The tireless campaign to minimize the importance of electromagnetism in space rolls on, and let's be clear that those who seek to lend gravity all of this power have not taken the time to fully understand the many nuances of the debate. Those who cheer them on like a team sport seem unaware of the inherent gamble: If this approach proves wrong, then all we will have to show for this current era is the observations and lessons about the sociology of science. Many millions of hours of human activity and billions of dollars in public money rest upon the wisdom of these inferences; the idea that such inferences would be made without a very detailed analysis of the arguments on both sides displays an eagerness to spend vast human resources without concern for where the history will end up on these questions.

Maybe by the time our Sun has destroyed all life in the inner solar system, intelligent life will just be coming into existence in that distant proto solar system. Kant would have enjoyed this video.

The gas jets are the source of the material falling into the disk, having been ejected from the star after forming new matter therein. But a merger maniac would never think such a thing. So the jets are not even given due consideration, but only mentioned as curiosity.

Star formation -> what is it? How does it happen? What triggers the ignition?

The unsolved mystery remains. The observations pile up, the theories become wilder and wilder but the enigma of stars forming all by themselves from clouds of gas without any external intelligent help and self-igniting remains as obscure and obdurate a problem as ever.

If you do not know how stars came into existence then you just about know nothing else about the origin of the whole universe - no matter how you throw wild, speculative theories around.

Geometry of this object resembles Peratt plasma instability

@FineStructureConstant.

FSC, while I do NOT agree with every assertion, claim etc made by Tuxford, I note that your responses are of 'double standard' type. Case in point:

blahschott.

maybe before you insult somebody, you should make sure they are not correct.

TuxWindBag subscribes to the debunked notions of LaViolette, and believes against all evidence to the contrary that matter is created in vast amounts from nothing and can provide no theoretical basis for such a belief. His "science" cannot therefore be checked for correctness, and carries no more weight than any other set of religious beliefs.

Your above observation/criticism is exactly applicable, word for word, to Big Bang, Inflation etc etc. So using that 'argument' to 'debunk' Tuxford is, as it were, a 'double-edged sword'. Take extra care when 'wielding' same, hey?

...about as substantial as a Belgian waffle.

Speaking of "Belgian", BB 'creationism' was a Belgian Priest's religious fantasy.

@FineStructureConstant.

(a) Tux/La Violette's baseless conjectures plucked out of thin air, with no evidence or carefully-constructed theories to back them up...

Ok. HOWEVER, it's the SAME for BB/INFLATION; now being 'disowned' by Penrose/Steinhardt, saying they were NOTIONS that NEVER had any tenable scientific basis for them. See the similarities in critique?

(b) The vast amount of evidence collected over decades which has led many to construct theories, like BB and inflation, in an attempt not only to explain the observations, but also to provide quantitative predictions which can be tested, in other words, these theories are falsifiable.

First please see response to ( a). Then catch up with mainstream discoveries/reviews of late increasingly showing old BB etc myths NEVER 'scientific'.

Those under (b) ARE falsifiable,

But BB/Inflation etc ALSO 'unfalsifiable'! The only 'support' WAS notional/unsupportable assumption/interpretations etc. Circuitous.

See?

@FineStructureConstant.

@RC: Theory with quantitative predictions => experimentation / observation => falsifiability. Science.

But objective scientific care should have been taken as to the reality-or-not of the things being considered. If they are 'unreal' or 'imaginary' or wrong assumptions/interpretations-based 'quantifications', then no amount of 'precision' or logics can make them real or make the models they are part of 'falsifiable' in reality....since we can not actually have direct 'quantification' data on the whole universe, let alone some distant cosmic 'observables' which are themselves subject to great error/wrong conceptual 'interpretations' etc. That is the main problem for BB, Inflation, CMB-dependent exercises/claims etc.; GIGO simulations based on GIGO-train of assumptions and 'models' and 'quantities' which bear no relation to reality (a case in point being the huge OLD UNDER-estimates for what ordinary/visible matter existed).

cont...

@FSC cont

Of course many scientists are not totally happy with BB/Inflation, and some of those come up with alternatives

You miss the point. New/recent mainstream discovery/review is NOW falsifying and/or questioning (much MORE objectively than before) the very things that (as Penrose/Steinhardt have finally admitted) have been BUILT INTO the scientific literature by 'peer review' which has been 'passing' UN-scientific myths for decades which had become 'treated as fact' by subsequent 'hack' publish-or-perish' so-called 'researchers and science writers'.

I've been scrupulously independent observer/researcher/commenter pointing out the dangers and pitfalls of 'passing off' patently OBVIOUS 'myths' and 'claims' as 'scientific'.

...done by the few who dedicate themselves to such investigations.

That 'few' is precisely the problem! They 'manufactured' a BIASED 'peer review' HERD MENTALITY for themselves; 'deaf/blind' for DECADES.

I point out what they missed. :)

@FineStructureConstant

...in much the same way that a heap of horseshit resembles Mount Everest.

