Dark energy hides behind phantom fields

Mar 26, 2014
Observations of Planck and other satellites help to solve the equation of the state of dark energy. Credit: ESA et al.

Quintessence and phantom fields, two hypotheses formulated using data from satellites, such as Planck and WMAP, are among the many theories that try to explain the nature of dark energy. Now researchers from Barcelona and Athens suggest that both possibilities are only a mirage in the observations and it is the quantum vacuum which could be behind this energy that moves our universe.

Cosmologists believe that some three quarters of the universe are made up of a mysterious which would explain its accelerated expansion. The truth is that they do not know what it could be, therefore they put forward possible solutions.

One is the existence of quintessence, an invisible gravitating agent that instead of attracting, repels and accelerates the expansion of the cosmos. From the Classical World until the Middle Ages, this term has referred to the ether or fifth element of nature, together with earth, fire, water and air.

Another possibility is the presence of an energy or phantom field whose density increases with time, causing an exponential cosmic acceleration. This would reach such speed that it could break the nuclear forces in the atoms and end the universe in some 20,000 million years, in what is called the Big Rip.

The experimental data that underlie these two hypotheses comes from satellites such as Planck of the European Space Agency (ESA) and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) of NASA. Observations from the two probes are essential for solving the so-called equation of the state of dark energy, a characterising mathematical formula, the same as that possessed by solid, liquid and gaseous states.

Now researchers from the University of Barcelona (Spain) and the Academy of Athens (Greece) have used the same satellite data to demonstrate that the behaviour of dark energy does not need to resort to either quintessence or phantom energy in order to be explained. The details have been published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society journal.

"Our theoretical study demonstrates that the equation of the state of dark energy can simulate a quintessence field, or even a phantom field, without being one in reality, thus when we see these effects in the observations from WMAP, Planck and other instruments, what we are seeing is an mirage," told SINC Joan Solà, one of the authors from University of Barcelona.

Nothing fuller than the quantum vacuum

"What we think is happening is a dynamic effect of the quantum vacuum, a parameter that we can calculate," explained the researcher. The concept of the quantum vacuum has nothing to do with the classic notion of absolute nothingness. "Nothing is more 'full' than the quantum vacuum since it is full of fluctuations that contribute fundamentally to the values that we observe and measure," Solà pointed out.

These scientists propose that dark energy is a type of dynamical quantum vacuum energy that acts in the accelerated expansion of our universe. This is in contrast to the traditional static vacuum energy or cosmological constant.

The drawback with this strange vacuum is that it is the source of problems such as the cosmological constant, a discrepancy between the theoretical data and the predictions of the quantum theory that drives physicists mad.

"However, quintessence and phantom fields are still more problematic, therefore the explanation based on the dynamic could be the more simple and natural one," concluded Solà.

Explore further: Physicists propose Higgs boson 'portal' as the source of this elusive entity

More information: Spyros Basilakos, Joan Sola. "Effective equation of state for running vacuum: "mirage" quintessence and phantom dark energy". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 437(4), February 2014. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt2135

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists create light from vacuum

Nov 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow ...

Big rips and little rips

Jul 04, 2011

One of a number of seemingly implausible features of dark energy is that its density is assumed to be constant over time. So, even though the universe expands over time, dark energy does not become diluted, ...

Recommended for you

New approach to form non-equilibrium structures

18 hours ago

Although most natural and synthetic processes prefer to settle into equilibrium—a state of unchanging balance without potential or energy—it is within the realm of non-equilibrium conditions where new possibilities lie. ...

Nike krypton laser achieves spot in Guinness World Records

19 hours ago

A set of experiments conducted on the Nike krypton fluoride (KrF) laser at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) nearly five years ago has, at long last, earned the coveted Guinness World Records title for achieving "Highest ...

Chemist develops X-ray vision for quality assurance

Jul 24, 2014

It is seldom sufficient to read the declaration of contents if you need to know precisely what substances a product contains. In fact, to do this you need to be a highly skilled chemist or to have genuine ...

The future of ultrashort laser pulses

Jul 24, 2014

Rapid advances in techniques for the creation of ultra-short laser pulses promise to boost our knowledge of electron motions to an unprecedented level.

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bredmond
5 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2014
I just watched a youtube video on special relativity. It was talking about virtual particles and described some experiment about the casimir effect and two plates and bringing them close together with more of the virtual particles on the outside than on the inside and then the virtual particles separating and then proceeding to talk how a black hole can take one of the particles of a virtual particle pair creating mass that is then compensated for by the black hole losing mass.

ANYWAY! Is that sea of virtual particles the same as the quantum vacuum? can somebody explain, expand, etc? thanks.
Dr_toad
5 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2014
Oh, lord. They said "ether"... Zephyr should be along any moment with more stupidity.

@bredmond: As I understand it, they are the same. (I may not understand it as well as a physicist, but there you go.)
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2014
bredmond asked
ANYWAY! Is that sea of virtual particles the same as the quantum vacuum? can somebody explain, expand, etc? thanks.
Well, hmmm:-

1. Virtual particles (VP) are not thought to constitute a 'sea' Eg as the colour of a piece of
metal is silver - because the light reflects off the 'sea' of electrons.
ie. VP aren't actually there unless they happen to appear - then dissappear, all probabilistic
there might be some, there might not, so as such its not a sea of VP its a sea of the probability
there might be VPs... Reasonable description:-
http://en.wikiped...particle

2. Quantum Vacuum (QV) as I understand it is, is sort of the opposite, I could lumber an opinion
re its a zero or possibily impractical aspect as having a epsilon value as a -ve field but that
would have me diverge into esoteric realms. There is a fair discussion on it here:-
http://en.wikiped...m_vacuum

Here is the thing, a valued conjunction ;-)
Jizby
Mar 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2014
We've gone straight Alice in Wonderland.
Dark Energy ... Created to save relativity.
Phantom Fields ... Created to save Dark Energy.

