Artificial spacetime experiment could show tantalizing effects of gravitational waves

Jul 10, 2014 by Lisa Zyga feature
When a laser pulse illuminates a thin film of material, such as graphene, the medium (thin film) oscillates. This oscillation is analogous to a periodic spacetime expansion-contraction or gravitational wave. The gravitational wave is predicted to emit photons, which can be detected to signify the presence of the gravitational wave. N. Westerberg, et al. ©2014 IOP Publishing Ltd

(Phys.org) —Although the curves and ripples of spacetime are suspected to be full of intriguing secrets about the history of the universe, they are also extremely difficult to study. For this reason, some physicists are turning to the lab to attempt to recreate spacetime geometries where they can be more easily analyzed.

In a new paper published in the New Journal of Physics, Niclas Westerberg, et al., from institutions in the UK and Italy have proposed a new way to construct artificial in the lab.

By illuminating a very thin film (such as graphene) with an ultrashort and intense laser pulse, the scientists show that it may be possible to model the periodic expansion and contraction of cosmological spacetime. They explain that this type of medium can be likened to a gravitational wave, a ripple in the fabric of spacetime. Further, the scientists predict through calculations that these gravitational waves may amplify electromagnetic radiation, producing large numbers of photons that can potentially be detected.

"Given the correct boundary conditions, gravitational waves can give rise to the emission of photons," Daniele Faccio, Professor at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, UK, told Phys.org. "These can then be used to detect the waves themselves."

Faccio emphasized that the main result of the paper refers to the study of an artificial system, so these gravitational waves in the artificial system are not real. However, he explained that the artificial system could lead to a method for detecting real gravitational waves:

"On the basis of our artificial system, we do then propose a system that could measure real gravitational waves. This is a long superconducting wire that can be excited by a real gravitational wave and will emit radio waves in the kHz region that can then be detected at the wire extremities. This system could, in principle, be an alternative route to detecting gravitational waves and would rely on a fundamentally very different mechanism to that proposed so far in all other detection systems (based, for example, on fluctuating masses)."

As the physicists explain, the new system is a form of parametric amplification, where a laser emits light of variable wavelengths. However, traditional parametric amplification usually consists of a medium, such as a crystal, that is many wavelengths longer than the wavelength of the incoming light. As a result, the oscillation occurs inside the medium, while the medium itself does not oscillate.

In contrast, the medium in the proposed model has a subwavelength thickness so that the medium itself does oscillate. The scientists note that both forms of parametric amplification are examples of the dynamic Casimir effect, in which photons are produced due to an accelerated or suddenly changing medium.

If constructed, the proposed system would provide a platform for researchers to study the cosmological expansion and contraction of spacetime, as well as how photons may be excited due to the ripple-like of spacetime. This analysis could also offer a glimpse into a broader family of quantum field effects in curved spacetimes.

"We definitely have plans for building the artificial system, for example, the graphene film excited by a periodic wave train that mimics the gravitational wave," Faccio said. "Regarding the superconducting wire idea, this would first of all require a deeper study to evaluate all potential difficulties and pitfalls."

Explore further: Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

More information: N. Westerberg, et al. "Experimental quantum cosmology in time-dependent optical media." New Journal of Physics. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/7/075003
Also at arXiv:1403.5910 [gr-qc]

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Rumours fly that gravitational waves have been detected

Mar 17, 2014

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 ...

Era of astronomical discovery

Jul 08, 2014

For much of her professional life, MIT professor Nergis Mavalvala has been devoted to a singular goal: creating a device to detect gravitational waves. These ripples in the fabric of space-time—the signature ...

Black hole trio holds promise for gravity wave hunt

Jun 25, 2014

The discovery of three closely orbiting supermassive black holes in a galaxy more than four billion light years away could help astronomers in the search for gravitational waves: the 'ripples in spacetime' ...