Very mature answer and I wonder if You ever seen a heap of manure or Mount Everest ;)

Most of matter in universe is in plasma state so neglecting of plasma behavior and its electrical properties leads to constatnt bafflement, lack of proper prediction and ad-hoc hypothesis patching inconsistent model. Sipmple comparison of Peratt instability with bipolar nebulae, some HH object, radio lobes; diocotron instability with hexagonal [polygonal] galaxies, hexagonal [polygonal] tornadoes, hexagonal [polygonal] creaters; Birkeland currents with all filamental sctuctures explain/resolve some encountered problems

@FSC, you are by no means the only one who is frustrated by the fantasy physics crowd. I have picked two of the most egregious transgressors out and I am working on them. I hope you will join me in this endeavor and submit for your consideration that it appears, however unpleasant it may be, to be the only effective countermeasure.

If we do not hang together we will apparently hang separately.

@bullschitt, it's not about math, it's about experiments, and the fact you don't know the difference is obvious evidence you are incompetent to express an opinion.

You are a minor player. Get over it.

Delusion is a harsh master. Delusions are fragile constructions. This fragility requires a vigorous defense, and demands investment. The more that is invested the greater the demand. Thus the infestation of the deluded vermin, desperately driven to invest more and more....seeking out articles that stimulate their defensive behaviors - not driven by interest in the subject, rather by the overpowering need to prop up a belief system. The belief system must be invested in to defend the fragile illusion of sanity.
There is nothing any intelligent logical presentation of facts or argument can do to effect change in this dynamic.

@FSC, you are by no means the only one who is frustrated by the fantasy physics crowd

And it's fantasy physics to imagine that a well of infinite gravity can exist inside a finite stellar mass, your vaunted BHs which are nothing less than Perpetual Motion Machines.

I have picked two of the most egregious transgressors out and I am working on them.

Oh come on, there are more than two who do not believe in your Perpetual Motion Machines base on some dumb concept of Schwarzschild BH Math that gravity is DENSITY dependent & not MASS dependent

I hope you will join me in this endeavor and submit for your consideration that it appears, however unpleasant it may be, to be the only effective countermeasure.

By this you mean you plan to ramp up the name calling binges over & above your past name calling binges?

If we do not hang together we will apparently hang separately

It's for sure that the gallows are efficient non-Perpetual Motion Machines.

I'm almost reluctant to post anything next to this steaming pile of ignorance: But then the ignorant and their "imagined new truth" would win.

I'm just looking forward to the James Webb telescope images which will show so many star systems forming, and also provide an optical component to these fantastic radio images.

I'm almost reluctant to post anything next to this steaming pile of ignorance

Problem is: then the ones more motivated win. And motivation is (unfortunately) not linked to intelligence.

Anger is a powerful motivator. And I guess what motivates the EU, cold fusion, religious nutcase, etc. - crowd is a (subconcious) realization that they have failed. Now they're just trying to make their way right by force (i.e. by shouting loudest instead of argument).
They don't care that this impresses no one.

"If you can't win by reason go for volume"
--- Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
http://thecurious...?p=20313

@a_p - there's also the "I'm NOT a dummy!" and "you'll be sorry!" syndromes

Exactly. But I think that only manifests after that person has already repeatedly failed (i..e at some level they know they're a failure)

(for want of better names - are there terms in psychology for these?

Dunning-Kruger?

which lead people of limited ability to adopt ideas or theories which they find not so tough that they can't understand them

My personal view on this is: At some point in everyone's life you have this idea that you are right (i.e. have the perfect set of ideas/ideals, etc...usually as a kid or young adult). Some get stuck in this view of themselves and never grow up (resulting in the righteous, fanatics, psychopaths, and - on here - the self deluded 'armchair scientiosts').

where no ability to question or reason is required or necessary

Well, such an ability would require work to develop. Work is hard. Self-delusion is so much easier.

refers to my intuition that these people were bullied or ridiculed for being dummies

I think it might even manifest itself without any external bullying or name-calling. If you think you're perfect then any kind of negative reinforcement (like bad grades) will push you one of two ways: either try to apply yourself more or blame someone else ("it's the teachers' fault"). Denial is a very common mechanism not limited to those with mental trauma.

Frank Herbert made a very astute observation in one of the Dune novels. When the Bene Tleilax tried to artificially create a Kwisatz Haderach (super-being) which they could control it killed itself. In effect he's saying: Something will turn upon itself rather than be forced to acknowledge being the opposite of what it thinks it is.

are really all about the beat-up kid trying ...

Or they are just so far gone that no one will deal with where any human contact (even ridicule) is better than none at all..

@BS, @Benni, reading your comments, I'm horrified by the confused, flawed, ignorant and carelessly-formulated "thinking" behind your statements, which set off alarm bells ringing practically everywhere. You're both of you very obviously unaware of your incompetence and hopeless ineptitude in this field.

Of course you're "horrified" that I don't believe in the Perpetual Motion concepts of finite stellar masses at the center of which exists an INFINITE GRAVITY WELL.

I spent six years in Engineering School studying Nuclear/Electrical Engineering in addition to compiling continuing education credits beyond that, and you're trying to imagine I shouldn't be able to figure out Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math is nothing less than PERPETUAL MOTION gone wild? Einstein's 1939 paper on that subject should have put that on ice a long time ago, but there are those, such as yourself, who prefer to indulge in their fantasies.

I think it might have been (Bijaz?). Haven't read them in a while. But judging by the condition of the covers they are certainly among my most read (and re-bought) books. There's just so many good political, religious, societal and environmental observations in there (and a cool story) - I haven't really found much else that lives up to that.