Whats next...?
Jizby
Mar 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
philw1776
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
"This would reach such speed that it could break the nuclear forces in the atoms and end the universe in some 20,000 million years, in what is called the Big Rip."

I believe that you're missing several zeros. That's only 20 billion years in American speak, WAY too soon. Not that I'm losing sleep over it.
javjav
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2014
There is one thing I don't understand. Let's get a certain cube of vacuum space. We can measure the expansion speed relative to its own size, for example let's say that it is expanding at H vacuum cubes per second. Then the H expansion speed can remain constant and will not be perceived as accelerated from the point of view of a growing observer (the vacuum cube) which always continue growing at the same H cubes per second speed, but obviously we will measure an accelerated expansion rate as we are not growing with it. So this could be interpreted as that matter objects are the entities who are shrinking in relation to space vacuum, which is caused by the fact that the curvature ratio of space warping produced by gravity remains constant and forces matter to reduce its relative size. In that sense, there would not be accelerated expansion nor dark energy. Makes sense?
Jerry_Ross
5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2014
We've gone straight Alice in Wonderland.
Dark Energy ... Created to save relativity.
Phantom Fields ... Created to save Dark Energy.

Whats next...?


Sounds like this is the shirt for you: http://amorphia-a...kenergy/

;)
krizo888
1 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2014
i love this stuff.

and hey webmaster, whats up with the 3 minute 'flood patrol' thingy? do you get lots of trolls on this site? not from what im reading. let us spew, you're blocking the flow of our creativity. how do you expect us to solve the UFT with you harshing our vibe.
arom
1 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2014
One is the existence of quintessence, an invisible gravitating agent that instead of attracting, repels and accelerates the expansion of the cosmos. From the Classical World until the Middle Ages, this term has referred to the ether or fifth element of nature, together with earth, fire, water and air.


Nowadays it is easy to make a simple scientific prove the existence of something like quintessence (the ether or vacuum medium), also it is not difficult to visualize and explain it as the mentioned dark energy …
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en
Drjsa_oba
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2014
Over the years the popular description for BB was that space was expanding. When I pointed out that if space itself was expanding then the universe expansion should be accelerating. Everyone without exception told me I was nuts.

Now that is determined that the universe expansion is accelerating, I am wondering how come the expanding space description has not come back into fashion.

After all it is obvious that if space creates more space then the more space there is then the more that can be created.

This of course does not take into consideration the very early super expansion that current thinking agrees on.
11791
5 / 5 (1) Mar 26, 2014
Maybe the era of inflation is not entirely over. Space-time itself might be expanding slowly without expending energy.
gunnqu
3 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2014

"Dark Matter and Dark Energy are Mirage" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4496
Quznetsov G 2013 Logical foundation of fundamental theoretical physics (Lambert Academic Publ.)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
We've gone straight Alice in Wonderland.
Dark Energy ... Created to save relativity.
Phantom Fields ... Created to save Dark Energy.

Whats next...?

Proof by way of empirical evidence and observation as to which of the theories best describes reality, along with new, even more perplexing questions, spawning newer, even more advanced theories. That's if history is any indication.
AmritSorli
1 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2014
Dark energy is the energy of electromagnetic quantum vacuum from which universal space emerge.
Gravity and mass are carried by variable density of quantum vacuum. There is no Higgs field and there is no gravitational field in the physical unoverse. Both are pure mathematical inventions, the same is valid for gravitational waves and inflation universe.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2014
We've gone straight Alice in Wonderland.
Dark Energy ... Created to save relativity.
Phantom Fields ... Created to save Dark Energy.

Whats next...?


Don't forget anti-time and infinite multiverse theory.

I have a suggestion for the next hypothesized invisible substance:

Faerie Tail
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
Let's get a certain cube of vacuum space.

Well there's a problem: How do you 'take a certain cube of space'?

11791
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2014
WTF is anti time?
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2014
Cosmologists increasingly behave as though invoking fundamental forces and particles is beneath them. People who are sour on pseudoscience and trolls might want to consider that most of these people are simply copying the mainstream theorists' refusal to build upon fundamental physical principles.
11791
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
Its hard to fathom how cosmologists can make statements that they have telescopic evidence to disprove the existance of axions or prove or disprove string theory
rockwolf1000
4 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
We've gone straight Alice in Wonderland.
Dark Energy ... Created to save relativity.
Phantom Fields ... Created to save Dark Energy.

Whats next...?


Don't forget anti-time and infinite multiverse theory.

I have a suggestion for the next hypothesized invisible substance:

Faerie Tail

Yup. The same remarkable substance from which your brain was constructed.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Hi a_p. :)

javjav posted: Let's get a certain cube of vacuum space.

Well there's a problem: How do you 'take a certain cube of space'?


Mate, why the double standards against the guy's GEDANKEN.

If such types of gedanken were good enough for Einstein to get his insights for Relativity, then such types of gedanken is good enough for javjav. Yes?

Chill out, and be constructive. Make suggestions as to what that 'cube of vacuum space' may entail logically/physically according to known science...and then you all can develop/discuss the gedanken from there. Yes?

Good luck, guys. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2014
Chill out, and be constructive. Make suggestions as to what that 'cube of vacuum space' may entail logically/physically according to known science...and then you all can develop/discuss the gedanken from there. Yes?

Good luck, guys. :)


There you go again Skippy with the telling how people to talk you. This "I am the Big Chief" thing you got in your head cause you the problems all you life or is it something that your momma tell you to make you feel good? That fellow you talking to went to the college to get smart. One day if you do your homework and quit disrupting the smart peoples maybe they will let the Really-Skippy go into the college. And maybe then you can take off the silly looking pointy cap.

P'tit boug (little boy) time to come and do your homework and quit being the couyon (fool) you. Them big fellows want to do big fellow stuffs.