Catching a gravitational wave

Jun 26, 2014

(Phys.org) —When Albert Einstein proposed the existence of gravitational waves as part of his theory of relativity, he set in train a pursuit for knowledge that continues nearly a century later.

Can you escape the force of gravity?

Apr 08, 2014

It feels like you just can't get away from clingy gravity. Even separated by distances of hundreds of millions of light years, gravity is reaching out to all of us. Is there a place you could go to get away ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

13 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 108

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

otero
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mb9
3 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2014
"Could" seems to be the word most used by scientists these days.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (33) Jul 10, 2014
"Could" seems to be the word most used by scientists these days.


If you looking for guarantees you got to go to church Skippy.
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2014
Two unproved theories are simulated against each other
And we "extract " knowledge" from it!
Just a tad bit of "theory"....:)
This is where we have cosmology based on solid ground these days...
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (22) Jul 10, 2014
"Could" seems to be the word most used by scientists these days.


If you looking for guarantees you got to go to church Skippy.


Hooyeei, I sure make a lot of people mad with me on that one. Eight peoples join up in a group to show me that is so. They must have pooled their money to hire the bus because they all got here about three or two minutes apart. It's good to be the Ira-Skippy and I thanks all of you.

@Hey, Thermo-Skippy, you make nine, and I not count you because you at least have something to say when you gets mad with somebody. Shoot, if it weren't for you voting, I'd be feeling like the Zephir-Skippy gets all down karmas. Thanks for you too, but it don't mean as much as whoever the couyon(s) are who went to so much trouble to let me know I wrote a good postum.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy(s) ol Ira is on the job.
verkle
2.6 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2014
But we don't even know if gravitational waves really exist. The theory of gravity is still full of unknowns. A very good area for further research.
Protoplasmix
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2014
But we don't even know if gravitational waves really exist. The theory of gravity is still full of unknowns.

Dude, where have you been for the last 99 years? Read this Wikipedia page on Tests of general relativity and then tell us which of the tests you don't understand.
DonGateley
4.8 / 5 (4) Jul 10, 2014
@Protoplasmix: what part of "But we don't even know if gravitational waves really exist" are you taking issue with? It's one of the tests that totally lacks observation.

Not objecting to GR, ya unnerstan, just to your objection.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2014
I have a couple of points/questions here. The experiment is constructed with conditions of what the scientists THINK grav wave are? So I'm not sure what even a positive result proves.
As I understand s/conductors in very simple (layman's) terms Cooper Pairs have a particular energy passing between them and I don't recall an explanation for this. So might such an experiment using lasers be about this rather than gavity?Spinning SC's produce a magnetic field so would the Earth's movement induce a magnetic moment that could affect results (via LP depth) if not accounted for?
I know that we have laser and SC experts post on this sometimes so I'm hoping they'll post here to offer their advice. Does this procedure really provide an alternative method for detecting gav waves?
Protoplasmix
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2014
Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy(s) ol Ira is on the job.

Good karma points on you, Ira, you always know who to give the special hats to. Rock & rouler.
ichisan
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2014
Spacetime physics is really a joke, an insult to the lay public. The problem with "ripples in spacetime" is that nothing can move in spacetime by definition. Why? Because a time dimension makes motion impossible, that's why. This is the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens."

Deal with this first and then come back and talk the lay public about gravity waves. Remember who pays your salaries. Not everybody is fooled.
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (22) Jul 10, 2014
Not objecting to GR, ya unnerstan, just to your objection.

Did you read the page? Which of the tests do you take issue with, and why?
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (23) Jul 10, 2014
The problem with "ripples in spacetime" is that nothing can move in spacetime by definition.

Your lips are moving in spacetime pretty good but your arse is sucking wind.
ichisan
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2014
The problem with "ripples in spacetime" is that nothing can move in spacetime by definition.

Your lips are moving in spacetime pretty good but your arse is sucking wind.

LOL. By contrast, your momma's arse is immobile.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 10, 2014
Remember who pays your salaries.

