Making the Hubble's deepest images even deeper

Making the Hubble's deepest images even deeper
Credit: Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias

It has taken researchers at the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias almost three years to produce the deepest image of the universe ever taken from space, by recovering a large quantity of "lost" light around the largest galaxies in the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field survey.

To produce the deepest image of the universe, a group of researchers from the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC) led by Alejandro S. Borlaff used original images from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) taken over a region in the sky called the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF). After improving the process of combining several images, the group was able to recover a large quantity of light from the outer zones of the largest in the HUDF. Recovering this light emitted by the stars in these outer zones was equivalent to recovering the light from a complete galaxy ("smeared out" over the whole field) and this missing shows that some galaxies have diameters almost twice as large as previously measured.

The HUDF is the result of combining hundreds of images taken with the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) of the HST during over 230 hours of observation which, in 2012, yielded the deepest image of the universe taken until then. But the method of combining the individual images was not ideally suited to detect faint extended objects. Borlaff says, "What we have done is to go back to the archive of the original images taken by the HST, and improve the process of combination, aiming at the best image quality not only for the more distant smaller galaxies, but also for the extended regions of the largest galaxies.

The WFC3 was installed by astronauts in May 2009, when the Hubble had already been in space for 19 years. This presented a major challenge for the researchers because the complete instrument (telescope and camera) could not be tested on the ground, which made calibration more difficult. To overcome the problems, they analysed several thousand images of regions across the sky with the aim of improving the calibration of the telescope on orbit.

"The deepest image of the has been possible thanks to a striking improvement in the techniques of image processing which has been achieved in recent years, a in which the group working in the IAC is at the forefront," says Borlaff.


Explore further

Hubble goes deep

More information: Alejandro Borlaff et al. The missing light of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2018). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834312
Journal information: Astronomy & Astrophysics

Citation: Making the Hubble's deepest images even deeper (2019, January 24) retrieved 22 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-01-hubble-deepest-images-deeper.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
268 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 24, 2019
So they found more luminous matter. What does doubling the diameter do to rotation curves? Is everybody still going to say their side has always been completely correct? Stay tuned.

Nah, don't bother. You already know.

Jan 24, 2019
and this missing light shows that some galaxies have diameters almost twice as large as previously measured.

The trend is not good news for merger maniacs. Are not these early galaxies supposed to be small?

As I have predicted before, it is simply an observational problem, where the galactic central regions are all that can be observed at these distances, leading to wrong conclusions by fanciful merger maniacs.

Jan 25, 2019
@dnatwork.
So they found more luminous matter. What does doubling the diameter do to rotation curves? Is everybody still going to say their side has always been completely correct?
This latest instance, of vast amounts/distributions of ordinary 'previously faint' dark matter findings, when added to all the rest I have been long pointing out for @RNP, IMP-9 etc (with even more to be found by even better/newer scopes/methods), makes the 'exotic' dark matter hypotheses/searches unnecessary. I wonder how the 'exotic' DM 'enthusiasts' will spin this latest finding for ORDINARY faint/dark matter, which is now an inescapably obvious trend from recent mainstream discovery/reviews.

ps: By the way, @dnatwork, I took your sage advice to 'not bother' with that eternally feuding lot in that other thread. Saves time and breath for better more important things. Thanks for the advice, mate. :)

RNP
Jan 25, 2019
I have been long pointing out for @RNP, IMP-9 etc (with even more to be found by even better/newer scopes/methods), makes the 'exotic' dark matter hypotheses/searches unnecessary.


As usual, the monomaniacal RealityCheck leaps to the wrong interpretation of the article. If there is more luminous matter than expected in the outskirts of galaxies, then there is also more dark matter. Besides, it does not alter the need for DM in the inner regions.

Learn the physics behind articles you read before commenting RealityCheck!!!

Jan 25, 2019
@RealityCheck, glad I could help improve someone's day!