Oh yeah, you got the feathered headdress and sparkling robe to play Big Chief in? The Spy-Boy and the Flag-Boy? Iko-iko?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
Mate, why the double standards against the guy's GEDANKEN

I'm not against his idea. It's an obvious one. But if it can't be put into practice it doesn't really help.
(BTW. It's not 'Gedanken' it's 'Gedankenexperiment'. 'Gedanken' is just any thought at all and doesn't fit here. If you want to have a go at the "sounding-cool-by-using-words-in-a-language-you-do-not-speak"-thing then at least make sure you don't make a fool of yourself, first.)
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2014
If you want to have a go at the "sounding-cool-by-using-words-in-a-language-you-do-not-speak"-thing then at least make sure you don't make a fool of yourself, first.)


Hooyeeii, Anti-Skippy. That's a tall order for the Really-Skippy, that little boy do love to be foolish when he plays the grown up scientist man, eh?
11791
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2014
do you mean skippy peanut butter or what? Does quantum foam have the consistency of skippy peanut butter straight from the factory? Homogenous or heterogeneous with chunks?
_-__________
5 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2014
Maybe the reason everything is accelerating outward is that we're inside a black hole;
a sphere of space nested within a larger sphere of matter.
11791
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2014
not a back hole, a bubble of low density space
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
@a_p. :)
But if it can't be put into practice it doesn't really help.

WTF, mate??

First you pooh-pooh the guy's right to think a thought, and now you say a thought must already be feasible to put into practice before it can be entertained just to see if it may lead logically/serendipitously to insight of any kind.
(BTW. It's not 'Gedanken' it's 'Gedankenexperiment'. 'Gedanken' is just any thought at all... If you want to have a go at the "sounding-cool-by-using-words-in-a-language-you-do-not-speak"-thing then at least make sure you don't make a fool of yourself, first.)
And now you've descended to hairsplitting? CONTEXTUAL meaning is clear. Jargon and abbreviation/contraction etc abounds in the sciences. LHC is much shorter and less text-wasting than Large Hadron Collider. Anyone discussing/reading in these forums has come across such text/time saving contractions. If they haven't, they can Wiki it. It's you been acting both the semantic fool and pedantic tool. Chill. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
@antialias_physorg. :)

Serious question, a_p. Is "Uncle Ira" a sockpuppet of yours? I only ask because you seem prepared to object to other posters, but I have never once seen you condemn "Uncle Ira's" obvious thread-cluttering and personal disparagements even though he 'professes' to be the ignorant fool he obviously is if he isn't you or some other 'mainstream cheerleaders' sockpuppet. If he isn't your sockpuppet, maybe you could tell him to bug off and let the "smarts peoples" get on with it without his inane babblings embarrassing everyone including himself and those he 'cheerleads' for so pathetically? Thanks.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2014
@Really-Skippy I am the independent operator. The coonass you see is the Cajun you get you.

Now little fellow it would be better for everybody here if you stop trying to tell peoples who they are allowed to talk to or to tell me to not talk. You aren't the Big Chief, you are the youngster that wants to play with the older peoples and getting in the way of the smart peoples. I been to the community college but I'm not the ignorant professor, I'm the engineer man.

Ol Ira is sorry if I make you embarrassed by asking you the question you couldn't answer yesterday but this place is for the peoples who have gone to the big schools. Don't try to apologize again, I told you that you only have the two chances with that.

So now you know ol Ira was in the community college and is the engineer man. But ol Ira-Skippy was raised in the swamp p'tit boug and you don't want to get me mad with you no. Don't you mess with me. You understand me Cher? Good. So SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2014
Serious question, a_p. Is "Uncle Ira" a sockpuppet of yours?

No, I don't do sockpuppets. What would be the point?

but I have never once seen you condemn "Uncle Ira's" obvious thread-cluttering and personal disparagements

Probably because I don't read most of his posts. They don't contain any content pertinent to the article - so there's nothing for me to address, is there? While he may clutter up the comment section (which I could do without) I do happen to agree with whom he directs his sarcasm at. Those people roundly deserve to be made fun of.
If he isn't your sockpuppet, maybe you could tell him to bug off

I'm not a moderator. Go cry to them.
if you're looking to ME for helping you in...well...anything you sure must be deluded about what I think about you. Believe me: my opinion of you is far lower than you could possibly imagine and I couldn't care less about shielding you from attack.
11791
3 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2014
.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@antialias_physorg. :)

So your way of doing science includes agreeing with obvious mental defective's attacking other members who also would prefer the loony didn't disrupt the science discourse with his and his fellow troll's personalizing and babbling about things they haven't a clue about?

Strange way to do science discourse, mate, encouraging the loony attacks from trolls and twisters while genuine members want to actually read and discuss the science ideas being presented by the news articles without being harassed by your 'convenient' mad Uncle.

Oh well, you're welcome to your "Poor (Crazy Crash Dummy) Uncle Ira", since you say he is so 'useful' to you by his attacks on people you personally dislike.

Some 'mainstream scientist' material you are, mate. No wonder mainstream is in such a mess on the cosmological model front, if you are the best they have to be going on with. Good luck with that attitude, a_p! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

You didn't even know that about why Inflation was posited by Guth, and you say I didn't answer you? LOL.

You're a real crash dummy, aren't you? You haven't a clue. No wonder why they call you "Poor (Crazy Crash Dummy) Uncle Ira".

See above where our "antialias_physorg" just effectively referred to you as an irrelevant loudmouthed crash dummy?

He says he ignores you like everyone else does. Makes you proud of our a_p, doesn't it? LOL.

Give it up, sunshine, you're either crazy or troll, probably both. Dribble that drivel of your dementia somewhere else. That's a good Uncle Gasbag. :)

Dude, stop smoking/drinking that sh!t or you'll go all the way to Nutsville Nursing Home in no time!

Jizby
Mar 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@antialias_physorg. :)

So your way of doing science includes agreeing with obvious mental defective's attacking other members who also would prefer the loony didn't disrupt the science discourse with his and his fellow troll's personalizing and babbling about things they haven't a clue about?

Strange way to do science discourse, mate, encouraging the loony attacks from trolls and twisters while genuine members want to actually read and discuss the science ideas being presented by the news articles without being harassed by your 'convenient' mad Uncle.

