WMAP is some of the best spent science dollars ever. Kuddo's

I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background so well or use it to verify previous predictions..... hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?

The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity


I wonder if they will figure that one out in my lifetime. The idea of negative mass or negative energy is a bit hard to imagine. And don't even try to suggest anti-matter, because we already know that anti-matter has positive mass/energy.

I guess the other option besides negative mass/energy would be negative time. That would reverse the effect of gravity. I need some time to think about the effects that might have on observations.

I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background so well or use it to verify previous predictions..... hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?


Making precise predictions, going out to test the predictions, retesting the predictions, and find independent methods to further test the predictions,,,,

OR

Make predictions (It's all electric plasma!), fail in the predictions. Re-predict your predictions (It's all electric plasma!), fail to test your predictions because you have changed your predictions to: It's all electric plasma! And those other guys predictions are only true because of electric plasma!

I wonder if they will figure that one out in my lifetime. The idea of negative mass or negative energy is a bit hard to imagine.


Learning modern physics has been challenging to me when learning how to imagine the counter-intuitive principles,,, but the most challenging by far has been with "dark energy".

I hope it is modeled with some certainty in my life time,,,, it would be nice to have several well slept nights in a row at some point.

Oh, I was thinking about the negative time thing, and it occurred to me that the opposite of a black hole, where time slows down such that nothing can escape, would be a 'white hole', where time speeds up to the point that nothing could enter.

So I guess it wouldn't be negative time, but rather time distortion in the opposite direction of that caused by gravity, so faster time. Faster time would produce anti-gravity, not negative time, or rather a field where time speeds up towards the center of something. A singularity of infinitely sped up time would be a place where nothing could go. It should be like a perfect mirror at the event horizon, or like a perfect cloaking device.

Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."

Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."



Ah,,,,, yeah, that is indeed what it said.

Quote from article: "WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies."



Ah,,,,, yeah, that is indeed what it said.

And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html

I wonder why electric universe cant explain the cosmic microwave background. hmmmm, maybe its time to stop beating that dead horse cantdrive/hannes?


Or not...
As author and EU theorist Wal Thornhill points out:

"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify? The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation - as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe."

And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html


Maybe,,,, maybe not. Your conversation seems rather circular. What point are you trying to make now? That you can snip/glue a quote from the article? Or that the authors of the article plagiarized your work?

I'm sorry, but unfortunately, I'm one of those people who reads only blank spaces between the lines, I don't see what you're getting at.

Or not...
As author and EU theorist Wal Thornhill points out:


Mostly he points to being mentally ill.

"If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?


If Arp were right, more people would talking about his model of the universe. But it seems as if the so called "hot big bang / cold inflation" is very much alive and well,,, thriving even.

I bet you wish the EU/PC theory was as dead as the big bang.

And that was what I said in this link:
http://phys.org/n...mic.html


Maybe,,,, maybe not. Your conversation seems rather circular. What point are you trying to make now? That you can snip/glue a quote from the article? Or that the authors of the article plagiarized your work?

I'm sorry, but unfortunately, I'm one of those people who reads only blank spaces between the lines, I don't see what you're getting at.

Plagiarized, no not at all, in fact I quoted WMAP in one of my comments in that link about the size and time period of the "inflationary period". There was a lengthy discussion on the inflationary period in that link with some claiming the inflationary period only expanded the universe to the size of a grapefruit, I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.

I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.


It could be as you say, or it may not be. Seeing as how limited our knowledge of the "initial conditions" just prior to inflation, it's a very open question. If you a priori assume a beginning volume then the result will depend only on your assumption. At some point you have to defend your a priori assumptions.

I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.


It could be as you say, or it may not be. Seeing as how limited our knowledge of the "initial conditions" just prior to inflation, it's a very open question. If you a priori assume a beginning volume then the result will depend only on your assumption. At some point you have to defend your a priori assumptions.

I am not referring to the time prior to the inflationary period. I am saying that the inflationary period had to have expanded the universe to at least the size of the visible universe today. The reason is we are seeing things as they were as far back in time as we can see, as they were 13 plus billion years ago.

WMAP has brought precision... and the Universe will never be the same

inflation?

growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies.


Uh huh. What happened to "the laws of physics re the same for every observer" and "the laws of physics don't change"?

If the laws of physics can change, then all of history and cosmology are vain endeavors because you can't actually prove when a change occurred. One day you people will get that.

The biggest fraction of the current composition of the universe, 71%, is a source of anti-gravity (sometimes called "dark energy") that is driving an acceleration of the expansion of the universe.


