Slashdot Mirror
There May Be A Fifth Force of Nature, Study Suggests (space.com)
According to a paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, physicists at the University of California, Irvine, may have discovered a previously unknown subatomic particle that's evidence of a fifth fundamental force of nature. Space.com reports: "[Professor of physics and astronomy Jonathan Feng] and his colleagues analyzed data gathered recently by experimental nuclear physicists at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, who were trying to find 'dark photons' -- hypothetical indicators of mysterious dark matter. Dark matter is thought to make up about 85 percent of all matter in the universe, but it neither absorbs nor emits light, so it's impossible to detect directly. 'The experimentalists weren't able to claim that it was a new force,' Feng said. 'They simply saw an excess of events that indicated a new particle, but it was not clear to them whether it was a matter particle or a force-carrying particle.' The new work by Feng and his team suggests that the Hungarians found not a 'dark photon' but rather a 'protophobic X boson' -- a strange particle whose existence could indicate a fifth force of nature. The known electromagnetic force acts on protons and electrons, but this newfound particle apparently interacts only with protons and neutrons, and then only at very short distances, researchers said. The potential fifth force may be linked to the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces, as 'manifestations of one grander, more fundamental force,' Feng said. It's also possible that the universe of 'normal' matter and forces has a parallel 'dark' sector, with its own matter and forces, Feng added. 'It's possible that these two sectors talk to each other and interact with one another through somewhat veiled but fundamental interactions,' Feng said. 'This dark-sector force may manifest itself as this protophobic force we're seeing as a result of the Hungarian experiment. In a broader sense, it fits in with our original research to understand the nature of dark matter.'"
Locke2005 writes: I've always speculated that there might be forces of nature that we never observed because they were on a much larger or smaller scale than we could detect easily. But now Jonathan Feng, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine, is suggesting there may actually be a fifth force. Of course, this might vanish just like the Higgs Boson evidence did. Can anybody explain better what it was they detected, and why it is being interpreted as evidence of a previously unknown force?
Locke2005 writes: I've always speculated that there might be forces of nature that we never observed because they were on a much larger or smaller scale than we could detect easily. But now Jonathan Feng, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine, is suggesting there may actually be a fifth force. Of course, this might vanish just like the Higgs Boson evidence did. Can anybody explain better what it was they detected, and why it is being interpreted as evidence of a previously unknown force?
Perhaps you're thinking of the 750 GeV "bump" that turned out to be a statistical deviation?
Are you mentally ill? Do you have someone taking care of you?
The evidence for the Higgs Boson didn't disappear, it was possible evidence for a heavier particle than Higgs that has been shown to be a statistical fluke.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
So there is a Force of the Dark Side? This would make a great story..!
The fifth force is... LOVE!? Who's been screwing with this thing?
Attempting to up the hype a bit... Physical Review Letters is the well respected publication where Einstein his paper 1936 “Do gravitational waves exist?”, in which he concludes they do not, which turned out to be wrong. A couple of takeaways here: 1) Physical Review Letters is a forum for heavyweight players in the physics world; 2) that doesn't mean it's always right; 3) Einstein predicted gravity waves in 1916. Later he changed his mind and thought that he was wrong, but he was wrong about that.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
The concept behind physics and science in general is one of scepticism and free questions- which is why these scientists who suggested a fifth force were not burnt at the stake like heretics.
If your "physics" has evidence to disprove the "secular Left" please bring it forwards and claim your Nobel prize, we are all ears.
Oh, agreed, except for the egregious anachronism. It isn't me who is declaring in advance what the content of Dark Matter could not be, contrary to scientific process.
I'm very much for scientific objectivity here. Unfortunately a lot of people think damaging scientific objectivity is the thing to do, when required by a particular a priori bias. In the name of science, of course.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
If you google "what are the forces of nature" the first result says there are 5.
Would you consider an a priori bias a bad thing, so long as they are open to fresh ideas? You have to start somewhere in developing your theories.
