was a byproduct of the Big Bang, it could not have just disappeared as its atoms would remain in the cosmos - therefore, its remnants are still "out there".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@arcmetal
Thanks for the link to the pdf on the CMBR. Very much appreciated.
That is truly amazing. So that is how the WMAP was cleaned up so well. I suppose that this means that the CMBR is actually a dirty smudge and not the neat-looking remnant as we were all given to believe.
LOL
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@SEU claims to have seen more than the Hubble too. Did jebus tell you that? Because you didn't see it with anything on Earth or above it.

The idea is to look at spots where we can't see any galaxies.

Maybe you forgot, @SEU YEC lying for jebus.
arcmetal
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@arc, I'd say pointing your high resolution microwave antenna at a blank spot where no one has seen anything and getting a blackbody peak at 160 MHz pretty much answers that question. Perhaps you claim to have seen more than the Hubble.

Pointing the latest, most high resolution antenna to a dark spot in space will only be looking at more smudges of galaxies that further away than the ones seen by the previous model of the most high resolution camera. ... Are we getting what is happening here yet?
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
So you're claiming there are invisible galaxies everywhere and it doesn't matter if we can see them.

Snicker.

Yeah, got that.
arcmetal
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
@arcmetal
Thanks for the link to the pdf on the CMBR. Very much appreciated.
That is truly amazing. So that is how the WMAP was cleaned up so well. I suppose that this means that the CMBR is actually a dirty smudge and not the neat-looking remnant as we were all given to believe.
LOL

Correct. The lay person is only shown the final "cleaned" up image of cmbr, and told "this is the distant sound of the long ago universe". And never told of all the pre processing clean up. It would have been easier to just stick to the noise in between channels on an old tv set, they could have saved on tons of compute power.
arcmetal
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
So you're claiming there are invisible galaxies everywhere and it doesn't matter if we can see them.

Snicker.

Yeah, got that.

No, only you are claiming that.

Maybe try and learn about the limits of camera resolutions.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
So you're claiming there are invisible galaxies everywhere and it doesn't matter if we can see them.

Snicker.

Yeah, got that.

No, only you are claiming that.
Then show pictures of them. You claim it you prove it.
arcmetal
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
So you're claiming there are invisible galaxies everywhere and it doesn't matter if we can see them.

Snicker.

Yeah, got that.

No, only you are claiming that.
Then show pictures of them. You claim it you prove it.

I'm sorry, you aren't making sense. Pictures of what? Who is claiming what? What claim? Prove what?

The guidelines for this forum say not to feed the trolls, so I'm not interested in responding to nonsense.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
So the CMB comes from the invisible galaxies.

OK.

Either they're there or they aren't. It's you who makes no sense.

You said
Pointing the latest, most high resolution antenna to a dark spot in space will only be looking at more smudges of galaxies that further away than the ones seen by the previous model of the most high resolution camera
There aren't any "indistinct smudges." So either you're lying and don't care to be caught, or you're delusional, or you're another anti-science troll infesting this site. Given your response I'm going with troll.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
@arcmetal
Thanks for the link to the pdf on the CMBR. Very much appreciated.
That is truly amazing. So that is how the WMAP was cleaned up so well. I suppose that this means that the CMBR is actually a dirty smudge and not the neat-looking remnant as we were all given to believe.
LOL

Correct. The lay person is only shown the final "cleaned" up image of cmbr, and told "this is the distant sound of the long ago universe". And never told of all the pre processing clean up. It would have been easier to just stick to the noise in between channels on an old tv set, they could have saved on tons of compute power.


Lie.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
@Jones, many things in an EE education can help in understanding astrophysics; it is, after all, the same physics.


Agreed, although many that I have encountered seem to picture everything as a circuit board when it comes to plasma physics! They never seem to grasp such simple things as the solar wind not being a current, but carrying a magnetic field. They seem to think the movement of charged particles creating a magnetic field, has to be a current. When, in reality, as any plasma physicist would tell them, there is no net current, nor does there need to be. Having failed to understand plasma physics, some of them then continue their misunderstanding to other areas of astrophysics.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
http://www.jb.man...lgyb.htm

Shows unsubtracted images, and how the BB theory is the only one that can account for what is seen.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2018
An interesting article I bumped into;

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Robert Park.
http://www.astron...gns.html

I thought number 6 was particularly relevant to a certain poster on here;

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.


torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Oops: "Andrew Knoll however is a paleontologist and biogeochemist, which has famously proposed fossils there later research showed were are none."

I was thinking of Shopf; Knoll know his stuff.

But I am also reminded that both Davies and Knoll could have made their descriptive claims on the status of the area before the 2016 work solving why and how life emerged.

As for the rest of the thread, remarkably it avoids discussing the supernova science of the article, or even current cosmology. But I got this response:

I am not aware that anyone has ever said that "science is religion, or religion is science".

Are we making up quotes now? I was merely pointing out that religion is now a known intellectual scam and there people who support it on this thread.

Perhaps you could provide the "observational evidence that there are no gods" and also any validated/substantial proofs that there are no souls/eternal life?


- tbctd -
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
1) The 2017 evidence of no 'souls'/'ghosts'/'afterlife'/'rebirth':

It was doing the media rounds after first Brian Cox and Neal deGrasse Tyson discussed how it follows from the LHC results at the time. Other physicists like Sean Carroll chimed in.

Not only the 2012 Nobel Prize winning discovery of the standard Higgs particle and its completion of standard particle physics but the data up to 2017 that confirmed that its field/fields (technically, 4 fields) were standard too by testing sufficiently many interaction combinations.

There is now too weak remaining unknown/exotic/rare interactions to drive a body less mind or copy an extant one without some form of machine. Why we know this is simply because the quantum field both allow and need the interactions strengths to be known in full, and that remaining interactions.can be approximated by similar fields - whether fields or not - during that accounting.

- tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
2) The 2018 evidence of no 'gods':

This is a result from this spring that has not been publicly discussed yet.

The 3d and final Planck data release managed to filter out Milky Way/dust noise (as opposed to some claims on this very thread!) and use both spot area and orientation independently. They, and their combination, 3 ways agree on the parameters. It was also found that the physics knowledge is now robust against remaining tensions, such as the local supernova 1a based expansion rate difference. Anyway, later the Dark Energy Survey supernova 1a expansion rate on all scales agreed, so yet another test passed.

One of the outcomes was that, while we cannot tell exact the mix of know mechanical components, matter and energy (which differences drives work), we can from the very flat space caused by inflation sum up all mechanistic components to 1/1000 parts of measurement uncertainty.

- tbctd-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
ctd: Therefore we can say that the universe is 100 % mechanistic, has no mechanism-less 'magic' in- or outside it, and has never interacted with such 'magic'. Why we know this is because general relativity with inflation both allow and need the energy and matter content to be known in full, and that the description is closed.

To replace these results, the 2017 especially is already believed to be safe from change and the 2018 sure looks that way, you have to replace the last century of physics (quantum field and general relativity physics). That is a tall order, taller than before this apologetically speculative but now scam 'gods'.

References:
LHC: Google Cox/The Infinite Monkey show for starters.
Planck: Planck Legacy Archive, 2018 Cosmological parameters summation paper.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
So you're claiming there are invisible galaxies everywhere and it doesn't matter if we can see them.

Snicker. Yeah, got that.

No, only you are claiming that.


