Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

Mar 17, 2014 by Shannon Hall, Universe Today
This detailed map of the cosmic microwave background is created from seven years worth of data. The color variations correspond to temperature variations in the young universe: the seeds for stars and galaxies observed today. Credit: NASA

Last week the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) stated rather nonchalantly that they will be hosting a press conference on Monday, March 17th, to announce a "major discovery." Without a potential topic for journalists to muse on, this was as melodramatic as it got.

But then the Guardian posted an article on the subject and the rumors went into overdrive. The speculation is this: a U.S. team is on the verge of confirming they have detected primordial gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of spacetime that carry echoes of the nearly 14 billion years ago.

If there is evidence for gravitational waves, it will be a landmark discovery, ultimately changing the face of physics.

Not only are gravitational waves the last untested prediction of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but primordial gravitational waves will allow astronomers to glimpse the universe in its infancy.

"It's been called the Holy Grail of cosmology," Hiranya Peiris, a cosmologist from University College London, told the Guardian. "It would be a real major, major, major discovery." Any convincing evidence would almost certainly lead to a Nobel prize.

Follow up: Evidence spotted for universe's early growth spurt

The signal is rumored to have been found by a telescope known as BICEP (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization), which scans the sky from the , looking for a subtle effect in the cosmic microwave background (CMB): the radiation released 380,000 years after the big bang when space became transparent to light and photons were allowed to travel freely across the universe.

The South Pole Telescope (left) and BICEP (right). Credit: Dana Hrubes

While the CMB has been mapped in exquisite detail, astronomers think that hidden within the map is a second fingerprint, which would reveal gravitational waves. Its radiation was scattered toward us from the universe's earliest atoms, similar to the way blue light is scattered toward us from the atoms in the sky. And just as the sky is slightly polarized—the waves have a preferred orientation—so is the CMB (on the level of a few percent).

Cosmologists are digging through the data, searching for a subtle twist in the polarized light, known as B-modes. If a gravitational wave moves through the fabric of spacetime, it will squeeze spacetime in one direction (the universe will look a little hotter) and stretch it in another (the universe will look a little cooler). The photons will scatter with a preferred direction, leaving a slightly polarized imprint on the CMB, due to the passing gravitational wave.

Not only will detecting this slight polarization pattern in the CMB allow astronomers to uncover evidence of primordial gravitational waves but they will provide proof that immediately after the big bang the universe expanded exponentially—inflated—by at least a factor of 1025. While the theory of inflation is a pillar of big bang cosmology and helps explain key features of the observable universe today (i.e. why the universe is outstandingly uniform on such massive scales), many physicists don't buy it. It remains a theoretical framework because we can't explain what physical mechanism would have driven such a massive expansion, let alone stop it.

Inflation is the only mechanism with the ability to amplify , born from quantum fluctuations in gravity itself, into a detectable signal.

"If a detection has been made, it is extraordinarily exciting," Andrew Jaffe, a cosmologist from Imperial College, London, told the Guardian. "This is the real big tick-box that we have been waiting for. It will tell us something incredibly fundamental about what was happening when the was only 10-34 seconds old."

But even if the rumors prove true, it's crucial to remain skeptical. Extracting the signal is extremely tricky. The CMB's temperature varies by a few parts in 100,000. In comparison, B-modes account for just one part in 10 million in the CMB temperature distribution.

The microwaves also travel across the entire first. Only last year the signal was detected in the CMB for the first time using the South Pole Telescope, but it was in fact distorted by intervening clusters of galaxies and not intrinsic to the CMB itself.

The announcement will be made on Monday at noon EST.

Explore further: Physics duo suggest using early universe inflation as graviton detector

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Researchers propose a new way to detect the elusive graviton

Mar 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Among the four fundamental forces of nature, only gravity has not had a basic unit, or quanta, detected. Physicists expect that gravitational force is transmitted by an elementary particle called a graviton, ...

Herschel throws new light on oldest cosmic light

Oct 01, 2013

(Phys.org) —Cosmologists have achieved a first detection of a long-sought component in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). This component, known as B-mode polarisation, is caused by gravitational lensing, ...

Recommended for you

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Jul 25, 2014

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

Jul 24, 2014

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Video: The diversity of habitable zones and the planets

Jul 24, 2014

The field of exoplanets has rapidly expanded from the exclusivity of exoplanet detection to include exoplanet characterization. A key step towards this characterization is the determination of which planets occupy the Habitable ...

User comments : 143

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

indio007
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 17, 2014
Any "discovery" based on CMB , as compiled by COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites , is flawed.

http://www.princi...ury.html
shavera
4.5 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2014
^ random internet dude(tte) claims modern science is flawed. More at 11.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Anyone know if there's going to be a live stream for this (link)? I couldn't find anything on their webpage.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2014
Anyone know if there's going to be a live stream for this (link)? I couldn't find anything on their webpage.

You're not missing much.
axemaster
5 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Cosmologists are digging through the data, searching for a subtle twist in the polarized light, known as B-modes.

Just discussed this with some physics professors here at MIT! Everybody's really excited that this could be it, one of the greatest discoveries in human history! The research teams paper is coming out in ten minutes, at 10:45, and the press conference is at noon! This had better not be a dud!

Edit: I just read the article, this is surprisingly high quality for Physorg, it lays things out quite well!
marklade
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
^ random internet dude(tte) claims modern science is flawed. More at 11.


Oooh.. the classic strawman. Attribute something not said then knock it down.
CMB data is flawed for a few reasons. The signal is 1000 weaker than the noise.
I won't get into the limitations of the equipment because no equipment can differentiate such a signal from noise with prior knowledge of the signal or the ability to manipulate the signal in a known way.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Currently reading their paper, it came out 5 minutes ago at:

http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf

Edit: Looks like they found it! Incredible! If confirmed, this will be at least as important as the Higgs, because it provides a direct window into events during the inflationary period, and planck scale physics!
Zachia
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
These density fluctuations aren't gravitational waves, especially not with respect to assumption of relativists, that the alleged gravitational waves are spreading with speed of light. They're exactly what the research says - the B-mode of CMBR polarization. No less, no more. And of course, they don't prove the inflation.
axemaster
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2014
Lol, Prof Thaler's hands are shaking and he can't sit still, he's so excited about this!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2014
Currently reading their paper, it came out 5 minutes ago at:

http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf

Edit: Looks like they found it! Incredible! If confirmed, this will be at least as important as the Higgs, because it provides a direct window into events during the inflationary period, and planck scale physics!
Thanks, reading it now as well.
Q-Star
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2014
Currently reading their paper, it came out 5 minutes ago at:

http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf

Edit: Looks like they found it! Incredible! If confirmed, this will be at least as important as the Higgs, because it provides a direct window into events during the inflationary period, and planck scale physics!
Thanks, reading it now as well.


This is one of the most tightly constrained predictions I can think of in my lifetime. There is nothing ambiguous or iffy about this. If the data is what they say it is, then this is as big as finding the CMB in 1964 that Gamow el al predicted in 1948. If the data is solid (I can't believe that it hasn't been checked and checked and checked) it would get my vote for next year's Nobel.

Fortunately these findings deal with subject area that the casual crank or crackpot will not be able to begin to understand much less argue against.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf
Just so people know, the 2 crucial graphs are on page 17.

Figure 13 shows the regions included by the data, where the old experiments are in red and the new Bicep2 data is in blue. Figure 13 shows that they found r = ~.2, which is a HUGE value for gravitational wave strength, much higher than most people expected.

Figure 14 shows the multipole spectrum data. The Bicep2 data is about 2 orders of magnitude better than previous experiments in terms of the error bars. Not sure how they managed that yet. There are two lines: the solid red line shows spectra from known gravitational lensing, the dashed red line shows the spectrum from B-modes, which is the discovery.

Edit: I agree Q-Star, this is a certain Nobel if true.

Edit: Perhaps the most significant result here, is that they claim to have excluded r=0 to order sigma=7. In other words, they have extremely high certainty that primordial gravity waves exist.
Q-Star
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2014
These density fluctuations aren't gravitational waves, especially not with respect to assumption of relativists, that the alleged gravitational waves are spreading with speed of light. They're exactly what the research says - the B-mode of CMBR polarization. No less, no more. And of course, they don't prove the inflation.


Don't be such a Killjoy Zeph, it's not like it's the first nail in the coffin of the AWT. More like the 20th or 30th nail. Ya should be used to this kind of news by now.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Currently reading their paper, it came out 5 minutes ago at:

http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf

Edit: Looks like they found it! Incredible! If confirmed, this will be at least as important as the Higgs, because it provides a direct window into events during the inflationary period, and planck scale physics!