As it is described in books, encyclopedias, and science papers, Dark Energy is most certainly NOT "anti-gravity". The claim is that Dark Energy allegedly causes the expansion of "space-time". Gravity allegedly causes proper motion of matter through space-time, which is entirely unrelated.

However, the claim that space-time is expanding is currently un-provable, because the Doppler effect cannot distinguish one form of shift from another, so that you can't actually prove galaxies are "expanding" away, rather than simply "proper moving" away.

Anyway, if General Relativity is true, then "Dark Energy" is NOT energy, and it is not gravity.

Dark Energy is not energy at all, and if it actually is causing expansion of space and time, it would have units of m^3*s/s/s.

Which looks redundant and you may say it should be "m^3/s" or m^3/s/s, but that would be wrong (if general relativity is right,) because DE allegedly expands space-time.

So a rate of change in the "volume" of space-time is m^3*s/s.

A rate of change in the rate of change in the "volume" of space-time is m^3*s/s/s.

Neither of these is gravitational acceleration, which is m/s/s.

However, to be serious, gravitational acceleration was derived in a linear model, and so it's units may be a fallacy in 3d or 4d world

The whole CMBR based support of Big Bang cosmology is a nifty example of circular reasoning, because the existence of CMBR is explained like the consequence of expansion of photon wavelength during its aging - well, and the age of Universe is derived from wavelength of CMBR photons expanded. In AWT the Universe is steady-state and the red shift is the consequence of light scattering with density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, like the changes of wavelength of ripples during their spreading along water surface. This simple model can be falsified experimentally, because it leads into prediction, that the speed of Universe expansion is wavelength dependent in similar way, like the scattering of ripples at the water surface. It means, when being observed in radiowaves, then our Universe would appear collapsing instead, which can be checked both with blue shift, both with positive violation of ISL.

The blue shift of radiowave sources was observed with Pioneer masers, which serve as a reliable wavelength reference source. The violation of inverse square law was detected during ARCADE-2 observation of distant radiowave sources. In accordance with it the astronomers observed, that the distant galaxies are shrinking in size instead of expanding. From the above model follows, that in CMBR wavelengths the scattering effects (dark matter, dark energy, Sachs-Wolf effects) should disappear from our universe and it has been observed too. So we have a theory, which predicts the same effects, like the Big Bang model for visible light and it remains predictable for another wavelengths, while it doesn't assume the unphysical processes like the initial singularity and formation of Universe "from nothing"...

frajo, its an online science site. dont let the 1's hurt your feelings.....

WMAP's .. has confirmed .. predictions .. of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the sky
It's not true, until the Doppler's anisotropy is taken into account. But this anisotropy is usually subtracted from data in the very first stages of results evaluation. It doesn't fit the model, so its simply removed.
..there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots on the map...
Such an effect occurs during scattering of ripples the water surface too: at the very end of visibility scope the scattering of ripples follows the Gaussian curve with the same number of positive and negative deviations. But before it we should observe another effects, which would violate the Gaussian character of the scattering.

If you would follow the scattering of ripples at the water surface, you will note that their circles get the character of particle solitons with distance. In another words, the light propagates like system of sparse particles at the very distances and it undergoes the particle packing geometry, which can be described with Lie E8 group as a system of nested dodecahedrons. These structures appear on the one half of sky (the another one is destroyed with Doppler's anisotropy) and it violates the Gaussian character of CMBR fluctuations apparently. These deviations cannot be explained with inflationary models and they point to the scattering model of Universe "expansion" too.

Illustratively speaking, if we would observe our Universe like the water surface with its own waves, then the surface ripples would dominate this observation, until they will not get scattered with underwater at the distance. At the very distance the portion of information mediated with longitudinal waves will become apparent too. As the description of the picture correctly states, in this scenario the space-time is curved like the Klein bottle or Mobius strip and it returns portion of information back again toward its observer. If you make a splash at the water surface, then the subtle portion of its energy will return back again in form of underwater sound waves.

Sweet! Going to the WMAP site and reading the papers, one find they also constrain the inflation process more than ever.

Ironically one of the best mechanisms is the original suggestion of Starobinsky's, which isn't in the form of a field (but can be put that way).

@ GSwift7: It's in Bennett et al's main paper: "It may well turn out that the dominant
mass-energy component of our universe is a cosmological constant arising from vacuum energy, ...".

Residual vacuum energy should result from the zero-point energy of particle fields, and is also what is predicted by the inflationary landscape over FRW universes with vacuum energy and the string landscape over geometric foldings with vacuum energy.

Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks.

@ cantdrive: Besides EU universe being rejected by observation (no cosmological EM energy processes), Arp's ideas are rejected similarly (no galaxy associations).

@ frajo: Different times, different mores. Mainly they didn't accept it originally on grounds that it made the universe much larger, an argument from incredulity fallacy. Later it was religion taking over, so argument from authority instead.

@ Lurker: "What happened to "the laws of physics re the same for every observer" and "the laws of physics don't change"?"

Nothing, as you would know if you read Bennett et al's paper, it is a 6 (or 7) *fixed parameter* cosmology dynamics. Why do you think otherwise, when nothing such has been claimed?

Yup, "antigravity" is a dumb description, and Bennett should know better than to try to analogize thusly. But spacetime is expanding as we all know from redshift observations. (Or you need a truly cosmic "conspiracy" of galactic motions.)

@ Valeria: It isn't "circular" of course, or it wouldn't be the accepted cosmology! Read the papers for details - you will find no circularity.

And "aether" has been rejected by observation, give it a rest.

Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks.
The negative time processes are just those observed/mediated with quantum processes, i.e. with longitudinal waves, where we are observing the Universe from "outside". Such a processes aren't quite rare - for example large galaxies do condense from gravastars, i.e. inside out, rather than with accretion, i.e. from outside-in.

Dan Maoz' "Astrophysics in a Nutshell" sketches two quick calculations, of the optical depth, of the ionized IGM, from earth, out-and-back to high redshift. Both basically boil down to equating the mean-free-path of Thompson scattering, to the Hubble distance (c/H). If the IGM harbors 6 ions per cubic meter, then the redshift out at which the optical depth rises to one, is (1 z) ~ (8-10). Of course, the IGM was largely neutral before (z~6), and the optical depth out to that epoch is ~2/3. Never-the-less, would not such an optical depth potentially blur background sources (z>6), e.g. high-redshift proto-galaxies, and the CMB? Perhaps, therefore, high-redshift proto-galaxies are intrinsically blurry?

CMB temperature fluctuations represent sound waves, in the then-ionized, then-radiatively-pressurized, primordial space plasma. The sound speed was most of the speed of light. The sound wave lengths were hundreds of thousands of light-years. Ipso facto, CMB temperature fluctuations must be varying, on time scales of hundreds of thousands of years. E.g. if ancient Neanderthals had had WMAP, then their CMB sky would have looked different, than the figure in the above article. With ten years of data collection, WMAP may have already observed changes, of order 10^(-4), representing real trends (peaks --> troughs), and not merely noise. WMAP observations should be extended, for 100s of Kyr; Sci-Fi-esque "Babylonian / Egyptian" ages-long record keeping, extended for centuries of millennia, would observe a complete restructuring of the CMB background

.

Dear PhysOrg!!

I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.

Your's sincerely
One of thousands of frustrated readers!

Well CERN declared that the god particle was found too! And a bit later, there were TWO gods? Ooops. Same here, I am afraid. If you look hard enough, one can justify any almost any data. Sounds like they have been working on the justifications for nine years, and Boom, I mean Bang, right before XMAS? Jingle bells.

There are a lot of career reputations at stake here. It cannot be found otherwise. The fantasy must simply be true. Nothing short of that conclusion will be allowed. Happy holidays.

On second thought, Reionization was complete, across the cosmos, by about z~6. But, some protogalaxies have been observed, out to z~(8-12). So, foreground of those anomalously distant protogalaxies, must reside anomalously-early-re-ionized space plasma, from z~6 to z~(8-12), as schematically depicted, in one of the above figures. Otherwise, neutral hydrogen would have absorbed out much of the starlight. So, seemingly, the equations for optical depth apply to all observable galaxies, for whom (nearly) all material foreground of them, along the entire sightline to earth, must (?) be ionized. And so, optical depths out to such faroff galaxies might be ~(1.0-1.5). Dimming & blurring of high redshift protogalaxies presumably implies the space density of space plasma.

There was a lengthy discussion on the inflationary period in that link with some claiming the inflationary period only expanded the universe to the size of a grapefruit, I stated it had to have expanded the universe to at least the size we see today, 13 plus billion lightyears.


The quote refers only to the observable universe but you are also confusing the lookback time with radius, they are not the same. The universe has been expanding ever since so the sizes now and then differ too. The material which emitted the CMBR was at a radius of 42 million light years at that time but it is at 46 billion light years now. The ratio is the same as the redshift of the CMBR or z=1089. It is the voulme within that radius which was "the size of a grapefruit" at the end of inflation.