Then show pictures of them. You claim it you prove it.
........you mean like 7th photo frame from top:

http://ircamera.a...nter.htm

"Ever increasing resolution in infrared images showed the black hole is not the energy source. The brightest source in the very high resolution near infrared image to the right is IRS 7, a red supergiant that puts out most of its energy in the near infrared. The other bright stars are also very young and massive. The blue-appearing ones in the center of the image are a unique clustering of very luminous, massive stars. Any black hole must be invisible. (image from Gemini Project). If the black hole dominated the energy of the Galactic Center, it would be the second brightest source in the infrared image."

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
^^^Idiot janitor is back with his idiot misunderstandings of all things scientific.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
Then show pictures of them. You claim it you prove it.


Yeah schneibo, we know, "pictures" are useful only so long as they support YOUR FACTS, but let the same pictures support someone else's FACTS & they are no longer OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE.

One person's EVIDENCE is another person's trolling. If you have EVER had much EVIDENCE for your viewpoints, then why do you feel the need to spend so much time on NAME CALLING RANTS? It's because you spend so much time in the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology that real science has become an obstacle & you just don't know how to deal with it as compared to those of us with real engineering degrees who know far better than you who has zero comprehension as to why Dark Energy is the antithesis of Entropy. Hey, maybe buddy Boaty from above can expalin it?
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
Bennies infamous link

New evidence reveals how heavy elements were created after the Big Bang
Every time in every galaxy in the vacuous vacuum
gives an intense flash of light
followed by its nebulous cloud
throws out explosively, heavy elements that seed the vacuum
the question: New evidence reveals
is a misnomer
as without the existence of Le Bigbang
stars still go supernova
the immense power output far exceeds
the theoretical entity
that theoretical exists at Sagittarius A*
as even Bennies infamous link
which is not theoretical simulation
but solely from actual observation
shows this theoretical entity BH
is not the energy source
the energy source is not a starry supernova
none of these highly energetic stars
just a lonely red supergiant
That puts out most of its energy in the near infrared
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
Yeah schneibo, we know, "pictures" are useful only so long as they support YOUR FACTS, but let the same pictures support someone else's FACTS


They don't support your 'facts'. You don't have any facts.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Now, to dig right down into the gory details, your claim that flux (which you have admitted you don't understand) was causing matter and energy to transform into one another, or "interchange" as you put it. Flux has nothing to do with this; there are very specific circumstances under which matter can turn into energy, and even more restrictive ones on which the reverse can happen, and instead of showing that any of these circumstances apply you invoked flux, which again, you do not understand.
DS, seriously, you must be the most dunk/drugged-up stupid internet troll on the forums, even Benni/cantdrive included! Even your 'Bot 5 friends' here can understand the difference between 'flux' in usage/context "in flux" and just "flux". Ask @jonesy to explain: SPECIFIC "PROCESSES IN flux" usage in context given, is DIFFERENT from GENERIC "flux" usage; and maybe then (some hope!) you'll start making sense and stop driveling all over the forum. Best of luck, DS.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
DS, seriously, you must be the most dunk
Not only insulting but mispeled. Heh.

You said it and now you deny it. Obviously yet another troll lie.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Yeah schneibo, we know, "pictures" are useful only so long as they support YOUR FACTS
And pictures in web pages only are valid as long as they support your claims.

Your own link has pictures you can't explain, with the black hole's accretion disk winking at you. And you ignore them and keep spouting bullshiit.

Maybe you'll admit your prejudices again by calling me "gay" again.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
What's really amusing is that none of the trolls appear to have actually seen an astronomical plate taken with both images and spectra. This is common practice. Real astrophysicists have reviewed many such plates; the reason they were made was to ensure that there was no question about the spectra being from the objects being observed. This is because YEC trolls were active even before the Internet.

Their culture of denial was evident long ago. They're lying for jebus, a practice their idol would send them to hell for if any of it's real. Remember the parable of the money changers in the temple.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
DS, seriously, you must be the most dunk
Not only insulting but mispeled. Heh.
The intelligent readers can see that when you, the quintessential insensible 'insults troll' ever seen on the forums, have the stupid temerity to complain about others insulting you back 'in kind' in self-defense, then it's 'game over' for any pretense of integrity or sense on your part, DS. JUst how malignantly stupid are you, DS? You remind me of the similarly vexatious nincompoop named "Trout" over at Sciforums who got banned for doing exactly the same sort of insensible trolling/insulting/sabotaging of threads, discussions and members there! Are you that "Trout" twerp, DS? If not, then you must have been his 'sensei' in 'martial art' of 'nonsensical trolling/attacking/insulting' while being dumb as a brick steeped in drink, drugs, self-delusional ego-yanking malice. He TOO resorted to 'attacking' TYPOS, DS....and THAT is the unmistakeable sign of a trolling twerp, DS.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
You're back to the same old lies, @104LiarRC. "Drunk" again. You are as transparent as a three-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt.

I will pwn you every time you lie. Aren't you glad I'm not ignoring you any more?

Are you gonna call me "gay" next because you're out of other insults? Your buttbuddies seem to think that works. Maybe you can tell some more lies like your idol Trump.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Maybe you think it wasn't a lie because you misspelled it, @104LiarRC. Snicker.

Meanwhile, back to reality, how does flux change matter into energy and vice versa?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
The intelligent readers can see that when you, the quintessential insensible 'insults troll' ever seen on the forums, have the stupid temerity to complain about others insulting you back 'in kind' in self-defense, then it's 'game over' for any pretense of integrity or sense on your part.


Nope. I have an officially invigilated IQ of 157 on the Catell III B Mensa UK test (top 1 percentile), and I tend to think you are wrong, and Da Schneib is right. Sorry. :)

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Wherein you [DS] were PROVEN WRONG
Yes, and admitted it, because I'm not arrogant like you.
You 'conveniently forgot' the original point I was making re YOUR INCESSANT TIRADE of "LIES" ACCUSATIONS and DISMISSIVE INSULTS that PRECEDED your admission of error all along, DS. You never apologized for YOUR atrocious lies, accusations and trolling-in-ignorance therein, DS. And you have REPEATED that same atrocious TROLLING TACTICS many times and were WRONG then too, DS. Yet you never admitted error in THOSE OTHER instances, DS...NOR apologized. And YOU ARE BSTILL DOING THE SAME THING in THIS thread, DS. How stupid-drunk a troll must you be, NOT TO EVER LEARN FROM SO MANY MISTAKES, DS?
actually be polite, relevant and NOT TROLL anymore.
As soon as you stop trying to be the boss of everyone, I'll get right on it.
Your 'condition' re my (allegedly) "trying to be the boss' aside, you just ADMITTED to being a TROL, DS! Stupid and/or Drunk, DS?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
The intelligent readers can see that when you, the quintessential insensible 'insults troll' ever seen on the forums, have the stupid temerity to complain about others insulting you back 'in kind' in self-defense, then it's 'game over' for any pretense of integrity or sense on your part.


Nope. I have an officially invigilated IQ of 157 on the Catell III B Mensa UK test (top 1 percentile), and I tend to think you are wrong, and Da Schneib is right. Sorry. :)

I won't tell you my score on the Mensa test, but I will say that I found them puerile and juvenile. Being scholastically smart doesn;'t make you socially smart as far as I could tell.
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@104LiarRC, where's the science? You don't seem to feel it's necessary on the science site. Instead you post trolling and insults and boasting.