@axemaster
bloody great paper! thanks!

poor Zachia/zephir and his failed outmoded philosophies destroyed by empirical data... I would feel sorry for him were it not for his irritating insistence that everyone else is the idiot
Fortunately these findings deal with subject area that the casual crank or crackpot will not be able to begin to understand much less argue against

@Q-Star
thats never stopped them yet... lol
this is one time I regret not having TV or a good internet
Zachia
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
it's not like it's the first nail in the coffin of the AWT
The B-modes of CMBR polarization just prove another prediction of AWT: the mass of CMBR photons and 2-spin component of it via AdS/CFT duality. But these predictions can be done in much simpler ways, than just with crunching of CMBR noise data. They don't prove the inflation in any way.
this is a certain Nobel if true
It's indeed true and it would be a great comedy, if some people will get a Nobel prize just for inflation.
LarsKristensen
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
Without a spectral analysis of the CMB we do not know how far away the CMB coming from.
CMB could come from the space between the nearest galaxies and not billions of light-years away from.
Therefore, the theory of CMB as coming from the Big Bang birth, taken with some caution, as long as the CMB have not got a spectral analysis.
axemaster
5 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
The press conference live stream should be available at:

http://www.cfa.ha...ces.html

However, I can't load the page right now, it's probably being inundated with physicists!!!

Also, all the data/papers related to the Bicep2 paper are available at:

http://bicepkeck.org
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
Without a spectral analysis of the CMB we do not know how far away the CMB coming from.
CMB could come from the space between the nearest galaxies and not billions of light-years away from.
Therefore, the theory of CMB as coming from the Big Bang birth, taken with some caution, as long as the CMB have not got a spectral analysis.


Uh, Lars,,, Google COBE, WMAP, PLANCK satellites and then get back to us with your request for a "spectral analysis".

Spectral analysis has a catchy ring to it. Do ya have any idea what that means?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf

Holy smokes, Batman. That fits a lamdaCDM plus 0.2 almost too well.
If the data is what they say it is, then this is as big as finding the CMB in 1964 that Gamow el al predicted in 1948.

Agreed. But if I'm reading this right (and I'm not at all sure I am), they took an inordinate amount of care to exclude any systemic bias.

Something I haven't gotten from the paper: does this put a speed(limit) on gravitational waves?
TransmissionDump
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
This is one of those moments where a bunch of you guys get to say to a bunch of other guys.
"Told you so!'

Love it!
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
Agreed. But if I'm reading this right (and I'm not at all sure I am), they took an inordinate amount of care to exclude any systemic bias.


If ya go to the page Axemaster linked, http://bicepkeck.org/ there an abundance of material showing just how very careful they were. It's quite comforting and rewarding to see that level of diligence. Big claims need big evidence and all that,,,, they've done that hard work here.

Zachia
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2014
IMO the BICEP data just replicate the older findings of Penrose and Gurzadyan. It could be considered as an evidence of Conformal cyclic cosmology or whatever else model. Try to think about it in context of water surface analogy of AWT. The ripples at the water surface are spreading in regular circles first, they get scattered fast at the end. If the water surface would contain density inhomogeneities, it would manifest itself just during this final phasis of scattering, when the wavelenght of ripples is changing fast and which is interpreted like the "inflation". That is to say, there is nothing controversial about this finding in context of water analogy of the red shift.
indio007
1.7 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
Assuming the Planck Cobe Firas data is true.

There is nothing about c-mode polarization data ( if any).

Secondly, a paper they cite

A Probe of Primordial Gravity Waves and Vorticity
Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2058 – Published 17 March 1997

Marc Kamionkowski, Arthur Kosowsky, and Albert Stebbins

Lists multiple constraints on whether a conclusion can be drawn. I have seen none of those constraints addressed i.e. c-mode polarization for one.

There seems to be no attempt to explain way this is gravity waves and not "large scale vortical flows".

Zachia
1.5 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
There seems to be no attempt to explain way this is gravity waves and not "large scale vortical flows"
Currently the mainstream science suffers with social pressure for experimental proof of the existence of gravitational waves and inflation from the side of theorists, so there is indeed a tendency for confirmational bias following from synergy: one finding would prove them both!

Who couldn't resist it?
Tuxford
2 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
And they are off! It's a horse race for the Nobel Prize. Anyone see a problem with this social construct?
marklade
Mar 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ShotmanMaslo
3.8 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2014
What a discovery! Not only is this a window into the first instants of the universe, it is a window into physics at 12 orders of magnitude higher energy than what is studied at the LHC. wow
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 17, 2014
Settle down, guys. Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw. I won't bother to read through it again until I have more time to spare for reading such patently obvious 'wishful thinking' and 'publish-or-perish' and 'Nobel coveting' so-called 'scientific work'. Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves (leave ego and bias aside or you'll fail).

As you know I am too busy to start new conversations. Maybe I'll put a late-edit 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' effort in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years! Bye :)
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (17) Mar 17, 2014
Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out.
&
Maybe I'll put a late-edit 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' effort in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years!

@RealityCheck
really BAD FORM to throw out a claim and NOT POST/LINK PROOF
you slam them and then just "move on" without showing the data/proof? Thats nothing but Trolling, and you should be ashamed of yourself
especially because you dont back up what you say!

add this to your list of reading, RC http://bicepkeck.org/
AND
maybe you missed this part from axemaster?
Perhaps the most significant result here, is that they claim to have excluded r=0 to order sigma=7. In other words, they have extremely high certainty that primordial gravity waves exist.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Hi CaptS. :) Take it easy, mate; you know I've no time for BS like that.
@RealityCheck
really BAD FORM to throw out a claim and NOT POST/LINK PROOF
you slam them and then just "move on" without showing the data/proof? Thats nothing but Trolling, and you should be ashamed of yourself
especially because you dont back up what you say!

I'll tell you what is the ultimate in "Bad Form", BS like this masquerading/publishing as 'science'.
add this to your list of reading, RC http://bicepkeck.org/
AND
maybe you missed this part from axemaster?
...they claim to have excluded r=0 to order sigma=7. In other words, they have extremely high certainty that primordial gravity waves exist.
Note it's a "CLAIM", not objective fact. A 'mainstream' claim based on such BS 'work' is worse than "bad form" in my book. Calm down and re-read it all properly and find those fatal BS flaws for yourself. I haven't time to read such BS again.

PS: Will repost this in the 'update' thread. :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (16) Mar 17, 2014
Settle down, guys. Even on a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw.


Well Really-Skippy, are we supposed to be struck dumb by you telling that you found found some flaws, eh? P'tit boug you are the true couyon if you think these smart peoples are just going to take your word for it that they are in there. Now why you don't just put that silly looking pointy cap on your head and go sit in the corner there for away. The Zephir Skippy is more smart than you are on your best day.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy and watch yourself in the tall grass, eh?

User68niou1
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
it's based upon the big bang. What could possibly go wrong from there?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 17, 2014
Take it easy, mate; you know I've no time for BS like that

@RealityCheck
then why did you sling the below comment without PROOF
Maybe I'll put a late-edit 'cautionary tale' footnote about this latest 'joke science' effort in my upcoming ToE book. For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years!

I am not dropping THIS one... you can say what you want about the PDF's, because you may/may not understand them, and I dont care
BUT
you made a claim about the team, now JUSTIFY it or retract it. It is BAD FORM to post it without links/proof supporting you.
I really thought you were above this particular type trolling!
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
Hi CaptS. :)
@RealityCheck
then why did you sling the below comment without PROOF

I am not dropping THIS one... you can say what you want about the PDF's, because you may/may not understand them, and I dont care
BUT
you made a claim about the team, now JUSTIFY it or retract it. It is BAD FORM to post it without links/proof supporting you.
I really thought you were above this particular type trolling!
As I already said here and in the other thread, I just posted that for the record, no more than that. And like I also already said, I haven't any more precious time to waste on BS like that, nor on long discussions of that or anything else lately. So, mate, since when does the post/opinion of a 'troll' have any bearing on the 'due diligence' reading/understanding you and others should be doing for yourselves, instead of getting all hot and bothered about what a 'troll' says? Go to it, CaptS, everyone! Bye for now. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 17, 2014
As I already said here and in the other thread, I just posted that for the record, no more than that. And like I also already said, I haven't any more precious time to waste on BS like that, nor on long discussions of that or anything else lately. So, mate, since when does the post/opinion of a 'troll' have any bearing on the 'due diligence' reading/understanding you and others should be doing for yourselves, instead of getting all hot and bothered about what a 'troll' says? Go to it, CaptS, everyone! Bye for now. :)
And double-posting is the spoor of a troll.

--You did have time to waste claiming to find fault with an exhaustively-vetted study, after only a casual glance at it.