Non convincing discussion of the H0=70 fit versus the Riess value H0=74. No word on the Ellis galaxy at z=10.9 that should not be visible with ionization at z=10. No word about the model's inability to predict Galactic properties. LCDM lives forever (as an effective theory), but CDM can not exist.

Non convincing discussion of tension between the H0=70 fit and the Riess value H0=74. No word on the axis of evil properties. No word on the Ellis galaxy at z=10.9 that should not be visible with ionization at z=10; galaxy abundance may just continue at the Ellis rate towards z>>10. No word about the model's inability to predict Galactic properties beyond rotation curves; the adjusted number of luminous satellites do not work out dynamically; that the many dark ones have not been observed. LCDM lives forever (as an effective theory), but CDM can not exist.

torbjorn:

Negative time doesn't make any observational sense, the process of time is observed by periodic clocks


Yeah, I reasoned around to that after that post. See my following post where I retracted that notion, and replaced it with a field with increased rate of time at the center.

Here's a quote from the wiki on vaccum energy:

Quantum theory of the vacuum further stipulates that the pressure of the zero-state vacuum energy is always negative and equal to ρ. Thus, the total of ρ-3p becomes -2ρ: A negative value. This calculation implies a repulsive gravitational field, giving rise to expansion


A repulsive gravitational field can be conceptualized as a field of increased rate of time flow, in the sense that gravity is a distortion of spacetime.

Simplistically, the integrated path length, from z~(6-12), equals Int( c dt = c/H0 dz/(1 z)^5/2) ~ 300Mlyrs. Thus, for protogalaxies at z~12 to be observed, they must reside in a region which was ionized several hundred million years earlier than the cosmic average. And, several hundred million lightyears at z~10 would correspond to several billion lightyears at present epoch; many galaxies might lie on, or near, sightlines so long. Perhaps high-redshift galaxies (z~12) are surrounded by a "halo" of intermediate-redshift galaxies (z~(6-12)) which have ionized the intervening IGM?

for protogalaxies at z~12 to be observed, they must reside in a region which was ionized several hundred million years earlier than the cosmic average.

This type of ad hoc arguments have kept LCDM alive till now, and there are many of them. But then LCDM is not predictive but an epicycle theory, that one day must collapse.

Well, exactly. Given the fact, that the inflation theory was designed just for explanation of homogeneity of universe, I do perceive improbable, it would allow such an inhomogeneity of Universe at its beginning. I presume, new generation of infrared telescopes will reveal, such a galaxies are everywhere.

WMAP's .. has confirmed .. predictions .. of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the sky
It's not true, until the Doppler's anisotropy is taken into account. But this anisotropy is usually subtracted from data in the very first stages of results evaluation. It doesn't fit the model, so its simply removed.


It fits the model perfectly, it is simply the "Doppler shift" component caused by the Solar System's proper motion relative to the mean of the plasma that emitted the CMBR.

No matter how much you whine, the current model will continue to be accepted unless someone comes up with an alternative that explains the source of the CMBR and Hubble expansion, just picking the two most obvious observations that eliminate most cranks ideas.

In AWT ..


There is no such thing as "AWT" as you admitted yourself.

the Universe is steady-state and the red shift is the consequence of light scattering with density fluctuations of vacuum in similar way, ... This simple model can be falsified experimentally, ..


And of course it has been. Firstly, scattering produces a shift which is dependent on frequency while cosmological redshift is independent. Secondly, the duration of SNe light curves would be constant if redshift were caused by scattering but they are stretched by the same factor:

http://phys.org/n...rly.html

like the changes of wavelength of ripples during their spreading along water surface


In water of uniform depth, the wavelength doesn't change. You need to learn some very basic physics before trying these more complex topics.

I am just an average joe, not a scientist, but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed. If its 'non' atomic, what is it made of?

.

Dear PhysOrg!!

I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.

Your's sincerely
One of thousands of frustrated readers!


SNOB

I am just an average joe, not a scientist, but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed. If its 'non' atomic, what is it made of?


The wording of the article is rather non-technical, leading to some confusion if you try to go into specifics.

In the context of the article, they are talking about things like neutrons, protons, electrons, and perhaps photons, nutrinos and quasi-particles that materialize and self-destroy on a quantum scale in 'empty' space.

In layperson's terms, think pieces of atoms.