No one here will believe anything you say after you've lied more than Trump. You seem to think it works. It doesn't and we'll be seeing the fruits of it shortly. We're seeing them right now with you.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@jonesdave.
The intelligent readers can see that when you [DS], the quintessential insensible 'insults troll' ever seen on the forums, have the stupid temerity to complain about others insulting you back 'in kind' in self-defense, then it's 'game over' for any pretense of integrity or sense on your part.
Nope. I [jonesy] have an officially invigilated IQ of 157 on the Catell III B Mensa UK test (top 1 percentile), and I tend to think you are wrong, and Da Schneib is right. Sorry. :)
All those 'smarts', yet you admit you can NOT tell the different between flux (as in something 'flowing'); and 'flux' (as in context I used to imply universal processes "in flux"). Here, these dictionary definitions may help you/DS:

1. The act of flowing; a continuous moving on or passing by, as of a flowing stream.

('flux': VERB)

2. A state of ongoing change. The schedule is in flux at the moment.

('in flux': ADJECTIVE).

I used 2.: as in universal processes 'in state of flux'. :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
I won't tell you my score on the Mensa test, but I will say that I found them puerile and juvenile. Being scholastically smart doesn;'t make you socially smart as far as I could tell.


Agreed. Social intelligence is not my thing! Asperger's et al. :) However, I can spot BS artists a mile away. And i'm afraid RC fits that bill.
I found the UK Mensa test to be a quite fair assessment of logic on a number of levels. Both written and mathematical.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@Forum.
I won't tell you my score on the Mensa test, but I will say that I found them puerile and juvenile. Being scholastically smart doesn;'t make you socially smart as far as I could tell.
Agreed. Social intelligence is not my thing! Asperger's et al. :) However, I can spot BS artists a mile away. And i'm afraid RC fits that bill. I found the UK Mensa test to be a quite fair assessment of logic on a number of levels. Both written and mathematical.
This is hilarious, folks. Two insults trolls comparing their respective 'intelligence scores'; both trolls demonstrably socially insensible, and neither has the smarts to be able to tell the difference in meaning between VERB "flux" and ADJECTIVE "in flux'. This must be the silliest pair of mutual-5's 'smart' right now. See what happens when trolls get into circle-jerking 'echo chamber" TROLL GANGS; and so make fools of themselves while betraying both their intelligence and the science? They SHOULD know better! Sad.
jimmybobber
5 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@RealityCheck This is the correct definition your looking for.

"Flux is the amount of "something" (electric field, bananas, whatever you want) passing through a surface. The total flux depends on strength of the field, the size of the surface it passes through, and their orientation."
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
Trump troll posts again. @104LiarRC is a Trump troll.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck This is the correct definition your looking for.

"Flux is the amount of "something" (electric field, bananas, whatever you want) passing through a surface. The total flux depends on strength of the field, the size of the surface it passes through, and their orientation."
NO! The meaning I employed in context I used was as in UNIVERSAL PROCESSES in A STATE OF FLUX.

I know ALL the usages, Ok?

You are falling into @Da Scheib's web of trolling, @jimmybobber.

@Da Schneib has been strawmanning and confusing the issue because HE HADN'T a clue what I was saying....because DS WON'T read and understand properly in context. That is one of his longstanding admission/trademarks...and is the root cause of most of his mistakes and self-embarrassments. Hence DS trolling me in order to try and fool others into thinking DS even has a clue while insulting and being wrong himself. :)

Doesn't anybody ever read and understand properly in context anymore?
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
Flux has a specific meaning in physics. Maybe @104LiarRC shouldn't use technical terms if it doesn't understand what they mean.
jimmybobber
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@RealityCheck
But you didn't post that definition of flux when you had the chance a few posts back.

"matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux"
Your quote above makes no logical sense. Matter and energy are constantly in a state of Tranformational flux, interchanging flux, interacting flux?
I understand your trying to say but...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
And flux is not an explanation for how or why matter and energy transform into one another.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Flux has a specific meaning in physics. Maybe @104LiarRC shouldn't use technical terms if it doesn't understand what they mean.
You're a twit, DS. A trolling twit. I NEVER USED that physics meaning of flux in the context of my comments. I used the IN A STATE OF FLUX meaning. Nobody could BE be so stupid as to NOT comprehend MY contextual usage was NOT as YOU are trying to strawman it into, DS. No wonder you sound drunk/drugged or malignantly obtuse while insulting from your own ignorance of what was actually said/meant IN CONTEXT, DS. Please, for your own sake, DS, stop; before your serial-self-embarrassments become irredeemable in the eyes of the intelligent readers witnessing your latest troll-and-insult insensibility. Good luck in your choices, DS.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
And flux is not an explanation for how or why matter and energy transform into one another.
No. That's why I SAID that it was THE UNIVERSAL PROCESSES that explain the continual transformation I allude to. And that the UNIVERSAL PROCESSES are themselves IN A STATE OF FLUX (ie, in a state of change). If you still haven't 'got' that, then you never will, DS. Try to read and understand properly in context for a change; instead of insensibly trolling and insulting from your own ignorance and misconstrued strawmen, DS. Try. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck
But you didn't post that definition of flux when you had the chance a few posts back.

"matter and energy are constantly in a state of transformational/interchanging/interacting 'flux"
Your quote above makes no logical sense. Matter and energy are constantly in a state of Tranformational flux, interchanging flux, interacting flux?
I understand your trying to say but...
It is expected that commenters will read and understand properly the original comments in context before jumping in. And the text limits for posts necessitates contraction etc. The context was CLEAR to any intelligent fair minded reader...ie, any reader NOT looking for trivial excuses to TROLL. Did you see @Da Schneib even try to 'attack' an obvious TYPO? That should have told you to beware and not comment based on assertions/interpretations from that DS troll in future...because DS has a record of trolling/strawmanning to beat the record.

CONTEXT is KING. Else chaos. :)
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
the UNIVERSAL PROCESSES are themselves IN A STATE OF FLUX
Even ceding your eclectic use of physics terminology, this is incorrect. What change do you allege in the interaction of an electron and a positron to produce photons from the matter-antimatter annihilation? You're still spouting unphysical ideas that have nothing to do with real physics. And trying to troll me and beat me down with these pitifully obvious lies.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
UNIVERSAL PROCESSES are themselves IN A STATE OF FLUX
Even ceding your eclectic use of physics terminology, this is incorrect. What change do you allege in the interaction of an electron and a positron to produce photons from the matter-antimatter annihilation? You're still spouting unphysical ideas that have nothing to do with real physics. And trying to troll me and beat me down with these pitifully obvious lies.
Firstly, lets be clear: it was legitimately used in the overarching "universal processes in a state of flux" context advisedly, to make the point I was making in THAT context; and NOT used as the specific physics term you 'read' it as OUT OF CONTEXT. Ok? :)

As for the point I made in my original comment: DS, are you really unaware of the many/varied processes/transformations which the universal energy quotient may undergo over an infinite epoch? You're making specific claims I never made in my original comments, DS. Don't assume, DS. :)
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
Still waiting for how flux (however you define it) makes a difference in the energy of an electron and a positron when they annihilate.

Nice try at deflecting from the real question, which is whether you know any physics or just make shiit up as you go along. The answer appears to be the latter.
arcmetal
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
So the CMB comes from the invisible galaxies.

OK.

Either they're there or they aren't. It's you who makes no sense.

You said
Pointing the latest, most high resolution antenna to a dark spot in space will only be looking at more smudges of galaxies that further away than the ones seen by the previous model of the most high resolution camera
There aren't any "indistinct smudges." So either you're lying and don't care to be caught, or you're delusional, or you're another anti-science troll infesting this site. Given your response I'm going with troll.

