There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
Mate, how embarrassing must it be for the above article's 'teams/studies', that you just effectively castigated @pspringland for doing the very same thing for which I castigated the above teams/studies!Quote @pspringland: "There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves."
Quote @antialias_physorg's response: "Hint:Plugging random sciency sounding words into a sentence doesn't make you sound smart. There's quite a few people here who actually know what these words mean."
Mate, how embarrassing must it be for the above article's 'teams/studies', that you just effectively castigated @pspringland for doing the very same thing for which I castigated the above teams/studies!
Shades of Bicep 2 'team'! What the hell happened to respect for Scientific Method!
It's as if Bicep2 etc 'never happened! Learn, FFS!
Your messages all always a big mumbo jumbo/word spam/full of weird slashes/usage of '' so they can be a bit hard to understand. I think you can actually write like a normal person but you just want to look smarter than you are (it does not really work). Just check any real book or another publishing and you see they write differently than you do.I post/write here in a a text-limited context, employing all manner of abbreviations/short-cuts to fit the character limits. Those who are in any way familiar with the subject matter will understand; those who are not so, should familiarize themselves with subject matter before opining re the poster/content (else you risk being wrong/irrelevant).
But on the point. How is doing observations and basing you theories on the data againts the scientific method?Again, if you are not au-fait with the history/subject matter, you are doomed to miss the import; ie: Bicep2 'team' also did a biased/GIGO 'exercise'. Ok?
@ RealityCheck. Mate you are to science what Trump is to statesmanship. Why don't you give a rest?Meanwhile you have not said anything about the point made to antialias-physorg. Until you do, and support your opinion objectively, then you are just trolling/opining your own personal biases and ill-informed attacks on 'the messenger'. Do/Be better than that, Arthur; for science and humanity's sake. :)
The forum will have noted that you evaded all the points made to you, mate. Have you read the above article re these teams/studies and their blatant use of mathsey/sciencey techniques/terms which any objective scrutiny will show cannot 'hide' the litany of biased assumptions and selection/analysis 'methodologies' which they (like the Bicep2Mate, how embarrassing must it be for the above article's 'teams/studies', that you just effectively castigated @pspringland for doing the very same thing for which I castigated the above teams/studies!
Feel free to feel yourself included into the 'sciency' know-nothing category.
You're welcome.
@antialias_physorgthe forum also notes that you've posted 6,727 PLUS times since making a fraudulent libelous claim against the science of BICEP2
The forum will have noted that you evaded all the points made to you, mate
@idiot pseudoscience crackpot delusional fraudulent liar with a police recordWhat "police record", Captain Stumpy? Please post details/links re this (imaginary) 'police record' you claim I have, thanks. If you cannot then it will be obvious such a 'police record' doesn't exist, and is yet another figment of your malignant lying character which has been so long displayed by you here and elsewhere beyond denial.
Was that your bot-voting program that gave Captain Stumpy a '5' for his deliberate LIE about a "police record"?What if it was?
If that was your bot, then maybe you might want to post a disclaimer right awayWhy I have to unclaim a claim I did not make?
so that the forum can be satisfied it wasn't your deliberate vote supporting Stumpy's LIE there.Why you think I care if anybody here is satisfied with anything I do? They don't pay my bills and I don't have to share a house with them. Why you don't satisfy the forum if it is that important to you that they go to bed satisfied? You can start by not hijacking another interesting article with your gobbledygook.
PS: Do you go along with Stumpy's campaign of LYING about such serious matters like that, Ira?I don't go along with anybody. I come here alone, and I will leave alone too.
If not, then also make your opinion on his atrocious behavior clear so that no 'guilt by association with Stumpy' can attach to you in the minds of the readers here. Cheers. :)Guilt of what? Cher, I have not written anything to you or even about you on this web place for over two week. I don't know about the minds of the readers, but I have a pretty good idea you won't like my opinion of this thing.