Jan 25, 2019
@RNP.
RealityCheck leaps to the wrong interpretation of the article. If there is more luminous matter than expected in the outskirts of galaxies, then there is also more dark matter. Besides, it does not alter the need for DM in the inner regions.
You have just asserted a fallacious interpretation of the actual facts in evidence, mate. Can't you do the math for yourself? If galaxies in clusters are now twice the previously (under)estimated diameters, then their individual masses would be FOUR times the original (under)estimated masses. Then ADD this to the recent finds of more ordinary (previously faint) matter in the Intergalactic Medium between those galaxies (which even @Da Schneib has acknowledged exists), and the 'needed' EXTRA matter/mass for explaining LENSING etc has been now effectively FOUND. So why do you still believe more 'exotic' DM 'must be there', @RNP? Less biased kneejerking to insults/denial, @RNP; and more proper reading/understanding. Rethinkit. :)

Jan 27, 2019
Oh @RC, you math&physics ignoramus. If the extra outlying areas have only just now been glimpsed using extreme digital processing, then it's safe to assume they weren't seen before. Right?

And since they hadn't been seen before, it's because the amount of light coming from these outer regions of these galaxies is pretty low. Right?

And if the amount of light coming from these regions is pretty low, then the numbers of stars in these regions must be very low. Right?

And since these regions had also not been visible in radio/microwave/IR, then the amount of material not contained in stars - dust, gas, etc., must also be pretty low. Right?

So, even if the "extents" of these galaxies are now double their previously estimated diameters, the masses of extra material is WAY smaller than your "FOUR times" the original.

Fun question: if I have two solid spheres of steel, 1 cm and 2 cm in diameter, how much heavier is the second compared to the first?

Jan 27, 2019
@SkyLight.
[1]...
[2]...
[3]...
[4]...
[5]...
Itemised and responded to by number:-

1. They weren't 'seen' before only because data imaging/analysis previously was not sufficiently able to discern below 'cut-off' brightness/intensity parameters/capabilities etc applied then, that's all. It doesn't mean the dust/stars etc content/light in those regions was that much less; just below 'cut-off' levels applied then.

2. See 1.

3. The nature/age of the stars, and the dustiness/plasma light absorption/extinction etc is not known 'there' (and along transit path to 'here'), so your assumptions/rationalisations are mere speculations and not factually based.

4. See 3.

5. As pointed out, your assumptions/conclusions/speculations/rationalisations are not factually based, so your assertion is irrelevant. Anyway even just THREE times is a LOT MORE than previous (under)estimates.

Then ADD the other newly found 'ordinary matter' in ICM to cluster mass: Lensings explained! :)

Jan 27, 2019
Errata:

The "ICM" in the last line of my post to @SkyLight should have been "Intergalactic Medium" (ie, the 'ordinary' matter throughout the deep space between the galaxies WITHIN a cluster of galaxies...or "INTRA-Cluster Medium" if you prefer), consistent with original post to @RNP. Thanks.

Jan 27, 2019
@RC, surface brightness of a galaxy is determined by the number of stars or the amount of dust and gas. So, if the surface brightness is low there aren't many stars or much dust and gas.

@SkyLight merely assumed anyone with a brain would be able to figure this out.

Just sayin'.

Jan 28, 2019
Anyway even just THREE times is a LOT MORE than previous (under)estimates
Heh, the uber-obtuse @RC does some hand-waving and throws out the baby!

You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no formal training in science, no understanding of math, but you DO have a massively over-inflated ego, a LOUD MOUTH, you have not the slightest ability to learn science the hard way, nor to grow as a person.

So we're stuck with your ranting until the guys with the white coats drag you away for some well-earned therapy. Just sayin'

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib,
@RC, surface brightness of a galaxy is determined by the number of stars or the amount of dust and gas. So, if the surface brightness is low there aren't many stars or much dust and gas.
The mainstream has recently found the universe to be much much dustier then previously thought when such simplistic interpretations of low brightness data were first encountered. And the fact that we can only 'see' the FRONT FACE of a region's emissions tells us that what we can see constitutes 'the tip of the iceberg' of matter deeper within the extended line of sight to the farther edges. Please disabuse yourself of outdated old/naive/simplistic interpretations, DS. :)

@SkyLight.
Heh, the uber-obtuse @RC does some hand-waving and throws out the baby!
You're the one "hand waving" based on old/naive/simplistic and just plain wrong assumptions/interpretations which mainstream recently/continuing to dispel. You are too biased/slow to realise it, SL. :)

Jan 28, 2019
@105LiarRC uses excuses just like @Benni.

If you're just gonna make up more lies you're just gonna look stupider.

Just forget it. It ain't gonna work.