When reading scientific reports its good to keep in mind such biases but this counts double for popular topics. Speaking as a material scientist, I read each paper with a dash of salt. Unless either the word "graphene" or "perovskite" is in the title in which case I go for a cubic metre instead. Much like topic we are discussing, they tend to be governed by the law of "publish first think later"
Yes, agreed, everyone must start with presuppositions. It's how the initial conceptualization of a hypothesis is made possible, as step one to scientific method. It's when a certain type of presupposition is elevated to being established scientific "fact", in contradiction to how science actually works, that I have an issue with it.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Could you suggest an example of such a strong scientific bias? I would think one of the biggest assumptions (or rather axiom) of modern theoretical physics is that there are four fundamental forces yet here we are debating on an article suggesting "hey, perhaps we should give this a second thought"
The summary and the PHYS.org article link to Arxiv, not a peer-reviewed Phys Rev Letters article. The Arvix article is also way too long to be published in PRL. So what gives? Where is the peer-reviewed article?
..it's called Cowboy Neal!
Let's just wrap it all up in a Dark Universe and call it a day.
Pony science is all this is. Basing another religion on unfounded behaviour is NOT science, it is unicorns and faeries.
My example is implicit--but clearly understood, and hence immediately downmodded, regardless of scientific rationality of doing so, based on the premise stated. ;)
For the four forces versus five forces question, I'll likewise let scientific inquiry play out.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
It seems kind of bewildering to me that signs weren't seen of its existence decades ago. oO
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Your first example was downmodded because it is off topic and artless; any claim of anachronistic bias makes it no less so. Scientific inquiry continues to grow exponentially as it always has, maybe this will turn out true maybe not. I joined the debate because I get tired of people's acrimony towards modern science, the answers won't be here tomorrow but there is progress.
Hard to see, the dark side is. but Once you start down the dark research path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.
So you don't know shit about science and like us to know? You also think exposing your irrelevant politicized outlook on life is a positive thing?
There's a saying that it's better to keep silent than to speak out and expose one as a fool. Perhaps something you should consider?
It's Leeloo, duh.
Psychic powers might be evidence for a fifth force....
I suggest we call it "The Force"
Is called Stupidity.
It's a retarding force.
Earth; Water; Fire; Wind; Void (ether)
Don't thank me, it's been known for thousands of years.
Man stupidity. But is not the fifth, is the first !
So far the evidence is limited to one experiment. There will be more of them within a year or two from different teams, then we can have more confidence. So far, there are interesting, internally consistent possible explanations from two teams for this anomaly, but they are not so easy to fit in the current model as to accept them immediately. For all we know, this may go the same way as the FTL neutrinos, etc.
That has been known for a very long time already. The force centres around this element: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/...
New chemical Element Discovered
by William DeBuvitz
The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by investigators at a major U.S. research university. The element, tentatively named administratium, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However, it does have one neutron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons and 111 assistant vice neutrons, which gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.
Since it has no electrons, administratium is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every reaction it comes in contact with. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of administratium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would have normally occurred in less than a second.
Administratium has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that the atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization.
Research at other laboratories indicates that administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities. It can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.
Scientists point out that administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.
Conveniently, you've determined you're not mentally ill. Which illnesses do you not have?
I am just waiting for the torrent of New Age clickbait on my facebook feed saying that physics has finally found evidence of the mystical magical quantum life force energy that their super-dooper-quantum-yoga tradition has known for centuries.
John_Chalisque
Okay, troll. You know nothing about me, you have no ability to know anything about me. No point in spooling out your content-free nonsense. Enjoy.
Well, we know your first post doesn't really make any sense. We know you like to just say the secular left and leave it at that as if it's supposed to mean something and we know you seem to think other people think they have physic powers when no such claims were made or even insinuated and we know you discard concern for your wellbeing with thinly veiled contempt. Based on that I'd agree that you might not quite be right in the head and could do with some professional advice. Unless they are part of the secular left and just decide random things, eh?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
We know you're obsessed with the Secular Left. To appear to see their sinister work everywhere. Obsession isn't healthy, bud. Obsession and flight of ideas are things to look out for.
Who are these Secular Left people, and what have they decided DM to be? Give links.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
My example is implicit--but clearly understood, and hence immediately downmodded, regardless of scientific rationality of doing so, based on the premise stated. ;)
What? Link to the people who have decided what DM is. They need to unambiguously be 'secular left' for your point to make sense. Go ahead and do it now.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Occam's razor. Some things are more likely to be contained in dark matter, others are unlikely without some kind of additional and convincing evidence.