Ppfffffffffffffffffftt. Look a bit farther into the future than the end of your nose. Will work for free: http://www.youtub...GRgdJA_c
ichisan
2 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2014
Remember who pays your salaries.

Ppfffffffftttttttttttttt. Look a bit farther into the future than the end of your nose. Will work for free: http://www.youtub...GRgdJA_c

All I can see is your momma's arse. LOL.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2014
All I can see is your momma's arse

Sounds like a personal problem. At least my momma's not my sister.
ichisan
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
All I can see is your momma's arse

Sounds like a personal problem. At least my momma's not my sister.

I can see your sister's arse too. LOL.
otero
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2014
Not everybody is fooled.

Here, so far, I'm pretty sure no one is fooled. What ever happened to VendicarE? And Fleetfoot?
otero
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ichisan
2.4 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2014
You know, you can downvote me to your heart's content but it remains that Karl Popper called spacetime, "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens." Source: Conjectures and Refutations.

Popper was smarter than all of you combined.
otero
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mooster75
3 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2014
"Could" seems to be the word most used by scientists these days.

More like the word most used by science reporters...
otero
Jul 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dan42day
5 / 5 (1) Jul 11, 2014
When they say a "long" superconducting wire, are they talking yards, miles, astronomical units, or light years?
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2014
This is not a Facebook, but a thread about physics. The people's names are irrelevant here.

You're right it's about physics, and you're one of the resident experts on trolls, sockpuppets and irrelevant names. Not enough good volunteers for all the threads and the two regulars I asked about have been absent too long. I think ignorance currently outnumbers intelligence, much to society's detriment, but the latter will inevitably prevail. That prediction is rooted in physics, and our exponential progress is a good indicator.
otero
Jul 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bluehigh
1.3 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
What ever happened to VendicarE? And Fleetfoot?


Both at times obnoxious but super smart. Just for the memory here's a classic Vendi(ism) for you *ProtoTard*. Remember?

Protoplasmix
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2014
@Protoplasmix: reported.

@ortero: laughed at

@bluehigh: Yup, fondly. I never earned a tardi-boy award from him and gained some insight every time he ripped apart a false argument or glaring cognitive error from those who did.
Bob Osaka
not rated yet Jul 11, 2014
Good luck with this new gadget. I hope you find something. No detector to date has been able to.
The problems associated with detecting gravitational ways are enormous. To use a sinusoidal function to calculate the periodic harmonic motion is possible if the initial conditions, displacement and/or velocity are known. The energy, momentum, velocity, linearity to calculate the frequency of oscillation are dependent on how the motion was started. The minima and maxima of gravitational waves, may well be beyond the electromagnetic spectrum ( Much larger than gamma and/or much smaller than planck length). It is analogous to asking, "How big is the universe?" and at the same time, "How much kick was in the kick-start?"
I don't see how one can mimic something never seen or heard. Good luck anyway.
Protoplasmix
2.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2014
Good luck with this new gadget. I hope you find something. No detector to date has been able to

Bob, a detector consisting of a binary star system where one or both of the stars is a pulsar makes for a pretty good natural detector. See the section on strong field tests of general relativity on the Wikipedia page Tests of general relativity. The 'new gadget' isn't a detector; rather it's a way learn about how gravitational wave radiation might be directly detected, or what might be observable, using a superconducting wire. Also note that GW radiation is not the same as electromagnetic (EM) waves/radiation – check it out: http://www.einste...gw_waves
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2014
about how gravitational wave radiation might be directly detected, or what might be observable


Or not detected or not observed. Whatever, it's worth another attempt with this experiment. Else it's time to review, after all there's only so many times one can throw a ball up and decide it always comes back down. - I bet I'd get ripped to pieces and maybe even a tardi-boy award for that. *sigh*. All those years at the academy wasted. Sailing on my silver ship ...