Jan 28, 2019
@Forum.
@105LiarRC uses excuses just like @Benni.

If you're just gonna make up more lies you're just gonna look stupider.

Just forget it. It ain't gonna work.
And there we have it, folks; the loser(s) starts in with the trolling and insults because they have been found wanting on the actual recent mainstream discovery/reviews that confirm me correct all along; while the losers just keep denying, rationalising and insulting while being patently caught out being behind the fuller implications of what is actually going down in mainstream astro/cosmo/quantum physics discovery/reviews over recent years to date on many fronts. Too bad. It's almost like trying to get through to religious 'believers' who just won't listen to reason and facts all around and evolving as we speak under their very noses! Oh well, trolls and deniers are everywhere on the net these days. Too bad for them, hey folks? :)

Jan 28, 2019
When yuo start trolling, I troll yuo back.

Surprised yuo haven't figured that out before. Yuo must not be very bright.

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
When yuo start trolling, I troll yuo back.

Surprised yuo haven't figured that out before. Yuo must not be very bright.
You just lied, DS. I explained about the dustier universe; and about the near edge limitations re what is observed of low-surface-brightness features at distance. And you just started to insult and troll in lieu of proper reply. How can you think no-one else has noticed that fact, DS? Are you that lost to self-awareness of what you are actually doing/saying? Not good, DS.

Jan 28, 2019
We look at galaxies.

They're dimmer at the outer edges.

Yuo claim they're as dense or denser where they're dimmer.

Now, who's lying again? Just askin'.

Jan 28, 2019
Pretty quick I start posting 105LiarRC lie posts again.

Yuo got the high road and the low road. Yuor choice.

Oh, and now it's @106LiarRC. Yuo just got caught again. And this one is a stupid lie.

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
We look at galaxies.

They're dimmer at the outer edges.

Yuo claim they're as dense or denser where they're dimmer.

Now, who's lying again? Just askin'.
Stop with the insults, mate. And the galaxies outskirts are huge volumes, so they can contain dispersed matter/stars amounting to huge quantity of matter which adds up to a LOT more than you think, DS. Not to mention that it's precisely because the stars are more dispersed over greater volumes that the dust/plasma etc is less bright...but it's still there, all the way through the line of sight radial distance and we cannot see all of it (hence 'the tip of the iceberg' indications from what we can see at this distance). Then add the Inter-cluster Medium content between the galaxies themselves (as you pointed out to @torbjorn in another thread also existed in great quantities) to the above findings/implications, and you get enough mass to explain the cluster's lensing effects. No need for 'exotic' DM. :)

Jan 28, 2019
Just like @Benni, yuo always got an excuse, and it's always a lie.

And a stupid one. Yuo gonna start telling us about half-life next?

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Just like @Benni, yuo always got an excuse, and it's always a lie.

And a stupid one. Yuo gonna start telling us about half-life next?
What "excuse", DS? I point out known/evolving mainstream discovery/review based facts and understandings replacing old/naive assumptions/interpretations which you and SkyLight have been labouring under while insulting and trolling me while blithely ignoring/denying the fuller implications which I am pointing out as to why 'exotic' DM is no longer 'needed' because 'ordinary' previously dark matter is being found sufficient to explain the cluster lensing effects. And that you resorted to associating me with @Benni tells the intelligent reader you are desperate to distract/demean instead of argue fairly based on what is being presented to you. Not good, DS.

Jan 28, 2019
I'll be frank, @106LiarRC. I find yuo boring. Like most trolls.

Yuo lie about discoveries to support yuor claims, which mostly look like intentional trolling attacks against science.

Yuor claims have been invalidated. Telling yuo so is not trolling, it's just telling the truth. Yuo've made up a fairy tale about bright matter being dark matter, and it doesn't matter how many times yuo tell it, anyone who knows any science knows yuo're lying.

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I'll be frank, @106LiarRC. I find you boring. Like most trolls.
Now if you could be objective scientist and honest discourser rather than a frank troll, you might learn something instead of being a frankly insulting troll of the first water who has not learned from all his many past faux pas while being ignorant of what is actually correct according to the known evolving science I have been pointing out for your benefit to apparently little avail due to your ego trolling instead of respecting your intellect and science. Too bad, DS.