. . . we're all forgetting what is perhaps the most powerful force there is:
Stupidity.
Hell, look at our candidates this year: a Habitual Liar in a bad Pantsuit, a Shaved Chimpanzee with a bad wig, and, of course, the Magic Johnson. If they aren't proof of the power and pervasiveness of stupidity, then what is ??
Science has already well established Chuck Norris as the 5th
Back in the 1980's there was a reanalysis of some old gravity measurements made by Roland von Eotvos which suggested that gravity might have a short-range, composition-dependent component, a "fifth force". This inspired a number of experiments, with some positives and some negative results. Eventually, the positive results were all explained and the fifth force went away.
Coincidentally, in regard to this recent research, one of the hard to explain positive results also came out of UC Irvine.
Attempting to up the hype a bit
Please don't. The paper contains a wildly speculative idea which, while technically possible, is based on a single, unconfirmed experimental result. Hundreds of these are published every year even in PRL and the overwhelming majority do not pan out. This is just the very early stage in the scientific brain storming process looking for new ideas which might be right and at this stage almost none of them are. The time to start getting interested is when another experiment appears to have data confirming one of the predictions of this new theory - and even then it does not always work out!
Dark matter is thought to make up about 85 percent of all matter in the universe
No solicitors. I am not interested in buying any of your alleged "dark matter" today, thank you. Please put me on your Do Not Call list. Go ahead and keep all of my tax money you've already spent on this, but please, don't spend any more of it. Earmark my contributions for something else. No means no. I do not consent.
Reasons to be skeptical about these authors and their methodology: they publishing the same claim over with changes in data but no explanation for why their numbers are changing. This article explains the physics as well as the reservations about the claim: https://www.quantamagazine.org...
This blog entry by a senior scientist at Fermi Lab has interesting comments on previous experimental results from the Hungarian group the UCI theoretical work is based on:
http://www.livescience.com/552...
What about the Hungarian group? I know none of them personally, but the article was published in Physical Review Letters — a chalk mark in the win column. However, the group has also published two previous papers in which comparable anomalies were observed, including a possible particle with a mass of 12 million electron volts and a second publication claiming the discovery of a particle with a mass of about 14 million electron volts. Both of these claims were subsequently falsified by other experiments.
Further, the Hungarian group has never satisfactorily disclosed what error was made that resulted in these erroneous claims. Another possible red flag is that the group rarely publishes data that doesn't claim anomalies. That is improbable. In my own research career, most publications were confirmation of existing theories. Anomalies that persist are very, very, rare.
My teacher said gravity isn't a force, it's "just" geometry. Electromagnetic and weak is the after certain energy levels. On the other hand we used to count magnetic and electric forces as related but separate.
Red Leader Standing By!
The notion of a fifth force was seriously proposed already during the early 80s. It fizzled. I would be surprised, and disappointed, if it does not fizzle this time as well. Quite frankly, modern theoretical physics looks more and more like an epicycles science. Sure, strings are very simple - but so are the circles.
Well, Physics has been a muddle since the 1930s (QM), and the 1940s (QED), and the 1950s (QFT).
None of the models work very well, the mathematics is rather flawed ( infinities being subracted subjectively ), and there
are no 'Maxwells Equations' for any of the other forces. Hell, even gravity has morphed into cosmology.
And the Standard Model os a mish-mash.
Nuclear? nope - still competing models, none of which predict data from 70 years ago, much less today, and still having arguments about
whether protons decay...
Weak? nope. Still no resolution of Majorana paradox.
Electromagnetic - sort-of done, but still not completely satisfactory in terms of QED ( they predict one number really well.... what other numbers are waiting to be calculated?)
At first, I read "secular Light" and thought it a nice joke. The real version of the statement sounds much worse.
I read this and figured they've just been watching Stranger Things too much....
"It's also possible that the universe of 'normal' matter and forces has a parallel 'dark' sector, with its own matter and forces, Feng added. 'It's possible that these two sectors talk to each other and interact with one another through somewhat veiled but fundamental interactions"
Government grants.
