New look at relativity: Electrons can't exceed the speed of light -- thanks to light itself, says biologist

Nov 19, 2010

When resolving why electrons can never beat the speed limit set by light, it might be best to forget about time. Thanks to insight from studying movement inside a biological cell, it seems that light itself -- not the relativity of time -- may be the traffic cop, according to a Cornell University biologist.

Any space with a temperature above consists of . As a result of the , the moving electron experiences the photons crashing into the front of it as being blue-shifted, and the photons colliding with the back of it as being red-shifted. Since blue-shifted photons exert more momentum than red-shifted photons, the photons themselves exert a counterforce on the moving electron, just as the cytoplasm in a cell exerts a viscous force on the moving organelles. The viscous force that arises from the Doppler-shifted photons prevents electrons from exceeding the speed of light, according to Randy Wayne, associate professor of plant biology.

Wayne's research, "Charged Particles Are Prevented From Going Faster Than the Speed of Light by Light Itself: A Biophysical Cell Biologist's Contribution to Physics," appears in the November 2010 issue of Acta Physica Polonica B.

On determining whether electrons can surpass the speed of light, Albert Einstein's special contends that electrons are prevented from exceeding the speed of light as a result of the relativity of time. But Wayne contends that Einstein didn't take the environment through which the move into account.

"Given the prominence of viscous forces within and around cells and the experience of identifying and quantifying such resistive forces, biophysical cell biologists have an unique perspective in discovering the viscous forces that cause moving particles to respond to an applied force in a nonlinear manner," he explained. "Consequently, light itself prevents charged particles from moving faster than the ."

Wayne will publish a related paper, "The Relativity of Simultaneity: An Analysis Based on the Properties of Electromagnetic Waves," in a forthcoming volume of the African Physical Review, which is a juried publication.

Explore further: Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

More information: Paper (PDF): th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol41/pdf/v41p2297.pdf

Related Stories

Photons on the Half Shell

Aug 16, 2007

In the realm of ultra-fast science, there's a region where photons of light can be made to dance only half steps. Here, advances in laser science are letting researchers tinker with the behavior light in an ...

Quantum electronics: Two photons and chips

Jan 20, 2006

Scientists at Toshiba Research Europe Limited (Cambridge, UK) believe they are on to a way of producing entangled twins of photons using a simple semiconductor electronic device. Such a chip-based source of entangled photons ...

Flipping a photonic shock wave

Nov 02, 2009

A team of physicists has directly observed a reverse shock wave of light in a specially tailored structure known as a left-handed metamaterial. Although it was first predicted over forty years ago, this is ...

Recommended for you

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur

Apr 17, 2014

Sulfur left over from refining fossil fuels can be transformed into cheap, lightweight, plastic lenses for infrared devices, including night-vision goggles, a University of Arizona-led international team ...

User comments : 161

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

daqman
5 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2010
This is a kind of circular argument because it is based on the premise that photons are red and blue shifted. So you then have to ask yourself where the shift comes from and that brings you, ultimately, back to relativity.

I am reminded of an experiment I did (badly) at university years ago. The object was to measure the speed of light. Unfortunately I devised a method that involved knowledge of a fundamental constant that was itself derived from knowledge of the speed of light. So I was only able to make my measurement because somebody else had already measured the speed of light using a different method.
epsi00
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
Well, in French they say " A chacun son métier et les vaches seront bien gardées ". meaning that biology researchers should probably try to understand what happens when blue and red shifted photons hit a plant. Is there something called relativistic photosynthesis?
MentorPalokaj
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2010
Is it just me, or don't photons EVER exert force? That would mean they have mass (F=ma)which is fundamentally not a photon characteristic. I'm not a physics professor so the likelihood of me overlooking something is quite big. However if photons can exert force, that would open up some interesting concepts...

Ps. note: "Any space with a temperature above absolute zero consists of photons." can someone elaborate on why?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (25) Nov 19, 2010
..in any space consisting of a photon gas with a temperature above absolute zero, Doppler-shifted photons exert a velocity-dependent viscous force on moving charged particles. This viscous force prevents
charged particles from exceeding the speed..
A sort of aether theory, it seems...This guy should be downvoted..;-)
..This is a kind of circular argument because it is based on the premise that photons are red and blue shifted. So you then have to ask yourself where the shift comes from and that brings you, ultimately, back to relativity...
Doppler shift is classical physics effect.
Nanoparticler
5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2010
Photons do exert a tiny force on impact. This momentum is the basis behind the practial application of solar sails. Its momentum p is given by p = h/lambda (h being Planck's constant, and lambda the wavelength of the light). Another weird aspect of light's particle/wave duality.
KwasniczJ
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 19, 2010
This theory is nice, but it applies just to charged particles. The noncharged particles aren't influenced with the photon field apparently, so they should exhibit a smaller drag, then the charged ones. So if we compare the energy required for acceleration of proton and neutron to the same speed, we should observe a difference. I'm in doubt, we could detect such a difference.

Even more problematic is the viscous character of photon breaking. If I understood this theory well after few minutes of reading, every charged particle should be decelerated with photon field to zero speed - which is actually not, what we can observe in vacuum.
Glenn_Spiczak
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 19, 2010
But charged particles DO exceed the speed of light in materials, since the lights slows down by the factor of the index of refraction while the particle continues moving through at less than the vacuum speed of light, giving us the phenomenon of Cherenkov radiation which is one of the primary methods of particle detector experiments.
El_Nose
3 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2010
@Nanoparticler

WRONG-- at least mostly
solar sails are a charged material designed to interact with other charged materials -- light carries no charge. The solar wind however is made of free electrons and protons with energies between 10 and 100 keV.

F=ma applies for object of significant size (larger than a few molecules) and less than maybe one-tenth of the speed of light. It is an
approximation that works very well in non-extreme situations. Light is not a particle in the strictest sense. It behaves as a bundle of waves. Its energy works out to be proportional to its frequency. Its momentum works out to be proportional to its wavelength. Light only exerts enough force to affect individual particles. To analyze the universe on the level of individual particles, quantum mechanics is required.

El_Nose
5 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
< taken from http://www.newton...0222.htm >

It is not necessary for light to have a mass in order to have a force. It must have momentum. Now let us see how this works without it getting too
complicated- which it is.
Given:The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, c (m/sec). The energy of a photon of light, call it W(joules), is W = h*(nu), where h = Planck's constant (joule*sec) and (nu) is the frequency of the light in (1/sec).

The momentum of photon, call it p(kg*cm/sec) = W(joules)/c(cm/sec). Recall that energy in joules is in units (kg*m^2/sec^2),so W/c=p has
units (kg*m/sec) which is the units of momentum!
And the force (pressure*area) acts in the direction of propagation of the
light.

It all works out the same whether you treat light classically (Maxwell's equations) or quantum mechanically, but it is the momentum that is the
critical variable, and in the case of light you can't separate it into mass*speed, it is "lumped" together.
El_Nose
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
that being said the sails do in fact use the light pressure and the wind pressure to operate
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (24) Nov 19, 2010
but charged particles DO exceed the speed of light in materials

In this case the background photon field serves as such material. What we know, this field is basically at rest (if we neglect the Doppler shift anisotropy). Such field would therefore introduce a reference frame for all charged bodies. Many heavy atoms, some semiconductors including graphene and superconductors contain electrons which are moving in speed, which is close to speed of light. If you would take such material to trip with high, but subluminal speed, a strange things would happen, because the total speed of electrons and rocket would exceed the speed of light with respect to this reference frame. Maybe it could explain some Podkletnov's experiments.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (28) Nov 19, 2010
Light is not a particle in the strictest sense. It behaves as a bundle of waves.
It behaves like bundle of subtle particles, too. I explained it here with undulating foam concept in the role of vacuum. Such foam becomes more dense temporarily, when being shaken like soap foam in evacuated vessel. Therefore every light wave is behaving like fast traveling particle, which is doing vacuum slightly more dense at the place, where such wave is actually moving.

You can think about it like about tsunami wave, traveling across ocean. Such wave deforms water surface at the place, where such waves is moving momentarily - so it makes it larger for any other particle or wave, which is spreading along it. So that every wave would slow down the propagation of another waves like slightly more dense virtual environment, i.e. like some voluminous blobby particle, i.e. photon.
Gawad
5 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2010
Wayne contends that Einstein didn't take the environment through which the electrons move into account.
&
"Consequently, light itself prevents charged particles from moving faster than the speed of light."
Sheesh! Maybe I'm missing something here that's just too plain to see, but why does this article leave me with the feeling that Wayne has never heard of Cherenkov radiation?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (27) Nov 19, 2010
Wayne has never heard of Cherenkov radiation?
I don't know, if he did ("Cherenkov" word is not mentioned in his article) - but he effectively used CMB field of photons as a source of Cherenkov radiation.