Oh well, you're welcome to your "Poor (Crazy Crash Dummy) Uncle Ira", since you say he is so 'useful' to you by his attacks on people you personally dislike.

Some 'mainstream scientist' material you are, mate. No wonder mainstream is in such a mess on the cosmological model front, if you are the best they have to be going on with. Good luck with that attitude, a_p! :)


When you not the BIG BOSS MAN, you the crying baby, eh?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor crazy Uncle Ira. :)

You didn't even know that about why Inflation was posited by Guth, and you say I didn't answer you? LOL.

You're a real crash dummy, aren't you? You haven't a clue. No wonder why they call you "Poor (Crazy Crash Dummy) Uncle Ira".

See above where our "antialias_physorg" just effectively referred to you as an irrelevant loudmouthed crash dummy?

He says he ignores you like everyone else does. Makes you proud of our a_p, doesn't it? LOL.

Give it up, sunshine, you're either crazy or troll, probably both. Dribble that drivel of your dementia somewhere else. That's a good Uncle Gasbag. :)


So you so smart you need to repeat that same thing over and over on all the pages? Ol Ira would have thought that the scientist genius Skippy you are pretending to be could write stuffs more original.

"Try to do better" Skippy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
Yep, the contemporary educational system makes huge selection between people. After all, most of professional lawyers or politicians aren't completely normal people too, especially these ones, who are forming dynasties. The consequence is, such a 'mainstream scientist' people educate another youngsters and pupils in their way, so that after few generations an interesting selective breeding happens.


"...so that after few generations an interesting selective breeding happens"

Phrases like "Incestuous Peer Review Circles" come to mind when reading what you wrote there.

And antialias_physorg's 'convenient' rabid attack dog Uncle Ira now makes a whole lot more sense as the 'progeny' of said 'circles'.

Well spotted! :)
dedereu
not rated yet Mar 30, 2014
Quantum vacuum contains fields, like Higgs field essential to understand our universe, with the mass, photon and weak force, and the fluctuations of all the possibilities known, measured, (Casimir ) and all fluctuations of that unknown remaining to discover, exciting the physicists to propose models between experimental energies and the Plank energy needing accelerators with the size of a galaxy , nearly impossible to test experimentally, but essential to the structure and future of our universe.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2014
@Poor, poor, poor Uncle Ira. :)

When you not the BIG BOSS MAN, you the crying baby, eh?

So you so smart you need to repeat that same thing over and over on all the pages? Ol Ira would have thought that the scientist genius Skippy you are pretending to be could write stuffs more original.

"Try to do better" Skippy.


Oh dear. He's off into 'the puffer' again. Poor, poor, poor Uncle Ira. :(
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2014
So your way of doing science includes agreeing with obvious mental defective's attacking other members

What does it have to do with 'doing science' when person X starts being sarcastic at person Y for being an incorrigible idiot?
And for the record: I think you're the one with an obvious mental defect, not Uncle Ira.

The thing is, when he attacks you the thread has already gone down the toilet: Because you have started posting. He can't break something that you already broke.

and babbling about things they haven't a clue about?

I'm confused - weren't you talking about Ira? Now you're definitely talking about yourself.

encouraging the loony attacks from trolls

How am I encouraging him? Do you see me egging him on?

if you are the best they have to be going on with.

I wouldn't claim to be that. As noted: I dropped out of doing science a few years back. Science is doing quite well without me (and especially you)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
What does it have to do with 'doing science' when person X starts being sarcastic at person Y for being an incorrigible idiot?
And for the record: I think you're the one with an obvious mental defect, not Uncle Ira.

The thing is, when he attacks you the thread has already gone down the toilet: Because you have started posting. He can't break something that you already broke.

I'm confused - weren't you talking about Ira? Now you're definitely talking about yourself. How am I encouraging him? Do you see me egging him on?

I wouldn't claim to be that. As noted: I dropped out of doing science a few years back. Science is doing quite well without me (and especially you)
Wow. Was there ever such a mess of self-justifying lame RATIONALIZATIONS written down all at once?! Are you even aware you're doing it, a_p? Just listen to yourself!

"For evil to flourish it is enough for good men to do nothing." You din't condemn Ira's personal trolling, baiting, harassing etc. Nothing. Ergo. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2014
"For evil to flourish it is enough for good men to do nothing." You din't condemn Ira's personal trolling, baiting, harassing etc. Nothing.

As I told you before - I'm not a moderator (you should write that down somewhere). It is not my job to tell people how to behave on this site.
I will do so if I FEEL like it, but that is my personal choice (as I come here for fun, and not to be a grammar/comment-nazi).

Not being a moderator (remember?) it also doesn't matter one bit what I say or don't say about how people behave here. Why should I condemn Ira's posts? They poke fun at you. And you are a very big target when it comes to meriting that. If it makes you go away, eventually: I'll probably buy him a drink.

GSwift7
4 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
There is no Higgs field and there is no gravitational field in the physical unoverse. Both are pure mathematical inventions, the same is valid for gravitational waves and inflation universe.


lol. There is no spoon.

For evil to flourish it is enough for good men to do nothing." You din't condemn Ira's personal trolling, baiting, harassing etc. Nothing


You pull this stuff on every thread you decide to pollute, whether Ira is posting there or not. So don't blame your behavior on Ira. BTW, did you deliberately choose your moniker for the pure irony of it? Is that supposed to be like the Goons' saying; "the internet is serious business"?

The difference between mainstream theories and junk like AWT is that the mainstream theories have math which at least partially describe what we observe. If you don't like partial theories, then forget about every theory ever known, in any field. The best theories survive and we use them to build on.
11791
2 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
Theses guys (antalias and goatguy are always trying to get into the moderator's computer and mess with it to remove their enemies from the discussion forums. Some members of their group have been convicted of internet stalking.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014
If I were able to do that - do you really think I would bother arguing with such people?
And since I bother arguing with such people (and don't go running to the mods): Why do you think I would want to remove people from this discussion forum (singular, since I'm only, currently active here)?