OK, I can see you are either having a tough time understanding basic things, or you are trying not to understand.
Maybe if we try to explain this in simpler terms. At one time long ago, before there were telescopes, one would look up and see lots of stars, and a lot of blank areas. Then when telescopes were invented people pointed them to those dark spots and saw more stars. ... Try to extrapolate...
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
But now you're into a completely different realm. We have a space telescope, and we can see the faint fuzzies. When we go deeper (that means longer exposure) in between the galaxies, there aren't any faint fuzzies there; in fact, there aren't any if we go more than ten times deeper.

Now what?

Your claim was tested first in ancient Greece, and since then most famously by Hans Olbers in 1823. Because Olbers was the first to publish in a modern scientific journal it is often called "Olbers' Paradox," but it has been known since antiquity.

If there are galaxies everywhere, how come the entire night sky isn't white? It's really quite that simple, and it's one of the chief arguments against steady state cosmology.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine, having a really good day, thanks for asking,,,

As long as we are not bothering with the sciencing stuffs and just arguing about what the words means,,, I was hoping you would explain for me,,,,, (this what we call an oxygen-couyan down here in the Louisiana country)

an infinite epoch
Cher that don't make any sense, is it an epoch? Or is it infinite? It can not be both.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I thought you was pushing the theory that there is no such a thing as infinite because it violates the Really-Skippy-Rule-Of-Toe-Maths. Have you changed your mind on that since yesterday?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Still waiting for how flux (however you define it) makes a difference in the energy of an electron and a positron when they annihilate
You appear to be stuck in your own original misunderstanding 'groove', DS. The context was the assumption by some that the universe would look much more 'bright' in the 'infinite universal epoch' case; but, DS, before you misunderstand that too, and so start 'attacking' in error again: it was NOT MY assumption, ok? I then merely pointed out that at all times there must be a proportion of the universal energy quotient 'tied up' in non-visible photons/energy states (ie, matter, photons and intermediate states of same during the act of interacting/transforming etc). That was ALL I wished to point out; to imply that what we do see now is what we would see in an infinite universal process anyway. That's it. Your specific challenges/examples are NOT what I was alluding to; so you can get un-stuck from that 'groove' now, DS. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
An interesting article I bumped into;

The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science
Robert Park.
http://www.astron...gns.html

I thought number 6 was particularly relevant to a certain poster on here;

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation. The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.


says jones

The "work of many scientists" - it has been proven that scientists working as a team are not particularly anxious to REVEAL the results of their research either UNTIL, and ONLY, when they are ready for peer-review and publication. Teamwork works best when there is more than one area to perform tests on. Very few work in the isolation to which you refer.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck This is the correct definition your looking for.

"Flux is the amount of "something" (electric field, bananas, whatever you want) passing through a surface. The total flux depends on strength of the field, the size of the surface it passes through, and their orientation."
NO! The meaning I employed in context I used was as in UNIVERSAL PROCESSES in A STATE OF FLUX.

You are falling into

@Da Schneib has been strawmanning and confusing the issue because HE HADN'T a clue what I was saying....because DS WON'T read and understand properly in context. That is one of his longstanding admission/trademarks...and is the root cause of most of his mistakes and self-embarrassments. Hence DS trolling me in order to try and fool others into thinking DS even has a clue while insulting and being wrong himself. :)

Doesn't anybody...
says RC

D.A. Scneib is a big showoff blowhard trying to prove his own relevancy. He proves it in medium.com
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
an infinite epoch
Cher that don't make any sense, is it an epoch? Or is it infinite? It can not be both
Hence why the 'infinite' qualifier, Ira. To distinguish it from the other usages. English language has been constructed/evolving by such associative terms since early English arose. That's why English is called a "Living Language", Ira. :)
I thought you was pushing the theory that there is no such a thing as infinite because it violates the Really-Skippy-Rule-Of-Toe-Maths. Have you changed your mind on that since yesterday?
Infinity as used in maths may NOT apply to reality UNLESS it refers to THE INFINITE UNIVERSAL CONTEXT ONLY (which current maths doesn't). All other purely ABSTRACT MATHS 'infinities' are ONLY applicable within the ABSTRACT Axiomatic Structure within which that maths was constructed (that's why I've been working on a REALITY BASED mathematical Axiomatic Structure for modeling 'the' REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE ToE).

Cheers. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@RC
-contd-
This part of your comment: "UNIVERSAL PROCESSES are themselves IN A STATE OF FLUX" seems to indicate that you believe that such processes are in a state of CHANGE.
The term "FLUX" is about something that is in the process of 'changing' from one to another, whether once of multiple times - but usually multiple.

You always seem to be drawn into these silly quarrels with Schniebo. When you enter these altercations with ds, you are giving him an opportunity to give himself an air of Self-importance and a sense of having won over on YOU.
Unless you actually enjoy these interminable arguments, I suggest that you place the lout/ruffian on Ignore and be done with it. DS is only a good source of aggravation and nothing more - unless you also enjoy aggravation.
:)
There are many other good people to confer with in this website. Do yourself a favor and talk with them.
arcmetal
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2018
...

If there are galaxies everywhere, how come the entire night sky isn't white? It's really quite that simple, and it's one of the chief arguments against steady state cosmology.


Ah, maybe you are unfamiliar with a whole concept in cosmology called in general terms "the red-shift". Its what happens to light after traveling a long distance.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
Well said SEU
SEU> There are many other good people to confer with in this website. Do yourself a favor and talk with them

RealityCheck is being coaxed from under his Ugly Trolls Bridge
But it's difficult
These sleek racehorses's that proudly walk round Newmarket are easily coaxed with a carrot
But RC not taking the bait
Just hope he doesn't get fin rot
jimmybobber
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@RealityCheck Language may be "living" but in order to communicate effectively we need to use the correct words with exact definitions. Science is not poetry.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck Language may be "living" but in order to communicate effectively we need to use the correct words with exact definitions. Science is not poetry.
Exactly what I was doing; by providing the CONTEXT that gave the clear meaning of the usage in that context. This wasn't a discussion re a specific physics 'flux' usage/context, it was the 'in flux' usage/context which related to the ACTUAL UNIVERSAL PROCESS per se, as alluded to re 'brightness' issue which others raised; and I explained relevant further info for better understanding of WHY the 'brighter' assumption made by others for an infinite epoch universe may NOT be as they had assumed. If those reading posts cannot parse/comprehend in context then that is not my problem; but rather, the problem of those who WILL NOT apply the time/courtesy for actually reading and understanding properly in context given (instead of strawmanning everything to suit their own misunderstandings and/or agendas). :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
Language may be "living" but in order to communicate effectively we need to use the correct words with exact definitions. Science is not poetry.


@ Jimmy-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Really-Skippy always used the exact words with CORRECT ALL ALONG definitions, who else could write something like this,,,,,

These Realisations occur because fundamental relativities are infinitesimally unsettled (evidence PI etc.). This inherent flaw in the VSmatrix/Space processes means that volumetrication of direction is incomplete. Hence, flaw-related 'remainder' consequences will arise wherever the natural geometrical/mathematical operations in the 3-D Space substrate cannot execute to completion, and so fail to balance infinitesimally at all times and all places each and every intersection-point location for all the infinite totality of Direction lines-of-coincidence. In short, direction-volumetrication processes BLAH, BLAH, BLAH,,
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
P.S. For you Jimmy-Skippy.