Protoplasmix
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2014
Both at times obnoxious but super smart

Fleetfoot corrected me once (re scaling and infinity) and wasn't at all obnoxious. Guaranteed I won't make the error again, and still appreciative of the correction. In the same breath he told me about duality and I'm still learning more about that. Visualizing and understanding general relativity is quite challenging. E8 boggles my mind, since it seems that if the math allows it then nature does it.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
There is no "spacetime", it's just a simpler representation of the force vectors at play. Also, to think of time as a dimension makes no sense, since time is relative to the observer and is a function of velocity. We experience only 3 dimensions, with time being nothing more than biological aging and awareness. Ask yourself: how much time do you experience when your sleeping? Time is another construct of the human mind to make sense of the universe's natural cycles.
George_Rajna
Jul 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2014
There is no "spacetime"

^^^ Now that's baiting and it looks quite masterfully done. Yup, I'd say Scroofy wins the "Master Baiter" award.

Ask yourself: how much time do you experience when your sleeping?

When my sleeping what?
Protoplasmix
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 11, 2014
The_Dark_Side_of_the_Higgs_Field_and_General_Relativity: https://www.acade...lativity

Quoting from the paragraph on "the frequency dependence of mass" you have, "Since E = h nu and E = mc^2, m = h nu / c^2 that is the m depends only on the nu frequency. It means that the mass of the proton and electron are electromagnetic and the result of the electromagnetic induction, caused by the changing acceleration of the spinning and moving charge!"

Seems like you'd be hard pressed to explain how a cyclotron works. This page, What is relativistic mass?, may be helpful to you.
Protoplasmix
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2014
@otero: When you're not looking, I'm just a waveform.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2014
@otero: When you're not looking, I'm just a waveform.
@Protoplasmix
here is something worth thinking about: Zeph is arguing that the data should be more important than the names, correct? Regardless of past history and the fact that certain trolls have systematically used PO as a hook for known pseudoscience.
Then all of the sudden we see a flood of sock-puppets upvoting zephir and cantdrive, and downvoting anyone with an argument against them.
the list for you, Proto:
rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca

those names sound decidedly eastern European... hmm.
all created on Jul 10 around 4:36-4:50 or so. all supporting certain people, and targeting certain others.
Report them to the site using the CONTACT button at the bottom of the page
use SITE PROBLEM to get it addressed quickly

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
The censors, name callers and twaddlers must be censored systematically.
@zeph
youi forgot the pseudoscience and the debunked science, or is that OK to you?
YOU ARE RIGHT!
I think we should ALL get together and report the following sock puppets:
rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca

and then we should tell the site admin that ANYONE with the same IP addresses of thos sock puppets should be PERMA-BANNED and not allowed to even access the site again!
THAT is fair, right zeph? i mean... if someone like, say, IRA or ME created 20 or 30 sock puppets just to downvote people and upvote others, shouldn't we be banned as being idiots and cowards?

EVERYONE, I am going to use the SITE PROBLEM function of the CONTACT button at the bottom of the page... and suggest exactly that!

PEACE yall
TechnoCreed
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
Note to Phys.Org

This short note is to advise you that the troll known as Zephir is on Phys.Org with, at least, 25 pseudonyms, 21 of those were created on the 10th of July. Please correct this situation.

otero created June 18 1:39pm
Doiea created June 19 9:45am
Technico created July 4 6:56am
nesac created July 4 6:54pm
tirahobis created July 10 4:36pm
pahawev created July 10 4:37pm
yefeb created July 10 4:38pm
bikuxem created July 10 4:39pm
retejap created July 10 4:40pm
xanuxul created July 10 4:44pm
debokolin created July 10 4:44pm
gipagajege created July 10 4:45pm
yejen created July 10 4:46pm
godivecu created July 10 4:47pm
befa created July 10 4:48pm
rovodeh created July 10 4:49pm
vudamezire created July 10 4:50pm
cuyajuyino created July 10 4:51pm
yolepugor created July 10 5:14
megayuyo created July 10 5:16
begalifowi created July 10 5:16
juhodo created July 10 5:17pm
bibigak created July 10 5:18pm
fetem created July 10 5:19pm
susamuca created July 10 5:20pm
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2014
Note to Phys.Org