So honored to be visitated by such an extreme intellect as you must possess sir. Why with sufficient time you could have conjured the whole thing by yourself I bet.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 17, 2014
Hi again, Ghost. :)
And double-posting is the spoor of a troll.

--You did have time to waste claiming to find fault with an exhaustively-vetted study, after only a casual glance at it.

So honored to be visitated by such an extreme intellect as you must possess sir. Why with sufficient time you could have conjured the whole thing by yourself I bet.

Is the concept of there being TWO threads on this topic (other one being an UPDATE, and hence the crossover posting for obvious reasons) too much for your 'scientifically objective' intellect to comprehend and allow for? Or is the bias and ego in you determining what you 'think' nowadays? And like I said there, it took little time to find the obvious flaws. And since I was reading through here anyway, I took a few moments to post a 'heads up' for the record, especially to those who may want to read the above paper/work with less 'rose colored glasses', that's all. You can do your own due diligence can't you? Bye. :)
Gawad
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
As you know I am too busy to start new conversations.


Oy! We can only hope! Anyway, we are too busy to bother with your conversations.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
As you know I am too busy to start new conversations.


Oy! We can only hope! Anyway, we are too busy to bother with your conversations.

Great! That's exactly what I suggested to the others. You should ignore my 'just for the record' post on this, and just concentrate your time and efforts on doing the due diligence on the above work/paper and find the obvious flaws for yourselves. Get busy, just ignore me, and go to it! :)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
RC is sounding like JVK, but different subjects...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
Anyway... read as much of the pdf as my puny little mind could handle. I've got the same question as AA - did they put a speed limit on the wave?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
too much for your 'scientifically objective' intellect to comprehend and allow for?
Yes, yes it is.
Or is the bias and ego in you determining what you 'think' nowadays? And like I said there, it took little time to find the obvious flaws
Thinking that it would take you little time to find obvious flaws in so carefully vetted a paper is, obviously, an obvious flaw of yours. The kind that psychiatrists have esoteric names for.

Have you ever met Lurker? You 2 should get together and write a paper about mining dry ice in antarctica.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
RE: Obvious flaws,,,,,,

I have spent most of the last five hours reading and rereading the paper being reported on. The "obvious flaws" must have been so "obvious" that someone removed them before the paper was released.

While reading this paper, I've also spent quite a bit of time perusing the earlier work done in this same project. SEE the link axemaster provided: http://bicepkeck.org/

It is disingenuous & petty to make a claim of "obvious flaws" & then run away without backing it up. These investigators went to heroic lengths to confirm and test their data. They should be commended for the extra care and effort they put into making sure of the quality of the data, and confidence of their interpretations. They exhibited the ideal of scientific "due diligence" that some petty posters suggest to others. Every "t" crossed, every "i" dotted.

But don't take my word for it. Just follow the link and see for yourself. Thanks axemaster for a great link and a rewarding afternoon.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2014
Hi guys, let me say at the outset that with my very limited knowledge I have always thought '...well, I don't know cos...' about BB but I do appreciate that the majority stance is is for BB. With all the arguments (and data) for it a layman like me can do little else but except it.
But that doesn't mean I have to throw away my principles and when I looked at (and I do mean just that) http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf one thing immediately struck me, the way the paper is written!
All info regarding the procedure they used is there! What and how it was used, limitations, considerations and other possibilities. In other words it's Refutable...but not by me cos I will read it again and 'look up' those things I don't understand and then form some opinion.
But other researchers can analyze the method and conclusions and point out mistakes (if any) and then suggest what should be done to confirm the findings.
I have to say 'well done'...though, of course coming from me it doesn't mean much.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
Great! That's exactly what I suggested to the others. You should ignore my 'just for the record' post on this, and just concentrate your time and efforts on doing the due diligence on the above work/paper and find the obvious flaws for yourselves. Get busy, just ignore me, and go to it! :)
Yet you sure have the time to post denigrations of scientists who have spent years working on this while flinging about nebulous claims of some book in waiting you pretend to be writing! What a FAKE! Or, no, I meant FLAKE! Or, wait, I meant FRAUD!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2014

But don't take my word for it. Just follow the link and see for yourself. Thanks axemaster for a great link and a rewarding afternoon.
Seconded! Thanks for the links axemaster!
axemaster
5 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
No problem guys. I'm glad I was able to help out. This has been an incredibly exciting day for me as well!

For those of you who are less familiar with the physics behind this, I wrote up an explanation over at Reddit:

http://www.reddit...ontext=3
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
And since I was reading through here anyway, I took a few moments to post a 'heads up' for the record, especially to those who may want to read the above paper/work with less 'rose colored glasses', that's all

@RC
no... you also decided to TROLL post a derogatory comment about the team
For now, I just wanted to put it on the phys.org record that the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years!
so it is obvious your "intent" was nothing but TROLLING (Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else in order to provoke a response)
It is disingenuous & petty to make a claim of "obvious flaws" & then run away without backing it up. These investigators went to heroic lengths to confirm and test their data
@Q-Star
this is my interpretation as well

THANKS axemaster! those links were awesome!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2014
I have spent most of the last five hours reading and rereading the paper being reported on. The "obvious flaws" must have been so "obvious" that someone removed them before the paper was released.

Well, I found where he made obvious errors in interpreting the paper. So his flaws aren't flaws but just his inability to read/do math.

But of course I'm not going to post what his errors are...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2014
Awww, isn't it cute! I see some 'scientists' here still naively believe/trust that 'the right maths' will 'obviate' all logical and/or assumptive and/or procedural/setup errors inherent in the exercise itself? GIGO guaranteed no matter the 'maths techniques'.

Touching in a way; like little children still believing in Santa Clause even when grown up.

Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on. Then see just how quickly the flaws jump out at you out of the 'blizzard' of 'pretty maths overlays' in inherently flawed exercise no 'maths' can rescue from its inherent flaws.

If you've 'read it through' and can't see the flaws, then no wonder 'peer review' gives 'passes' to overwhelming instances of fraudulent/nonsense 'science' (as recent experiment reported on here in phys.org patently proved happens too often).

"Remember: Reality first; Maths second; Always." ---RC.

And what was it Einsten said about "mathematicians" taking over his theory etc? :)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
Awww, isn't it cute! I see some 'scientists' here still naively believe/trust that 'the right maths' will 'obviate' all logical and/or assumptive and/or procedural/setup errors inherent in the exercise itself? GIGO guaranteed no matter the 'maths techniques'.
Well look at you go, you arrogant puissant! Striving to be the new somebody are we? Lots of words there big boy, zero anything else to back them.

How about you go back to impressing your faithful with your colorful imaginations and word salads.

Oh what's that? You have no faithful? Why don't you join Zephyr, standing on a pulpit in an empty field preaching your gospel to all those interested. At least the two of you will have each other.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Mar 18, 2014
Methinks the Lady protests too much"?

I have no 'faithful', I am a lone researcher who discourages 'idolizing' SOURCES, and encourages original thought for yourself and objective assessment of real things, not fantasies and beliefs masquerading as 'science' which you seem all too eager to 'swallow' without demure. Is that how you want to become a 'somebody'? By becoming a 'yes man' irrespective of the flaws that jump out of the stuff/people you cheer on and 'believe in' because they call themselves 'scientists'? Get back to the scientific method and drop all your 'me too' crap that does nothing for your own original thinking and understanding of the reality. Fantasies are everywhere, even in 'mainstream science'. The disastrous 'peer review' experiment recently reported on here at phys.org should have been a 'wake up call' to anyone who can still think for themselves and not be too eager to be part of some 'faithful' herd mentality like 'religious' OR 'scientific' groupthink. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2014
Why don't you join Zephyr, standing on a pulpit in an empty field preaching your gospel to all those interested. At least the two of you will have each other.


Hey Maggnus Skippy grouping in the Really-Skippy with the Zephir is unfair to the Zephir, eh? At least the Zephir tries to say the smart stuff. Really-Skippy tries to say the stupid stuffs and he is pretty good with that, eh? That's why he always has that silly lookiing pointy cap on his head, so he show off how stupid he is.

At least he not trying to tell everyone all who he thinks they should talk to and what to say when they don't. Laissez les bons temps rouler Maggnus-Skippy and it's okay to slap the Really-Skippy whenever he don't stay in the corner, it won't make smarter with the slap but it sure give the Ira some good big fun, eh?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2014
At least the Zephir tries to say the smart stuff.
Ok mon ami, je sais que vous avez certains aiment pour le Zéphyr, mais ne le prennent pas trop durement qu'un peu de reste d'entre nous ne fait pas. Il est un peu de fanatique.