Another thought on denial: I actually think that a mild form of denial is a beneficial thing. A healthy dose of "I failed, but I think I can do this if I try harder" is essential for growth. Though it is equally important to find a point where one admits to oneself "maybe I was wrong and I can't do this no matter how hard I try?"

... but just going "I can do this" and then not actually show that one can - that is unhealthy self-delusion. I've had no end of students who proclaimed they could do the math after being taught - but failed when they were actually put to the test (reason why they had to go get a tutor, I guess)

I hope you will join me in this endeavor

What do you have in mind?

Just what you're doing. Stick around; it's not always easy to deal with the trolls, but there is good conversation to be had here, I hope, and you're certainly a contributor to that. There are some good contributors, like IMP-9, RNP, antialias, and others; there are also some non-technical people who are aware of the problem and are less and less easily misled by the trolls as time goes on and their trolling is revealed for what it is. I think we should support them, and aid where we see the opportunity, and continue pointing out trolling and various sorts of intentional misdirection. It's obvious that the moderators are incapable/unwilling, and the results if we do nothing or ignore the trolls are that they are unopposed.

my use of the term "syndromes" refers to my intuition that these people were bullied or ridiculed for being dummies

@FSC
actually, you're not far off the mark here- but there is more to it, depending on who you're talking to

not only is neurosis and psychosis an issue (not syndromes) but you're also dealing with a situation of specialisation

in that most of the science tends to be highly specialised, you run into problems dealing with laymen and their understanding (or lack thereof)

it doesn't help that most scientists ignore trolls and pseudoscience idiots - because who spreads the information then?

the scientists tend to expect people to actually try to comprehend reality, whereas most people are really too f*cking lazy to work that hard, regardless of their interest in the topics (see above)

and there are so few "Azimov's" out there explaining it for the laymen in short easily digestible bits

so we end up with people grabbing anything that fits their bias

Hint: EUdiots don't like accretion disks and claim they never happen. Since accretion disks are a relativistic gravity phenomenon, and EUdiots deny relativity, they cannot admit that accretion disks exist; and this locks their BS out of competent astronomy, never mind astrophysics. It's one of the key insights that we see everywhere that proves they are EUdiots.

It's unfortunate that we have to be looking at the entomology of EUdiots to try to make sense of how the universe works, but the results of not protecting oneself against their poisons are false beliefs and conspiratorial ideology, both to be assiduously avoided.

@FineStructureConstant and @antialias and @Da Schneib etc.

@Da Schneib:

If we do not hang together we will apparently hang separately.

Your post there is effectively a POLITICAL call to arms for GANG activity aimed at disruption of open discourse, not reasoned individual contributions to the discourse on scientific/logics merits. No more 'gangs' and/or 'herd mentality' please, DS! Thanks.

@all abovenamed addressees: Your 'characterizations' of 'failings' you attribute to alleged "idiots" might be more 'effective' if the SAME did not apply to yourselves as well, all too often!

Recall your gang/herd mentality/attacks against ME when I was merely advising you to objectively check out the Bicep2 'work' and 'claims'?

Y'all went BERSEK! Just insulted instead of following objective scientific method principles which I was suggesting you apply INSTEAD of 'bashing cranks' with such FLAWED 'work', 'claims'!

You acted WORSE than any alleged "idiots" you bashed then, or now!

@RC, your use of persiflage, inimical misrepresentation, abusive invective, direct lies, and pernicious prevarication in order to mount personal attacks is objectionable, and I am objecting. You are without honor and bereft of credibility by your own actions, clearly visible to anyone who bothers to look at what you write.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

@Da Schneib.

You have tried to recruit a gang for your malicious activity against fair and open science and humanity discourse on a science site. That is UNFORGIVABLE here, DS! Even more so than your recent employment of the STUMPY METHOD of NOT READING while attacking, insulting and remaining intentionally ignorant and malicious against all good ethics in science and humanity. That was bad enough, DS; but this latest manic spamming and lying-by-egregious-OMISSION campaign is just the final nail in whatever integrity/intellect you had once upon a time; which you have so effectively and wantonly WASTED on your and the gang's ego-tripping, bot-voting and gang-attack stupidity, on a science site no less!

R.I.P. DS's integrity/intellect. So easily and tragically taken from him/us, by drink, ego and malice in noxious combination; made even more poisonous and virulent by the catalyzing/enabling action of internet access unsupervised by a responsible adult. Sad case. :(

@FineStructureConstant.

That's a tad (more than just a tad) hypocritical isn't it. FSC? You would have the trolls, bot-voting ignoramuses run riot and lie by omission and commission, and spew THEIR bile all over the threads burying any interesting discussion under your 'preferred toll-shite'. Yet when I am forced to defend against ALL those trolls, you make it sound like I am the one who started it or am perpetuating it. That is 'blaming the victim' type of double-standard which has been used by perpetrators of the most heinous crimes against science and humanity, FSC. If you don't even realize how MORALLY BANKRUPT and DANGEROUS to all decent people your CONDONING/EXCUSING such behavior is, then you are truly lost in 'gangmember' mindlessness and malice.