Which is what anybody could do before him.
JIMBO
5 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2010
"Any space with a temperature above absolute zero consists of photons".
Such a naieve comment by PhysOrg writers is not uncommon, but when they suggest a biologist has discovered a new insight into relativity, well, its time for a pink slip !
frajo
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2010
"Any space with a temperature above absolute zero consists of photons".
Such a naieve comment by PhysOrg writers is not uncommon
IMHO, this severity is quite uncommon.
But then the publication obviously was not peer-reviewed. Kind of careless if you are entering the realm of physics as non-physicist.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2010
@El Nose - Solar sails rely mostly on photon pressure (at least at 1 AU from the sun) because the radiation pressure is three orders of magnitude larger than the solar wind pressure.
El_Nose
not rated yet Nov 19, 2010
@barakn

I never said they didn't
Judgeking
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2010
There's no other way to accelerate electrons besides using electric or magnetic fields, right? And this force is transmitted by virtual photons according to quantum theory.

So if the force used to provide acceleration is light, of course the object can't exceed the speed of light! Am I missing something?
dirk_bruere
5 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2010
Nobody mention quantum vacuum fluctuations and virtual photons...
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (27) Nov 19, 2010
Does this mean that, if we can create a region free of photons, an electron could move faster than C? How about a theoretical 'black pipe' which would allow FTL communication? Something fishy here-
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2010
Why does this article remind me of Hannes Alfven, the "...Swedish electrical engineer, plasma physicist and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics(MHD)" and his 'theory' of plasma cosmology?
dtxx
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2010
"Any space with a temperature above absolute zero consists of photons".
Such a naieve comment by PhysOrg writers is not uncommon, but when they suggest a biologist has discovered a new insight into relativity, well, its time for a pink slip !


I read the whole thing, but the first line of this article was like taking the first bite of a rotting sandwich.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2010
Good Grief! How does something like this get published at a "scientific" site?

From my perspective, the simplest way of looking at the light speed limit is to look at the relativistic mass. The bottom line is that nothing with mass can exceed the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of force to get it to the speed of light:

http://en.wikiped...lativity

This simply precludes anything with mass - not just an electron from reaching the speed of light (where the mass increases without bounds as the massive particle approaches the speed of light). Why does this goofball biologist think that accelerators require so much energy? It is because accelerating any particle with mass requires increasing energy with speed. Absolute tripe.
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (30) Nov 19, 2010
It is because accelerating any particle with mass requires increasing energy with speed.
I presume, such concentration of trolls just at PO is a consequence of careful moderator selection - it cannot be explained just with devastating educational system.
TheWalrus
2.5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2010
@ElNose--

Have youever seen the device that demonstrates light's momentum? It looks like a light bulb with an anemometer inside. Light alone--even from a 100-watt bulb--is sufficient to make the "anemometer" spin around.
DamienS
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 19, 2010
Darn! I'm late to the poke-holes-in-this-paper party! However:
Have youever seen the device that demonstrates light's momentum? It looks like a light bulb with an anemometer inside. Light alone...is sufficient to make the "anemometer" spin around.

Crookes radiometer. This isn't so clear-cut. Most of those devices spin the 'wrong' way if radiation pressure was the motive force. The vanes have light & dark colored sides, leading to temp gradients. Faster molecules from the warmer vane side strike the vane edges obliquely and impart a higher force than the colder molecules. The effect is also known as thermal creep, since it causes gases to creep along a surface that has a temp gradient. The net movement of the vane due to the tangential forces around the edges is away from the warmer gas and towards the cooler gas, with the gas passing around the edge in the opposite direction. The effect is just as if there were a greater force on the black side of the vane, leading to vane spin
dtxx
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2010
It is because accelerating any particle with mass requires increasing energy with speed.
I presume, such concentration of trolls just at PO is a consequence of careful moderator selection - it cannot be explained just with devastating educational system.


Just because your mindless comments get shitty ratings doesn't mean there is anything wrong at PO. Get an education?
KwasniczJ
1.3 / 5 (32) Nov 19, 2010
This "rating" is generated with frajo's bots, so I'm not talking about it at all. It's not "wrong", but simply dysfunctional. I'm talking about incredible stupidity of posters here.

http://www.physor...activity
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2010
One could only get away with a "photonic fog" that is on-net Doppler-shifted with respect to a charged particle's motion, if one presumed an absolute (privileged) frame of reference that would experience no such net shift.

If this were the case, we could empirically detect motion in an absolute sense, thus undermining most of Relativity's theoretical underpinnings -- and yes, reverting back to some sort of an "aether" construct.

Here's an experiment to try: take a pair of closely-spaced metallic plates, such as used to measure the Casimir Effect. Now sensitively measure the attractive force between the plate pair. Now rotate the plate pair by 90 degrees around an axis embedded in the plate plane. Measure force again. Repeat with an axis orthogonal to the first one. Absolute motion through photonic fog will result in force differences between the plate pairs, depending on plate orientation in space (that is, assuming the Casimir Effect mechanism is correctly derived from theory.)
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
How did that crap get published? One interesting concept and then off into, well someplace not quite in touch with actual physics.
If I understood this theory well after few minutes of reading
Clearly you didn't if you didn't notice that light AND electrons are limited by the same principle. Light is NOT what keeps ANYTHING from going faster than C, mass is.
- which is actually not, what we can observe in vacuum.
So then why did you say the theory was nice? I take it then this an indication that you don't understand that theories have to fit the evidence to qualify as theories. Otherwise they are simply wrong, like this one.

And if Randy Wayne never gets that point and insists that Nazi Scientists are suppressing him he will have not merely been wrong, he will have become a Crank.

That is the difference in being clever but wrong and being too stubborn for your own good. Cranking.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2010
MentorPalokaj
Is it just me, or don't photons EVER exert force?
They actually transmit the electro-magnetic force
That would mean they have mass (F=ma)which is fundamentally not a photon characteristic.
Not quite. They have a mass exactly equal to the energy of their energy which is dependent on their frequency alone. They have no REST mass.
"Any space with a temperature above absolute zero consists of photons." can someone elaborate on why?
Because the temperature is from photons, without them there the temperature would zero IF the temperature of Nothing had meaning. That part was clever of the biologist. So clever he took he fell in love with it. Always an iffy thing.

I have some ideas I think are clever. I try not fall in love with them because that way leads to Cranking.

And I don't think you deserved the ones you were ranked with for asking for enlightenment on a difficult subject. Some people seem to just use one or five and nothing in between.

Ethelred
MrPressure
1 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2010
Light wave dont stop, because photons expanding all a time and emit energy themselfs.

Thats why expanding photons pushing themselfs / eachother far away same way what phtons expanding all a time.

Almost same way.

Old light phtons did not pushing just same way all way long and thats why old light is redshifting you know.

New photons are very density and they dont have a lot of skin. Thats why new phtons time is not moving so quicly what old phtons time moving.

New phtons dont interactive with old phtons so much what old photons interactive with old photons.

Thats why light bending near Sun, you know.

Onesimpleprinciple modeltold that long time ago.

.
VK1
1 / 5 (29) Nov 20, 2010
Electrons have half of the photons wavelength. An electron and a positron constitute a full wavelength. This means electrons drag in the Higgs field, the half wavelength = point energy as the curve is negative only, the positron has the positive curve, they have opposing direction of spin.

If an electron moves at the speed of light it has infinite drag, light does not spin in on itself, the full wavelength constitutes a smooth flow of photons. Photons don't create drag, no mass. Electrons have a circular flow which gets extended in space, the circle finishes in a new spot every time the electron has relative spacial motion. At light speed the transition would have to take place in the spot light waves transition from negative to positive flow, the angle of incidence would be infinite. The electron at light speed has infinite mass. I wonder if infinite mass would collapse the universe?
MrPressure
1 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2010
The time and the speed of light

When you experience an episode, it demands a certain amount of vibrations of the atom cores.
The duration of the episode can be measured with an atom clock.

Experiecing the same event again in exactly the same way demands excactly the same amount of vibrations of the atom cores in other words the same time passes by measuring the time with an atom clock.

What if the expanding of the substance accelerates and the distance between the atom cores increases?

Now the energywaves coming from the atomcores need more time to move towards the atomcore nextby, where it makes the atomcore to vibrate ect.

The event takes more time although by measuring it with the atom clock it takes the same time in other words the atoms of an atom clock vibrate the same amount during the same event?
MrPressure
1 / 5 (12) Nov 20, 2010

I claim that the entropy of a ship that approaches with the speed of light accelerates, the time slows down and finally the ship turns into a light ((=photons) and then it´s energy indeed moves with the speed of light.