You think I just made that up? Au contraire Cher,,,,, he even has the whole interweb place full of it,,,,

http://earthlingclub.com/

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: "@Really-Skippy, How you like me now, eh?")
jimmybobber
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@Uncle Ira I don't know who skippy is or cher. I think you may have me confused with another user here.
Da Schneib
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
He proves it in medium.com
Reported for cyberstalking.
jimmybobber
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
@RealityCheck Context doesn't excuse word salad. Your obviously not an engineer of any type. You can't just toss around terms like "infinity" and "flux" and "epoch" in a professional environment and expect people to understand you.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber
@Uncle Ira I don't know who skippy is or cher. I think you may have me confused with another user here.
He is talking to you

It's a Cajun Uncle Ira thing, kinda like the Scots calling all men Jimmy, or the southerners calling men Bubba, so it's like saying "Pal" or "bud" or "Bro" or many other common conversational tactics common to an area or culture

everyone here is a *something* Skippy, unless you're Skippy, and then you would be squared
LOL

EDIT
You can't just toss around terms
you mean like he does here?
http://earthlingclub.com/

RC is trolling, mostly, but he really does believe in his delusions
I can link where he said he would save us all from AGW and climate change, but it is nowhere near as entertaining as the earthling club link

read it, you'll understand more about his problems

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
who else could write something like this-
These Realisations occur because fundamental relativities are infinitesimally unsettled (evidence PI etc.). This inherent flaw in the VSmatrix/Space processes means that volumetrication of direction is incomplete. Hence, flaw-related 'remainder' consequences will arise wherever the natural geometrical/mathematical operations in the 3-D Space substrate cannot execute to completion, and so fail to balance infinitesimally at all times and all places each and every intersection-point location for all the infinite totality of Direction lines-of-coincidence. In short, direction-volumetrication processes...
Unless you give @jimmybobber FULL context (wherein terms/concepts used in that passage were introduced/explained), then its like you giving him 'cold' a passage from Einstein's GR paper without the rest to explain what NEW terms/concepts mean in context of his NEW theory; eg, "spacetime"; "curved spacetime" etc. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
I think you may have me confused with another user here.


Non, I am confusing you with you.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2018
Unless you give @jimmybobber FULL context (wherein terms/concepts used in that passage were introduced/explained), then its like you giving him 'cold' a passage from Einstein's GR paper


Well for one thing, you are not Einstein-Skippy. And for another thing, I posted up the link so he can read the whole Really-Skippy foolishment entire from start to finish. Somehow I don't think he is that stupid or goofy.

If I put up the link to the whole silly thing then the context is not what you should be worrying about Skippy,,,,, you should be trying to figure out a way to keep anybody else from seeing all the contexts you put up in one place for peoples to make the fun with.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck Context doesn't excuse word salad. Your obviously not an engineer of any type. You can't just toss around terms like "infinity" and "flux" and "epoch" in a professional environment and expect people to understand you.
By the same token, saying "word salad" does not excuse the reader when that reader is not reading and understanding properly in context and so confuses him/her self and so misunderstands and labels his/her own misunderstood STRAWMAN 'version' as "word salad". Try not to excuse those who will not, and have all too often admitted, that they do NOT read at all, and when they DO it is not with fair and proper contextual understanding in mind, but with their own personal animus and trolling/insulting ego-tripping agenda in mind. Beware being infected by those types, @jimmybobber....those are worse than your run-of-the-mill anti-science troll types, because the latter don't know any better, while the former should know better. Cheers.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@Uncle Ira I don't know who skippy is or cher. I think you may have me confused with another user here.
says JimmyB

LOL Ira probably speaks good English otherwise, but in here he likes to make fun of certain folks by using colloquial 'Louisiana Cajun of the Swamps' lingo to increase his merriment and laughter at the expense of those he wishes to mock and make an example of, or to teach a lesson to his victim. Sometimes Ira talks as though he fell on his head in his boat once too often.

Ain't that right, Ira?
:)
jimmybobber
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@RealityCheck The reader should not have to figure out what you mean. It should be clear like a mathematical equation.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
Well for one thing, you are not Einstein-Skippy
Yes, I'm not; hence why, like him, I am engaged in novel work which will put 'reality-meat' on the dry 'abstract-bones' of his GR theory/maths which cannot treat r=0 case within Black Holes. Like Einstein improved on Newton, it has long been admitted by mainstream physicists that someone must come along to do likewise for Einstein. It's a long, hard, thankless task, obviously, but somebody (seems its me) had to do it. It certainly won't be you, Ira; or any of the 'Bot 5 gang' here, hey "cher"? :)
I posted up the link so he can read the whole Really-Skippy foolishment entire from start to finish. Somehow I don't think he is that stupid or goofy
Yes, after 6 minutes, while I was composing/submitting my reply. As for @jimmybobber reading that further context, that is up to him/her, not you, Ira. I suggest to all that it's best to wait till I publish the reality-maths/ToE complete to avoid misunderstanding. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
@RealityCheck The reader should not have to figure out what you mean. It should be clear like a mathematical equation.
says JimmyB

That is true. Especially in a science website like physorg where the posters are basically all of various levels of knowledge - and where some have come to show off what they think they know, even though they are not scientists but want to show off anyway.
Now and then, real scientists will come into the site and say a few words, but most come in only for the giggles and then leave. Very few return.
But I do agree that the context of someone's comments should be clear and unambiguous, and without having to guess at the meaning in the post. But notice also, that RealityCheck is not given to expressing himself by using foul language as jones is wont to do. This may be caused by good breeding rather than learning the language of the streets/gutter.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2018
It should be clear like a mathematical equation.


Just had to go there, eh Cher? Now you done it, we'll probably have to Skippy-skip over another one of his telling us about his axionical maths he invented to finish up his work on his toes because Newton-Skippy's, Leibniz-Skippy and Descartes-Skippy couldn't figure out the reality world. And his toes are the reality toes he's been "finishing up" for the last 11 or 10 years.

Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 29, 2018
]Yes, after 6 minutes, while I was composing/submitting my reply. As for @jimmybobber reading that further context, that is up to him/her, not you, Ira.


Well Cher all I can say is you need to work on composing/submitting/replying Cher,,,,, You should not need 25 minutes to thinkup/compose/submit/reply to something as silly as that what you wrote. Choot, you did did not even use up half of the allowed letter spaces.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck The reader should not have to figure out what you mean. It should be clear like a mathematical equation.
That's all well and good, mate. But the problem is GIGO (do you know what that means? If not, look it up) potential without proper contextual and logical consistency from the get-go of any equation and/or analysis. I observe that many supposedly 'scientific' people have either forgotten (or never were taught?) this CRUCIAL CAUTIONARY lesson during their education. Do you realize how simplistic assumptions and/or logically-unsound 'inputs' to equations/analysis can give GIGO (ie, garbage in/garbage out) 'results"? The most recent embarrassing example of such was the flawed Bicep2 exercise/analysis 'results' and the commensurately flawed claims based on same....doomed to be GIGO from the outset of that supposedly (but everything but) 'rigorous scientific exercise' and 'clear mathematical analysis' fiasco. Beware the GIGO in your midst! :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
Yes, after 6 minutes, while I was composing/submitting my reply. As for @jimmybobber reading that further context, that is up to him/her, not you, Ira.
Well Cher all I can say is you need to work on composing/submitting/replying Cher,,,You should not need 25 minutes to thinkup/compose/submit/reply to something as silly as that what you wrote. Choot, you did did not even use up half of the allowed letter spaces.
Well, "cher" Ira, it may be 'the work of a trice' to compose your self-admitted bot-voting-ignoramus-generated drivel (and good luck to you); but we lucid, thinking, scientific, logical, polite (when not attacked by trolls) and knowledgeable folk take time and care to compose posts which correct and expose such drive-by troll idiots like yourself, Ira, who are using the pretext of being a Cajun Jester to try and hide the (all too admitted/demonstrated fact) that you are just another bot-voting trolling ignoramus dumber than your dog. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
@104LiarRC obviously hasn't considered it's own inputs in terms of GIGO. And it doesn't understand math; tell us, @104LiarRC, where is the garbage in from the axioms of mathematics?