This short note is to advise you that the troll known as Zephir is on Phys.Org with, at least, 25 pseudonyms, 21 of those were created on the 10th of July. Please correct this situation.
@TechnoCreed
I put the names into Google Translate and they said the words were Slovenian.
Did you also report the names using the CONTACT button at the bottom of the page (here and every other page)????
Use the SITE PROBLEMS link to have it addressed
this is definitely a site problem

After all, Zeph even said above
The censors, name callers and twaddlers must be censored systematically
this time I suggested an IP ban, and I hope the site complies
this is ONE TIME that I totally agree with zephir and the statement I quoted!
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2014
, we can say as easily, they were formed with one of you for to discredit me and to provide an evasion for my banning from PO
@zephir
even though I have been all over the entire planet, and I have heard a crap load of languages, even I couldn't mimic Slovenian well enough for Google translate to pick it out of a pile of UN-translateable words...
so... you are saying that someone was patient enough to research Slovenian and design a slew of words in slovenian after learning their typical form and sound, then set you up... but just you, here on PO?
really?
it's entertaining to watch, how the regular voting trolls are getting upset with it
and by that you mean everyone who downvotes you.
you never post anything off topic and you never post known pseudoscience or debunked science?
what you've done is established that your credibility is formed by the sock-puppets you created, which only COMPLETELY undermines your arguments about substance above proving you are untrustworthy
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2014
IP address and time of every post, so they will realize, these accounts aren't mine
@zephir
thanks for pointing out that you are operating on TOR
you DO know that now another TOR user is capable of tracking you, right?
because now they will have the same protocols that you use?
and if you are using the browser set up for you by TOR and given away publicly on their site, then...

interesting to know that you have to circumvent IP bans with TOR.
but you also forgot that when you allow cookies (like on the PO site when you have a PROFILE) then that also undermines TOR by establishing a direct link to your system rather than a link through the TOR network? (otherwise you wouldn't be able to use the SAME profile at different times)
which can be utilised by the management
and anyone decent enough at hacking

just something to think about
(should have read the TOR guidelines and suggestions which tell you to change your habits, not keep them)
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2014
@ Socratic-Skippy was that you that got mad with me and started all those Skippys to vote me bad karma points all together at one time? I don't understand what I said to make you so mad with me no. I didn't even know you are the mb9-Skippy up there where I said my comment because you usually make up more weird names than that. But you didn't have to take it out on the xyz-Skippy too over on the Hubble article thing because he is one of the nicest peoples here.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
IMO this is the actual reason, why we are discussing the social issues here all the time: for most of lonely elderly chaps here it's more palatable topic, than the actual science.
@zephir
you're "deducing" too much, zephir
perhaps it is just that some people don't like cowards? and whiny little snots who keep posting BS or unsubstantiated claims and making assertions that they know something when they're about as logical as a turd in a space suit helmet?
I do just fine with physics, even though I have much stronger abilities elsewhere

the question really is: why do you feel the need to have so many sock-puppets up vote your comments?
does it make you feel more important?
a wrong comment can be reported and deleted even if it has a thousand 5stars. You've had that happen to you already more than once.

don't mistake copious amounts of free time and a passion for science for loneliness. that is called projecting. just because YOU are a lonely troll, doesn't mean WE are.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
IMO this is the actual reason, why we are discussing the social issues here all the time: for most of lonely elderly chaps here it's more palatable topic, than the actual science
@zephir
so keeping tabs on an important resource of information and monitoring people who have already had thousands of hours arguing the same arguments that are happening here is a bad thing?
why go through all the same leg-work when it is available elsewhere, easily looked up and has plentiful reference material? AND it correct?