Because of the entropy all the substance turns finally into photons (=light), but if the ship begins to accelerate its speed, it meets the approaching energy faster and faster. Now the energy approaching makes the energy of the ship to alter faster than normally into a less dense form and this way the entropy speeds up. The ship expands and meets energy approaching from an wider area. The accelerating of the speed makes the entropy to speed up faster than before ect.

The photons approaching continue to expand in former rhythm. The ship expands faster than normally when the speed accelerates.
MrPressure
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
The ship that expands faster than normally gets more hits by photons that are now in relation to the expanding ship denser and this way from in front of the ship is experienced a harder force that objects the movement. To accelerate the speed even a little bit the ship needs all the time more and more substance / energy that alters faster than normally into a less dense form.

The photons reaching the ship from behind achieve the ship slower and this way force pulling from behind weakens in the same relation as the speed accelerates?

In the speed of light even a small accelerating of the speed weakens essentially the effect of the energy coming from behind!

Why do the quarks expand all the time?
Where do they get the energy to expand?

Towards the substance / energy of the visible universe there comes energy that has changed smoothly into a less dense energy because of the entropy. This energy makes the quarks to expand continuously in same relation.

.
VK1
1 / 5 (28) Nov 20, 2010
@VK1

Yes. It would. Collapse and BANG. Infinite probability of occurrence. If the universe keeps accelerating particles will reach infinite velocity then a collapse and a bang will reoccur. The universe has no other option but to keep accelerating. A collapse is inevitable, the big freeze is an unlikely scenario, infinitely approaching zero probability.

Matter will gradually increase repulsion until the universe infinitely drags on Higgs field, infinite mass will result in collapse and subsequent bang. Nothingness is just too unstable, a feed back always evolves. Out of zero we get a negative divergence than a positive to rebalance... and so on its an infinite feedback loop.
MrPressure
1 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2010

It controls the expanding of the quarks abd absorbs more energy towards the quarks all the time.

With an scientific experience the quarks can be forced to expand in explosives faster than normally.
Or in an atom bomb.

When the atom bomb explodes, the quarks turn into a less dense energy faster than normally.
Now they are less dense than the other quarks. That’s why they don´t absorb as much energy from that energy that moves against the substance / energy of the visible universe. Then the situation balances, these quarks begin to absorb the energy to themselves again in the same relations as the other quarks do ect.

.
MrPressure
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
Please inform me if you are familiar with some scientific test that is made with a space that expands all the time.Maybe there is somewhere a test that makes the space to expand faster than normally?

The expanding space is God of the science religions, and it can not be examined scientifically. The expanding space is can not be proven scientifically no more than other religions Gods can be proven!

.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
I wonder if infinite mass would collapse the universe?
I wonder if ANY of that, besides the spelling, wasn't completely and totally a odds with every theory or experiment ever made.

The answer to THAT question is clearly YES. Impossible for an electron but IF THEN YES. The rest was word wooze.

What is going on inside that head of yours. (Said in Peter Lorre's voice).

Ethelred
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
No no no, scala N. To be read on my website about scalair.
frajo
4.6 / 5 (18) Nov 20, 2010
VK1:
I wonder if infinite mass would collapse the universe?
VK1:
@VK1
Yes. It would.
Zephyr forgot to change his costume in the latter appearance. Funny.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2010
No no no I can't take it no more
I'm tired of the Cranks at the door

I wonder what the point of the typwriter+monkey bot is supposed to be. The site has no ads and I don't see a sign of drive by downloads. And its UGLY.

We had an ... entity on Maxium PC's Commport at one time that only posted

Oingy Boingy

Whatever you said to it. Its response was

Oingy Boingy

Someone later posted that they heard from someone that allegedly knew the entity in question that the purpose was see what people would do. A lot of people got mad at it. Yet it never actually did anything bad or called people names or anything except

Oingy Boingy

But he didn't try to get you to go to a web site. Much less that UGLY thing.

It doesn't really bother me but it adds nothing so I will give ones EXCEPT when the bot manages to make posts with at least as much clarity as is going on between the two Cranks up above.

Zephyr has either developed a sense of humor or the Cranking is progressing.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2010
Yea, the genastropsychicallst thing is a puzzle. Can't seem to communicate with it. It posts on many forums, and even has a twitter account. The web site is just a random list of science words, yet it tries to direct you there. Serving tracking cookies perhaps? It also goes by the name Albert Marinus. Strange. Maybe it is done by Zephry, so that his posts seem rational in comparison.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2010
frajo: Catching VK1 in his disguise was great. Kind of like he is arguing with himself in the middle of a quiet movie theater.
Parascientifica
not rated yet Nov 20, 2010
Hi, first time comment :P

I read the theory and I am afraid that I do have to disagree. Because this would imply that the electron would slow down and eventually stop.

If you draw the force diagram it will look a bit like this:
Rp /-\ Bp
--->|e|---->
\-/ e

If this is correct then the photon would never be able to reach a certain point and grind to a halt.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
VK1
1 / 5 (27) Nov 20, 2010
Well done frajo, you've discovered that the question and answer originated from the same source. You get a gold star.

Yay
VK1
1 / 5 (27) Nov 20, 2010
@Thermodynamics

Wow! Isn't frajo just so amazing?
VK1
1 / 5 (26) Nov 20, 2010
@Ethelred

Really? You think that what I said could be at odds with current model? You don't say. Wait, I did, when I said that the universe is headed towards a big crunch instead of the popular big freeze theory floating around. I even gave the reason for the crunch.

Good try though, you can have a gold star too.
VK1
1 / 5 (26) Nov 20, 2010
With the thoughts you'll be thinkin' you could be another Lincoln
Dick_Wolf
2.7 / 5 (26) Nov 20, 2010
Well done frajo, you've discovered that the question and answer originated from the same source. You get a gold star.

Yay

You’re the most ridiculous moron on this site, and that’s saying a lot with competitors like geriatricastropsychicallst in the running.

Everyone knows all of your 564+ sock puppet names, so we’re not surprised at all to catch you talking to yourself (you do it frequently, actually). What’s truly pathetic is your delusion that we’re fooled by it. Or fooled when you vote yourself up with one of your other sock puppets. Or vote others down with your “disposable” sock puppets (apparently assuming that this will spare you retribution).

But the dumbest part is you thinking you have anything to “teach” anyone here. You have to learn before you can teach, idiot. Everyone here is smarter than you are, and a better human being too. You’re just a tumor that thinks it’s a man.

Stop posting dude, nobody comes here to read your plague of endless bullshit.
VK1
1.1 / 5 (29) Nov 21, 2010
Ha, what a moron, do some research Dick. Only one persona here, check the avg ratings I receive. The votes i receive are unimportant to me on this site, they come from faceless individuals, literally, they're ghosts, lol. Btw you do not know the extent of my knowledge and I'm not trying to teach anyone anything.

Another frickin Sherlock Holmes over here. I'm rather new on this site and I've already figured out the multiple persona culprit, get a clue jackass. If I was upvoting myself would my avg score be a 1? You're laughable, do some research before inputting your two cents... and you're questioning my knowledge base, what a freak.

Goodbye wolf, thanks for the laugh
dtxx
3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
I would like to add something here. I personally went to Cornell, though not for biology. Hard as it is to believe, not everyone there is a genius. Ithaca has its share of morons.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (29) Nov 21, 2010
The rating system is a joke, is everyone going for presidency here or something? Why would a person care what faceless others think of their comments. If I had an interest in the voting system I could either choose to give someone a full 5 rating for an intelligent comment, or, I could give them a 1 for personal reasons that I do not have to elaborate on. Click and done.

However, if one were to be concerned with rating supremacy they would interact with others and work out a deal, I give you a 5, you give me a 5, boom we've evolved to a higher rating system. Now how do you hold your rule? By collectively downvoting those that are in contention for leadership. If I so choose, me, and a select few here (ones being downvoted that is), could overtake supremacy in no time. Think about that.

I have no desire to do so, the rates I receive here are meaningless. I validate myself.
VK1
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 21, 2010
Now I feel obligated to elaborate. The reason I comment on here is that it stirs my creative side. It starts my calculations off, I do not think I'm more intelligent than anyone else here, I'm just an individual with an individualized point of view, is it better than the next? Maybe, but not necessarily, my calculations do not ALWAYS equate my theories. I'm human I make mistakes, sue me.

Note to impressionable minds: the theories I put on here are not proofed, read at your discretion, take whatever you like from my comments and work it out for your self. If you're looking for further elaboration, explanation or proof, private message me, I usually work out the validity of my theories on paper within a few days of my post, and I do not post proofs in the comment section.
DamienS
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
the theories I put on here are not proofed...[snip]...I usually work out the validity of my theories on paper within a few days of my post, and I do not post proofs in the comment section.

Twisted though it may be, you do have a sense of humor!
VK1
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 21, 2010
Thank you my #1 downvoter, lol.
Parascientifica
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2010
Hi, first time comment :P

I read the theory and I am afraid that I do have to disagree. Because this would imply that the electron would slow down and eventually stop.