No, really... it's people. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094721/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Higgs Boson Truther ITT. Never thought I'd see the day.
I admit I like this idea: "It's also possible that the universe of 'normal' matter and forces has a parallel 'dark' sector, with its own matter and forces." I feel like every comic I've read and every sci-fi show I've watched is about to be come true.
Event Horizon could be our future folks!
I cannot diagnose you over the Internet - I am merely encouraging you to go to Christ.
FTFY.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
We may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean that they are not, in fact, out to get us...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It seems that this is an example of the 'that's interesting' phenomenon. You know, when scientists are studying something and they see an interesting and unexpected observation.
Such events have led to interesting discoveries. I like this one better than string theory and using Dark Matter to fine tune those equations that 'splain everything.
And at this point, 'like' is entirely appropriate. Gonna need a lot more work to get to certainty.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You prefer to think it's simpler to believe in what you can't find, rather than what you haven't previously seen?
Interesting application. I'm trying to work that out.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Chuck Norris is the fifth force of nature.
They're entirely the product of his feverish imagination.
I am really confused over your posts, and I've been crazy things on Slashdot since 1999. Where has the secular left stated what can't be in dark matter? Is this a religious thing? If you're arguing God is in dark matter, then you are aware that dark matter is a substance, not a place, right?
The fifth force of nature tends to be mistakes computing the other forces of nature.
Remember the Ulysses navigation errors. They turned out to be acceleration from an unexpected distribution of Bolzmann radiation from the spacecraft. Took a bunch of years before they figured that one out.
I've always considered time to be a force.
By the time the guys who cautiously announced the "bump" had checked it out and reported nothing going on here, they said about 500* speculative papers had already been published on the matter. Could this be one of them?
*I'd speculate this number is misreporting and you could probably trim a zero off it.
Posting anonymously because I know some people here know about physics stuff and they might be rude to me.
(My observation is that accurate reporting of anything is generally an anomaly.)
It penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.
Dark Matter could contain anything... but conveniently the secular Left has determined what kinds of things it definitely doesn't contain.
That helps with the physics... right?
All bow before the Gap God!
All bow before the Gap God!
Whoa, heathen. Don't go putting your weirdo deities on everyone else. Some of us pray to J. Crew Jesus or the Old Navy Oversoul.
Nothing posted to
Yes. Its part of a chain of evidence, not a stand-alone question and I prefer to follow the scientific evidence. So far this hasn't provided any evidence for a non-secular answer. Come back if we suddenly find any evidence of a God sitting in the middle making it work.
has determined what kinds of things it definitely doesn't contain
That is exactly what scientists do. They test something to determine exactly what it is or is not.
A list of "X is not Y" facts can be quite useful, as other scientists can constrain their efforts based on those facts.
This is how science has always worked, and it is both expected and good to see it happening now.
Peter Gabriel just called from Scotland. He says it's the Fifth of Force.
Will the force be with them?
This is my sig, there are many like it but this one is mine
I think you might be hitting on it. It's a religion thing but he doesn't want to say it straight out. Because it's embarrassing. Because it's stupid. At least he realises that much.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The worst application of Occam's Razor I've yet seen on a site full of twisted interpretations.
Let me give you a hint. Occam's Razor says nothing about what is "likely", and Occam was theist.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Natural Selection says it will be more like a stagger, then a drop, for you actually.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
There is no reason why someone else should be the one to "come back".
We have precisely the same scientific knowledge for all conjectures. That is, none. Your bias isn't the correct one "by default".
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Consider reading (or listening to) Cosmosapiens. It's a FANTASTIC analysis of all aspects of human evolution from the fundamental particles all the way through societal and species cognitive evolution. The author, John Hands, is very analytical and considers all sides of the relative specialist fields.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Well, it would be really nice if all religious people would go to their saviour and leave the rest of us in peace and quiet.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
But it's most likely Aliens.
And it is, as of yet, untested. Therefore, the details of what it does or does not contain, science has no statement on.
No conclusion can be drawn, scientifically. Even if one has a preference for a "sciencey-sounding" set of preemptive conclusions. That is not science.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I think we have discovered an Electric Monk on Slashdot (a robot that was designed to believe stuff so that humans don't need to).