So you don't care about 'guilt by association' with Stumpy's lying there. Ok then, your choice, Ira; it was only a suggestion for your benefit; no skin off my nose if you don't take it. Good luck, Ira. :)so that the forum can be satisfied it wasn't your deliberate vote supporting Stumpy's LIE there.Why you think I care if anybody here is satisfied with anything I do? They don't pay my bills and I don't have to share a house with them.
Why you don't satisfy the forum if it is that important to you that they go to bed satisfied? You can start by not hijacking another interesting article with your gobbledygook.It wasn't me who derailed it, Ira; it was Stumpy's lie that derailed it, necessitating challenge/defense against his lie about "police record". Anyway, you haven't said whether you condone his lie there, Ira. You had the opportunity to condemn Stumpy's lie there, Ira; if you still don't then that's that, hey? Good luck, Ira. :)
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'. That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira. You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands? :)PS: Do you go along with Stumpy's campaign of LYING about such serious matters like that, Ira?I don't go along with anybody. I come here alone, and I will leave alone too.If not, then also make your opinion on his atrocious behavior clear so that no 'guilt by association with Stumpy' can attach to you in the minds of the readers here. Cheers. :)Guilt of what? Cher, I have not written anything to you or even about you on this web place for over two week. I don't know about the minds of the readers, but I have a pretty good idea you won't like my opinion of this thing.
Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That is coonass for: "Cher, why you want to drag me into a conversation that is only going to make you mad, eh?"
You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'.How the heck do I know it is a lie?
That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira.How would I know if he is a lie or not a lie?
You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands? :)My '5' is still standing up there, eh? Are you just mad because all your lies get '1''s for karma votes? If I was condemning "his lie" without knowing it really is a lie then I would not be doing my diligence? It's more likely to be true than a lie, given your very own words.
It must be a lie, since I have no "police record", and Stumpy knows it because he is lying because there is nothing to support his lying claim.You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'.How the heck do I know it is a lie?
That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira.How would I know if he is a lie or not a lie? Did yu bother to check before you gave his lie a '5'? No, you didn't; so you just accepted his lies without proof, Ira. Not good.
You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands? :)My '5' is still standing up there, eh? Are you just mad because all your lies get '1''s for karma votes? If I was condemning "his lie" without knowing it really is a lie then I would not be doing my diligence? It's more likely to be true than a lie, given your very own words.
It must be a lie, since I have no "police record", and Stumpy knows it because he is lying because there is nothing to support his lying claim.You gave Stumpy's LYING post a '5'.How the heck do I know it is a lie?
Did you bother to check before you gave his lie a '5'? No, you just accepted his lies without proof, Ira. Not good.That was where the question of where you REALLY STAND re Stumpy's blatant LIE about me comes in, Ira.How would I know if he is a lie or not a lie?
In your 'opinion' as a bot-voting ignoramus, Ira? Your retraction via post would negate the '5' in the minds of forum/readers.You have not condemned his lie, so your '5' stands?My '5' is still standing up there, eh? Are you just mad because all your lies get '1''s for karma votes? If I was condemning "his lie" without knowing it really is a lie then I would not be doing my diligence? It's more likely to be true than a lie, given your very own words.
Your retraction in a post would negate the '5' in the minds of the forum/readers.I doubt the "forum/readers" would be letting somebody like me negate their minds on anything important.
Your choice, Ira.That is what I have been trying to explain to you for years and years and some more years Cher. I am glad to see that it is finally sinking in.
In your 'opinion' as a bot-voting ignoramus, Ira?My opinion will only make you mad, but you have asked for it several times now so I will give him to you.