If you draw the force diagram it will look a bit like this:
Rp /-\ Bp
--->|e|---->
\-/ e

If this is correct then the photon would never be able to reach a certain point and grind to a halt.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Dick_Wolf
2.3 / 5 (25) Nov 21, 2010
I'm rather new on this site and I've already figured out the multiple persona culprit

Of course you have because it's yourself.

You just got caught red-handed pretending to not be yourself, answering your own question (and it's not the first time, either). You're totally busted. You're a loser AND a liar, and everyone who didn't know it before, knows it now, Zephir/Jigga/Alizee/KwasniczJ/beelize54/slotin/undo/etc./etc./etc./etc/ad nauseum....

Btw, your "knowledge base" is proven by your flood of posts, and it's obvious that you don't know the difference between "evidence" and "debunked trash." You're a typical internet drop-out, an uneducated idiot, and we're all sick of your shitty posts derailing the otherwise constructive dialogue here.

THIS IS NOT A FORUM FOR YOUR MORONIC "THEORIES," THIS IS A FORUM TO DISCUSS LEGITIMATE SCIENCE ARTICLES.

Gotta admit, the "my calculations" part was pretty funny. DamienS was laughing at you, not with you though.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
If this is correct then the photon would never be able to reach a certain point and grind to a halt.


That part is wrong. 'Certain point' that is. It implies the electron couldn't move at all.

Because this would imply that the electron would slow down and eventually stop.


Seem that way to me. Its what happens as well.

There IS background radiation and it certainly SHOULD interact with electrons.

Lasers are used in labs to slow down particles so we also have actual experience with light slowing things down.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


So I think you were wrong. That part the biologist seems to have right. But that isn't why electrons can't go faster than C. It would take infinite energy to accelerate ANY object that has a rest mass to C so going faster than C is just plain not going to happen. That part he got wrong.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
Wow! Isn't frajo just so amazing?
I take you were hoping to get more than a one by touching on reality for once.

No.
Really? You think that what I said could be at odds with current model?
I think what have been saying is not only at with the current model it is also at odds with
Reality
Aethernonsense
DenseVacuumOxymoron
Everything but itself
Itself

This latest exercise in stupidity of your where you are carrying on a conversation with yourself and pretending to be conversing with someone else is new low for you. A major achievement considering how many lows you have managed.

Simplicio arguing with Simplicio is what has been going on.

It reminds me of a passage from I Claudius - TV version.

I have seen fools pretend to be smart
Smart people pretend to be fools
But you are the only fool I know of that pretends to be a fool

Approximate and certainly relevant to an idiot that tries to be two people at once and blows it.

Again.

Ethelred
Parascientifica
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2010
@ Ethelred
I knew about the infinite energy thing but I thought that this description countered that.
Thanks Ethelred.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2010
The rating system is a joke
Hey you got something right.
Why would a person care what faceless others think of their comments.
Many of us do. Including you or you wouldn't have gone around giving yourself high rankings and given others low rankings. Actions DO speak even if not loudly.
If I had an interest in the voting system I could either choose to give someone a full 5 rating for an intelligent comment, or, I could give them a 1
Which you have done many times thus showing that you are lying.
If I so choose, me, and a select few here (ones being downvoted that is), could overtake supremacy in no time.
You tried that already. Got your ass whipped.
I validate myself.


That part is true.
Twice in one post.
Stopped clock I guess. Twelve hour clock.

The rest was a pack of lies by someone that must think we don't know that he is Zephyr as could be seen by the ludicrously false claim of being new here.

Do you actually eat with those lying fingers?

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2010
Now I feel obligated to elaborate.
Zephyr to English translation > tell more lies.
I do not think I'm more intelligent than anyone else here,
You do think you can get away with pretending to be different people. And you do get away with it for limited periods of time. Clever, pretending to be a different crank with the remark about onesimpleton.
I'm just an individual with an individualized point of view, is it better than the next? Maybe, but not necessarily,
False and false. The correct answer is NO.
my calculations do not ALWAYS equate my theories.
What calculations? You REFUSE to make them.
Note to impressionable minds: the theories I put on here are not proofed,
They aren't theories. They aren't even WAGS. They are at variance with reality in every case.
I usually work out the validity of my theories on paper within a few days of my post, and I do not post proofs in the comment section.
Or anywhere else as you refuse to run the numbers.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2010
The way the ratings should work is, for each 1 received you're banned for one day.
frajo
2.8 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2010
Hi, first time comment :P
Howdy. A remarkable and non-falsifiable assertion, isn't it?

What a funny nick, Parascientifica. Composed of a Greek preposition and a pseudo-Latin adjective. We share a fascination for those ancient linguae francae, don't we?

Parascientifica
not rated yet Nov 21, 2010
Hi, first time comment :P
Howdy. A remarkable and non-falsifiable assertion, isn't it?

What a funny nick, Parascientifica. Composed of a Greek preposition and a pseudo-Latin adjective. We share a fascination for those ancient linguae francae, don't we?


Yea, I love those old terms xD
Plus it does illustrate my subjects of interest.
Although I should have used physics, but that just sounded less good :P
Parascientifica
not rated yet Nov 21, 2010
I did some calculations and I believe that this really can't be true, if you take an f of 10hz and a speed of 0.5c then the difference in fb and fr are huge, and these can only grow as light has a higher f and the e has a higher speed.

fred = sqr(1.5/0.5)*10hz => fred ~17Hz
fblue = sqr(0.5/1.5)*10hz => fblue ~5.7Hz

It would be smashed back or even torn apart.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2010
What a funny nick, Parascientifica.

Yea, I love those old terms xD
"Scientifica" is not really an old term. It sounds like Latin but is just English ("scientific") in disguise.
Real Latin and really old are the words "scire" (to know), "sciens" (knowing), and "scientia" (knowledge).
Plus it does illustrate my subjects of interest.
Although I should have used physics, but that just sounded less good :P
But "para physi" is an existing Greek term meaning "against nature".
Parascientifica
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2010
That is quite cool, I never really got the chance to learn Greek or Latin. A thing that I really regret =/

so my name is against science? :P
Thats not how I intended it to be xD
Noumenon
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2010
I find it hard to believe that Wayne is saying relativity is wrong, and that he discovered the "real" reason electrons cannot exceed the speed of light. It may be just how the article is written by physorg. He may still understand that mass increases as c is approached, but is describing a epiphenomenon in a closed system of photons and electrons.

The following is not correct so Wayne idea may be misstated as well.

Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity contends that electrons are prevented from exceeding the speed of light as a result of the relativity of time.
alekseyt
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
Why are so many articles in the sight here look like April 1st jokes? Is it the playful nature of the scintists or testing intelligence of the public?
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2010
There is no mention of relativistic momentum of the electron which as c is approached could be as much as 100k times what the classical momentum would be, therefore reducing the effect of this "viscous photons".

@alekseyt, can you explain why my previous post deserved a 1 rating?
dtxx
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2010
If I so choose, me, and a select few here (ones being downvoted that is), could overtake supremacy in no time.
You tried that already. Got your ass whipped.
I validate myself.


That part is true.
Twice in one post.
Stopped clock I guess. Twelve hour clock.

The rest was a pack of lies by someone that must think we don't know that he is Zephyr as could be seen by the ludicrously false claim of being new here.


If zephir stops posting here I really don't know where I will go to work out my polemic muscles.

VK1
1 / 5 (17) Nov 21, 2010
@Ethelred

You're right, your debating skills suck, you're just grasping, you truly do need me don't you? There are many valid points you could make to win here, unfortunately you keep clinging to ones that aren't there. Open your hand, see...it's empty.

Keep working that "polemic muscle" of yours, if nothing else it'll keep your hands busy.
VK1
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2010
Use your own points next time dtxx, or at least lift the quotes from someone with a rational mind.
VK1
1 / 5 (19) Nov 21, 2010
Dick_Wolf

Poor little Dick. You have no brain in that little head of yours. I didn't get caught answering my own question, I found the solution to the problem I proposed.

I'm not interested in your opinions so keep them to yourself, you don't agree with my viewpoints, so be it, stop being so dense. Read the article you're interested in, and read the comments you're interested in (skip mine).

If you feel the need to obsess over my comments go ahead, try to prove or disprove them if you like, I could care less.

Later pin prick
TheGhostofZephir
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2010
Just STFU already. Christ.
Rohitasch
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
Sigh! GZK cutoff, anybody?
http://backreacti...off.html
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2010
Rohitasch: Thank you for the excellent reference. I found the discussions at the source to be great.

I am not sure about the source of your sigh or the reference to the GZK in the context of the article though. Could you please elaborate?
Dick_Wolf
2.7 / 5 (28) Nov 21, 2010
@Zephir
I didn't get caught answering my own question, I found the solution to the problem I proposed.