Resist 'gang mentality', FSC; before it's too late for you (it's apparently too late for DS, Stumps, Ira et al, but YOU might still have a chance to make things right with your character and your intellect). Try, FSC. :)

@FSC.

Firstly, I do NOT speak for EU/plasma universe proponents: I even sometimes REMIND THEM (and you etc) that ALL universal phenomena/features etc are HYBRID in nature; involving ALL forces at different stages, one dominating over other(s) in turn as they evolve over various time scales depending on phenomena under study. So your 'impressions' and 'associations' there are mistaken!

Secondly, let's just recall briefly WHOSE science knowledge/comprehension and practice was correct all along and:

- saw the Bicep2 flaws immediately, while you/the 'gang' did NOT even bother to objectively check it out as I (and Scientific Method) suggested;

- is being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by recent mainstream discovery/reviews in astro/cosmo/QM field; while you/gang still working from old increasingly 'iffy' myths/notions that never had tenable scientific/logical basis since proposed;

- trying to get all to discuss based on objective science merits, not person.

Ok?

@FSC.

...and because your so-called "science" ignores the scientific method, it can't be called science. Which part of THAT do you not understand?

Whoa there, buddy! What makes you fit to criticize MY science and contributions here to the science discourse? You, who have NOT been correct all along like I have, on many fronts; including Bicep2 fiasco and recent mainstream discovery/reviews confirming ME correct and NOT you/that 'gang' of pretend 'scientists' who prefer to troll, bash cranks, bot-vote and otherwise insult and sabotage science discussion....anything BUT 'doing science', but only 'parroting' OLD orthodoxy like all those 'science writer' HACKS who are decades behind the evolving situation which makes them sound like broken records!

I take pride in being and following the science and science method; whereas you/gang takes pride in doing your gang attacks, personal insults etc on a science site. That makes you much WORSE than any real anti-science cranks. :)

- saw the Bicep2 flaws immediately

Hi RealityCheck,

I'm new to this site so I was intrigued by your post regarding flaws with BICEP2

I had a google around to find your posts on BICEP2 using this search

https://www.googl..._rights=

The first link took me to this specific post where you say you are quoting yourself.

https://phys.org/...urt.html

RealityCheck 1 / 5 (27) Mar 17, 2014
Reposted from the earlier thread:
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw.

Cont

So I refined the search to include the term "Nobel coveting"

https://www.googl...hys.org/

Success, I thought! The original post :)

But there's no actual detail of the flaws you've seen :(

I can then only find references in other posts you make back to that post but no actual post containing your insights :(

Can you link me to the post where you detail your insights or post them up again? It would really help me in understanding what you are saying.

Thanks v.much

@FSC.

Forget Bicep -

What are you saying, FSC! Remember the truism:

He who forgets their history is doomed to repeat it!

It is because many so-called 'scientists' have CONVENIENT amnesia and in-denial herd-mentality that Bicep2 fiasco was allowed to happen AT ALL.

Anyone NOT following scrupulously the objective dictates of the scientific method is DOOMED to be WRONG. I followed it scrupulpusly, you/others did NOT.

Learn your lessons from that fiasco yet, FSC/gang? It appears NOT, judging from the way you/they STILL attack the person (ME) and 'conveniently forget' how correct I have been ALL LONG, on both the science AND the behavior, despite extreme provocations and sabotage from YOU/gang trying to skew the discourse/metrics on a SCIENCE site out of pique/embarrassment at YOU/gang being WRONG all along.

And how many DECADES did it take for Penrose/Steinhardt to 'self-correct'? Too Long!

Look to YOURSELVES to see where the problem lay here, FSC/gang. :)

@434a.

This is a long story and I have no more time/inclination to go over old ground on that with every new poster who has not seen the various posts you ask about. The last time, only recently, I had a moment or two to spare for similar requests from poster @imfromcanada. I explained the whys and wherefores of my scattered posts in side-discussions re the flaw in various unrelated topic threads. I even mentioned one of the major assumptive/modeling flaws to @imfromcanada in one of my replies to him. If you search @imfromcanada's posting history you will find that as well as more explanations re my not being at liberty to discuss those in more details until I publish all my work complete. Sorry if you aren't satisfied with this response, but you can appreciate I cannot keep satisfying a parade of new posters, as I'd have no time/energy left for more important/immediate matters which require my attention and time. Good luck anyway, 434a; and welcome to PO. Avoid 'gangs'. :)

@FSC.

you know of course that the march of science will pass you by without ever noticing you - the ragged toothless beggar at the side of the road - bleating about something or other, words lost in the slipstream of constant scientific progress.

You're in denial, FSC. Science is "passing you by" not me.

I'm the one fully abreast of developments; I'm the one mainstream is confirming correct on many fronts; I'm the one trying to get you/gang up to speed (a thankless task at best; wearisome task at worst); and I'm the one who has brought new insights, objective discourse despite your/gangs personal tactics, insults etc.

NOT you.

That you STILL call me names, and disrespect me, FSC, when I have been the one proven correct all along on both the science and the behavior, and you/gang unscientific and wrong all along, tells that you are NOT the stuff TRUE selfless objective scientists are made of, FSC.

In-denial, elitism, exclusionism, insults etc are NO substitute, FSC.