Did I really earn the skippy label? Because of Zephyr? Oh bien, quelquefois même nous les bons gens doivent nous contenter avec le fait de montrer les imbéciles!
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
Ok mon ami, je sais que vous avez certains aiment pour le Zéphyr, mais ne le prennent pas trop durement qu'un peu de reste d'entre nous ne fait pas. Il est un peu de fanatique.

Did I really earn the skippy label? Because of Zephyr? Oh bien, quelquefois même nous les bons gens doivent nous contenter avec le fait de montrer les imbéciles!


No Maggnus Skippy, I call everyone the Skippy, even the Ira Skippy. Don't mean nothing bad by that no. Yeah, I like the Zephir Skippy, I think he is fun. But I know he get on the bad side of the smart peoples. I was just trying to say that he puts more work into his stuffs not like the Really-Skippy who don't put no effort at all into his stupid sayings.

That Really-Skippy has the extra beaucoup stupid because all he ever says that everyone ought to be like he is because he can't ever think of any smart stuffs to say. But is my job running off the troublemakers, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Maggnus Skippy,

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
Tout le bien, Ira, m'a juste donné une chance d'utiliser mon français! N'arrivez pas si beaucoup! You keep up the good work you!
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2014
P.S. to you Maggnus Skippy. You have the Paris french too like the Captain-Skippy. That's okay because I can understand the Paris french even though I'm the Cajun me. Us coonass are smart like that, we understand both. Now those Paris Skippys they are stupid because they can not understand the Cajun french. Possible they only pretend to not understand, either way they are not very smart.

Let me know if that Really-Skippy come back, eh? I'll send him away again me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
So poseur
Is that how you want to become a 'somebody'? By becoming a 'yes man' irrespective of the flaws that jump out of the stuff/people you cheer on and 'believe in' because they call themselves 'scientists'?
-post your objections to the paper or STFU.
durement qu'un peu de reste d'entre nous
espece didiot
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2014
Why don't you join Zephyr, standing on a pulpit in an empty field preaching your gospel to all those interested. At least the two of you will have each other.

Zeph and RC are two completely different ways to view a TOE. Zeph is closer. Crap, An' I don't even know RC's ToE...
Oh - and I don't speak French....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2014
Still waiting on my and AA's question - did they put a speed limit on gravitational wave?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
I have no 'faithful', I am a lone researcher who discourages 'idolizing' SOURCES, and encourages original thought for yourself and objective assessment of real things, not fantasies and beliefs masquerading as 'science' which you seem all too eager to 'swallow' without demure.

Therein lieth the rub...
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2014
Still waiting on my and AA's question - did they put a speed limit on gravitational wave?


Yes, luminol- 186, 284 mps
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2014
Still waiting on my and AA's question - did they put a speed limit on gravitational wave?


Yes, luminol- 186, 284 mps

TY, Benni.
Benni
3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
Still waiting on my and AA's question - did they put a speed limit on gravitational wave?


Yes, luminol- 186, 284 mps

TY, Benni.


"Einstein realized that the deformation can propagate throughout the Universe, just as seismic waves propagate in Earth's crust. Unlike seismic waves, however, gravitational waves can travel in empty space — and they do so at the speed of light."

http://www.nature...-1.14886

You need to read down a few paragraphs to get to it as I quoted it above.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2014
"Einstein realized that the deformation can propagate throughout the Universe, just as seismic waves propagate in Earth's crust. Unlike seismic waves, however, gravitational waves can travel in empty space — and they do so at the speed of light."


Interesting... might explain why (lightly massive)photons travel at that speed... maybe we should call it "speed of gravity"..
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2014
Take my hint. Re-read papers/work without 'maths-trust' biased 'blinkers' on.

@Reality
how about taking THIS hint: put up or shut up!
You've crashed this thread and TROLLED enough... not either post your proofs or troll elsewhere! It is YOU behaving like a child now!

It is ESPECIALLY irritating that you bashed the team in your initial TROLL comment, but bashing the work without linking/showing proof is nothing short of a Cantdrive/EU/UBA move
talk is cheap
and your continual bashing is irritating
lay it out for the working joe's on the page and spell out your GIGO proof! Show us all how brilliant you are... or are you now going to CONTINUE to post that crap about "not having time"
you sure had enough TIME to post your OWN GARBAGE and TROLL the thread!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2014
Yes, luminol- 186, 284 mps

TY, Benni.
"Einstein realized that the deformation can propagate throughout the Universe, just as seismic waves propagate in Earth's crust. Unlike seismic waves, however, gravitational waves can travel in empty space — and they do so at the speed of light."

Waitaminnut... I just read that speed o light in mps is 186,282.4. That would mean gravittational wave IS faster than light by 1.6 mps....... what gives?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2014
Yes, luminol- 186, 284 mps

and where exactly, in that pdf, did you find that answer?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2014
Einstein realized that the deformation can propagate throughout the Universe, just as seismic waves propagate in Earth's crust. Unlike seismic waves, however, gravitational waves can travel in empty space — and they do so at the speed of light."
There are some theories maintaining that deformation can propagate ftl. Here is Lawrence Krauss discussing alcubierre drive:
http://youtu.be/dXyQ92SPWds
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
I just read that speed o light in mps is 186,282.4. That would mean gravittational wave IS faster than light by 1.6 mps....... what gives?
"In September 2002, Sergei Kopeikin and Edward Fomalont announced that they had made an indirect measurement of the speed of gravity, using their data from VLBI measurement of the retarded position of Jupiter on its orbit during Jupiter's transit across the line-of-sight of the bright radio source quasar QSO J0842+1835. Kopeikin and Fomalont concluded that the speed of gravity is between 0.8 and 1.2 times the speed of light... "

"In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is much larger than the speed of light"

-The jury's still out.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2014
@TheGhostofOtto1923, this is a question I'm asking. Is it not yet possible to have an experiement where a small mass is emitting em proportional to its mass and then to deliberately apply a feed to increase the mass? Measure the increase em and g on another mass to see which arrives first? I'm probably talking out of you-know-where but it was just a thought.

indio007
2 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2014


-The jury's still out.


Not really. There are no stable orbits at gravity propagation speed = C aka retarded gravity.

The jury is only out on how much faster than C.
ShotmanMaslo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014


-The jury's still out.


Not really. There are no stable orbits at gravity propagation speed = C aka retarded gravity.

The jury is only out on how much faster than C.


This is complete BS. There are stable orbits because gravity in general relativity acts in such a way that it points to the future position of an object, assuming it will continue on a straight path with constant speed. This is enough to (almost) stabilise orbits. But it is not perfect, and indeed all real orbits are a little bit unstable as proven by decaying orbits of fast pulsars.

https://en.wikipe..._gravity

The jury is not out, gravity travels at c.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2014
this is a question I'm asking. Is it not yet possible to have an experiement where a small mass is emitting em proportional to its mass and then to deliberately apply a feed to increase the mass? Measure the increase em and g on another mass to see which arrives first? I'm probably talking out of you-know-where but it was just a thought
Why dont you google those quotes and read up on it?
Not really. There are no stable orbits at gravity propagation speed = C aka retarded gravity.

The jury is only out on how much faster than C
I think you are making this up but without a ref I cant be sure. Got any?
The jury is not out, gravity travels at c.
Shotman, that link of yours is where I got those 2 quotes from. Two experiments, 2 different results. They dont know yet how fast it is.

I see the scooby gang was a little too quick on the rating trigger. Better check what fellow pack members say before encouraging them to be wrong dont you think?
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
I see the scooby gang was a little too quick on the rating trigger.
Well, please, we're all part of the same HEP establishment conspiracy after all!

But seriously, Shotman is right that there is no reason to think gravity doesn't propagate at c. GR predicts what we're seeing with orbits of all kinds assuming it propagates at c...but you're also correct that there has been no definitive, clear-cut experimental verification...now if we could just wiggle Jupiter a little...
Jizby
Mar 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gawad
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
there is no reason to think gravity doesn't propagate at c
We have http://en.wikiped...urements for superluminal gravity already. Also, as indio007 has said, the path of planets would be unstable without faster than light gravity.