You’re a pathological liar and a fraud.

If you’d found the answer to your question and decided to post it as a response (which would still amount to “idiotically talking to yourself”), you wouldn’t have directed the response to yourself in this format which explicitly names the person you’re talking to:
@VK1

Yes. It would.

like you did here:
@Thermodynamics

Wow! Isn't frajo just so amazing?

when you got all angry and flustered that frajo pointed out your pathetic sock puppet slip-up. Clue: you wouldn’t have had any reason to get worked up if you hadn’t been trying to hide your deception in the first place, dickless.
I'm not interested in your opinions so keep them to yourself

I’ll call off the wolves when you keep your own stupid opinions and vapid “theories” to yourself.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2010
You're right, your debating skills suck,
Is that all you can do. Pretend I said things I didn't.
you truly do need me don't you?
No. If I need to point out idiocy I there is always Marjon.
There are many valid points you could make to win here,
Yes. And I use many of them.
unfortunately you keep clinging to ones that aren't there.
If that was true it would be fortunate for you. It isn't. Lying simply doesn't make things true no matter how times you do it.
Open your hand, see...it's empty.
Gosh that was brilliant and so meaningful.
Keep working that "polemic muscle" of yours, if nothing else it'll keep your hands busy.
I am curious, Zephyr, why did you bother posting that example of lame writing and foolish lies? You don't have to answer, the question is rhetorical, but I am curious as to why you act the way you do.

If I had lost my mind long enough to write such meaningless drivel I would have wiped the box and started over.

Ethelred
VK1
1 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2010
@Ethelred

That comment was intended for dtxx who used your words to highlight his debate skills. Did you really not catch on to that? That is rhetorical, I already know you didn't so don't bother answering (although I'm sure you will).

While I've got your attention though where do you get off? I mean there isn't a shred of evidence to anything that you're claiming, for arguments sake let's say that I do have multiple personas here (which I don't), what type of evidence would it take to prove this? Rationalize that for me please.

I can't give you anymore of a clue than what I've stated, if you choose to believe your delusions be my guest and continue.

What would I have to gain from all of these accounts?

You really can't be this stupid, can you?
VK1
1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2010
@Dick_Wolf

I posted the 1st comment, typed the 2nd and posted. In that span of time mrpressure posted 3 comments.

For clarity's sake I went in and edited my 2nd comment to include "@VK1" to takeout any confusion that might have arose in mrpressures (or anyone else's) mind.

Get over yourself. Do you want an apology for my comment not sitting well with you? Grow up.
VK1
1 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2010
And lastly (hopefully), so what if zephir has a thousand identities on here. If he is right with what he says then what he says is right, if he's wrong with what he says then he's wrong. Big frickin deal.

What is he a criminal mastermind that all of you genius detectives must locate and expose. THESE ARE COMMENTS.

I'd rather listen to his deluded take on reality than listen to your witch hunt.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2010
And lastly (hopefully), so what if zephir has a thousand identities on here.
Not a thousand yet. Its dishonest is what. And many of the profiles have lies in them on top of all being YOU.
If he is right with what he says then what he says is right
But you aren't right.
t, if he's wrong with what he says then he's wrong. Big frickin deal.
Except when you lie about others and use the logins to pretend that you are different people agreeing with each other in a pathetic attempt to show support where it does not exist.
What is he a criminal mastermind that all of you genius detectives must locate and expose.
No. Just a pathetic lying troll that is wasting space.
THESE ARE COMMENTS.
Yes and so is this. This is a comment on the mendacious actions of a pathetic troll.
I'd rather listen to his deluded take on reality than listen to your witch hunt.
Its a troll hunt and you are listening to yourself.

If you want the hunt to stop - stop the duplicity.

Ethelred
VK1
1 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2010
Believe what you like Ethelred, I'm not pursuing irrational debates.
TheGhostofZephir
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2010
You seem to think it’s not true as long as you deny it. You're only fooling yourself, idiot.

The evidence proves it: your crank logic, the tell-tale syntax errors that we who speak English as a first language can identify instantly, the voting record, etc.

Note in your Activity page that with few exceptions only your puppets “KwasniczJ” and “Undo” gave you 5-star votes: http://www.physor...activity

In this thread http://www.physor...ram.html you used your puppet “Undo” to try to pull off EXACTLY the same trick you tried to pull off here: asking a question of your “TDK” puppet to create an illusion that somebody gave a crap about your rubbish posts. Skeptic_Heretic saw right through it. Then you used your puppet “telekinetic” to praise yourself in the same thread on Oct 29th. Playing “dress-up” with an army of puppets doesn’t create an illusion of consensus; it just shows what a creepy, lying, freakish A-Hole you are.
TheGhostofZephir
4.7 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2010
If you want the hunt to stop - stop the duplicity.

It's too late for that in my book. There's a line, and once that line is crossed, it's war.

This troll is beneath contempt, beyond pardon, or redemption, or absolution.

He tasks me! He tasks me, and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Nibia, and round the Antares Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give him up!
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2010
While I've got your attention though where do you get off?
Not the same as you do.
I mean there isn't a shred of evidence to anything that you're claiming
Sure there is.
let's say that I do have multiple personas here (which I don't),
You have two on this thread alone.
what type of evidence would it take to prove this? Rationalize that for me please.
Oh talking to yourself under two different names for one. And no I can't rationalize your behavior. You could. You could quit thinking that everyone is too stupid to figure out your multiple logins.
What would I have to gain from all of these accounts?
Again you have to answer that yourself. I don't need to know your motivation. I am curious but I don't need to know that to discern a pattern.
You really can't be this stupid, can you?
No I am not stupid enough to think you only have one name on this thread.

I'm not pursuing irrational debates.


You had an irrational debate with you.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2010
I just received a rather deranged PM of surrender from the Zephyr login VK1. Sorry that I can't post it as it is. It would get me banned. However I can BLEEP it.

Get a BLEEPing life BLEEPbag, somebody needs to give you a BLEEPing beating to set you straight. I would absolutely love to drive my fist right through your annoying BLEEPing head. You're nothing but a little loser ass BLEEP. Run away and hide skeptic BLEEP sucker. Play your little games in the real world not hiding behind your computer.

BLEEPing BLEEPy


He seems to have some serious issues with women and various parts of female anatomy and fairly normal sexual behavior.

Peculiar how he hates people for using computers. He really should stop using them if they make behave so badly.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2010
Two more:

I BLEEPing hate little BLEEPes like you you even hide under multiple identities online, how BLEEPing pathetic, you really need a BLEEPing head bashing, if you were a real man you'd stand up for yourself and tell me where to BLEEPing find you. I don't expect anything BLEEPsy from you, BLEEP!


You're not as intelligent as I am, I'm always a step ahead of you. Do you think that just because I don't call you out for what you are on the forum that I don't know what you're trying to do? My advice still stands go see a professional you BLEEPing fruit. I'll straighten you out myself you little BLEEP, BLEEPyou you inferior little BLEEPing runt. It's not my fault you weren't born as intelligent as you delude yourself into believing you are. Blame your parents for your inferior intellect.

Keep hiding BLEEPsucker, pray to god that I don't track you down and beat you down like your parents should have.


I guess he thought it would stay private. Idiot.

Ethelred
TheGhostofZephir
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2010
Oh M Gee…that’s the funniest BLEEPin thing I’ve seen all week – thanks for sharing Ethelred! Gotta stop laughing, I’m getting dizzy…lol….

I got one too! I feel kinda gypped though, it seems he blew his BLEEP on you, pardon the expression =) Apparently he thinks we’re >both< Skeptic_Heretic (I wonder why he gave up on blaming frajo)…anyway, I guess when you’ve been wearing several sock puppets each and every day for several consecutive months, you assume that everyone else is doing it too. What a ‘tard. He said:

“BLEEP you skeptic you're nothing but a little BLEEP BLEEPss BLEEPy”

I love the smell of hate mail in the morning…smells like…Victory…
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2010
Congratulations Ethelred and thanks for sharing. That shows some very interesting mental pathology.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2010
I think I know what is going on inside his head. A little anyway.

He may really think I am using multiple logins. Perhaps the GhostofZephyr logins.

Not me. I won't do that sort of thing AS LONG AS Zephyr doesn't use his sockpuppets to uprank himself and downrank others. That is the only reason I would use another login. And then only to eradicate the effects of the cheating.

Ethelred
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2010
TheGhostofZephir said:
I got one too!

Darn, I feel so left out...
TheGhostofZephir
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2010
It is funny, but it's a dubious honor, DamienS. Kinda like making Linda Blair puke on your shoes.
I won't do that sort of thing AS LONG AS Zephyr doesn't use his sockpuppets to uprank himself and downrank others.