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
What about charm, persuasion, uncertainty and bloody-mindedness?
Not much is known about the nature of the strong force. Perhaps this is some more "color" on the nature of the strong force (which is suspected to bind protons and neutrons, but in it's "color-ed" form is suspected to bind quarks together).
Extraordinary claims requite extraordinary evidence.
I am absolutely certain that dark matter is not made of boiled peanuts or teeny tiny dancing bobcats.
Am I a member of the secular left yet? Do I get a card? Is there an oath or something?
what the fuck is wrong with this idiot? higgs boson evidence did not vanish
"Dark Matter could contain anything... but conveniently the secular Left has determined what kinds of things it definitely doesn't contain."
If they're suggesting that it doesn't contain God or Trump, then I tend to agree.
We just need to add another 14 dimensions..
Ok - how about doing some real world experiments ..
Too much BS already this week...
You realize all hypotheses are untested because they are tested right? It's an educated guess for Christ sakes. But God doesn't want you to believe that.
I have no idea what you are going on about now.
Hypotheses are formed, then tested. Until they are tested, no scientific conclusion can be formed. Since a conclusion has not been formed regarding the specifics of content of Dark Matter, science says precisely zero about what may or may not be present.
In no way does this mean your "educated guess" means anything scientifically at all. There is no need to bring in your False Dichotomy thinking on this. If you need to present this within a typical fallacious "science versus religion" framework, consider yourself wrong according to science, and wrong according to religion. This is, if you assert you have any evidentiary or epistemological superiority for one presumption over another.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I don't consider myself special. Our paper (I had two co-authors) was even mentioned in Science News, but nobody gave me a key to the Ivory Tower. Just another scientist, TCB, but it looks good on the resume.
Just gaze.. gaze into our wild vast summaries. Do not stare at the finger, pointing at the lawyers. Or you will miss the bullshit and all the spy glory.
The fifth force of nature is the one where people get tired of spies lying to them and just crush their fucking heads like grapes.
Semper Fi
Thanks, but following previous evidence is not an assumption. Occam's beliefs are irrelevant to choosing the less assumptive path.
It seems you like to pretend you have no preconceptions - but the secular comment shows otherwise. There is no evidence to show a higher power - discuss.
YOUR MOM!
Wait, that's gravity. Never mind.
Thanks. I might just do that.
Fair enough - I wasn't aware of the evidence for a higher power directing the forces in the standard model. If you can point me to it I will reeducate myself and we can discuss further.
The application of the standard model would say nothing about the content of Dark Matter, any more than by saying if we stipulate X amount of matter within Y space, you can thereby say what that matter contains in our "everyday" observable universe. That is the statement of mine you are responding to, not what physics applies. Does it contain complex structures? Life? We have no idea. You appear to be angling for a categorical dismissal you have no basis to make based on a red herring of what system of physics may apply.
As for your question, though, what is your position on the scientific validity of considering "random" as an analyzable, hence scientific, causal factor?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Sorry, but I'm not angling for a categorical dismissal. I'd go as far as to say that we cannot 'completely' dismiss the chance that God or life exists in dark matter or any matter. The suggestion that all theories are equally valid is what I'm dismissing. You are bringing the assumption that God exists; there is no data to suggest that. Just like there is no data to suggest its made of chocolate. I refute that we have the same scientific knowledge for all conjectures.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with ''random" as a causal factor - but I do think its a factor to be considered, accounted for and perhaps reduced where possible. I guess that makes it a causal factor.
You are bringing the assumption that God exists; there is no data to suggest that.
Oh, no, there's massive data to suggest that. That's trivially Googleable.
But, we are getting aside the point. I'm not defending religion here, I'm defending science. And asserting a priori "what science will of course find" does nothing but damage science. But, I'm well aware that many would happily destroy science entirely if that were necessary to protect their philosophical biases, thus the remarkably highly motivated responses to a two-line initial post.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with ''random" as a causal factor
My suggestion, in brief, is that for any case in which one can attribute causality to "random" (or "probability distribution"), one can equally ascribe it to "God". "Random" cannot be broken down into constituent scientific causal factors--that would be a self-contradiction. A deterministic random. It is, in that sense, wholly outside of scientific method, and an "appeal to random" has no more or less scientific validity than an "appeal to God". This includes such things as the origin of the universe, individually improbable macro-scale QM effects (otherwise termable "miracles"), and other counterintuitive phenomena we observe, such as quantum entanglement.