are you stupid?
having a resource like that is GOLD!
it makes life easier... and instead of re-inventing the wheel, you just copy/paste valid relevant data and let the OP fret about coming up with something that has NOT been refuted

so go ahead and post.
BTW - I put out some feelers to other virtual servers like me on TOR and some other places...
if you get arrested for being a supporter of al qaeda... let me know
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2014
Then all of the sudden we see a flood of sock-puppets upvoting zephir and cantdrive, and downvoting anyone with an argument against them.
the list for you, Proto…

Thanks, Cap'n, I appreciate the heads-up and the efforts, as always. I believe Zeph if he says the socks aren't his. But I certainly won't be calling him an expert again any time soon. I'm pretty sure the root of the obfuscation, disinformation and propaganda is deep down a conspiratorial rabbit hole that most people don't want to know about, and aren't hardly educated enough to understand. Between you and me, NORAD was MIA on 9/11/01 and our oath keeps me awake nights.
otero
Jul 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2014
And at the case when you don't understand it, then your attitude remains religious anyway.
@zephir
so you are saying that you are religious in regard to mainstream physics? surely you dont mean that because someone requires empirical data for proof that it is considered religious?
Between you and me, NORAD was MIA on 9/11/01 and our oath keeps me awake nights.
@proto
same here
more than you know
especially concerning the middle east issues, of which I have been a participant... and the Constitution here at home

RealityCheck
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
Poor Cap'n Sh!tehead (Uncle Ira).
And at the case when you don't understand it, then your attitude remains religious anyway.
@zephir
so you are saying that you are religious in regard to mainstream physics? surely you dont mean that because someone requires empirical data for proof that it is considered religious?


Just how fucking insensible or dishonest can a troll like you be? Are you 'going for the record' of most insensible moron of the century or something? Can't you read anything without bringing your 'confirmation bias' interpretations/twisting to it? Raed what he said AGAIN, properly.

He just got through telling you that in some cases it is 'mainstream believers' who are acting like 'religious types' when mouthing their opinions without actually understanding what they are 'believing in' while 'trusting faithfully' to 'mainstream authority/source', even when proven FLAWED and/or 'incomprehensible'. Hence 'religious' types/beliefs in mainstream idiot socks.
RealityCheck
2.9 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
To Forum at large. FYI and caution:

1) The "Uncle Ira" downrating bot now downrates within 30-seconds from a pre-programmed list, irrespective of posted factual/science content!

2) The Captain Stumpy troll and bot-operating criminal sympathizer and enabler, is now working on his own 'personality cult' macro program for further facilitating his/Uncle Ira's current automated forum-ratings-sabotaging activities.

The two trolls in question and their activities are the two greatest threat to this site's integrity and reputation, even more so than any 'alleged' cranks could ever be.

They pretend/defend 'mainstream' (even when flawed) as 'cover' for their own egoistic/criminal activities across the net. They have betrayed their hidden agendas from their own 'mouths' when admitting they stalk and sabotage 'posters' irrespective of science/factual content posted for objective discussion.

Anyone who fails to condemn such AUTOMATED trolling/sabotaging is complicit in internet fraud. Beware.
DoieaS
3.6 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2014
Yep. Their newest strategy is to upvote their victim with twenty sockpuppets accounts (actualy the only activity, which these guys manage well in their life), to report it as a violation of forum rules and to achieve its banning in this way. Very nice, indeed.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2014
Yep. Their newest strategy is to upvote their victim with twenty sockpuppets accounts (actualy the only activity, which these guys manage well in their life), to report it as a violation of forum rules and to achieve its banning in this way. Very nice, indeed.


Hey, you haven't been downrated yet!

Seems like the Uncle Ira downrating-bot programmed list hasn't been updated to include DoieaS yet.

The troll-sock responsible for updating the bot-list is slow today!

What morons they are, if they are so insensible as to believe that no-one has 'twigged' to their automated antics.

Sad cases, every one, of that pathetic idiot-troll-circle of CaptnS-Uncle-Ira-bot-et al gang, and no mistake!