I might like it if certain people stopped posting (and I'm sure certain people would be thrilled if I stopped posting)...but that's just the way the internet is.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
@a_p.
"For evil to flourish it is enough for good men to do nothing." You din't condemn Ira's personal trolling, baiting, harassing etc. Nothing.

As I told you before - I'm not a moderator...
More double standards/rationalizations. Any fairminded member seeing the damaging trolling, downrating, baiting, insulting etc by Uncle Ira (its latest sockpuppet) would SPEAK UP (as I have) not for himself but for other members targeted by anti-science discourse tactics by obvious loony/stalker.

Not being a moderator (remember?) it also doesn't matter one bit what I say/don't say about how people behave here. Why should I condemn Ira's posts? They poke fun at you.
It's not about me (remember?). I've stopped 'detailed' discussion here. It's about YOU & your 'convenient' troll buddy whom you would 'buy a drink for' because he is doing personal stalking/disrupting of other genuine members/discussions you PERSONALLY 'don't like'. Some 'objective scientist/member role model'! :)
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014
would SPEAK UP (as I have) not for himself but for other members targeted by anti-science discourse tactics by obvious loony/stalker.

Gets my vote for most hilarious quote of the millenium. You? Miffed about trolling? And anti-science? You? Of all people? YOU? ...Oh man, that's just too rich. The irony is so thick on that one it should collapse into a black hole.

I've stopped 'detailed' discussion here.

I guess we're all waiting till you actually start one. Since - and let me remind you of this - whenever asks you about details for your 'theories' you never provide any.

members/discussions you PERSONALLY 'don't like'.

I am entitled to like/not like whomever I please, no? And I dislike people who are dumb as rocks.
So yeah: You pretty much come in at number one on my 'dislike' list. What else is new? And yes: that is an opinion formed on the objective facts (for anyone to look up) of what you post on this site. I don't bestow that honor willy-nilly.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
Gets my vote for most hilarious quote of the millenium. You? Miffed about trolling? And anti-science? You? Of all people? YOU? ...Oh man, that's just too rich.

I guess we're all waiting till you actually start one. Since - and let me remind you of this - whenever asks you about details for your 'theories' you never provide any.

I am entitled to like/not like whomever I please, no? And I dislike people who are dumb as rocks.
So yeah: You pretty much come in at number one on my 'dislike' list
You 'conveniently' missed a LOT of discussion points over years here/elsewhere about my ToE and others'.

I stated clearly (remember?) I am publishing soon so won't be discussing more 'details' from it.

Your 'words' are patent in-denial self-justifying rationalizations to avoid facing ugly truth about your own personality/standards.

What's personal "Likes/Dislikes" got to do with objective science discourse? You under the impression this is 'Facebook' playpen? Get real. Get ethical. :)
11791
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2014
Why do you talk about the moderator so much? I know your modus operandi. You insinuate yourself with the moderator then tell them a bunch of lies to make them exclude the wrong people as offensive. I've seen it done several times. You even confessed to it in your own "private" forum that was later opened up to the public. The jig is up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014
a-p and buddies had a private forum? Talk about incestuous troll-buddy-circles. Lol.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014
You 'conveniently' missed a LOT of discussion points over years here/elsewhere about my ToE and others'.

I keep seeing people asking for specifics. Which you fail to provide every time. care to change that?

HIC RHODUS, HIC SALTA

If you don't care to discuss it here, don't bring it up. No one is impressed by "No show and tell". No one.

What's personal "Likes/Dislikes" got to do with objective science discourse?

I form my personal dislikes/likes based upon how people behave. You behave in a completly trollish manner and never engage in scientific discourse. So yeah: I dislike that. Is that 'scientific'? You bet.
Observation (you make not contriutions)
Theory (you're a troll)
Evidence/data (your posts)
Test (this very thread),
Conclusion (you're a troll)
Can't ask to be more scientific than that.

Get ethical.

No need to get. I am.

Get real.

What does that even mean?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2014
I keep seeing people asking for specifics. Which you fail to provide every time. care to change that?

No one is impressed by "No show and tell".
Why waste my valuable time pandering to trolls' self-justifying rationalizations and lies? It's all on the internet. I don't want to go into more details now because I'm publishing soon (remember?).

What's personal "Likes/Dislikes" got to do with objective science discourse?

I form my personal dislikes/likes based upon how people behave.
But when others objectively observe your behavior to be less than ethical, community spirited or fair or honest, then it's only your own opinion of yourself that is 'true', hey? Oh a_p, first heal thyself. :)

Get ethical.
No need to get. I am.
You approve Uncle Ira's personal trolls and disruptions. You would actively encourage him by "buying him a drink". In denial much?

Get real.
What does that even mean?
In your case, it means "Stop lying to yourself". :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
@antialias_physorg.

a_p, is it true you and your mod-troll gang 'buddies' had a private forum of your own?

Is the sockpuppet Uncle Ira (the latest sock name) one of 'the gang' pretending not to be so 'conveniently' personally attacking/downrating people/ideas YOU "Dislike" personally?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2014
I'm publishing soon

Yeah. You've been 'publishing soon' for years. Riiiiight. Don't go claiming something for which you can't produce specifics. If you want to keep mum about it until you publish: then do us all a favor and keep mum about it UNTIL you publish.
But when others objectively observe your behavior to be less than ethical,

Funny, how few of these 'others' are around who agree with you. Adding schizophrenia to your list of defects?
You approve Uncle Ira's personal trolls and disruptions.

Making stuff up again? I said expressly that I do not approve of his disruptions. Only that i can't help but agree with whom he aims his sarcasm at.

mod-troll gang 'buddies' had a private forum of your own?

Huh? I think he was talking about you.

You would actively encourage him

Awww, poor baby. Do you think other need my approval to post or will stop if I disapprove? You certainly seem eager for my approval/aid/protection.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2014
I stated clearly (remember?) I am publishing soon so won't be discussing more 'details' from it
Youre a liar. If you were publishing something you wanted people to read you would be trying to create interest instead of bullshitting. Who would want to read anything from a sorry bullshitter like yourself?