Sorry Zeph, but this is only true in really, really dense AWT.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2014
FYI repost
a_p: :)
I don't suffer from 'publish or perish disease' like you/they do
You couldn't publish if your life depended on it... ...so yeah: 'perish' is your only option in life.
There is a perfect example of what passes for 'due diligence' in the minds of mainstream pretenders today. You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains, yet you make a self-satisfied 'interpretation' which confirms your bias and soothes your personal ego. The fact that 'peer review' has failed all too many times (as recently confirmed via internet experiment reported on this site), doesn't even bother you at all. Instead you lash out at the messenger who calls "OBVIOUS BS". It's lose-lose proposition engaging with you lot. Blame yourselves for why I won't say anymore. I am lone, scrupulously independent researcher into the real universal physics, in it 'for the long haul'. So "Publish or Perish" is MOOT for me and my work/goals. Capisce? :)
Gawad
5 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2014
RC, A_AP didn't post that here, go spam another thread, moron.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
But seriously, Shotman is right that there is no reason to think gravity doesn't propagate at c
No, thats not what shotman said. He said
The jury is not out, gravity travels at c
-and he provided a wiki link. But from that very link I extracted a description of observations which "indicates that the speed of gravitational force is much larger than the speed of light".

So no, there is as yet no reason to conclude that the jury is not still out.
DaVinci5
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
Don't feed the trolls...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
Hi Gawad.

RC, A_AP didn't post that here, go spam another thread, moron.


What is it about the opening line, ie, "FYI repost", that you don't understand? Sheesh, no wonder why you just follow the personality cult gossips! You obviously have no capacity for understanding even the simplest straightforward information given you in that opening "FYI repost" line! Is this the 'current crop' of would-be scientists we will depend on if we're UNlucky to be so desperate? Chat amongst yourselves, about the latest gossip, and leave the science to those who can understand subtler things than the latest personality gossip. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 19, 2014
The jury is only out on how much faster than C.

Using my earlier subtractions - not by much...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
There is a perfect example of what passes for 'due diligence' in the minds of mainstream pretenders today.

Condescension is a fault.
You've no actual coherent idea of what my complete and consistent ToE work entails/explains, yet...

Because you just say it's valid, yet provide no indication as to why. You fear lack of recognition for your work? Or Rejection...?
I am lone, scrupulously independent researcher into the real universal physics, in it 'for the long haul'. So "Publish or Perish" is MOOT for me and my work/goals.

"Independent" can mean you don't catch your own mistakes....
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
WRT the speed of gravity, there was testing done using Jupiter's gravity well as a lens to measure the change in a quasar back in about 2002 (S. Kopeikin and E. Fomalont, Proceedings of the 6th European VLBI Network Symposium, Ros, E., Porcas, R.W., Zensus, J.A. (eds.), June 25th - 28th, 2002, Bonn, Germany, p. 49) and it seemed to confirm that the speed of gravity was equal to the speed of light, but the findings are not without controversy (•Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay, C. M. Will, Astrophys. J. 590 (2003) 683 for eg) so, much as I hate to side with Ghost, it seems the jury is indeed out.

Interestingly it's thought the detection of gravity waves will provide the evidence needed to determine the speed of gravity once and for all. I guess we may see shortly, assuming this observation holds up.
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2014
But seriously, Shotman is right that there is no reason to think gravity doesn't propagate at c
No, thats not what shotman said. He said
The jury is not out, gravity travels at c


So no, there is as yet no reason to conclude that the jury is not still out.


Granted, he did say, verbatum, that the case is closed, when in fact the last nail hasn't been put into the coffin.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)
Condescension is a fault.
Not as grievous a fault as ignoring the science and killing the messenger as per the 'personality cult' way of 'doing science discourse' here.

Because you just say it's valid, yet provide no indication as to why. You fear lack of recognition for your work? Or Rejection...?
I've sprinkled many clues and perspectives on a few forums discussions, here and elsewhere. So claims that I have 'provided nothing' are just trolls' lies, for obvious reasons. My work is novel and complete, not derivative/partial or straight out assumptive-BS 'interpretations' like current crop.

I am lone, scrupulously independent researcher into the real universal physics, in it 'for the long haul'. So "Publish or Perish" is MOOT for me and my work/goals.
"Independent" can mean you don't catch your own mistakes....
"Scrupulous" means something. I am my own strictest critic. If it doesn't pass the objective 'reality-reference test' it's out. Try it. :)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
You are a certified idiot Tom, find somewhere else to troll!

Oh, wait---you can't troll anywhere else because you've been banned from every science site you have posted to. Not because you are wrong Tom, but because you are an arrogant ass and a flake.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
"Independent" can mean you don't catch your own mistakes....


It can also mean that everyone (in this case without exception) in every forum and venue thinks he is a maladjusted child playing "wise man" because no one wants to play with him.
animah
5 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
I've sprinkled many clues

Clues don't solve a case, investigation and proof do. State your theory or shut up.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
Poor Maggnus. :)

You are a certified idiot Tom, find somewhere else to troll!

Oh, wait---you can't troll anywhere else because you've been banned from every science site you have posted to. Not because you are wrong Tom, but because you are an arrogant ass and a flake.

Who is "Tom"? Are you and others still clueless and trying to associate me with someone else so you can make your 'personality cult' tactics while ignoring the science message?

And I STILL POST at three of the firums I belonged to. So you are confused and lying there as well.

No wonder 'peer review' is broken, if that is the level of mainstreamer's 'due diligence' to ascertain the real facts before making conclusions. Quit while you're still behind, you silly 'personality cult' troll. Some 'scientists' you lot would make. LoL. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)

also mean that everyone (in this case without exception) in every forum and venue thinks he is a maladjusted child playing "wise man" because no one wants to play with him.

Meanwhile your 'personality cult gossiping' is supposed to be the 'gold standard' for 'doing science discourse'? Hahaha. Pull the other one!

And who "wants to play"? I make observations to/during DISCUSSIONS. What you do is "play" and make it all about the person/source and miss the science points/messages. Your loss. :)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
And I STILL POST at three of the firums I belonged to. So you are confused and lying there as well.


@ Maggnus, go to this site and join. Ask a few of the regulars there about RC/RealityCheck.

http://www.scifor...ndex.php

But don't let him call ya a liar, because he has been banned there for way over a year, he still slinks in with puppets.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Hi animah. :)
Clues don't solve a case, investigation and proof do. State your theory or shut up.

I've lost count how many times the 'mainstreamers' have yelled at the 'cranks' that no real science is possible on the forums. And they play the 'personality games' to ENSURE that no real science CAN BE done on the forums.

I've taken them at their word; and limited clues/hints/perspectives over the years to just enough to encourage original thinking for one's self instead of all the 'me too' silliness from clowns/pretenders to 'mainstream' authority here.

I already solved the LOT, via complete and consistent reality-contextual maths-physics ToE being readied for publication whole. That's why I HAVE 'shut up' and have not posted any more bits and pieces from my ToE work.

I recently posted a 'heads up' caution to the 'giddy schoolgirl' types to look for themselves for the OBVIOUS flaws in that latest mainstream BS 'work'. The professionals are finding them now too, not just me. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)
And I STILL POST at three of the forums I belonged to. So you are confused and lying there as well.


@ Maggnus, go to this site and join. Ask a few of the regulars there about RC/RealityCheck.

http://www.scifor...ndex.php

But don't let him call ya a liar, because he has been banned there for way over a year, he still slinks in with puppets.

So you lie too, and that makes you "known" for something. I was banned unfairly and admin there allowed me back under another name in full knowledge of who I am.

Yeah, and be sure to ask the very troll-mod types who did the unfair banning in the first place! They are sure to 'tell the truth', aren't they? Not.

And FYI, I also STILL post under RealityCheck at the other TWO forums.

That's what the calibre of your 'due diligence' is like. Talk about 'incestuous gangs of mod-trolls' pretending to mainstream integrity! Some 'scientists' you lot are. Lol. :)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2014
Poor Q-S. :)


Well, poor me, but I've never been banned.

@ Maggnus, go to this site and join. Ask a few of the regulars there about RC/RealityCheck. http://www.scifor...ndex.php


So you lie too, and that makes you "known" for something. I was banned unfairly


Of course it was unfair, I mean, a charming fellow such as ya are. Most unfair indeed.

Yeah, and be sure to ask the very troll-mod types who did the unfair banning in the first place! They are sure to 'tell the truth', aren't they? Not.


As opposed to ya telling the truth? What the entire world conspired to lock-step in lying about the wise RealityCheck? Sounds reasonable sure.

What about this site? Lying troll mods there too? http://www.physfo...dex.php?