You haven't noticed that he's been doing that for >months?< He even upranks himself and downranks others (using his non-posting sock puppets) with >multiple puppets simultaneously.< Totally despicable.
That is the only reason I would use another login.

Same here.
And then only to eradicate the effects of the cheating.

How do you eradicate the effects of hundreds of pages of rubbish being dumped into this site every month? And you'd have to uprank yourself to "correct" the problem, which wouldn't make you any better than him.

Best to just raze the fields and sift the bones from the ashes later, I say.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2010
You haven't noticed that he's been doing that for >months?
He hasn't been doing it lately as far as I have been able to see. Last time I went to war over this he was downranking me, though inconsistently, with more than one sockpuppet. Since it hasn't happened this time around I don't see the need for extreme responses on my part.
How do you eradicate the effects of hundreds of pages of rubbish being dumped into this site every month?
I just point out that its rubbish. That is enough for me. Oh and I downrank the more egregious stuff. Which is rather a lot of it.

We get a lot of Cranks here and I am not going to say they add much to the site but they do add something. In moderation. One Crank pretending to be two or more and having a conversation with itself does strikes me as a bit much.

Simplicio Y Simplicio is even more than Galileo would be likely to accept. You know that one of G's problems with the church was that the Pope thought that he was Simplicio.

Ethelred
frajo
4 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2010
He hasn't been doing it lately as far as I have been able to see.
Have a look at KwasniczJ's activity page, entry on November 21, 2010, 5:58 am. Zephir has become cautious, trying to cover up his traces by using sleepers (accounts without comments) who even use "1"-votes for himself once in a while (see "ohjoy").
for arguments sake let's say that I do have multiple personas here (which I don't)
He didn't mention the "multiple personality" disorder for the first time.
Skeptics claim that people who present with the appearance of alleged multiple personality may have learned to exhibit the symptoms in return for social reinforcement.
From Wikipedia on its very interesting "Dissociative identity disorder" page.
As there's no social reinforcement by the PhysOrg users, not even after manipulating his and others' scores, Zephir gets angry.
For me, he shows the symptoms listed on the "Antisocial personality disorder" Wikipedia page. But I'm no psychiatrist.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2010
So. many things wrong with this article. where to begin...

Ok let's go with the crank triggers first. There are some Usenet groups devoted to relativity that have been taken over by a handful of anti-relativity cranks... most of which do the multiple sock puppet account thing, have never bothered to read the theory, yet continue to argue against what they reluctantly admit they haven't read and all support some kind of eather theory. Posting irresponsible, random thoughts from someone who clearly is not familiar with the basics of relativity, yet has some kind of scientific credential just throws gasoline on their fire.

Second, this is NOT a new idea. I'd imagine that this idea crossed most of our minds in our early stages of studying relativity.

Third, this idea is just so obviously wrong to those that understand special relativity. Obviously, the first question to toss back to the /biologist/ is "in which time frame?"
...continued...
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2010
I'd say instead, the whole problem is in fact, you're not intelligent enough to distinguish "Zephir" from other posters here - don't you think? Which can make a perception of "dissociative identity disorder" for you.

BTW Not all ideas violating relativity must be wrong necessarily. For example, quantum mechanics is violating relativity in many orders of magnitude and it's still considered seriously. Which makes rather wide space for another ideas violating relativity too.
CSharpner
5 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2010
...continued...
This question is not asked to engage in discussion, but as an illustration to the student to invoke critical thought towards his own idea with the hope of him quickly realizing the err in his premise. If he cannot comprehend the problem with his postulate, then he probably doesn't understand the first thing about special relativity.

The fact that this random thought from someone not in the field made it all the way into an article on a usually good and legitimate scientific web site is mind boggling.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2010
I'd say instead, the whole problem is in fact, you're not intelligent enough to distinguish "Zephir" from other posters here - don't you think?
No Zephyr, we do know you're Zephyr. It really isn't that hard to tell. You once even used that as an excuse for continuing the same reprehensible behavior.

Only this time you made an ass of yourself with toxic spew.

Pretending to be civil again as if we didn't know it is still Zephyr. One you know we know is Zephyr. Then again maybe you don't know. You learn real slow.

I take it then, that you are going to shut down the VK1 sockpuppet for a while.

http://www.fanhis...k_puppet

I recommend that you:

Apologize to everyone. And I mean everyone at Physorg.

Stick to ONE name.

I don't think you will do either. Your lack of respect for others and yourself seems to have no bounds. You are like one of those idiot sociopaths that think they can outsmart a jury by representing themselves.

Ethelred
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2010
Get a BLEEPing life BLEEPbag, somebody needs to give you a BLEEPing beating to set you straight. I would absolutely love to drive my fist right through your annoying BLEEPing head. You're nothing but a little loser ass BLEEP. Run away and hide skeptic BLEEP sucker. Play your little games in the real world not hiding behind your computer.

BLEEPing BLEEPy
Holy shit. Er, bleep?

One question- if VK1 is the auslander zephir/jigga, why is his english uncommonly normal?
little loser ass BLEEP (faggot? shithole? turd? peckerhead?
-is undeniably american.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 22, 2010
I mean, zephir/jigga couldnt even get then/than right.

The PMs instead resemble something from that guy qubitamer a little more, yes? Maybe someones been Playing you all a little bit, no? Oder?
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2010
if VK1 is the auslander zephir/jigga, why is his english uncommonly normal?

Indeed. IMO VK1 is the poster JAL well known from physorg forum.

http://www.physfo...ser=5116
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2010
I mean, zephir/jigga couldnt even get then/than right.
Because he didn't want to.
Anybody else would have understood the correct writing of "below" after my hints at "bellow" and "pod". Even Google is quite good at translating single words.
The PMs instead resemble something from that guy qubitamer a little more, yes? Maybe someones been Playing you all a little bit, no?
Dreaming up CTs is your specialty, I know.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2010
Dick_Wolf

Poor little Dick. You have no brain in that little head of yours. I didn't get caught answering my own question, I found the solution to the problem I proposed.

I'm not interested in your opinions so keep them to yourself, you don't agree with my viewpoints, so be it, stop being so dense. Read the article you're interested in, and read the comments you're interested in (skip mine).

If you feel the need to obsess over my comments go ahead, try to prove or disprove them if you like, I could care less.

Later pin prick
Sorry, but I doubt that jigga wrote this. His american was never this good. I think the fascist wolves here have attacked the wrong victim. One possibility is that jigga got a colleague to participate.
Dreaming up CTs is your specialty, I know.
And ravaging people who think differently from you is yours. Disturbingly Totalitarian.

By the way I found a paper that pretty much proves my point in the other thread. Dare to misinterpret?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2010
Yeah I think your little hundgruppe has treed the wrong guy.

Convention über alles eh?
http://www.youtub...a_player
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2010
By the way I found a paper that pretty much proves my point in the other thread. Dare to misinterpret?
Unfortunately, due to time constraints I cannot read everything and therefore have to leave some articles and some comments unread.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2010
Arf Arf?

-But you do have time to discount arguments of commenters without adequately exploring their side of the issue? A small paper full of big names. Are you afraid you might learn something you might find distasteful? (you will)
Dick_Wolf
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 22, 2010
@otto

Sorry, but I doubt that jigga wrote this. His american was never this good. I think the fascist wolves here have attacked the wrong victim.


“Victim?” And you’re calling me a “fascist?” How you can defend someone who floods the site with insane counter-scientific pontificating garbage all day long for months on end (frequently in long strings of consecutive, pointless and inappropriate posts), and uses the PM system to send violent threatening messages to other members?

Regardless of whether this is Zephir or not, this outrageous trolling ****wad should’ve been banned by the moderators weeks ago, if the moderators ever bothered to do their job, that is.

But hey, way to chime in on behalf of the site dung beetle, otto, how very noble.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2010
Otto
The PMs instead resemble something from that guy qubitamer a little more, yes? Maybe someones been Playing you all a little bit, no? Oder?


No its not QubitTroll. His style of toxic spew is different.

Zephyr
Indeed. IMO VK1 is the poster JAL well known from physorg forum.


He is also YOU as YOU have been banned there as well under the Zephyr name.

Your not fooling anyone.

Misty, you do realize that this means war. Once would have been reasonable after I accidentally gave you a one, sorry about that, a little, because I thinking of Marjon at the time. EVERY bloody post is over the top. And you have to be an idiot to not know that I return the favor. Heck even a few I would tolerate because I just plain goofed.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2010
Regardless of whether this is Zephir or not, this outrageous trolling ****wad should’ve been banned by the moderators weeks ago, if the moderators ever bothered to do their job, that is.


So who are you really? I understand that you might be a tad annoyed at Otto BUT that login is recent and you obviously have been here a long time.

Just asking.

Ethelred
Dick_Wolf
2.1 / 5 (22) Nov 22, 2010
I'm calling you a dick. Go fuck yourself.