The only thing youre interested in is attention. At least people here dont turn their heads away in disgust like they do when you waddle through Kmart.
osnova
Mar 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2014
Yeah. You've been 'publishing soon' for years. Riiiiight.
I also had a parallel project to enhance the Maths Axioms to make them more Reality-Contextual from the outset of the maths logic stream/conclusions that follow, so as to obviate all those 'dead end' undefined/undetermined/singularity axiomatic NON-sequiturs generated by purely Philosophical Notion of 'dimensionless point' which current maths started out with via Euclid's NON-MATH purely philosophical 'notion'.

Three years ago I decided to COMBINE the two projects in integrated form in a COMPLETE and CONSISTENT "Reality-Contextual maths-physics ToE" and publish the whole lot at once instead of separate/piecemeal.

How many decades did Darwin, Newton, other REAL REVOLUTIONARY scientists work on their Magnum Opus before they were finally ready to publish?

They too were patience, thorough, and ignored 'shrill cries' of idiotic wannabe's who think they can dictate with their trollish/childish/ 'dares and name-calling'. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2014
Funny, how few of these 'others' are around who agree with you. Adding schizophrenia to your list of defects?
By these 'others' you mean your fellow mod-troll gang 'buddies' and 'scoks' whom you would 'buy a beer for' and only 'disapprove of when taken to task for your 'revealing silence' about their obvious personal trolling/baiting and anti-open science discourse tactics/disruptions? Naturally they would 'side' with you on this. Duh!
Making stuff up again? I said expressly that I do not approve of his disruptions. Only that i can't help but agree with whom he aims his sarcasm at.
So after I took you to task you simultaneously "disapprove AND agree" with that troll's science-empty posting tactic/targeting/harassing? Schizo much, mate?

Oh, an FYI since you missed it: Since age 9 I've been strictly INDEPENDENT, scrupulously OBJECTIVE and LONE researcher into the REALITY universal physics (and later maths) ToE. I never 'join' any 'gangs/clubs' or 'herds'. Trolls do. Awww!
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2014
I stated clearly (remember?) I am publishing soon so won't be discussing more 'details' from it
Youre a liar. If you were publishing something you wanted people to read you would be trying to create interest instead of bullshitting. Who would want to read anything from a sorry bullshitter like yourself?
That says it all, I think, forum. Ghost describes the quintessential 'publish-or-perish' and/or 'publish-for-profit' and status/mercenary imperatives-driven current 'crop' of so-called 'scientists' posting here like trolls.

Ghost, a_p et al don't even consider that REAL revolutionary scientists/works of great scope don't need any such self-interested motives to do their work and finally publish when it's ready, not when/how/why rabid wannabes and 'noisemakers and moneymakers' say it should.

At least people here dont turn their heads away in disgust like they do when you waddle through Kmart.
You fat? I'm trim 64.5yrs. Sounds like you're 'projecting'. Tch. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
I also had a parallel project to enhance the Maths Axioms to make them more Reality-Contextual from the outset of the maths logic stream/conclusions that follow, so as to obviate all those 'dead end' undefined/undetermined/singularity axiomatic NON-sequiturs generated by purely Philosophical Notion of 'dimensionless point' which current maths started out with via Euclid's NON-MATH purely philosophical 'notion'
IOW youre a freeking retard and youre not afraid to show it.

And no youre as fat as a hog with 3 legs. Anybody as self-absorbed as you would be eating himself to death and denying his condition. You wear a cape and a beret too I bet. Dont you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2014
I also had a parallel project to enhance the Maths Axioms to make them more Reality-Contextual from the outset of the maths logic stream/conclusions that follow, so as to obviate all those 'dead end' undefined/undetermined/singularity axiomatic NON-sequiturs generated by purely Philosophical Notion of 'dimensionless point' which current maths started out with via Euclid's NON-MATH purely philosophical 'notion'
IOW youre a freeking retard and youre not afraid to show it.
Why didn't you at least Wiki it before raving like that? You didn't know that 'dimensionless point' is a mere PHILOSOPHICAL 'notion' that Euclid based his 'dimensionless point', 'one-dimensional line' and 'two-dimensional area' MATHS entities/concepts (not real physical things) on?
And no youre as fat as a hog with 3 legs. Anybody self-absorbed as you would be eating himself to death and denying his condition. You wear a cape and a beret too I bet.
Oh oh, you're 'projecting' again? Tch. :)
11791
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2014
i agree with you reality check! Antalias is an internet stalker with no other purpose in life than making trouble for legitimate scientists and lay people who care about it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
@11791
time for a little logic here that anyone should be able to see for themselves:
BEFORE the thread was hijacked:
AA_P was asked questions and he answered trying to get someone to spell out "a cube of space"
RealityCheck (RC) drives in and makes 17 comments, and the most scientific comment he made so far (other than he is getting ready to publish his ToE- STILL) is this
If such types of gedanken were good enough for Einstein to get his insights for Relativity, then such types ...
RC calls people TROLLS for hikacking threads or being off topic, or spamming with BS... and yet HERE IN THIS THREAD has offered ABSOLUTELY ZERO scientific ANYTHING....
AA_P=trying to talk science
Otto=trying to get RC to shut up or at least talk science
Uncle Ira=called a TROLL a TROLL
RC=TROLLING and SPAMMING and has YET to offer any science ESPECIALLY in this thread...do the math above

perhaps if Javjav would explain his Gedankenexperiment we could see where he was going, and shut up the RC TROLL?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2014
Antalias is an internet stalker with no other purpose in life than making trouble for legitimate scientists

Hint: If I were to do that I wouldn't do it here, because - and this may come as a surprise to you - you will find hardly any scientists on sites like this. The articles here have no hard content. They are just 'fluff pieces for laymen'.
Scientists have direct access to journal papers (as the institutions they work for pay for the subscriptions). They will go directly to the source and read it there: including the real data, charts, results and formula.