That's what the calibre of your 'due diligence' is like. Talk about 'incestuous gangs of mod-trolls' pretending to mainstream integrity! Some 'scientists' you lot are. Lol. :)


Well I guess ya gave me what for.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2014
@RealityCheck, Oh come on. I have theories about quite a few things (as probably many others do) that are relevant here but I can't give a 'proof' of any and the math is beyond my current knowledge. Unless I lay down the math so someone else can confirm or correct, I might as well shut up, so I do. I ask questions which might help me. So if you have something definitive to offer have the courage to 'stand up and be counted'. The worst that can happen is that some won't agree with you but then some MIGHT and you will earn more respect. In my own field of expertise, which is NOT science I have gone out on a limb with my 'proofs' many times and I have helped to make changes there. If only I was as good at science but I'm not. I accept what I am and you need to do the same.
Hey, maybe what you can tell us will help me too ha! Come on be a sport eh?
RealityCheck
Mar 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
Mar 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2014
You've never been banned. Says it all, doesn't it? You've personalized/insulted countless times. You've buried original discourse/points in troll shit. And the mods don't ban you
@RealityCheck
most likely it is because he (Q-Star) posts proof/links and provides empirical data to support most of the claims. That moves his comments from your conjecture of "troll sh*t" and "insults" to legitimate and verifiable which says to me that he is respected for being able to back up his claims
he has helped many understand what goes no here, including/especially me
as well as given me lots of things to read
speaks volumes

put up or shut up. Prove your derogatory conjectures about the team or go away and troll some other site
you COULD have left out the derogatory remarks, but you added them for a reason. most likely for effect. now...
PROVE THEM VALID
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Gawad.

RC, A_AP didn't post that here, go spam another thread, moron.


What is it about the opening line, ie, "FYI repost", that you don't understand?
Nothing. I just don't give a damn about your opening lines (or any others of yours). See you soon.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
@RealityCheck don't accept your argument! I have pubished too (in my field) but that doesn't mean you can't say anything beforehand...fact, it might even help you!
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Mimath. :)

I have pubished too (in my field) but that doesn't mean you can't say anything beforehand...fact, it might even help you!

Ordinarily, that would apply. But when work of such scope/complexity provides complete and consistent 'revolutionary' perspective covering so MANY aspects/fields/disciplines and implications, it's counter-productive to engage in too much piecemeal/partial discussion/papers before publishing it 'whole'. Darwin and many others with works of such dimensions/subjects/issues also worked decades until satisfied it was a 'whole works'. Premature discussions 'all over the place' would generate never-ending potential for 'pointscoring' exchanges, cross-purpose misunderstandings/conversations, wrong impressions etc. that goes on for DECADES. As many revolutionary scientists have found out! I haven't time/energy left for that.

It's not just a 'paper' on a 'detail' in one 'field'. It's a complete and consistent reality-contextual maths-physics ToE. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I wasn't accusing you of lying, mate, I didn't have you in mind when I posted that the Q-S et al trolls and frauds were lying about me.

Will link to something in the near future for your interest. Cheers.
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I wasn't accusing you of lying, mate, I didn't have you in mind when I posted that the Q-S et al trolls and frauds were lying about me.

Will link to something in the near future for your interest. Cheers.


@ Really-Skippy This is the same as what you posted over on the other article, what you forget, eh? The Captain-Skippy will answer you when he gets the time to answer.

Now I've been going easy on you because my mother taught me not to be mean for the handicapped peoples but you are testing ol Ira's patience you. So don't you make me get rough on you no.

Unless you have something smart to say, SIT DOWN and SHUT UP now. That's why you got the silly looking pointy cap on your head there in the corner.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy and watch yourself in the tall grass because you ain't smart as these peoples.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
@RealityCheck, you must feel confident about some of what you have written otherwise you wouldn't be publishing (and implied in your posts). Surely those those parts which may raise issues are worth a prior mention just to see what reaction there might be. I'll say no more on the subject. I haven't read this articles paper in detail yet (and others) and want to get on with that. Have a nice w/e one and all
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2014
@RealityCheck, you must feel confident about some of what you have written otherwise you wouldn't be publishing (and implied in your posts). Surely those those parts which may raise issues are worth a prior mention just to see what reaction there might be. I'll say no more on the subject. I haven't read this articles paper in detail yet (and others) and want to get on with that. Have a nice w/e one and all


He is not going to answer that question. People have been asking about it for years. It's always "almost ready" or "must preserve it from plagiarists" or "want avoid distractions" or "ya'll see it completed soon", etc, etc, etc. He's been talking "about" it on the various forums for 9 years, never what it's about, only "it will be paradigm changing".

It is a game of how many times he can get someone to ask what's in it.

He'll of course call me a liar, but not one a person in world has gotten a sensible reply to "What is it?".

I posted links, will he? Not a chance.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2014
RC. For someone who has no time to mess with us "children", you spend a lot of time on here calling us that...
I've joined the putup or shutup crowd on this one.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2014
Q-Star, thanks for your advice. Hadn't realized RC had been on about it for that long. Oh well, I've learned something else, haven't I. I'm glad that you and others are here to point these things out to me. What would I do without you ha ha.
RC I've made a new 'post folder' named 'ignore' and you are the first file in it!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :) Please see my two posts to you in the 'cosmic dust' thread
@RC
and please read my three posts in reply
read them all the way through... You seem to not understand what I keep asking and you cannot seem to address it
Will link to something in the near future for your interest
unless it is proof/links supporting your claims about the team or a retraction, I am not sure I am interested

It appears that you still dont understand what I mean: YOU are complaining about people posting things that you claim are lies, and yet you did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. there is NO difference in what you did vs what you are complaining about. Why is it OK for YOU to spread unsubstantiated conjecture which is derogatory but not anyone else? hmm?

again: read my reply posts: http://phys.org/n...sus.html

I am specific in what you should be addressing
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Hi Mimath224. :)
@RealityCheck, you must feel confident about some of what you have written otherwise you wouldn't be publishing (and implied in your posts). Surely those those parts which may raise issues are worth a prior mention just to see what reaction there might be.
Unlike many here, you sound a reasonable person intelligent enough to actually listen and not pre-conclude judgement without all the information. Very rare! Kudos. So I'll risk telling you now that I already published two preliminary hard copy books briefly outlining/arguing my ToE essentials, but only limited editions sent to Universities/individual/groups researchers, both to introduce into the discourse in science circles the novel approach/insights/concepts of my ToE and to establish priority for what will follow when whole complete and consistent reality-maths/physics ToE is finalized/published for wider audience. The effect since then on evolving professional perspectives has been observable. (continued)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Hi Mimath224. :)

Unlike many here, you sound a reasonable person intelligent enough to actually listen and not pre-conclude judgement without all the information. Very rare! Kudos. So I'll risk telling you now that I already published two preliminary hard copy books briefly outlining/arguing my ToE essentials, but only limited editions sent to Universities/individual/groups researchers, both to introduce into the discourse in science circles the novel approach/insights/concepts of my ToE and to establish priority for what will follow when whole complete and consistent reality-maths/physics ToE is finalized/published for wider audience. The effect since then on evolving professional perspectives has been observable. (continued)


So ya are going to tell us what's in it? Or still just tell us AGAIN that ya have one and it's a real physics game changer? Ya are such a lame BS'er.
RealityCheck
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Hi Mimath224(continued) I also had preliminary discussion/soundboarding on forums and a website over the years. Many (not all) of the novel aspects of my ToE have already been sprinkled here and there on the net during discussions of general and specific aspects. Unfortunately some forums there was egregious troll-mod gangs that (with 'protection' and encouragement of site/mods) sabotaged alternative discussions threatening their 'defense of mainstream' pretense power and ego games as the trolls they were. Most of them have been removed/chastised since then, after objective internet experiments proved they/their tactics/abuses real. Record/posts of my/others discussion points relating to ToE deleted/distorted by crazy characters masquerading as 'moderators interested in science', but really just frustrated 'bloggers' who had nothing original to offer so sabotaged those who did. What wasn't 'burnt' is 'buried' under their trollshite still. Hard to 'see' now. Hence why hesitant now. Bye.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Hi again, Mimath224. :)

See what Q-S just did? He 'conveniently' forgets the reasons I already made clear for why no more will issue from me about my ToE on these forums. The Q-S et al 'scientists' ignore evidence already put, and continue 'personalizing' and cluttering the issue with his trollish agenda against those who do have something coming out that is original and important? It's just more Q-S et al troll-mod tactics and anti-science pique that they have nothing at all NEW to offer, and someone else has. Q-Set al were fully aware before now the reasons I won't say any more re my ToE here on the forums, because of trolls and plagiarism risk (the science/publishing news shows how real and prevalent is that risk!). Q-S et al also aware of a lot of my on-line discussion points, but he lies and pretends I'e said 'nothing' about it already. Nasty types haven't all been removed from the forums, as you can see; but even so, it's nowhere near as bad as in 'the old days'! Take care! Bye.
Mimath224
not rated yet Mar 21, 2014
Ref. RC, comments anyone?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Ref. RC, comments anyone?


Yeah I got the comment me. It is a good thing for the Really-Skippy that ol Ira's not permitted to give the minus karma points. I was looking forward to watching my Leverage videos tonight and now I got to deal with this couyon again today.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
'Doing science by karma points'. Lol.