It is your anti-science skewing of ratings metrics that innocent readers may be unwittingly affected by, Ira. I've been pointing that out to for years, Ira. Your bot-voting program has effects which any objective scientist or fairminded reader cannot in all conscience condone, Ira. Why do you persist in such a destructive bot-voting campaign even when the posted content is proven correct by mainstream itself, Ira? Is it that you really are so insensible and irresponsible that you have no conception how UN-funny and stupid your behavior/bot-voting is on a science site, Ira? Wise up, Ira. :)Your retraction in a post would negate the '5' in the minds of the forum/readers.I doubt the "forum/readers" would be letting somebody like me negate their minds on anything important.Your choice, Ira.That is what I have been trying to explain to you for years and years and some more years Cher. I am glad to see that it is finally sinking in.
Your bot-voting ignoramus drivel is still evading the point, Ira. Do you retract the '5' you gave to Stumpy's blatant personal lie, or not? :)In your 'opinion' as a bot-voting ignoramus, Ira?My opinion will only make you mad, but you have asked for it several times now so I will give him to you.
My opinion is that it is more likely true than a lie.
I don't know how you do things over there in Australia, but I do know how they work here. You claim you are an elderly man who has been doing what you do here since you was nine years old.
Oaccum-Skippy with the blue blade razor will be the first to tell you. Nobody could be as bat-doo-doo crazy as you since you was nine years old without coming into some sort of intimate relationship with the deputies or police or constables or whatever you have over there.
How you like me now Cher?
Please retract your above "police record" lie so I can forgive and forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic. Thanks1- please produce the 4 fatal flaws, 4 other flaws and proof that you posted and addressed *at least* the 4 fatal flaws from BICEP2
The first question that occurs to me is, "Why didn't we see this at the LHC?"
..."police record"Please do, Zerg! Then watch Stumpy go silent but not apologize for his lie about me. It is puzzling what drives Stumpy to such obviously blatant lies which the public record can dispel so easily! Are you at all acquainted personally with Stumpy, Zerg? Can you shed light on what makes him such a malignant liar and troll here against me who has been confirmed correct by mainstream on many fronts now and who eschews the 'personal' tactics which Stumpy has 'infected' so many 'gang' members with over years now?
Interesting. I'll probably look into this, shouldn't be hard to find, public record and all that....
I post/write here in a a text-limited context, employing all manner of abbreviations/short-cuts to fit the character limits. Those who are in any way familiar with the subject matter will understand; those who are not so, should familiarize themselves with subject matter before opining re the poster/content (else you risk being wrong/irrelevant).
"PPS: After you confirm I have no 'police record',"There you have it: @ZergSurfer giving a 'free pass' to Captain Stumpy's LYING; but not giving the same 'license' to his VICTIM when the latter 'retaliate in kind'.
I would not be able to to that unless I had access to all the relevant records. My interest is now piqued though, gonna do some digging later.
"go check out Stumpy's/Ira's "police records" involving domestic violence, paedophilia, demanding money with (armed) menaces etc etc. Ok?"
They don't have any. And making accusations like that can lead to legal action. I'd advise you not to repeat it, and retract that statement in this thread. Just because they're US and you're AUS does not render you immune.
You claim to write with short-cuts? For real? How is it shorter to use many words instead of one. If you can't make up your mind about what word to use in a sentence, it only tells that you lack writing skills or something else. For example "forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic". You could've used just one word instead on two words and everybody would have understood your point.Complex/Subtle concepts/insights need whole tracts to explain. Whereas trolling 'one-liners' from bot-voting ignoramuses and personality-fixated nitwits are 'easy nasty drivel' posted in a few words, hey? If you wanted just short idiotic posts, in lieu of real complexity/subtlety of comprehension, then just do the "TL;DR" 'science method' invented by Stumpy; and good luck! :)
You say I risk being irrelevant because I ask questions concerning the topic without expertise on the are. Yet, you are just yelling that everything is a lie and a scam in your first post.