Now I get it. You're just another trolling attention whore who got jealous of all the negativity aimed at this babbling idiot. Given your proclivity for posting walls of consecutive long-winded narcissistic diatribes, I guess you and Zephir/VK1/ KwasniczJ/Jigga are kindred spirits, huh?

Sorry dude, but we can't all focus on making you feel like the jaded and yet self-righteous misanthropic martyr. Feel free to post another 10,000 spiteful words about how we should all conform to your way of thinking though, because that makes all of your hypocritical comments about "fascism" just Totally Hilarious!

Gawd, how many trolls out to save us from ourselves can this site bear?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 23, 2010
And I guess, like the other Nazis here, you view all the people here who think you're an ass as the same person, don't you? Makes it easier eh? VK1 is not jigga- that is obvious to non-Nazis. Jigga cannot speak American that consistantly well. And you're a 5/5 whore- get your stars today liebschinz?
Parascientifica
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2010
Seriously, can't you guys atleast pretend to be mature?
I am trying to learn and debate here and all I see is childish flaming. Seriously lets talk about electrons colliding with redshifted photons.
otto1932
1.1 / 5 (28) Nov 23, 2010
Und so... Der Geister Sturmtruppen erwachen. Like I say this site is infested with psycho Nazis, that is those who enjoy shouting down dissent and honest opinion. If I did choose to respond I would have to pick a target, most likely an innocent one (but maybe not?), but representative of der Broderbund.
Dick_Wolf
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 23, 2010
@Parascientifica
You’re absolutely right. The only way to defeat a troll is to starve it to death.

@otto
Your language here has been inexcusable. Bright and curious children come to this site, you thoughtless, narcissistic pig.

@Parascientifica
Sorry about that. I’m done. :|
otto1932
1.1 / 5 (27) Nov 23, 2010
Mein Leben... kaff kaff
http://www.youtub...a_player
otto1932
1 / 5 (24) Nov 25, 2010
Hey dick,

I wonder how many of those kids come here and get the impression from all your bickering and gang-rating of thought-provoking comments, that scientists must be a group of very small and unpleasant people indeed? Probably does your cause a lot more damage than the occasional f-bomb I would think. What do you think dick? Or whoever you are-
KwasniczJ
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 25, 2010
scientists must be a group of very small and unpleasant people indeed?
A scientists? Do you mean these trolls here?? Come on...
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2010
Otto is getting down ranked for trolling and being inflammatory instead of insightful. Just because Otto thinks Otto is insightful it doesn't mean that Otto is insightful. All the time anyway. Otto is CAPABLE of insight which is why he is treated rather better than Zephyr or Marjon.

Unfortunately Otto is capable of barefaced trolling of rather low quality in ways that speak poorly of Otto's character.

Trolling is one thing. Being a pain to EVERYONE is another.

Please try harder Otto. You really don't have to act like a narrow minded troll.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
Do you mean these trolls here?? Come on...
Zephyr the MultiNamedTroll is calling people trolls. That is typical of Zephyr's hypocrisy. Sends people nasty small minded notes under one name and then pretends that Zephyr

Didn't do it because it was someone else
Isn't here
Can't spell Zephyr
That it's OK to use multiple logins SPECIFICALLY to deceive
That having conversations with himself is somehow useful and not deceptive because he wasn't both people. Even after botching his fake logins by losing track of which fake was at the moment

Just because Zephyr is stupid enough to believe Zephyr's own bull it doesn't mean that anyone else does.

Only an idiot could think that EVERYONE is that stupid. Zepyr's every post is an ad-homonym attack on everyone here because to think that Zephyr could actually be fooling anyone for a long is insulting the intelligence of everyone here.

Ethelred
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 25, 2010
Dear Brit;

I only get belligerent when dealt a clear injustice. Like when im called a nazi for totally unjustified reasons, and prove my case, and still get dumped on by the star groupies crawling over each other to incur favor like head lice.

This sours my stomach and it tends to last awhile. So what? You get just as testy but respond with erudition in 9 posts yawn. AGAIN, if there's something specific you or anyone takes issue with, then post it. Refute my arguments or even agree with me.

I make an innocent observation here about the current shishkabob VK1 and the philo entity known sometimes as 'dick' attacks, and I respond in kind. So in sickness he gang-rates me. I guess his philosophy is situational ethics eh? Something chemically inspired perhaps?

Signed otto the poor misunderstood victim boohoo
otto1932
1.3 / 5 (24) Nov 25, 2010
I feel so... violated. Where's that rate kit? I think I got head lice now.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
Dear Brit;
I am NOT a DFB. I am mostly GERMAN and bit Irish. The Irish parts mean I don't care for being called a DFB.

Even the original Ethelred wasn't a Brit. He was from Germanic invaders not from the native Britons. Anglo-Saxon NOT a Briton.

I can't help it if Dick went off on you. He actually got pissed at you on another thread if you will recall. He is presently unwilling to notice that in this thread you were INITIALLY justified. Of course your response has made that impossible.
get dumped on by the star groupies
So strike back. I am doing that to MysticOxymoron until he stops. I know I made a post about haven given him 24 hours of grace before I started retaliating to see if he would behave himself. It disappeared and I have not been given a notice that it was deleted. So maybe he didn't see it but I suspect he not only saw but reported it to get it deleted.

Style counts Otto. Your style ticks off even the moderate. Ease up on the Nazi crap.

Ethelred
Dick_Wolf
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 25, 2010
I make an innocent observation here about the current shishkabob VK1 and the philo entity known sometimes as 'dick' attacks, and I respond in kind.

If you've really deluded yourself into inverting the sequence of events like that, then you should really start back on the haloperidol. The record is right there, you started this without provocation.

And you threw my PMed ceasefire proposal back in my face, so now I Know you consciously choose to be a troll. Fine with me.

Buy the ticket, take the ride.
sender
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2010
This does not mean that electrons cannot be encapsulated in photons and displaced at faster than the speed of light, now with new bose-einstein condensate substrates:
See Super-Photon:
http://www.physor...ton.html
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2010
If you've really deluded yourself into inverting the sequence of events like that,
You might want to recheck the order of events on this thread.

VK1 goes berserk
People comment on Zephyr's behavior under that Login
Otto's questions the idea that VK1 = Zephyr
Otto quotes something VK1-Zephyr wrote because he thought the English was too American for Zephyr.

Then you posted this:
But hey, way to chime in on behalf of the site dung beetle, otto, how very noble.


At which point Otto went Otto.

Which isn't too surprising since you accused of supporting Zephyr when he was only questioning whether VK1 = Zephyr.

Going toxic like you have on Otto is counter productive. Emulating Otto's bad behavior is hardly the way to get him to change.

Its weird that I feel the need to moderate a fight. While fighting with ModernOxymoron. Well he is the one that decided to WAY OVERDO IT. And its the second time he has done it to me.

Ethelred
Dick_Wolf
2 / 5 (21) Nov 26, 2010
In his first post to me he calls me a fascist:
the fascist wolves here

Which I give him a pass on, explaining the situation and merely implying that sticking up for a spamming troll is less than noble:
But hey, way to chime in on behalf of the site dung beetle, otto, how very noble

And he blasts back with:
I'm calling you a dick. Go fuck yourself

That's insane, uncalled for, trolling garbage that you'd expect at some adolescent chat room. But I'm not willing to post a bunch of bile on a top science site in retaliation. So I'll quietly rank him where he belongs, with the sewage, so everyone knows the value of his character.

I even PMed him that I was going to back off completely as long as he followed the Physorg Comment Guidelines, but he chose to flame back instead. Frankly he should be banned for his constant insults, swearing, zealotry, and habitual inflammatory off-topic raving.

I've tried to reason with him, all that's left now is silent justice.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
So I'm going to post my final hypothesis on Zephyr.
He isn't a single person. He's a consortium of uneducated anti-science hacks, probably also part of the marjon/kevinrtrs misology gang.

Look at the progression from slav cadence, to proper english cadence, to americanized english in his posts above. It is amazingly sharp. There are certainly multiple people posting under the VK1 account. This is probably why VK1 answered himself.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 26, 2010
Dear englebert,

Style counts Otto. Your style ticks off even the moderate. Ease up on the Nazi crap.
I think I write pretty well. I have been getting better at it since participating on this site. I find I am able to elicit emotion in others which is a good sign I am communicating effectively. Know anybody who would like to hire me for my writing skills?

Thankyou for the defense. In my opinion I have never acted like a troll, although it might seem as such if one were to join an exchange after the Pudelfuzz began to fly. Your accurate sequence of events is typical of engagements: otto is attacked either directly or assaulted by ignorance... Otto replies.

I respond to trolls. If you continue to refer to me as a sometimes troll, it gives trolls license to judge me as such whenever they don't like what I have to say, and start jumping up and down and wetting their pants. While amusing, as you say this is not productive.