Meanwhile, here's @104LiarRC whining and making excuses about BICEP2 again. We've heard this before, and you were thoroughly pwnt for it.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Here's my entry from the 100 lies paper:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @100LiarRC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @100LiarRC has never said what three of them are.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.

And speaking of drive by troll idiots: there is the quintessential troll-idiot exemplar himself...DS! As further proof of his insensibility-to-the-max, DS posts this...
@104LiarRC obviously hasn't considered it's own inputs in terms of GIGO. And it doesn't understand math; tell us, @104LiarRC, where is the garbage in from the axioms of mathematics?

Meanwhile, here's @104LiarRC whining and making excuses about BICEP2 again. We've heard this before, and you were thoroughly pwnt for it.
..DESPITE his juvenile trolling tactic of false accusations of "lying" and insulting while being WRONG was demonstrated all too starkly for the intelligent readers to see for themselves in the following thread...

https://phys.org/...per.html

..wherein DS tried all his best false "lying" accusations, strawmanning and insults....only to eventually find to his HORROR that DS was WRONG ALL ALONG and just a trolling idiot. Poor twerp. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
Here's a quote of @104LiarRC from that thread:
Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on.
What's "maths-trust biased blinkers" mean? Does this individual even understand what math is or how it works? There is no trust; that's the whole point of all those nasty proofs they make you write down in math class. Its full arsenal is on view here, from "I was always right" to accusations of some sort of conspiracy among mathematicians to its supposed Theory of Everything to its sly insinuations against peer review. But notice it never says anything about the "other three" "problems" with the BICEP2 results.

And has not to this day.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2018
It's the first entry on the paper on your lies @104LiarRC. Would you like to see me do more?

You lie. You always lie. You've always got an excuse. Like to see all your lies and excuses bared for everyone to see? Maybe you should have quit while you were ahead. I was actually starting to think you'd changed. Over the last week you have demonstrated that, as @Ira thought, you have not. You are lying trolling scum.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Here's a quote of @104LiarRC from that thread:
Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on.
What's "maths-trust biased blinkers" mean? Does this individual even understand what math is or how it works? There is no trust; that's the whole point of all those nasty proofs they make you write down in math class. ...
The "maths-trust-biased blinkers" were ON the 'Bot 5 gang' who 'just believed' the initial Bicep2 claims without critique; and who proceeded to 'bash cranks' with that multiply-flawed 'work'/results'/'claims'. I TRIED to caution them to check it all out FOR THEMSELVES before further attempting to 'bash cranks' with that (patently) multiply-flawed so-called 'scientific work' and claims. BUT NO, they wouldn't listen; so GOT EGG ALL OVER THEIR FACES; and been trying to attack the messenger ever since. Your lame, cowardly, in-denial trolling, DS, gives me further reason to point all that out in self-defense. Thanks.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
@Forum.

Can you believe the insensibility levels which must obtain on DS troll's 'home planet' for him to come up with the following drivel-in-denial..
It's the first entry on the paper on your lies @104LiarRC. Would you like to see me do more? You lie. You always lie. You've always got an excuse. Like to see all your lies and excuses bared for everyone to see? Maybe you should have quit while you were ahead. I was actually starting to think you'd changed. Over the last week you have demonstrated that, as @Ira thought, you have not. You are lying trolling scum.
There is absurdity taken to the max, folks! The DS strawman-and-false-accusations-and-insults-troll idiot makes an "appeal to authority" to the Uncle-Ira-Bot-voting-ignoramus-troll idiot! That this DS trolling idiot thinks that it was 'a good idea' to TRY that at all, tells the intelligent readers just how far the rot has set into the 'Bot-5-gang' circle-jerk "echo chamber" of idiots pretending they're not. Sad.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
@104LiarRC, where are the other three errors you claim the BICEP2 team made?

And what axioms of math do you claim are wrong?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC, where are the other three errors you claim the BICEP2 team made?
You know perfectly well that that has been answered to Captain Stumpy more than once now. They were in side-discussions with others in different threads as the occasion arose. I even linked one instance for Captain Stumpy, to a thread in discussion with @imfromcanada: but he STILL claimed his "search could not find it". What a laugh. If you and CS HAD been prepared to actually read and understand in context at the time the posts appeared, instead of loudly foul-mouthing, lying and trolling all the time, then perhaps you wouldn't have to keep making your lame requests again and again due to your own lack of personal integrity and objective attention all these years. Good luck in future, DS.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
No, it hasn't, @104LiarRC. If you claim it has produce the quotes and your claims for examination.

And stop trying to avoid the question about what math axioms you claim are wrong.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC, where are the other three errors you claim the BICEP2 team made? And what axioms of math do you claim are wrong?
You must either have the memory retention of a goldfish, or its just yet more proof that you don't read or pay objective attention in discussion, but prefer to troll etc despite being wrong. Maybe that's it: the memories of you being wrong hurts your ego so much that you 'immediately forget' it all, and just bluster on with your false accusations of "lying" and insults to try and wash away your pain with a torrent of self-delusional strawman and contrived 'versions' of what 'went down' in fact. DS, think back to that time I spoke to you about UNREAL "DIMENSIONLESS POINT" concept that current maths is riddled with and hence ends up with UNDEFINED etc 'results' which do not make sense in reality physical terms? THAT is a start. The rest of my reality-based Axiomatic work will be published when I publish COMPLETE reality-based maths/ToE.
Da Schneib
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
Either you got 'em or you don't. After all the lies you've told I'll believe it when I see it. Since I don't see it and you're making excuses, it's clearly apparent you lied again. And are now trying to squirm your trolly way out of them.

Three mistakes by the BICEP2 team you claim you found. Waiting @104LiarRC. Produce them or you're lying.

Meanwhile let's not forget your claim that the axioms of arithmetic are somehow wrong. Your squirming and worming to avoid that are also noted. And will continue to be.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
@rc the lying pseudoscience troll that the site admin deleted half his posts for spamming pseudoscience
You know perfectly well that that has been answered to Captain Stumpy more than once now
blatant lie

you have yet to actually produce those 4 fatal and 4 other flaws from the open, free access study

That makes 8,175 posts where you've lied about BICEP and can't produce the evidence you claim to have posted

your claim, your burden of proof

reported for pseudoscience and lying about BICEP
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
No, it hasn't, @104LiarRC. If you claim it has produce the quotes and your claims for examination. And stop trying to avoid the question about what math axioms you claim are wrong.
You MISSED THE BOAT, DS. I have no more time, nor inclination, to pander to Trolling idiots who will not read and comprehend when they had the chance (too many times now); instead of ignoring, then attacking an 'inconvenient messenger' because you and the 'Bot 5 gang' keep getting egg all over your faces whenever you try to attack/frame me with your troll tactics of lies and strawmen while you were the ones in the wrong all along. Your idea of "examination" has been "on show" to the intelligent readers for a long time now, DS. First you ignore/misconstrue; then attack/insult. No thanks! Get to re-reading ALL the last few years posts, DS; so that you can at least have some idea of what has been going o in fact, instead of making up your lame litany strawmen 'versions' of it all.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
There isn't any boat to miss, @104LiarRC. @CS just showed up and called you a liar.

No more excuses. Produce what you said or you're a liar. Simple as that.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
@CS, not gonna bring off-forum stuff up here, so thanks.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
There isn't any boat to miss, @104LiarRC. CS just showed up and called you a liar.