@RC:

Your post there is effectively a POLITICAL call to arms for GANG activity

He's just describing a standalone-complex (bonus points to who gets the reference). Separate people coming independently to the same conclusion.
(That just happens to be be how scientific theories are strengthened. So it's the scientific process applied to a social problem..i.e.: you)

@FSC.

Would this be the SAME Peer Review system that 'passed' all those old unscientific/illogical, unreal, metaphysics/maths myths into 'professional science literature' despite never having any science/logics support?

And which FOR almost a CENTURY in many cases been cited/relied upon by subsequent 'exercises' and 'claims' by HACK 'researchers/writers' merely repeating dogma instead of critically assessing objective scientific merits/basis for same?

And which "Peer Review" system lately been in the news for all the WRONG REASONS for many fields?

FSC, it is people like YOU/gangs (who blithely 'passed' Bicep2 crap and still based on your beliefs over evidence) that has DESTROYED Peer Review Process which started out so well many decades ago, before BB etc "snake oil" selling 'mathematical-physicists-come-cosmologists' polluted the process and betrayed science method for so long.

Look to yourselves, FSC.

ps: My site has interim/incomplete work only. I never link to it.

@antialias_physorg.

@RC:

Your post there is effectively a POLITICAL call to arms for GANG activity

He's just describing a standalone-complex (bonus points to who gets the reference). Separate people coming independently to the same conclusion.
(That just happens to be be how scientific theories are strengthened. So it's the scientific process applied to a social problem..i.e.: you)

Wow, mate, that technique let you down BADLY in that Bicep2 fiasco, where YOU and your 'science-by-trolling-and-bot-voting gang consensus' got it all wrong, and me correct. You still haven't learned anything from that, have you antialias? Ego and denial is strong in the types who would call for a gang mentality to take precedent over individual responsibility for applying scrupulously the TRULY objective scientific method AT ALL TIMES and all circumstances....even here; instead of your insults, bot-voting 'gang' stupidities skewing the metrics here. Shame on you, antialias. Shame.

@FSC.

@RC

I'm the one... I'm the one... I'm the one... and I'm the one... I've been the one

You've obviously been playing too often with your one-eyed snake down there!

Each iteration involves proof where I was correct all along and YOU/gang WRONG all along. So naturally, your EMBARRASSMENT at being SO WRONG SO OFTEN would propel your ego-saving attempt to save face against the terrible truth about yourselves: in-denial rationalizations while insulting from self-imposed ignorance and malice....at a 'strength' which would make the real anti-science cranks green with envy that they couldn't muster up such 'industrial strength' arrogance, stupidity and malice for their own agendas.

FSC, if you are the latest example of what has been going into the ranks of professional physicists/cosmologists, then no wonder it has taken so long for these fields to even BEGIN to 'self-correct'.

I applaud the newer crop of more objective, respectful and selfless scientists. :)

@RC - you know of course that the march of science will pass you by without ever noticing you - the ragged toothless beggar at the side of the road - bleating about something or other, words lost in the slipstream of constant scientific progress

In the meantime, you have posited not one syllable of vowel & consonants that have any content about the subject of: "First clear image made of accretion disk surrounding young Star".

The totality of everything you have posted so far is the usual name calling rants that is such a commonplace feature of perpetual motion advocates. You believe Infinite Wells of Gravity & Density can exist inside a Finite BH Stellar Mass, but you can't prove it.

Within the enclaves of Astro-physics, there is this propensity for persistent name calling binges against those of us who challenge you to prove how your advocacy for unproven mathematical models comports with the proven Laws of Physics.

Can you put up a post minus the name calling?

@FSC.

@RC

Ego and denial is strong

...in you. Straight from the horse's mouth!

@RC, if you had even a shred of decency and critical self-analysis, you'd understand what's going on here, with people "ganging up on you" actually pointing out to you the flaws in your reasoning and approach, you poor deluded fool. But you don't, and you very evidently can't, GET IT.

What the hell, FSC? Where have you been the last decade of my Internet Experiments PROVING beyond shadow of doubt the existence of certain internet mod-troll gangs sabotaging, banning posters etc for their own sick ego-tripping 'enjoyment'?

Your predilection for excusing the perpetrators (because they are your 'friends in crime' as it were) makes you so NOT FIT to opine about the innocent/correct victims of their abuses of mod power and privileges (your hair would curl, FSC, if you but knew the half of what they got up to!).

So please, FSC, you're ignorant/biased on many levels/issues. NOT GOOD. :(

@FSC.

'industrial strength' arrogance

I like that - you can come up with a pretty turn of phrase when you put your mind to it.

I do as well on science too. But you wouldn't have noticed that, being as how you are so busy excusing trolling, bot-voting insulting ignoramuses 'gang' on a science site; so missing all the good science on offer from mainstream and me. Never mind, FSC, go back to sleep.

I applaud the newer crop of more objective, respectful and selfless scientists

Objective, respectful, selfless: no doubt you include yourself among these paragons of scientific endeavour.

If the shoe fits, FSC. But your foot is so stuck in your mouth of late, FSC, it's soggy troll-shoes for you! Maybe a dunce's cap borrowed from Uncle Ira would help keep you warm and dry (and even more ignorant, unfortunately) while your troll-shoes dry out...if ever.