As ALWAYS, otto
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 26, 2010
Hey dick,
That's insane, uncalled for, trolling garbage that you'd expect at some adolescent chat room. But I'm not willing to post a bunch of bile on a top science site in retaliation. So I'll quietly rank him where he belongs, with the sewage, so everyone knows the value of his character.
Need a new nappy?
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 26, 2010
Something like this maybe?
http://www.dachsh...per.html
frajo
4 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2010
I only get belligerent when dealt a clear injustice. Like when im called a nazi for totally unjustified reasons
During my first two decades I did experience the behaviour of my six younger brothers. During more than 10 years of owning, administrating, moderating, and commenting internet forums I did experience belligerent behaviour.

otto1932's behaviour is not belligerent, it is naughty.
otto1832 talks of injustice when he can't stand the heat whipped up by himself.
otto1932 confuses "nazi-like preaching" with "nazi-like person".
otto1932 reminds me very much of my younger brothers in those days.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 26, 2010
otto1932 confuses "nazi-like preaching" with "nazi-like person".
Frajo confuses honest criticism of religion of the sort otto expressed, with Nazism. It was not, and otto proved this. Frajo can't admit the error. Frajo also fails to equate attempts at censorship by the group of unfavorable opinions and facts as similar in content and degree.
otto1932 reminds me very much of my younger brothers in those days.
Frajo fails to recognize similar behavior in those who bait otto, and actually encourages it by giving out 5/5 Pudelbiscuits for it.
otto1832 talks of injustice when he can't stand the heat whipped up by himself.
-And frajo indulges in similar juvenile behaviors, thereby exposing a duplicitous nature.
Need a new nappy?
-And otto displays unparalleled wit which pretty much excuses anything he does.
Parascientifica
not rated yet Nov 26, 2010
I give up, you guys just don't know when to stop =/
ANyway, for who want's a normal discussion, please check here: http://www.parasc...p;t=6659
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2010
Need a new nappy?
Depends....
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
I give up, you guys just don't know when to stop =/
ANyway, for who want's a normal discussion, please check here: http://www.parasc...p;t=6659

I'd strongly recommend that you don't try to point us to a site that lumps the Natural World with Cryptozoology.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 26, 2010
Need a new nappy?
Depends....
Ha!
http://www.depend...nts.org/

-I think part of the problem is that Frajo is not up on current popular usage of 'nazi'.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 26, 2010
I mean you can argue with these people about the holocaust and all, but since they're all JEWS, you might not get very far:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-Maybe Frajo should watch more US tv to get caught up on cultural norms-

@parascientifica
-Just working thru some issues, Geduld bitte-
Parascientifica
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2010
I give up, you guys just don't know when to stop =/
ANyway, for who want's a normal discussion, please check here: http://www.parasc...p;t=6659

I'd strongly recommend that you don't try to point us to a site that lumps the Natural World with Cryptozoology.

Lol why not? You just check the topic and see what it is. Most of it is no crypto anyway.
Dick_Wolf
1.4 / 5 (20) Nov 26, 2010
@S_H:
So I'm going to post my final hypothesis on Zephyr......He's a consortium of uneducated anti-science hacks


The tragedy here is that otto’s infantile antics have provided refuge for the primary problem child Zephir, who is almost single-handedly pulling this site down closer to the Keelynet level. VK1 might not have been the same person as Zephir, but it doesn’t matter, they worked together closely to push their pseudoscientific aether theory agenda.

Zephir/KwasniczJ mercilessly pushes his idiotic dense aether theory. VK1 pushed exactly the same theory though he called it the Higgs field instead of dense aether. They voted each other up and teamed up to vote against anyone debating with either of them. They’re probably pals who met on a crank site and decided to “educate” the professional science community.

Whatever the case, this site is better off without them, as well as otto, who's only here to exploit this site’s woefully inadequate moderation.
otto1932
1 / 5 (25) Nov 26, 2010
Well then gee, dick, maybe you outta do something about it, don't you think? Besides hyperventilating that is. Why don't you complain to the moderators?

Or you might consider getting some professional help with that significant cognitive disconnect of yours.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2010
By the way, I missed the Zephyr PM trades above. Here's a winner from when I called him out on the VK1 login.
I'm the ghost of benevolence, I ride in on the ethernal zephyr. I come to warn you, your brilliance could soon dimm. Don't lose your humanity, you'll become but a memory.
Obviously an anime fan as well.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2010
who's only here to exploit this site’s woefully inadequate moderation
The site's moderation has become wiser. Gone are the times where my best comments, composed of up to three words, were scrapped due to "pointless verbiage".
Unlike some of my esteemed co-commentators I do believe in brevity as the soul of wit.

Concerning the Zephyr Clones Ltd. I don't really care whether they are one or many. They use the account system for cheating - I use the voting system to add a label to their auto-labelling comments.

A slav/Czech cadence is easily obtained by using google translator for whole phrases. Only a native Czech speaker will notice a faked cadence.
Ethelred
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2010
I missed this vile calumny the other day.
Dear englebert,
Insults of that nature will not be tolerated. I do not HUMP DINKS.

Ethelred
KwasniczJ
1 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2010
They use the account system for cheating

I'm using only one account for posting (and any voting at all) - whereas you're using your clones not only for massive downvoting of my posts

http://www.physor...activity

but for downvoting of posts of another readers, who are actually opposing me

http://www.physor...activity
toocool
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
Haven't posted here in a while. This is not how I remembered the comment threads on this site. Though comment threads are notoriously immature and filled with trolls, I never had experienced that here. VK1 you have really done a disservice to physorg, the other posters here and yourself. I think maybe you should just take some time to reflect on yourself (Although, clearly you are not the type of person who takes advice). Your ego seems to be the most important thing to you. We are surrounded by a beautiful and mysterious physical world and your descriptions of it are not doing it any justice at all.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 28, 2010
Haven't posted here in a while. This is not how I remembered the comment threads on this site. Though comment threads are notoriously immature and filled with trolls, I never had experienced that here. VK1 you have really done a disservice to physorg, the other posters here and yourself. I think maybe you should just take some time to reflect on yourself (Although, clearly you are not the type of person who takes advice). Your ego seems to be the most important thing to you. We are surrounded by a beautiful and mysterious physical world and your descriptions of it are not doing it any justice at all.
hi dick
toocool
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2010
@ otto1932

You should read my above comment again. Substitute your name for VK1.
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 29, 2010
You do realize that you're not at all well...
toocool
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
Very interesting that you think I am this person Dick. I just came here, read the article and read the thread buddy. Your're really making a fool of yourself from my perspective. Anyone who would make multiple accounts on a science site - so they could cheat to get more blue stars and have conversations with them self, is a complete failure at life...
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 30, 2010
Very interesting that you think I am this person Dick. I just came here, read the article and read the thread buddy. Your're really making a fool of yourself from my perspective. Anyone who would make multiple accounts on a science site - so they could cheat to get more blue stars and have conversations with them self, is a complete failure at life...
I agree dick.
Dick_Wolf
2 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
hi dick.
You do realize that you're not at all well...
You do realize that you're a fucking nazi don't you, dick? :D
I agree dick.

As much as I’ve enjoyed the hilarity and the irony of otto confronting a guy who he has mistaken for another, in the very same thread that incited him to launch his unprovoked fascist flame war against me, at this point I think it’ll be more fun to point out that otto is not as clever as otto thinks he is.

Have a nice day, loser!
otto1932
1.2 / 5 (24) Dec 01, 2010
Anyone who would make multiple accounts on a science site - so they could cheat to get more blue stars and have conversations with them self, is a complete failure at life...
Ring any bells dick? Dick licks himself-
Dick_Wolf
2 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2010
Yep, reminds me of you otto. I've never voted myself up, not once. You have. You're doing it right now, in fact. Way to go, slugger, you've reached rock bottom! ;D
otto1932
1 / 5 (1) Dec 02, 2010
Yep, reminds me of you otto. I've never voted myself up, not once. You have. You're doing it right now, in fact. Way to go, slugger, you've reached rock bottom! ;D
Which only causes you to expend more hours downrating me with your crack team of alter egos. I'll keep baiting you and keep demonstrating your sickness to the community.

Way to go, slugger, you've reached rock bottom! ;D
otto1932
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2010
Theyre all laughing at you dick.

More news stories

Finnish inventor rethinks design of the axe

(Phys.org) —Finnish inventor Heikki Kärnä is the man behind the Vipukirves Leveraxe, which is a precision tool for splitting firewood. He designed the tool to make the job easier and more efficient, with ...

Poll: Big Bang a big question for most Americans

Few Americans question that smoking causes cancer. But they have more skepticism than confidence in global warming, the age of the Earth and evolution and have the most trouble believing a Big Bang created the universe 13.8 ...