I say, maybe photons and nutrinos because they may or may not be considered as having mass, and therefore may or may not contribute to the aparent mass balance of the Universe at large scales. This is still in the process of experimental investigation. Photons, for example, do not apear to have mass, but they have the ability to transfer momentum from one massive object to another through conservation of mass/energy.

but when i read "non-atomic matter" it blew me away... I never knew such a thing existed.

Just head on over to wikipedia and look up 'matter'. You'll quickly see that there are plenty of types that aren't part of atoms.

Kron, if you're too much of a pussy to spell out the word, why don't you refrain from using it?

When we decoded it, the universe revealed its history and contents.

Unfortunately, herein , lies the rub and rubs up against the grain of the truth.
To decode the physically obtained, actual observed data, the scientists have to rely on their own basic/axiomatic assumptions to interpret the results. Without any interpretation, the results are basically meaningless.
Take for instance the next line that talks about
WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years.

So where and how does the measurements confirm that the universe is 13.77 billion years old or that the afterglow is indeed that of a young hot baby "only" 375000 years old? Without some basic[and in this case untested] assumptions, one cannot arrive at such an interpretation. No one was there to observe and record said history - it's STILL all speculation

I have only one thing to ask for, this Christmas. I wish that all people who sign up for writing here, would be tested. Applicants should have a minimum IQ and age, and be free of Delusional Schizophrenia.


SNOB


I guess us regular folk should not be allowed to discuss our inferior thoughts ..


The O.P. is right, see the posting guidelines:

http://phys.org/help/comments

"Keep science: ... Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted (see pseudoscience)."

Unfortunately the site doesn't enforce that rule or 90% of the posts would be deleted.

Nor does it enforce this or yours would have been deleted:

"Be civil: Please respond insightfully and respectfully, avoiding personal attacks and name calling. Do not make comments that ... degrade others. Personal attacks will not be tolerated."

This is harder:

"Do not 'feed' the trolls"

Most of the posters here are not trolls, just clueless idiots with minimal knowledge of basic science.

A question for anyone who might know. I some articles I have seen the Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one. But in this article it is referred to as two separate types of "stuff".

Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same? (I am asking because I do not remember where those articles I read had received their information from)

Thanks!


No, they are entirely different. Dark matter can be mapped and forms clouds in space, it must be a substance with mass affected by gravity.

http://en.wikiped...k_matter

Dark energy isn't well named, it seems to be a good fit to the Cosmological Constant Einstein included in the equations of General Relativity:

http://en.wikiped...constant

To decode the physically obtained, actual observed data, the scientists have to rely on their own basic/axiomatic assumptions to interpret the results. Without any interpretation, the results are basically meaningless.


Nope, the only axion of science is that the physical laws are repeatable.

Cosmological models are based on GR which has been tested by observation and never failed. If a better theory is found in future, it must also be constrained by those observations.

Cosmology itself adds one further assumption, the Copernican Principle, which states that the universe is homogenous and isotropic over large scales. That has been tested and is reasonably well confirmed, studies so far have also shown no deviation beyond expected statistical variations.

We may not have existed at the time the CMBR was released but we can still observe it and objects from 12 billion years ago onwards, the current model is based firmly on observation.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter being described as one... Is there any current professional studies that indicate that they would somehow be one and same?
Yes it is. This picture illustrates the AWT model of the observable universe with few black holes inside of it. The black holes have the same geometry like the whole Universe, just inverted one. It corresponds the fact, that the Universe geometry is described with FLRW metric, which is inverted version of Schwarzchild metric, which is used for black hole description. Now, the dark matter is observed around massive bodies, because it's a product of polarization of CMBR fluctuations with space-time curvature. So it should appear around event horizon of black holes in the same way, like around event horizon of the observable part of Universe.

Maybe non mainstream theory should be defined better in the posting policy. A lot of the articles on here are non-mainstream. i.e. 500 phases of matter...

Thank you frajo, FleetFoot, & ValeriaT for a reply to my question. Much appreciated


You should know that Valeria's answer is a crackpot answer. AWT is not taken seriously by anyone actually working in the field.

posting here at PhysOrg may result in a message from PhysOrg complaining about unnecessary verbosity on a posted message


I'm pretty sure that is triggered by some kind of anti-spam software they have built into the message board. It doesn't work properly and you'll see it do strange things from time to time. I've gotten those before, and had no trouble reposting the exact same thing later. There doesn't seem to be any human moderation of the comments on this site. If there is, then it doesn't seem to be people who read English.

Also, don't even bother looking at the 'rating' thingy. There are a bunch of antisocial creeps who get a thrill out of giving 1's. I don't give out any ratings at all, positive or negative any more. It just feeds the trolls.