BTW, now that this has arisen, FSC, have you EVER contributed anything original in science/logics/maths here?

@FSC.

Where have you been the last decade of my Internet Experiments PROVING beyond shadow of doubt the existence of certain internet mod-troll gangs sabotaging, banning posters etc for their own sick ego-tripping 'enjoyment'?

Your "Internet Experiments"? You put the internet in a test-tube? you measured the troll-gangs with a micrometer/voltmeter/E-meter/tailor's tape measure and proved their existence?

So, when someone says they do "Internet Banking", you ridicule them like that too? Lame, FSC, lame. Evasive and just plain lame. Not only an inadequate 'scientists', but an inadequate 'jester' too. Never mind, there must be something you can do right. Let us know when you find it, FSC. So that's perfectly clear, hope everybody is keeping up... FSC, you were told that site has only interim incomplete works at present; yet you took that out of context crucial for consistent understanding across the whole works when published complete. That desperate, FSC? :(

Hi RC

Well that was an interesting sojourn. I'll quote from ImfromCanada's post as it will save retyping what I feel.

https://phys.org/...rgy.html

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anywhere that added to what you originally said about not telling anyone and they should find it out themselves. I checked the update article, and you merely reposted and reaffirmed that you felt it was a waste of your time to continue. I checked several other articles where your name and "fatal flaws" came up in phys.org, but was unable to find one that actually mentions your findings. It's all searchable, regardless of voting, unless a moderator has removed (highly unlikely) the post itself.

To me this means I have searched for what I feel was a reasonable amount of time to find your scientific proof against a paper that is/was up for peer review, yet could find nothing. If you have posted it somewhere, perhaps it's time to repost

@434a.

Patently you cannot do simplistic searches and expect to find randomly inserted references to said flaws in random side-discussions in threads not directly on the topic of said flaws. It was explained to @imfromcanada. The fact you didn't acknowledge that aspect; and neither did you mention the flaw I DID mention to @imfromcanada, tells that your cursory 'search' is woefully inadequate in the circumstances. In that case try not to draw conclusions from incomplete and erroneous 'data' set which you have at present. And I will not repost again because I have not the time/inclination to go back and find them and so do the work that people should have been doing all along for themselves instead of ignoring, insulting while missing everything important. Naturally, @434a, you being a newbie is unfortunate for you, as you have just walked in on an ongoing issue which I have no time/inclination to satisfy you/others about again. That's it until I publish complete, 434a. :)

@434a - Good work done there in following up on RC's claims - it's more than I was prepared to do. Thanks!

Hi FSC, the issues which @RC has with BICEP2 are raised in many dozens of threads. I assumed, as it turns out erroneously, that they were documented in a way in which anyone could read and get an understanding of. I am glad my time was of some use to you.

@RC given the effort you go to explain and defend your position with reference to BICEP2 I find it very odd that you aren't able to easily or willingly point to, or repeat, the issues you've identified.
You may not care about the perceptions this raises in those of us who are looking in on the conversations within this forum but it doesn't do your position any favours. I mean this purely from the perspective of someone interested in the process of constructing a well structured argument. Having a foundational stone missing in a debate is surely a weakness that will be exploited. Best of luck.

@434a.

Thank you for your concern on my behalf, @434a. Much appreciated and applauded for its tone. If you can keep up that tone of genuineness and objectivity against the 'gang' tactics which are usually directed at those who challenge/expose those gangs then you'll do ok here; although, from first indications, the fact you are not challenging the 'gangs' version/tactics etc, means you will probably be left alone (or even '5'ed, just to seduce you into going along with them on other gang-attacks/trolls etc; but beware the cost to your integrity/objectivity if you get conned into trusting the 'gang'; don't say you weren't warned, ok? :) ).

Anyhow, re Bicep2 flaws etc; I have provided the necessary often, only for it to be ignored by trolls whose method was "TL;DR" (ie, Too Long; Didn't Read) followed by usual insults in ignorance/malice for which they have become well known. It put me off repeating those efforts in futility. And I won't play that game again. Sorry. :)

Hi @RC You assume much, I did indeed read the one criticism that you put forward to ImFromCanda. This is what you refer to
https://phys.org/...rgy.html
- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;

I was expecting a little more than this given the continued criticism you have levelled at the research. Would it be churlish to point out it is one person's unsupported opinion rather than a rigorously sourced refutation and that it is 1 not 4.
Cont

If this is the acceptable standard then I will suggest that the CMB is a consequence of electrons and neutrons forming hydrogen for the first time some 375k years after the BB vs inflation which occurred 10 minus 36 to 10 minus 33 seconds after the BB.

Inflation couldn't smooth out the resulting radiation as it occurred 375k years before the radiation had been generated.

@434a.

Hi @RC You assume much, I did indeed read the one criticism that you put forward to ImFromCanda.

I merely noted the absence of your mention of my mention of one flaw I DID to @imfromcanada; and again pointed out that the situation is not one for facile searches, as I also explained to @imfromcanada

This is what you refer to

https://phys.org/...rgy.html
- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;

I was expecting a little more than this given the continued criticism you have levelled at the research. Would it be churlish to point out it is one person's unsupported opinion rather than a rigorously sourced refutation and that it is 1 not 4.