No more excuses. Produce what you said or you're a liar. Simple as that.
Haha. You gotta be kidding, DS. Earlier you made "appeal to authority' to the Uncle Ira idiot; and NOW you make "appeal to authority" to the "TL;DR" troll idiot who TAUGHT YOU his CS-patented "ignore and lie method of research"! What a laugh! Thanks for that, DS. You just made the time I have spent in defending against your trollish idiocy all worthwhile. Thanks 'pal'! Keep it up, mate. lol :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
@104LiarRC, you're lying again. It's as simple as that. If you'd actually done what you said you'd be trolling it all over the forum.

And you still haven't said which axioms of arithmetic you claim are wrong.

Your shiit is weak.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@104LiarRC, you're lying again. It's as simple as that. If you'd actually done what you said you'd be trolling it all over the forum.

And you still haven't said which axioms of arithmetic you claim are wrong.

Your shiit is weak.
Why would I "troll it all over the forum" when all the intelligent readers already would be apprised of your woeful record of "TL;DR" method of ignoring and lying about me, DS? I'm not a troll like you have already admitted to being, DS. I don't 'need' to do anything just because trolls like you and the 'Bt 5 gang' idiots can't strand remembering that egg on your faces from your Bicep2 'just believe and bash cranks with it' fiasco....despite my caution for you to check it all out for yourselves at the time. You wouldn't listen; instead attacking/lying about it ever since. I feel sorry for you, DS, really I do; but there comes a time when your trolling idiocy deserves only reminders of that fiasco 'defining' your "method". lol
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
You ain't got shiit, @100LiarRC. Just lying and trolling and squirming and whining.

Thread where @100LiarRC claims cosmic voids were discovered in the 1950s: https://phys.org/...ogy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims yet one more time that DM doesn't exist due to "recent discoveries" that it has no documentation to support: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims there are no lab experiments in magnetic reconnection before 2016, despite the PPPL experiments: https://phys.org/...its.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims DM and DE are "aether:" https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims energy in space can somehow create charge from nothing: https://phys.org/...cle.html

These ones were long, fifth coming next
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (8) Nov 30, 2018
Thread where @100LiarRC claims science can be done by non-scientists, ignoring all the training real scientists receive: https://phys.org/...per.html

Now listening to John McLaughlin, Al Di Meola, and Paco de Lucia totally rock out on acoustic guitars one memorable Friday night in San Francisco. Acoustic Alchemy coming up.

Oh, and I've now updated the list to 104LiarRC globally. :D
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
@sam fodera the lying trolling POS criminal
'Bt 5 gang' idiots can't strand remembering that egg on your faces from your Bicep2
wrong again

You made a claim that you saw 4 fatal and 4 other flaws
you never did post any proof, nor have you ever produced your evidence in any thread here on PO

That makes 8,178 posts and we're still waiting for you to produce the evidence

reported for baiting, pseudoscience and lies
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
@Forum.

Isn't it sweet how the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the 'Bot 5 gang' here have come together to support each other's futile strawman-and-lying campaign against me? The intelligent readers would have long seen how desperately silly/dishonest these two have been, so no more need be said for now. They're obviously in a 'denial world of their own making'....and they've been working on that lie-and-deny troll 'project' for years now. Tweedledum teaching Tweedledee the CS-patented "TL;DR research method". Now they have become so much alike that one can't easily tell the 'dum' from the 'dee' anymore; well, almost. There is a difference: one is just a tad stupider troll than the other; can you spot which is which between DS and CS, folks? Have fun playing 'spot the difference' everyone! :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
@100LiarRC is lying again.

Thread where @104LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @104LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @104LiarRC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @104LiarRC has never said what three of them are.
Thread where @104LiarRC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @104LiarRC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2018
@Forum.

Isn't it sad, folks, how, despite the promise of great things from the internet, we get this sad DS troll playing out his descent into trolling-and-lying irrelevance on that very net? Really sad. Achingly sad. The poor sod. Let DS's tragedy be a salutary living lesson to all the youngsters out there who may be tempted to believe that doing drink/drugs and ego-tripping on the net is a 'good idea' at any time of life. Poor sod.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
Isn't it a shame this liar @104LiarRC is infecting our forum?

Thread where @104LiarRC lies about "Electric Currents" driving gas outflows from black holes, and note that this individual still claims not to be an EUdiot: https://phys.org/...due.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims DM and DE are the same thing, and that there is no evidence for either (bonus, two lies in one): https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims the Big Bang is a religious belief: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims dark matter is electrical (the EUdiot "theory" it pretends to dismiss): https://phys.org/...-ia.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims matter turns into gravity and vice versa: https://phys.org/...ard.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere"
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2018
Oops! Six in that one. Only four next time. :D
Ojorf
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2018
RC, You should check your reality, it seems broken.
On a forum where anyone can go back and see what you wrote, it's sad how you insist on your own virtue and slander Da Schneib.
You keep making these posts to the "forum" when it's crystal clear to everyone here that you are the one in the wrong.
Get it through your thick head -
ANYONE CAN GO BACK AND READ YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS!!

Your lies and BS, it's all over the place, it's blatant and obvious.

.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2018
@Ojorf.
RC, You should check your reality, it seems broken.
On a forum where anyone can go back and see what you wrote,...
ANYONE CAN GO BACK AND READ YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS!!

Your lies and BS, it's all over the place, it's blatant and obvious.

.
Why are you SO GULLIBLE and TRUSTING of the patently drink/drug-demented DS troll? You're a complicit DOPE for mindlessly enabling that lying DS dope. An example of DS's dementia/lying to YOU can be found at the other thread:

https://phys.org/...ole.html

Here it is:
Thread where @104LiarRC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin: https://phys.org/...zzy.html
That was @Benni/others, NOT ME, you crazy-drunk-stupid DS twerp! Go and sober/clean up, DS. You're only making it more poignant to watch for intelligent readers who have a sense of compassion for internet troll tragics so far gone into blathering irrelevance. Go on; go... Wise up, Ojorf.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2018
@Ojorf.
RC, You should check your reality, it seems broken. On a forum where anyone can go back and see what you wrote,... ANYONE CAN GO BACK AND READ YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS!! Your lies and BS, it's all over the place, it's blatant and obvious. .
Why are you SO GULLIBLE and TRUSTING of the patently drink/drug-demented DS troll? You're a complicit DOPE for mindlessly enabling that lying DS dope. An example of DS's dementia/lying to YOU can be found at the other thread: https://phys.org/...ole.html

Here it is:
Thread where @104LiarRC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin: https://phys.org/...zzy.html
That was @Benni/others, NOT ME, you crazy-drunk-stupid DS twerp! Go and sober/clean up, DS. You're only making it more poignant to watch for intelligent readers who have a sense of compassion for internet troll tragics so far gone into blathering irrelevance. Go on; go...
Wise up, Ojorf!
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 30, 2018
Can't even post competently any more, can you @104LiarRC? Getting a little upset? Good.

Thread where @104LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Thread where @104LiarRC denies math works again: https://phys.org/...low.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims the Big Bang doesn't have any supporting physical evidence: https://phys.org/...sal.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims peer review is contaminated because the reviewers use math: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims yet again without evidence that "recent discovery" denies DM, again without evidence: https://phys.org/...los.html
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2018
@Forum.