Yuor claims have been invalidated. Telling yuo so is not trolling, it's just telling the truth. Yuo've made up a fairy tale about bright matter being dark matter, and it doesn't matter how many times yuo tell it, anyone who knows any science knows yuo're lying.
It's PREVIOUSLY DARK but NOW FOUND matter, you lying strawmanning twit, DS. How can you function with such twisted non-reading/misreading mentality, DS? Not good.

Jan 28, 2019
I am honest. I am telling yuo the truth. Yuo just don't want to believe it. I can't help that. I am not a psychologist or psychatrist. Yuo will need one of them to help yuo. If yuo get a good one they'll go look it all up and ask yuo why yuo don't believe ten thousand astrophysicists.

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I am honest. I am telling yuo the truth. Yuo just don't want to believe it. I can't help that. I am not a psychologist or psychatrist. Yuo will need one of them to help yuo.
You need one, DS. Because you wouldn't know the truth until it was drummed into you after pages of your insulting behaviour. Recall that 'plasma in the sun' discussion?...wherein you were shown to be a lying insulting twit of the first order who finally had to admit you were wrong despite insulting me for days with your DIShonest lying nonsense and accusations just like now. Stop being a frank ego-twit troll, DS; and just listen and learn for a change. Try.

Jan 28, 2019
Errata:

The relevant phrase in previous post should have been: ...'plasmoids in the sun' discussion?... and not ...'plasma in the sun' discussion? Thanks.

Jan 28, 2019
@106LiarRC, I don't need a psychologist to tell me anything. I can look it up and tell yuo're lying.

Here come the proofs yuo lie:

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @106LiarRC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@106LiarRC, I don't need a psychologist to tell me anything. I can look it up and tell yuo're lying.

Here come the proofs yuo lie:
Typical denial and projection, DS. Not a good sign, DS. An even worse sign is that you are intending to again list your wilfully misconstrued examples which will only go to prove to the intelligent reader just how haplessly ego-twisted and dishonest unheeding and unteachable ego-twit troll you have been for years already...so no change there then, DS. Not good, DS.

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@106LiarRC, I don't need a psychologist to tell me anything. I can look it up and tell yuo're lying.

Here come the proofs yuo lie:
Typical denial and projection, DS. Not a good sign, DS. An even worse sign is that you are intending to again list your wilfully misconstrued examples which will only go to prove to the intelligent reader just how haplessly ego-twisted and dishonest unheeding and unteachable ego-twit troll you have been for years already...so no change there then, DS. You really do never learn, DS. Not good, DS.

Jan 28, 2019
@106LiarRC, they are yuor words. Do yuo deny them?

Thread where @106LiarRC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html

Jan 28, 2019
Thanks, DS. Now new readers will get the chance to read my posts (hidden by trolling bot-voting by you/others), and see for themselves how I am being confirmed correct all along on many fronts while you/others were wrong all along while insulting and trolling and bot-voting my posts down. Keep it up, DS; the links will show just how miserably trollish and twit-like you/others have been while I was correct all along. You're doing me a great service there, DS! Cheers, mate! :)

Jan 28, 2019
Cool by me, @106LiarRC. They'll sure know yuo lie all the time.

Thread where @106LiarRC tries to support EUdiocy (despite claiming not to): https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @106LiarRC makes up stories about another poster: https://phys.org/...ars.html
Thread where @106LiarRC insults a user by lying about what that user said: https://phys.org/...ter.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about GR "predicting" singularities: https://phys.org/...s_1.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @106LiarRC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @106LiarRC has never said what three of them are.
2

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Cool by me, @106LiarRC. They'll sure know yuo lie all the time.
They'll sure know you falsely accuse me of lying etc; while all the time it was you lying/wrong all along, DS. Good for me, DS. But not good for you, DS.

ps: DS, where is the link to the 'plasmoids in the sun' discussion?...wherein you falsely accused me etc while you were wrong all along and had to finally admit it. Be honest and include that link too, DS. Are you a cowardly as well as dishonest troll, DS?

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "inconsistencies" it claims exist in the Big Bang model: https://phys.org/...ack.html]https://phys.org/...ack.html[/url]
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about BICEP2 again, still without any evidence of four errors in the paper: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html]https://phys.org/...ack.html[/url]

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC claims the #EUdiot #physicsdeniers have made scientific predictions: https://phys.org/...ven.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims time is somehow motion: https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @106LiarRC 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 @106LiarRC claims redshifts are "highly unreliable:" https://phys.org/...ies.html

Jan 28, 2019
Dudebro, I can keep this up all night. Do yuo really need to see it all again?