It was my observations/insights since supported by Planck results. :)

It was my observations/insights since supported by Planck results. :)

Hi @RC

This paper? https://arxiv.org...02.01589

PS @434a.

The Planck results confirmed my longstanding observations about the 'mixmaster' effect by innumerable high energy processes/materials during photon transit from any appreciable cosmic distances; it even identified the local Milky Way dust etc effects. Hence my CMB-related observations, questioning and pointing out the dangers of too simplistic/naive assumptions, models and interpretations of same. Bicep2 was merely the latest (then) of a series of 'exercises' based on CMB data analysis/interpretations etc subject to much GIGO due to all the 'mixmaster' and other complications (including naive/simplistic redshift and distance ladder etc 'techniques and methodologies built into all such 'exercises' involving obviously unreliable assumptions and models). Then there is the teams behavior itself; wherein they were obviously motivated by glory/nobel visions which led to 'gazump' and other personal/mercenary 'publish or perish' imperatives to do SLOPPY flawed 'work'.

Ok?

@434a.

It was my observations/insights since supported by Planck results. :)

Hi @RC

This paper? https://arxiv.org...02.01589

Unfortunately they still haven't changed the usual spiel about CMB and BB etc myths. They have come far, to be sure, to even admit that CMB can be so affected even at local scale let alone through cosmic travel distances! But they have a long way to go before the whole litany of BB/Inflation/Expansion/exotic DM and DE etc MYTHS are flushed from the scientific literature and we get back to serious reality-based scientific method application rather than maths/religious/metaphysics etc UNREALITY nonsense that has been 'passed by peer review' for too long. It has taken DECADES for Penrose/Steinhardt to self-correct, admit that BB/Inflation were bogus artifacts of fantasy not real scientific/logical hypotheses.

Anyhow, I've had my say. I don't much care what troll gangs do/say because they have been wrong all along. Good night. :)

You've evidently overlooked my several comments in this thread on Herbig-Haro objects (HHOs), jets and disks all features of the system featured in the article you really ought to pay attention, you know.

Having said that, I do realize these things are easy to miss when you're unable to tell reality from a ripe fig.

.........of course the posts you point out specific to yourself are "easy to miss", they're easy to miss because all the foul mouthed name calling rants far outnumber what little content you put up that is appropriate to the subject material.

So far, your foul mouthed name calling content is at least 90% of the content you've posted to date, so why would anyway even care about reading the remaining 10%? Your attitude reminds me of a guy by the name of Fritz Zwicky, an astronomer who made it a practice to shout down any of his colleagues who disagreed with him about anything, like calling them "spherical bastards" as he labeled Einstein on occasions.

@FSC.

FSC, you were told that site has only interim incomplete works at present; yet you took that out of context crucial for consistent understanding across the whole works when published complete.

So you don't deny it's your own work then... Well, old pal, people have been waiting for several years now for this magnum opus of yours to be published, so I thought it might be helpful to give them a taster of at least some of your ideas, even if they are just "interim" and "incomplete" and a little out of date.

The quotes will surely at least give us a hint of the style of writing and the breadth and depth of your explanation of "the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics". No small task for a mere human.

FSC, your cavalier disregard for others' work is telling of your attitude in general to all things serious. Like science/logics method/principles, for instance. What you are doing is like taking a picture of an artist's work in progress. Misleading.

Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work" you keep telling them about

.........and so far, the only "work" you've been showing up with are your foul mouthed name calling binges. Within this entire thread, I have yet to see anything that comports to standards that could be labeled SCIENCE, you're just following the Stumpy trail with no separation between the two of you.

What a situation we find ourselves in, what an age, when false news and Hogwarts science can reach so many, as to pose a real danger to the truth

@FSC
there is a solution - i've presented a method for the site (PO) to moderate using existing known educated posters (like AA_P, Thermodynamics, Q-Star, Runrig, etc) as volunteers to moderate, with their ability limited to short term temp ban's unless a consensus votes to perma-ban someone

There are provisions for moderation of the moderators as well, with a 3-5 panel of mod mod's rotating from the existing mod list

this leaves admin functions with the site and existing site admin while offering a method to limit the blatant stupidity being spread by idiots like above

the cost is only a change of permissions to a profile

i submit this every couple months

- perhaps if others were to also submit a workable free plan or stand together on this one we can effect change?

to moderate using existing known educated posters

I'd argue for another approach. I think it's always (potentially) problematic when someone is modding who's also posting. In the end you'll always get a situation when a poster gets banned while the two are locked in an argument in some thread. And no matter how well supported by fact the ban is some will always see this as abuse of power. The gray area (real or simply for interpretation) is just too big.

Optimally I envision a mod as someone who doesn't post and doesn't argue. They enforce the comment section rules. Comments get deleted and the reason for deletion posted instead (like "deleted for crackpottery") and a link to the post so people can see it was fair.
But no appeal, no arguing. Nothing. If someone gets hit with the ban stick (after three strikes or so) that's it. All their posts get deleted retroactively (with some offenses an immediate ban: sockpuppetry, re-registering after a ban, that sort of stuff)

Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work" you keep telling them about

......and so far, the only "work" you've been showing up with are your foul mouthed name calling binges. Within this entire thread, I have yet to see anything that comports to standards that could be labeled SCIENCE, you're just following the Stumpy trail with no separation between the two of you.