Poor DS sod blathering/lying to himself again. Too insensible and unheeding to see that I just proved to Ojorf that DS was the lying troll tragic here. Poor DS sod. Poor, poor thing. Sad.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
RealityCheck
……………….How's the fin rot coming on
Hope your not planning a Christmas under your bridge
what is your gripe with Da Schneib, a mere babe in arms
butter doesn't melt in his mouth
that is
it doesn't melt
when he not having to deal with your symptoms of your fin rot
as none of any of us live under a bridge
we don't have any experience of fin rot
because it must be a real emotive experience
as your upsetting the poor lad, RealityCheck.
Da Schneib is such a mild affable lad
where butter doesn't melt in his mouth
only the ugly troll lives under the bridge
and he's getting a might impatient
waiting for you to vacate his bridge
as in the big bang theory, where Jim Parsons plays Sheldon Cooper
as he utters his immortal catch phrase "you're in my spot"
well RealityCheck, you're in this ugly trolls spot
It's time to vacate this ugly trolls spot
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
As RC is in his spot
Da Schneib> Isn't it a shame this liar @104LiarRC is infecting our forum?
Thread where @104LiarRC lies about "Electric Currents" driving gas outflows from black holes, and note that this individual still claims not to be an EUdiot: https://phys.org/...due.html
Thread where @104LiarRC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere"

Keep the links coming DS, their fascinating
The ugly troll waiting for his spot, is busy reading them as we speak DS
He's getting an insight why he has to sit on the grassy riverbank
waiting for RealityCheck to vacate his bridge
As RC is in his spot
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2018
As RC is in his spot

The white widow model October 26, 2012
[[ RealityCheck> Everyone, please also bear in mind that when all is said and done, every new discovery makes it increasingly apparent that the universes' underlying energy-space 'primary quantum vacuum' behaves as THE ultimate form of an infinitesimal-quanta field of superconducting/superfluidic "plasma" that is neutral at base 'ground state', but separable by symmetry-breaking into flows of 'energy-space charges' at the most fundamental level/scale from which we get all the higher-order neutral/charged "plasma" etc phenomena.
Again, can't stay. Very busy. Cheers and good luck and good thinking all! ]]

RealityCheck on the fly 6yrs ago as to day
An insight into the sage under the bridge
It was not realized RC has been under this bridge for 6years
This is why it is not good to live under the bridge RC
It is way overdue to vacate the ugly trolls spot RC
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2018
RealityCheck in finality of moment

When commonsense
is all-around
and everything on the surface
apparently makes sense
but that indefinable entity
is lingering there
that your finger
you not can put it on
this is natures gift
natures instinct
natures way
all is not right in the world
that your instinct is right
as nature is always right
as that is why
it is always in this world
nature has created
to go with your instincts
then as nature is never wrong
you also are never wrong
as
RealityCheck
has
under
his bridge
in his final moment
in his final sagely stream of thought
to listen to his natural instincts
as nature quite clearly
is saying
please vacate this bridge
if only for your own good
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2018
@gran
t was not realized RC has been under this bridge for 6years
nope. sorry
far, far, far longer than that

his earthling club was revised in 2003, so that is an early verifiable date of trolling pseudoscience bullsh*t and his life under the bridge

on sciforums alone he was banned twice, the first time in May 25, 2006 for trolling, baiting, lying, pseudoscience, flaming, and more which started with his failure to produce evidence in a scientific discussion

they even gave him a second chance which subsequently lead him to be banned again Aug 20, 2014 for the same reasons
http://www.scifor.../banlist

the subsequent meltdown he had and temper tantrums in various sites caused one of the most lenient discussion forums to permaban him and earned him a couple of temp bans from PO, along with multiple post deletions for pseudoscience, etc mentioned above

so he has been under that troll bridge for decades
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2018
Thanks stumps

I am only going on instinct
and the few comments that unearthed
RealityCheck for no reason some months back
did his on the fly magic carpet
then every stone he unearthed
emerged one of his imaginative monsters
To this day no one knows why he did it
and neither does RealityCheck
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 03, 2018
@CS,

one of the most lenient discussion forums to permaban him


Which one was that, out of interest?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2018
@CS,

one of the most lenient discussion forums to permaban him


Which one was that, out of interest?
Sapo's Joint

it's not up at this moment as there is a changeover and some tweaking happening

it ,ay also change addresses, but from what I can tell, it will have all the same data

If you're interested, PM me at Sciforums
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2018
@granville583762.
Thanks stumps..
Beware the Lying-CStump, granville!

The Lying-CStump's 'studied-half-truths' and 'outright lies' campaigns have been exposed again and again, over many years now.

No intelligent objective reader fully apprised of the FULL RECORDED FACTS and CONTEXT of the ACTUAL MATTER (not the Lying-CStump's chopped-version) over the years would now be so gullible as to believe the Lying-CStump's lies about me and/or the facts.

The Lying-CStump TWISTS things with troll-glee and malice-aforethought; the same way that Lying CStump has TAUGHT poor insane DS to do....as all have seen for themselves lately, especially in thread...

https://phys.org/...ies.html

...against @Surveillance_Egg_Unit.

BEWARE the LYING-CSTUMP, granville. The Lying-CStump is the OWNER of all the troll-bridges UNDER which his 'CS-Bot-5s-gang' of TROLLS reside. And DS-troll is a 'CS-trolling-malevolence-school' STAR PUPIL. Sad.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2018
Beware the jabberwocky

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!

RealityCheck BEWARE the LYING-CSTUMP, granville.
true to form
there are monsters
under every
rock
and
just like your
Toe
your axiomatic mathematics
you use
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
you unearth
imaginative monsters
that only exist
in the nether recess's of your mind
your mind of the fictitious character
in the name of RealityCheck
to prove
axiomatic mathematics
to prove your Toe
but ultimately
to prove
you are always right
that everyone is a monster
hiding under every rock
It is time to vacate
The Ugly Troll's Bridge
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
In the nether recess's of RealityCheck mind

There exists
The Jabberwocky
with eyes of flame
jaws that bite
with claws that catch!
that with every stone
the sword
the sword of truth
doth unearth
with every stone
exists
a monster
to beheld aloft
to be shamed
by RealityCheck
to RealityCheck forum
his forum of monsters
hath unearthed
as in the Jabberwocky
with his sword
this beamish boy

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy

In RealityChecks imagination
hath slain this Jabberwocky
he slinks in triumphant glee

then in devilishment of mind
slinks in his mind
for to createth
his next creation
the Jabberwocky reborn
from the slain ashes
RealityCheck
unearths
yet
one
more
Jabberwocky
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
RealityCheck Slayer of Jabberwockies

Your unconscious mind
in its unease
hath made clear
to one and all
this uneasy
relationship
the real person
behind
this
incarnation of RealityCheck
your true
inner self
is battling
the demons
in your mind
of
your
creation
RealityCheck
as RealityCheck has a mission
a mission that only exists
in the imagination
of the fictitious creation of RealityCheck

RealityCheck
RealityCheck does not exist
these monsters do not exist
this fictious entiy "RealityCheck" hath created them
you are living a world of virtual reality
of virtual reality on phys.org
in the nether world of this web
this internet of virtual reality
as just as
The Ugly Troll's Bridge
is a fantasy nursery rhyme
you are living under this fantasy bridge
it is time to vacate this ugly troll's bridge
you're in his spot
please vacate
The Ugly Troll's Bridge
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2018
RealityCheck

You went too far RealityCheck
in language
in words
in sensitivity
in sensible sensitivity
arguing
an
unarguable in sensitivity of charge
that should never ever have been mentioned
on a highly intellectual site
where its commentators
some of which have degrees
lawyers
judiciary
as this site
is accessible to uncle tom cobbley and all
you have clearly lost your way RealityCheck
what possessed you
to engage in such a discussion
as
in Oliver Twists
Fagin
you
clearly
need
To think this out again

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.