It's like being a pro athlete. Do you think pro athletes read sports illustrated to get tips on how to play? How effective would you be at 'stalking' a pro athlete by writing "letters to the editor" to such a rag?
Zwentoo
Apr 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2014
@CptS. :)

You're getting all emotional again. Calm down, mate. And for the correct version:

a_p made a snide one-liner to the 'cube of space' gedanken, no constructive engaging response at all. I reminded a_p that such gedanken were the approach of Einstein which gave him further insight irrespective of whether or not the gedanken could be "done in practice" as a_p wanted to limit the gedanken approach to. When his attitude/response was shown to be unfair and untenable on its logics and historical precedents with Einstein, a_p then tried the lame SEMANTICS tactic to distract from his own improper stance/assertions/responses. He ignored the history/frequency of contractions in language/jargon like LHC etc, and lamely used his own prejudicial pedantic rationalization to self-justify his 'dimissal' of my use of the well used and understood term "gedanken" CONTRACTION instead of full "gedankenexperiment". He had nothing. His initial and subsequent posts on this had nothing. Ok, mate? :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
You're getting all emotional again
@RC
not emotional. just pointing out some facts
Calm down, mate. And for the correct version
this is just YOUR version. technically, it is considered "TROLLING" as it is a statement that is intended to be inflammatory and adds no value, scientific or otherwise, to the thread

he had a legitimate point, which was never answered, and you hijacked ANOTHER thread with SPAM TROLLING
maybe by explaining what was meant, AA_P could point out a fallacy or even agree? you never gave it a chance

this is not rocket science here... all the proof is right above you. as for his subsequent posts to you... when answering your SPAM, how COULD he use science? you either DONT offer anything or ignore what IS offered and whine?

again, this is technically TROLLING

IOW- either ADD TO the science (with links/proof or at least maths) or SHUT UP
THANKS MATE ;)
They are just 'fluff pieces for laymen
true. only know of a COUPLE scientists here
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2014
last post about trolls here. sorry everyone else

FACT: RealityCheck (RC) drives in and makes 18 comments
NO VALID SCIENCE
NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
NO PROOF
just arguing about AA_P methodology, which seemed to be valid, IMHO.

HOW DO YOU define a cube of space in that Gedankenexperiment? seems legit to me! there is much you can learn by answering that... you can, at the point of explanation, then agree or disagree with the comment. See where the person was coming from

but to ADD 18 comments that GIVE NOTHING to the thread? this is SPAM or TROLLING

RC came to accuse and sneer
NOT PROVIDE ANY SCIENTIFIC INPUT
this is PROVEN ABOVE

either EXLAIN FOR THE MAN or DO SOMETHING... it is annoying to have someone continuing to troll with a hypothetical ToE (as for the 'publish' excuse...1yr wait, maybe, 2yrs, possible... more than 5yrs with nothing? either it is a delusion or you cant find backing due to flaws/poor research.... just sayin')

time to put up or shut up
BYE
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2014
a_p made a snide one-liner to the 'cube of space' gedanken, no constructive engaging response at all.

Snide? Where do you get that from? Live in your fantasy world again?
I was pointing out that no one has any idea how to 'take a certain cube of space'. Period.
It's easy to posit that "if I had an infinite energy source I could...". But it makes little sense to deduce stuff from an assumption that - at current - is not feasible.

Einstein could show (with that thing you abhor so much: math) that his ideas worked, and that they could be tested. There's a big difference between someone like Einstein and someone like you who only brainfarts.

well used and understood term "gedanken" CONTRACTION instead of full "gedankenexperiment".

It's not well used, because it's wrong. The meaning is completely wrong. 'Gedanken' is not a contraction but a word in its own right with an entirely different meaning. So please: stick to english. You fail at everything else.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2014
@CptS. :)

Whatever does it for you, mate. Anyhow, watch your blood pressure, ok? Cheers. :)

@a_p. :)

Einstein had the insights FIRST via gedanken, not maths. The maths at the time was self-contradictory because the insights were lacking. Didn't you know that was WHY he DID the gedanken and imagined riding along with a light beam etc etc?

None of it made sense UNTIL he tried the gedanken/imaginings. Which is what javjav was obviously doing, until you came in with the one-liner dismissive and the demand that unless it was 'feasible to do in reality' it shouldn't be even attempted in gedanken/imagination. Now that you say you didn't mean to put the kibosh on his thoughts, perhaps you would make helpful comments on his gedanken/imagined 'exercise' if he is still reading? Cheers. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
Einstein was very well versed in maths and physics. And when you follow how relativity was developed it's a very straightforward process mathematically. The 'only' insight he had was that inertial frames of reference are equivalent (something that he didn't invent but was already one of Newton's assumptions) and that the speed of light should be constant. Everything else follows from that through the usage of math..and not by way of mere contemplation.

Which is what javjav was obviously doing,

He was stating something trivially obvious. I was pointing out that the idea is not the problem (it's a very old one) - the implementation of that idea is.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2014
@a_p. :) Thanks for that courteous reply.
Einstein was very well versed in maths and physics. And when you follow how relativity was developed it's a very straightforward process mathematically. The 'only' insight he had was that inertial frames of reference are equivalent (something that he didn't invent but was already one of Newton's assumptions) and that the speed of light should be constant. Everything else follows from that through the usage of math..and not by way of mere contemplation.
He was so 'well versed in maths/physics' he couldn't get academic post; only Patent Office Clerk. Yes, we all knew abstract coordinate 'sterile' maths' SR 'reciprocal view' was such long ago. But his gedankens informed GR locally (not unreal math/coordinate etc) real physical GR predictions/theory that came 'out of the blue' shocking everyone!

Re javjav: Yes, you could've made that clearer. Later you implied gedanken must be 'feasible' in reality before gedanken/insights can be pondered. :)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2014
he couldn't get academic post; only Patent Office Clerk.