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Dudebro, I can keep this up all night. Do yuo really need to see it all again?
Go for it, mate! You're doing me a great service by directing new readers to posts previously hidden by the downvoting campaigns of bot-voting gangs who couldn't stand being wrong while I was confirmed correct all along by mainstream recent discoveries/reviews. It's all good for me and for science discourse that new readers will now see my posts and see for themselves how unconscionably stupid and malicious some trolls (you included, DS) have been while being insulting and wrongheaded while attacking me for being correct.

ps: Here is the link you left out...wherein you were proven wrong while insulting/accusing me as usual, DS:

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

pps: there's a link in your list where you mis-attribute @Benni's comments to me re Rubin etc. You were made aware of that/other errors a few times before now. Don't you read, DS?

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about astrophysicists' knowledge of the galactic magnetic field: https://phys.org/...ays.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims the polar outflows from a planetary nebula are a Z-pinch (standard EUdiot drivel, despite its claims it's not an EUdiot): https://phys.org/...ula.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims the Big Bang never happened then tries to equate it to the BICEP2 situation, which it never justifies: https://phys.org/...ate.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims the Big Bang is a religious belief: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC makes more unsupported claims about BICEP2 and again claims Steinhardt denies the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...big.html

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC claims all magnetic fields are due to plasma: https://phys.org/...lts.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims the long-debunked "tired light" hypothesis of the Babble-thumpers is still viable: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims universal expansion is supported by a circular argument: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims dark matter is electrical (the EUdiot "theory" it pretends to dismiss): https://phys.org/...-ia.html
Thread where @106LiarRC advertises its supposed "Theory of Everything" (ToE) which it has never provided even an explanation of, then tells the Steinhardt lie again: https://phys.org/...ark.html

Jan 28, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims scientists are engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that the Big Bang isn't real: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims matter turns into gravity and vice versa: https://phys.org/...ard.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims LIGO gravitational wave detections are due to coincidences: https://phys.org/...les.html

Jan 28, 2019
Like I said, @106LiarRC, there's no point in lying any more. Yuo've been caught too many times. Plenty more where this came from.

Jan 28, 2019
@Da Schneib.
...there's no point in lying any more. Yuo've been caught too many times. Plenty more where this came from.
That could very well be the truest thing you have ever (unwittingly) said about yourself, DS. When intelligent objective readers read those links you listed they will see that your words apply to you not me! All 'own goals' by you, DS!

Just as they saw in the link below wherein you were trying all your trolling, insulting and 'liar' accusations silliness on me until you finally had to admit I was right all along while you were the wrong lying stupid malicious insensible unheeding troll (like again now):

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

All noted you strawman, misconstrue, misattribute etc as your juvenile go-to trolling tactics; which failed you miserably for years now, DS. You apparently never learn, DS. Not good, DS.

But thanks for the 'free' publicity/directions for/to my posts, DS! Good for me, DS. :)

Jan 29, 2019
besides being arguably the best demonstration for Dunning-Kruger on the interwebz, the above bullsh*t posts by rc only validate what I've been saying for years:

not only is he/she/it delusional, but he/she/it doesn't care that he/she/it is being proven, using his/her/its own words and posts, to be a lying idiot

it's all about the attention allowing the criminal sam fodera to avoid taking responsibility for his/er fraudulent actions, perceiving him/herself to be the one with "exceptional ability or integrity" out of some misguided belief of duty (as noted by the "reality cavalry" comments)
https://en.wikipe..._complex

sam is a masochistic idiot and fraud likely with a codependent and/or abusive relationship
period
full stop


Jan 29, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Wasn't it claiming the Big Bang is a religion somewhere on here? Looks like it's the real religionist.
Thread where @106LiarRC claims universal expansion in GRT is an "a priori assumption" despite the fact it is empirically observed: https://phys.org/...ant.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims math is philosophy: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere" ignoring the fact that it obviously isn't the same between the Milky Way and M31: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims there's enough baryonic matter to explain dark matter: https://phys.org/...ies.html