FineStructureConstant
Oh do shut up Benni, there's a good fellow...

......to follow.......down the Stumpy trail??? No pent up Professional Science topics down that trail. I see where you get your lead from.

@FSC.

What you are doing is like taking a picture of an artist's work in progress

Except this is a science site, and people deserve to see at least some of the "work"...., and of your scientific credibility.

And what ensued from his 'piecemeal' publishing prematurely? Nasty bitter and acrimonious controversy over DECADES with his 'peers', which could have been avoided and his time better spent in refining/completing his SR/GR theory. I am too old and lack the energy levels required for such time and energy wasting 'indulgence'. Besides, I have already given people here examples, hints, clues, insights and known science reminders. This is a news/comment/discussion site not a 'peer review' site. I soundboard, discuss, remind etc as I see fit. If that's ok with you/gang of bot-voting ignoramus trolls.

As for 'credibility', I remind you of the earlier comparison between us two; and the many instances where you were wrong/me continuing correct.

Rethink it all, FSC.

@Forum.

The bot-voting ignoramus troll gang again trying to entrench their poisonous agendas here at PO. Their call to 'gang' arms now is latest 'putsch' to seize undue influence in moderation of a site.

Their agenda should ring alarm bells!

Anyone who witnessed the slow, painful decline of old physorg (before/after the split into this PO and remainder physforums) will well recall the horror of watching CORRUPT and MALIGNANT gang of mod-trolls abuse mod power, colluding to ban even most correct, genuine science/logics posters.

The same thing happened at Sciforums; first with the "Trout" troll baiting, insulting and sabotaging/banning posters with collusion of his 'protectors' in mod ranks. The same thing with "paddoboy" troll.

Now both gone from Sciforums because even mods/admin/'friends' had a gutful. Too late! Damage done!

Also consider: if professional science 'peer review' system can be corrupted for decades; imagine these trolls 'in charge' as mods!

Resist! :)

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Never mind I can see. I am doing good, thanks for asking.

This is again you bring up the "paddyboy-Skippy" and the "Trout-Skippy". Who are they and way you keep bringing them up here. I never heard of them, did they have another physorg name?

@FSC.

I take it you're talking about Einstein: well, controversy is par for the course when creating a new scientific paradigm, which GR certainly turned out to be.

But I want to avoid said controversy stage lasting decades. That's the whole point of finalizing/publishing a consistent, complete work.

But you're wrong about his "refining/completing his SR/GR theory" - SR was already basically completed in 1905, and he only later turned his attention to what would become GR.

You must have missed the nastiness between him and detractors for decades over SR, FSC. And all the 'help' given him by a succession of mathematicians, of which period/effect Einstein said in jesting admission:

Now the mathematicians have invaded my theory I don't understand it myself anymore!

You flatter yourself - there is no "comparison" between us.

True indeed!

Rethink it all

Abandon the scientific method

No, FSC. Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse. :)

@Uncle Ira.

This is again you bring up the "paddyboy-Skippy" and the "Trout-Skippy". Who are they

The "Trout" troll infested the old physorg before the split to PO and physforum, and afterwards, and had more than one sockpuppet name there. When even the corrupt mods/admin there has a gutful of that troll he migrated with some of his old mod-troll gang buddies with whom he proceeded to carry out the same nastiness/collusioin in order to get genuine posters banned at Sciforums (for whatever sick agendas he/his 'protector' mods had in their twisted minds).

Anyhow, physforum site eventually collapsed under weight of crass corruption/malice due to sabotage, unconscionable abuses of mod power, by sole mod remaining there.

The Trout troll at Sciforums eventually went too far even for the mods/admin/friends protecting/colluding with him.

The "paddonboy" troll came soon after to Sciforums. Went the same way.

Too late! Damage done!

Why mention? Cautionary tale, Ira. :)

@FSC.

Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse

By those criteria, and if what we've already seen of your interim work is any guide to the style and methodology of your as-yet unpublished ouevre, it will almost certainly turn out to be nothing more than a rambling, turgid work of fiction with no predictive ability, hence providing no means by which it may be falsified, and therefore no hope of being accepted as science.

Let's see, novel insights/observations, from my novel reality-based theorizing process, are being increasingly confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream discovery/reviews on many fronts.

Your contribution to original science/logics/maths advancement is, what, exactly, FSC? See the 'sand' on which you 'stand', opining from ignorance?

My advice to you would therefore be to take your own advice: "Revert to objective science/logics method/discourse", if you possibly can.

Been there since age 9. You haven't been at all, FSC. :)

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Why mention? Cautionary tale, Ira. :)

Well I will keep a watch-out for them,,,, if I spot one of them you want me to take of them or do you want me to just let you know what they are up to?

Oh yeah, I almost forget. These guys are not part of one of those interweb experiments you keep having trouble with are they? I mean I don't want to spend a lot of time on the lookout for somebody that is only in your imaginations.

My advice to you would therefore be to take your own advice: "Revert to objective science such as this:

On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936 Published by: Annals of Mathematics Stable URL: http://www.jstor..../1968902 .

The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

Cont'd......

.......cont'd:

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity.

............or maybe you & Stumpy imagine you're better authorities on Black Holes than Einstein?