I guess you need to read up on his history and why he had to take those posts (and it wasn't because of hist revolutionary ideas - because at that time he hadn't had them).
Getting those type of posts you need to have someone recommend you. He didn't show up much at uni so how would you expect anyone to recommend him for a teaching post? (That he wasn't a swiss citizen at the time wasn't much help, either)

But his gedankens

Sweet lord. That is a wrong form of a wrong word in a wrong context. Just use "grudflikmandrflink". It makes about as much sense.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2014
...and it wasn't because of hist revolutionary ideas.

Getting those type of posts you need to have someone recommend you. He didn't show up much at uni so how would you expect anyone to recommend him...? (..wasn't a swiss citizen at the time wasn't much help..)
Pure rationalizations on your part, mate. If he was 'well versed' and great at maths as you claim, his brilliance at maths and physics would have 'recommended itself'. So 'attendance' rationalization is just backwards-justifying rationalizing to cover for his 'mediocre versed' maths; as he later needed help to finally do the full theory maths. And pan-European science/maths institutes didn't demand everyone be 'Swiss Citizen'.

We are conversing in English, a_p, not German! We appropriate foreign words and use/contract them in common understanding in context WE give them. The meaning was clear in context of my post in Phys.Org's 'restricted text format' brevity. Pedantry no substitute for fair reading, mate, yes? :)
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2014
The meaning was clear in context of my post in Phys.Org's 'restricted text format' brevity. Pedantry no substitute for fair reading, mate, yes? :)


@ Really-Skippy you still telling that BIG LIE and blame it on the "text format"? Why you write the same foolish way over on the other forums where you don't have that rules no?

The other BIG LIES you tell the much of is what thing you say to insult the person is usually the thing you do the most of. I think peoples in the war making businesses they call that the "preemptive strike", but I maybe might be wrong able the war peoples, maybe I misread it wrong.

Okay Cher, it's your turn to say something Really-Skippy-Smart like "poor poor Ira" or some such foolishment. Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy and watch out in the dark because so far as I've been able to see you get picked on by everybody everywhere everytime everyday.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2014
Back from Houston all.. Had a fair show.
See nothing has changed...
As to Javjav's gedanken - "if we take a cube of space..." AP asked how do we do that...
Imagine it, fix a relative point, add 3 axis's, leaving you with 6 points to make your corners and then draw or imagine lines between them....
Sheesh... how tuff was that?
(Dang.... now I have to go back and read what it was he wanted to do with it...)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2014
Hi Everyone. :) Here is an FYI about the "uncle Ira (latest incarnation) of the programmed 'ratings' downvoting/commenting BOT program/programmer:

Some time back in the old forum, this and other 'spam-bot' automated 'gaming' of the ratings/feedback system prompted the admin to remove that function. This is only the latest of that old mod-troll Forum Mafia gangmember 'relics' using the same bot system to spoil and sabotage discussion because they are sad trolls on the internet and nothing more. Sad poor Uncle Ira BOT programmer. :(

I know who it is. And some of the so-called (by the Uncle Ira BOT program) "smarts peoples" know who it is but ain't telling because they 'exploit and approve' that BOT sabotage of others' discussions/ratings while leaving its 'programmed friends list' alone and automatically giving them '5s' and others '1s'. Hoe obvious can the idiot BOT programmer-and-friends be? Yep, you see it for yourself....THAT obvious! LOL

Sad case 'zombie gang relic' Uncle Ira.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2014
Hi Everyone. :) Here is an FYI about the "uncle Ira (latest incarnation) of the programmed 'ratings' downvoting/commenting BOT program/programmer:

Some time back in the old forum, this and other 'spam-bot' automated 'gaming' of the ratings/feedback system prompted the admin to remove that function. This is only the latest of that old mod-troll Forum Mafia gangmember 'relics' using the same bot system to spoil and sabotage discussion because they are sad trolls on the internet and nothing more. Sad poor Uncle Ira BOT programmer. :(.


Cher, why you only come here when you get the boot at the other forum? This must be your fall back safety site for when they banned you for posting there, eh?

Do better Really-Skippy-Doo. When you get shown the door here, you really hit the bottom.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2014
@BOT. I've always been here. And other forum has a particularly nasty mod called "Trippy" who is a 'graduate' of the old forum Forum Mafia mod-troll gang 'academy'. The poor sod can't help his 'programming' for biased moderating and abusing his trust/powers as 'mod'. He uses his 'protected troll' gang to bait and sabotage targeted victims to get responses which the poor Trippy-insensible-of-his-obvious-bias-and-programmed-personal-malice then uses as 'trumped up charges to ban their victim while his 'protected' trolls whom Trippy colludes with and ignores their rulebreaking get away scott free.

The saddest thing in all this is that they STILL believe no-one is watching and noticing what they are so obviously still doing! How far gone to non-self-awareness are these 'relic' mod-troll gangmembers, that they think their MO/abuses are going undetected? Pathetic, hey? No wonder the mainstream is in dire straights and fraud is rife and peer review proven broken by internet experiment. Sad.
11791
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2014
@BOT. I've always been here. And other forum has a particularly nasty mod called "Trippy" who is a 'graduate' of the old forum Forum Mafia mod-troll gang 'academy'. The poor sod can't help his 'programming' for biased moderating and abusing his trust/powers as 'mod'. He uses his 'protected troll' gang to bait and sabotage targeted victims to get responses which the poor Trippy-insensible-of-his-obvious-bias-and-programmed-personal-malice then uses as 'trumped up charges to ban their victim while his 'protected' trolls whom Trippy colludes with and ignores their rulebreaking get away scott free.

The saddest thing in all this is that they STILL believe no-one is watching and noticing what they are so obviously still doing! How far gone to non-self-awareness are these 'relic' mod-troll gangmembers, that they think their MO/abuses are going undetected?
ABSOLUTELY!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2014
It would be great if people could actually focus on the Science in at least 50% of each post/comment made, this to & fro garbage argument on irrelevancies wastes time, wastes space, adds aggravation & above all no earnest attempt is made to concentrate on the Science, u know guys the hypothesis, the discipline, the maths etc

Mike Massen
Ba. Sci Electronics
Post graduate Food Scientist
osnova
Apr 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.