Trolls and pretenders and morons masquerading and wasting everyone's time and influencing gullible readers/posters into 'going along' with the troll gang tactics and 'downvotes irrespective of content'.

Very 'scientific' that, isn't it? Wankers and cowards abusing the ratings system and posing as 'opinion makers to the unfortunates' drawn into and caught up in their 'obvious sticky and stinky nastiness'.

Good luck 'believing in' and running with these trolls, guys! Your choice. Lol. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
Good luck 'believing in' and running with these trolls, guys! Your choice. Lol. :)


If nobody want to play with the Really-Skippy that make them the trolls, eh? What is the matter cher, you find a place where you can not be the Big Chief? Where they no fooled with your foolishment, eh? I tell you you would not like the silly looking pointy cap and you would not like sitting there in that corner with all the smart peoples making the fun with you, no? Now you get the bad karma points and the cap.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy. You still think the Ira is the irreverent troll?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2014
Nah. The trolls have been 'outed' already. And who cares who trolls want to 'play' with. You are irrelevant and plain boring in your predictability and nastiness. Go 'play' with your ratings-wanking-circle of troll-mates, that's about all that you trolls can do with the ONE only pitifully 'denatured' common-property-brain-cell you trolls take turns in using, and using inanely at that.

Go you 'science graduates of the karma points irrelevance academy'! Yay!

Useless turds playing with useless turd mates. What a funny (and tragic) show! Lol/Sad simultaneously.

Carry on, idiot. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Nah. The trolls have been 'outed' already. And who cares who trolls want to 'play' with. You are irrelevant and plain boring in your predictability and nastiness. Go 'play' with your ratings-wanking-circle of troll-mates, that's about all that you trolls can do with the ONE only pitifully 'denatured' common-property-brain-cell you trolls take turns in using, and using inanely at that.

Go you 'science graduates of the karma points irrelevance academy'! Yay!

Useless turds playing with useless turd mates. What a funny (and tragic) show! Lol/Sad simultaneously.

Carry on, idiot. :)


Okay Really-Skippy. Apology accepted.

Ol Ira will get you the one more chance. Now see if you can mind your manners long enough for the smart peoples to teach you something. If you don't act up anymore for two whole days, you can take off the silly looking pointy cap.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy but accepting your apology don't mean you can get all rambunctious. I'll be watching.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
@ P.S. Really-Skippy. I still have to give the bad karma points for a few days. It would not look good if I was to start playing favorites among the couyons. If you do good for a couple days we'll see what the Ira can do about that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
Haha. I suppose that's about as close to any apology from you (are you representing your troll mates too) that the forum is even going to get. Face it, mate, you and your silly troll-mates/tactics have been 'outed' good and proper now. Whatever 'face-saving rationalizations' you make to yourself and the forum is neither here nor there anymore. I suppose the forum at large can be magnanimous and just 'go along' with whatever helps you come to terms with what just happened to you and your troll mates. Who says 'mercy is dead', hey, even to trolls?

Take care you don't overplay your hand now that mercy has been shown. Less of the trolling, hey? And less of the abusing whatever 'substances' you have manifestly been abusing which have led you to make such piss-awful jokes of yourselves here.

Start fresh, throw away those 'bottles, bongs and shrooms' or whatever, and get back in touch with the science and reality. OK?

Also, lay off that 'downvoting addiction' abuse of ratings system. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Start fresh, throw away those 'bottles, bongs and shrooms' or whatever, and get back in touch with the science and reality. OK?

Also, lay off that 'downvoting addiction' abuse of ratings system. :)


I told you I accepted your apology Really-Skippy. The Ira can not force the other peoples to. They seem pretty reasonable so if you give a good one to them maybe they will accept it. I'm not like you no. I don't like to tell the other peoples what to say and who to talk to, not me no. Don't you remember anything just a few week ago? That is how you got yourself put into the corner with silly looking pointy cap on your head you. Telling the smart peoples what to say to this and that thing and who to say it to?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy I'm glad you learned your lesson about trying to be the Big Mon. The other peoples will be glad to know it too. So now ol Ira can get back to his Leverage videos.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Nah. The trolls have been 'outed' already. And who cares who trolls want to 'play' with. You are irrelevant and plain boring in your predictability and nastiness. Go 'play' with your ratings-wanking-circle of troll-mates, that's about all that you trolls can do with the ONE only pitifully 'denatured' common-property-brain-cell you trolls take turns in using, and using inanely at that.

Go you 'science graduates of the karma points irrelevance academy'! Yay!

Useless turds playing with useless turd mates. What a funny (and tragic) show! Lol/Sad simultaneously.

Carry on, idiot. :)

Reality. Just an artist, here. But in all of your posts, I've seen nothing even close to an indication of some new idea. I truly think you need to check in somewhere and get a little help...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Whyde. So the troll mentality training by your mates has turned you into this?...

But in all of your posts, I've seen nothing even close to an indication of some new idea.


So if YOU 'haven't seen it' (here and elsewhere) it must 'not have been'. That's it?

That's called "Solipsism', mate. Look it up.

You want to watch out you don't disappear into your very own solipsist fantasy world for too long. You may never make it back out.

Some 'due diligence'! Some 'scientists'! Good luck with that 'trusting-to-troll-lies' approach to doing science discourse mate. :)

OH, the Ira-ny! lol.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Whyde. So the troll mentality training by your mates has turned you into this?...

Nope. Most of these people know I don't always agree on interpretations of data... They also know I have open mind to info.

So if YOU 'haven't seen it' (here and elsewhere) it must 'not have been'. That's it?

See it every day... Just not from you.

That's called "Solipsism', mate. Look it up.
You want to watch out you don't disappear into your very own solipsist fantasy world for too long. You may never make it back out.

Sounds eerily like a commenter named Reality-Check...

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2014
Whyde.
Nope. Most of these people know I don't always agree on interpretations of data... They also know I have open mind to info.

See it every day... Just not from you.

Sounds eerily like a commenter named Reality-Check...
Sure!....open mind....until you side with trolls and liars and believe what you want and play like this in order to stay 'in' with them, hey? Because that's what you've been doing. And that's a reality-check for you, mate.

And unless you are intimately/fully appraised of ALL that has transpired on the forums across the net with whatever discussions of novel perspectives I have contributed to discussion, then you will have obviously missed everything (if the post/record hasn't been destroyed/distorted as was proven by experiment exposing the mod-trolls I alluded to earlier...have you forgotten?).

Take a spell, rethink what you've been sucked into becoming by these trolls' insidious physchological coercion of those whose character/maturity is weak. Bye! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
Sure!....open mind....until you side with trolls and liars and believe what you want and play like this in order to stay 'in' with them
@RC
1- WGyre does not care about ratings, as far as I can tell, and has argued back and forth with everyone
2-as an artist, I appreciate his vision as it requires me to step out of the box to percieve what he is seeing
3-when it comes to science, he has a pretty good grasp, but needs help with certain things
4-everyone knows WG is an artist
EMPIRICAL data is what I require for argument purposes, and you have sent NONE
TROLL= Internet user behavior that is meant to intentionally anger or frustrate someone else in order to provoke a response
EXAMPLE
the 'science work' of this 'team' is more 'iffy' than much of what I have read in/from the 'mainstream' literature/activities over the years
provide empirical data for this

if you have plenty of time to argue but not answer my post, you are only proving Q-Star's admonishment to others you know
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
So I'll risk telling you now that I already published two preliminary hard copy books
@RC
I have to sound off on something else here: the above comment means that you CAN discuss what is in those books, as they are already published and proven to be authored by YOU... but you still refuse...why? and dont give me the "plagiarist" speech because it is already in book format
also
He 'conveniently' forgets the reasons I already made clear for why no more will issue from me about my ToE on these forums
I did a preliminary search for you and I rec'd about 257,000,000 results from Google. even clicking one link a second, this would take over 8 years to search (continuous) those links (assuming you made no other posts in that time)
THAT is why I said to post links/proof supporting arguments!

this is also why making blanket accusations requires PROOF

you cant expect everyone else to do your homework FOR you... support your comments like (mostly) everyone else does!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2014
So I'll risk telling you now that I already published two preliminary hard copy books [/qI
{q}have to sound off on something else here: the above comment means that you CAN discuss what is in those books, as they are already published and proven to be authored by YOU... but you still refuse...why? and dont give me the "plagiarist" speech because it is already in book format.