Occam's beliefs are relevant in that he correctly applied his Razor, which contrary to common incorrect restatement, does not make any claims to determine the likelihood of a particular model's correctness, or exclude his own theistic model.
All else being absolutely equal between two competing models, Occam's Razor specifies that the simpler model be used -for the purposes of conceptual economy-. The simpler model is used because it is simpler. That implies greater ease of further use in analysis, again, all else being completely equal.
It speaks to a model's straightforward use, not its preferability as representing fact. Were that the case, scientific progress would come to a halt, because in the great majority of cases (i.e. Newtonian physics), the simpler model is simply the inaccurate one.
"Presumptive path" would be a separate heuristic from what Occam's Razor addresses, and I suggest care in not conflating the two such that one's argument is equivocating from "useful" to "true".
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Cowboy Neal. :-)
I mean, if you're gonna shitpost about the Left, at least make it relevant to the CURRENT_YEAR.
Breaking news: Due to concerns of racism, fourteen top research universities in the United States and Europe have banned the term "Dark Matter" stating that "it denigrates minorities as it equates darkness with being unobserved and unnoticed while at the same time making up most of the universe. The current discourse serves only to entrench White Supremacy and White Privilege, it has to be stopped." They have recommended that scientists instead use the term "Matter of Darkness" and that the scientific literature stop preferring so called "ordinary matter" over "Matter of Darkness".
They also recommend that instead of forcing matter into 'baryonic' and 'non-baryonic', which they allege are social constructs, that matter be allowed to form it's own identity free from the Cis white heterosexual orthodoxy.
"This move isn't anti-science in any way", writes prominent Feminist scholar and advocate Anita Sarkeesian, "this is about equality for all matter, not just Matter of Darkness. Why is one form of matter preferred over another, if not because of the patriarchy?"
Despite the reservations held by those in the scientific community, the universities are standing firm and have stated their intentions to withhold funding for researchers who refuse to abide by the new guidelines.
Meanwhile Twitter has been abuzz with hashtags both promoting the move such as #NonBaryonicLeptonsMatter and #YesAllWIMPS. On the other side, right wing trolls have started their own hashtag, #AllMatterMatters, and have even coined a term for those fighting for inclusiveness and fairness in the scientific literature: Matter Rights Activists, or MRA for short.
sorry, couldn't resist!
I see you only managed to use the derogatory term "trolls" when referring to the "right wing." Now I begin to understand your bias.
There is nothing here to refute. You took a science article and managed very badly to cram some democrat hate in there. You are dumb and should feel dumb for being dumb.
And when you can prove it, then you worry about it. Otherwise you just look crazy.
TFA didn't even mention the scientist's political bent. All you're doing is stereotyping all scientists to be liberal when I know you know for a fact that isn't true. You're just being an ass to be an ass which the kids call trolls these days.
No different than your pre-existing bias towards liberals. And as usual, therein lies the hypocrisy. I'm gonna throw out another hypothesis: dark matter is certainly real and it's what hypocrisy is made of. You guys can't see it so won't acknowledge it's there.
Well there's where you're wrong. I don't think you're wrong but scientists do. Did you know that in some parallel universe I am a dragon and you're a truck and I'm fucking you in the tail pipe? That's what string theory claims. The possibility is really small but it exists. The probability is also infinitely small but it could happen. Now you know why conservatives like Empiric deny science. That scenario sounds stupid as shit but probability and possibility are two dimensions, fifth and sixth, or sixth and seventh I can't remember. So yeah, in some multiverse dark matter is made of kittens or whatever you said. It would be really nice if the post I am replying to was shown above so I could properly quote you without losing what I've already typed.
Thank you for showing us yet another great example of conservative hypocrisy. Empiric won't agree of course because conservatives cannot see their own hypocrisy and deny it. Hypocrisy is made of dark matter!
Then please explain what the fuck 'protophobic' means.
Forever 21 Goddesses or die, infidel!