Jan 29, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Thread where @106LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
How in the name of objective science and atheism did you come up with the obviously insane misconstruing that an ATHEIST (me) could be a "Young Earth Creationist", DS? Are you gone totally bananas, DS? Even your wretchedly malignant bot-voting troll-buddies @Captain Stumpy and @Uncle Ira aren't so bananas to come to such a bizarrely self-contradictory misreading of the acts as that, DS.

ps: Speaking of malignant bot-voting nincompoops, there goes @Captain Stumpy right on cue, being an irrelevant twit of a noisy troll as ever. He must have "reported" me a at least a thousand times over the years, but the admin have ignored him for the vexatious lying internet loser troll that he has proven himself to be for years now. Poor Stumpy. It looks like he'll die as insensibly stupid as when he was born, only more malignant, noisy and irrelevant. Sad.

Jan 29, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @106LiarRC repeats the Steinhardt lie yet again: https://phys.org/...ics.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about the possibility of the Sun having an electric charge: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about the ISW effect and insults an actual scientist posting on this forum: https://phys.org/...eor.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies again about the Big Bang and supports LaViolett, a known crank: https://phys.org/...tar.html

Jan 29, 2019
In order to say something is a lie, don't you have to start with a known truth? Since all these theories are theories, the most you can say is "I think it's unreasonable to disagree with the standard theory based on the information at hand" or "I find your interpretation of the information at hand to be unconvincing." Going straight to "lying and mentally disordered" is excessive and unsupported.

Ah, but everyone knew that already.

Jan 29, 2019
@SkyLight
@Da Schnieb
@dnatwork

Hey guys, go see what mainstream slowly discovering re vast amounts of ordinary matter ejection rates into deep space from galaxies!

We are only recently realising/correcting for the huge reservoirs of peri-galaxy/inter-galaxy 'previously dark' but 'ordinary' mass estimates increase for galaxies/clusters of galaxies:

https://phys.org/...gas.html

Maybe that latest mainstream report, in long line of mainstream discovery/reviews (effectively indicating 'dark matter' is 'ordinary'), will stop some of the trolls from attacking me just because 'I got there first' with the updated understandings of what mainstream is discovering/reviewing re these/other aspects of previous naive/simplistic assumptions/interpretations of actual astro/cosmo phenomena/data.

It is past time the 'exotic'-DM hypothesis was RE-LABLED to reflect Zwicky's ORIGINAL 'ordinary'-DM hypothesis.

Science advances! :)

Jan 29, 2019
Going straight to "lying and mentally disordered" is excessive and unsupported.
How about after 12 or 11 years, is that long enough for a "lying and mental disorder"? If that is not enough time, how long you should wait before you can tell the Really-Skippy he has a mental condition? Choot, even Professor-Steinhardt said he was demented after reading just two paragraphs of the Earthman Playhouse stuffs the Really-Skippy wrote.

Jan 29, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Going straight to "lying and mentally disordered" is excessive and unsupported.
How about after 12 or 11 years, is that long enough for a "lying and mental disorder"? If that is not enough time, how long you should wait before you can tell the Really-Skippy he has a mental condition? Choot, even Professor-Steinhardt said he was demented after reading just two paragraphs of the Earthman Playhouse stuffs the Really-Skippy wrote.
Still too stupid to see your own stupidity, Ira? Sure looks like it; since I just posted/linked something which (yet again) confirms me correct all along and you mentally challenged all along. Not surprising, Ira, since even the bot-voting program you attached to your PO account is more intelligent than you, Ira. Not good, mate. Shhh. Don't mention "lying and mental disorder", Ira; as it reminds every PO intelligent reader of your terrible decades-long affliction in that way. Other than that 'problem', Ira, how you going? :)

Jan 30, 2019
@RC, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the trends in the data, I was objecting to all this ad hominem noise.

Jan 30, 2019
@dnatwork.
@RC, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the trends in the data, I was objecting to all this ad hominem noise.
Yes, I understood that, mate. No problem. :)

The reason I included you in the address line of my relevant post was out of debating courtesy to you as the first of my interlocutors in this thread with whom I agreed on both the relevant science observations/understandings and the observations/understandings re the "ad hominem noise" brought by others. Thanks for your scientific objectivity and fair-mindedness in your observations/understandings of both aspects, mate; much appreciated. Cheers. :)

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