For everyone elses edification, I would be interesting in hearing the names of these 2 books and where they can be obtained.
Thanks for the kind words, Cap'n.
RealityCheck
Mar 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2014
PS: I said, those two books were LIMITED editions to specific recipients, not for general release/discussion on forums. Preliminary outlines for whole that is to come. They did not include my work on the reality-contextual axiomatic maths system which I have been working on as well since then, and which will be incorporated in the integrated complete and consistent reality-contextual maths-physics ToE. :)

Is there a "hold our collective breaths" clause in there somewhere?

PPS: I research through Phy.Org ARCHIVES every day while doing my work on screen. I keep a Phys.Org window open even while I work on my other documents. I take regular breaks and check to see what trolls/pretenders have been up to. No time at all to call the troll/BS shite. It will help others if a reality check is given regularly to trolls/BS pretending to mainstream 'authority' and using the RATINGS system as a weapon of intimidation and ganglike tactics. Good luck! :)

Careful all. He's watching...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2014
@Whyde.
Is there a "hold our collective breaths" clause in there somewhere?
Patience is a virtue and great things are worth waiting for. Trolls 'dares and snides' are not a factor as to timing/content.

Careful all. He's watching...
You only just twigged to that? You had to wait to be told? Slow.

Goodbye and good luck. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2014
@Whyde.
Is there a "hold our collective breaths" clause in there somewhere?
Patience is a virtue and great things are worth waiting for. Trolls 'dares and snides' are not a factor as to timing/content.

Careful all. He's watching...
You only just twigged to that? You had to wait to be told? Slow.


Goodbye and good luck. :)

I'm waiting...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
those two books were LIMITED editions to specific recipients, not for general release/discussion on forums
@RC
so? give the ISBN. like i said... anything that has been published is already out in the open, therefore you CAN talk about it without fear, unless you are referring to someone else's work and trying to claim credit for it
can the plagarist crap... it only makes you look more and more like a troll
a reality check is given regularly to trolls/BS
this is YOUR reality check
you keep making claims but not backing them up with proof. you didnt explain ANYTHING about that paper until other public debate started in the media... this smacks of being a TROLL... and it is why Q-Star and others attack your posts

@WGyre
waste of time waiting for RC - also:
you are welcome. very cogent point you made, and good questions/observations
been reading/searching Phys.org just about a year & haven't seen anything tangible from RC yet
but Q-star et al have given links/proof etc
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
For everyone elses edification, I would be interesting in hearing the names of these 2 books and where they can be obtained
@WGyre
you are not likely to hear anything from him about it other than more comments and saying things like
those two books were LIMITED editions to specific recipients
and that is the one thing that irritated me most the other day!
a great day in science and he TROLLS it with his "4 fatal flaws"... not pointing them out was BULLSH*T as he full well knows that there are MANY people here that are not physicists
IMHO it was just an attempt at TROLLING, ruining the day for good working scientists and jealousy. I am open to any point of view with a good argument and supporting evidence, but when it is crap (see Zeph, cd, Rygg etc) I call it like I see it

in this case, he TROLLED and got the attention he wanted, and so far Q et al have proven their statements, RC provided 0 support for his

P.s. one day I want to see your work...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2014
CaptS. You missed that the record has been deleted/distorted at some forums by proven mod-troll gangs in charge. You miss that the lies about RealityCheck's bans were started and now promulgated still by Q-S et al irrespective of the truth. You miss that I have supported with scientific evidence and reality-referenced logics my arguments/perspectives (those that I was at liberty to discuss/provide) also in a number of other forums. You miss that I already told you why I don't want to divulge/discuss ToE details anymore here because of just such insensible trolls and timewasting emotional/personal BS like you STILL posting after my straightforward opinion/caution urging you to find OBVIOUS flaws in that latest mainstream 'publish or perish' offering which even mainstreamers are readily finding some (not yet all) of same flaws which were obvious to me because of the built-in 'cascade' of flawed works which the PROVEN BROKEN peer review passed before. You're trolling. Wasted effort. Bye.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 24, 2014
CaptS. You missed that the record has been deleted/distorted at some forums
@rc
already answered this cross post in another thread

I will state this again, though: you make assumptions based upon no evidence. I don't think like you do. I am an investigator, not a scientist. and I make up my own mind

you are beginning to be as bad as Rygg now, with ranting and irrelevant posts

Thanks for TROLLING
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
The jury is only out on how much faster than C.

Using my earlier subtractions - not by much...
According to my post you didn't read

"In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is much larger than the speed of light"

-there is at least one effort which says it may well be. I'll keep posting it until you read it.
the record has been deleted/distorted at some forums by proven mod-troll gangs in charge.
What is it about people like you who seem to confuse derision for affection? You post absolutely empty garbage and then pretend that the sound of people laughing at you is somehow an indication of approval.

Are you REALLY that starved for attention?
Hat1208
not rated yet Mar 24, 2014
Q-Star

So have gravity waves been discovered or not?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)

What claims? Only posted an opinion cautioning/urging you to find for yourselves a number of obvious flaws which even mainstream are finding some of. Calm down and stop with your trolling innuendoes and move on, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2014
@TheGhost. :)
the record has been deleted/distorted at some forums by proven mod-troll gangs in charge.
What is it about people like you who seem to confuse derision for affection? You post absolutely empty garbage and then pretend that the sound of people laughing at you is somehow an indication of approval. Are you REALLY that starved for attention?
First, I wouldn't have to say anything about that if the personal lies by trolls weren't posted so I have to DEFEND against falsehoods. Second, it's the fact that I have supported my novel perspectives with science and novel interpretations based on same mainstream data, and I have done so in many forums other than this one as well, so it's a longer story than the one you think by jumping into it without any background info. Thirdly, your opinion doesn't signify either here or there since your butting in is based on misinformed impressions which bias and add more noise to the trolls' noise. Butt out, that's a good troll. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
First, I wouldn't have to say anything about that if the personal lies
Well who gives a shit what you have to say? Nobody here, that's pretty obvious.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2014
@WGyre
you are not likely to hear anything from him about it other than more comments and saying things like
those two books were LIMITED editions to specific recipients
and that is the one thing that irritated me most the other day!
a great day in science and he TROLLS it with his "4 fatal flaws"... not pointing them out was BULLSH*T as he full well knows that there are MANY people here that are not physicists
IMHO it was just an attempt at TROLLING, ruining the day for good working scientists and jealousy. I am open to any point of view with a good argument and supporting evidence, but when it is crap (see Zeph, cd, Rygg etc) I call it like I see it
in this case, he TROLLED and got the attention he wanted, and so far Q et al have proven their statements, RC provided 0 support for his
P.s. one day I want to see your work...

Come to Houston this weekend...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2014
... so I have to DEFEND against falsehoods. Second, it's the fact that I have supported my novel perspectives with science and novel interpretations based on same mainstream data,

Have not seen anything but "I have something bigger and better..." - and a lot of negative commentary about others who belittle you and are therefore beneath your consideration - regardless of the years THEY have spent in study.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2014
Hey guys, except RC, how does the news now affect other reseachers in this field? I can't remember the details, but a few years back I remember seeing a TV docu about Austrailian (I think)reseachers who used a along narrow 'pipe' arrangement above ground. I have searched the 'net' for this but none of the articles seems to fit my memory. I know that lasers are used to detect the minute GW disturb so I could never quite figure out how the above mentioned research diifered. Anyone here know? Thanks in advance.
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2014
Hey guys, except RC, how does the news now affect other reseachers in this field?


IMHO, it's a bit soon to tell, however, if you will allow me to pull something out of my ass here, I would assume this is going to put quite a bit of extra pressure on any teams looking at Planck data to confirm or invalidate these findings. The more obvious thing is that a lot of theoreticians will be going back the blackboard to take another look at how their inflationary models line up with the data.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
Hi Whyde. :)
Have not seen anything but "I have something bigger and better..." - and a lot of negative commentary about others who belittle you and are therefore beneath your consideration - regardless of the years THEY have spent in study.

No mate, that is a separate bee in the troll bonnet. The lies were about RealityCheck and his bans by troll-mod gangs which trolls use as 'proof' to diparage personally RealityCheck despite the fact that the existence of these troll-mod gangs and unfair banning of those they disagreed with PROVEN by Internet EXPERIMENTS. That's the personal lies I had to defend against.

Also, I have in the past supplied science arguments in support of my and others' perspectives/points where relevant. Because you haven't 'seen' them is no excuse to make uninformed judgements based on the trolls' lies about that too.

And as I said, I have stopped making detailed discussion here for the reasons already stated. Or 'haven't you seen them' either? :) Move on.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
@The Ghost...

First, I wouldn't have to say anything about that if the personal lies
Well who gives a shit what you have to say? Nobody here, that's pretty obvious.

And anyone should "give a sh!t what you have to say"? Is that it?

Butt out. Move on, mate. :)