Thank you aa_p and DS for managing to get back to the subject despite the boisterous behavior all around you.Seconded! You and the forum will note how it was Stumpy posted blatant personal lie about me and so derailed (again) with his off topic/insults rants. I even asked CS to apologize so I could forgive and forget and we could all get back to science. But you and the forum will also have noted that CS just repeated his off-topic personal lies and derailing posting! I trust this will be the end of this latest Stumpy Mess and I don't have to keep posting in self-defense against such anti-science trolling/lying by Stumpy et al. Good luck and good thinking/discussing on the science, @MarsBars, everyone! :)
Not so, mate; I made allusions in context to previous instances of failure, and the various areas/flaws/causes involved which led to said past/continuing failure. You haven't 'background info' required for pertinent/informed opinion on this one (yet). :)Those who are in any way familiar with the subject matter will understand; those who are not so, should familiarize themselves with subject matter before opining re the poster/content (else you risk being wrong/irrelevant).You say I risk being irrelevant because I ask questions concerning the topic without expertise on the are. Yet, you are just yelling that everything is a lie and a scam in your first post.
For example "forget and we can all get back to the science issues/topic". You could've used just one word instead on two words and everybody would have understood your point.I used "issues/topic" ADVISEDLY; encompassing BOTH above topic AND related issues. Ok? :)
it wouldn't be a DM-DM collision. It would be a massive particle exiting that would unbalance the momentum
If the mass-energy of collision is much greater than X then that particle should be produced with greater than minimal probability.
I disagree. You just need one. It's not detectable (it's DM), so 80-some-odd GeV will disappear, leaving a momentum deficit in the interaction. It does what the dog did in the night time.If the mass-energy of collision is much greater than X then that particle should be produced with greater than minimal probability.
Yes, but we're talking
a) create two of these at the same time
I also don't know how the conservation of baryon and lepton numbers figures into this. Just providing enough energy doesn't guarantee that a particle with less energy can be created.That would depend on what conserved quantities, if any, DM particles carry, and that would be pure speculation.
It's not detectable (it's DM), so 80-some-odd GeV will disappear,
The analysis selected collision events containing two or three electrons and muons and large missing transverse momentum.That's how they do it.
If you have evidence that they do have records,...That was 'retaliation in kind'; and as 'exercise/test' for YOU, Zerg. :)
Sigh, re-read my post. This time without your inbuilt bias/assumptions.Is it possible that you don't even know you're 'doing it', mate? Here, I will highlight it for you by using your following comment/rationalization on/for what you did in your 'report'.
I was reporting a negative and stating the need for more research.You did MORE than just report a 'negative', you included an irrelevant allusion to SOMEONE ELSE's "financial misconduct"! You could just have said:
"No record, based on research to date; but will continue looking"But you chose deliberately to include an irrelevant allusion to someone else's 'record'! Why do that at all, Zerg? Did you even realize the biased/misleading effect of such irrelevant inclusion if purporting to "report a negative"?
As for your usual rubbish about lofty scientific ideals and vague claims of vindication, give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone, least of all me.You fool yourself/selves, mate. :)
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:You've lost the plot, DS. I never said any such thing. You have mistaken identity/attribution.
Who cares? Not me, mate. Since you will find a negative for "police record" or any other 'naughtiness' on your searches. And anyway, that's what Stumpy et al (and now you) have been doing already; and making a pig's breakfast of the search 'results'; due to mistaken identity errors or confirmation biased 'reporting' and just plain misleading innuendos and lies. How can anyone who is so cavalier towards true facts/objectivity, pretend to care about science and humanity principles/ethics, Zerg? Stop fooling yourself/selves you are anything other than internet stalkers/troll(s), Zerg.Is it possible that you don't even know you're 'doing it'
Meh, you really want me data mining you. Ok, court records, local news sites, real estate info, ancestry sites, and anything else I can think of....
please don't talk about numbersNot just "numbers" (look what you did!-----triggered Da Schneib spam!). It's about real/unreality axioms/maths (as per link). :)
The analysis selected collision events containing two or three electrons and muons and large missing transverse momentum.
That's how they do it.
pspringland
May 17, 2017