'Twas ever thus. :)
DoieaS
3.9 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
Hey, you haven't been downrated yet!
Yea, he's probably sleeping by now with feeling of work well done. BTW The uncensored copy of this page is here.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
Hey ho, DoieaS!

Note that the "Uncle Ira" bot has downrated the RealityCheck name 'on schedule' from its Uncle Ira-bot programmed list.

And STILL your "DoieaS" name has NOT been uploaded by the responsible sock-troll programmer/operator to his Uncle Ira bot programmed list.

What an incestuous-maroon's-circle farce they are. Funny if it wasn't so tragic. Oh well, there's more than one such as they 'born every minute', it seems. :)
DoieaS
3.9 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2014
Yep, I can see it. The largest popsci site is controlled with bots of anonymous readers...
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2014
Yep, I can see it. The largest popsci site is controlled with bots of anonymous readers...


@ Doiea-Skippy how you are? I see you are the new guy here so I thought I would make you feel welcome by setting the computer to give you the good karma points...

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy That means welcome to the party in Cajun. That's pretty smart for the machine bot don't think it is?
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
Hey DoieaS, it seems the responsible "Uncle Ira" bot-operator has just seen how obvious his MO is, and is trying to UPrate you in an obvious ploy intended to fool rubes into thinking he is not operating a bot!

Did you see where he just INTERVENED directly to give you '5's. LOL

Poor twit Uncle Ira has just 'boxed himself in' and now cannot add your 'DoieaS' name to the bot's automatic-DOWNrating list for future posts from you.

What a maroon those "Uncle Ira" types are, if they cannot see how LAME their bots and their bot-games are for all to see clearly as day!

They are sad and characterless types who conceive and employ such anti-science-ethics tactics while pretending to be 'mainstream science' defenders/authority.

Too, too, sad, whoever is behind that "Uncle Ira" bot farce. Incompetent, too! Probably failed at everything else, and criminal fraud bot-based activity on the internet is all they have left to them. Pity.

Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2014
@ Doiea-Skippy hooyeeei that ol Ira is one smart computer I guarantee. The way he gives the 5's and 1's for the karma points like he does. That's got to be the smartest computer I never did see especially since he speaks the coonass like the google talking bot. It is almost like he is doing it in what the scientist-Skippys call the real-time, huh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy That's Cajun for this Really-Skippy is the one big couyon and the big fun.
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
Poor, poor, "Uncle Ira" twit.

His bot is as 'smart' as its programmer/operator. LOL

And he is a dummy who still thinks he hasn't been busted.

So his bot is doomed to be 'manually over-ridden' more often in order to give the 'impression of choice' in rating.

What that idiot running his bot doesn't realize is, that the 'rating pattern' of 5-or-1, without any regard to posted content, is a DEAD GIVEAWAY, no matter what 'manual intervention' that twit makes. As also is the less-than-30-seconds rating post from its 'list'! LOL

What a maroon! Dead funny!

How dumbass do they make 'em where they come from, anyway?

Yep...THAT dumbass! LOL
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2014
…especially concerning the middle east issues, of which I have been a participant... and the Constitution here at home

I see what you mean about more than I know—things were much simpler when I was in (82-86): nobody messes with anybody or we all toast the place a dozen times over in five quick minutes. There was no fighting & dying for King Oil & the Judean People's Front, and the People's Front of Judea, and -- I really shouldn't make light of it, although anything's better than more darkness…

Speaking of darkness, that reminds me:

@George: Because if your assertion about gravity being electromagnetism is correct then we'd expect the mass of charged particles in a cyclotron to increase as their orbital frequency (omega) increases. Strangely enough it seems to, but not by an amount proportional to the frequency omega, no. It's an amount proportional to 1 / sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2). You know why that is, George?
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2014
@Protoplasmix Don't want to words in George's mouth but would that be something to do with the amoun tof energy increase and the amount of energy from that increase, available to do the 'extra' work one desires? I've deliberately used common/inaccurate terminology and no equations.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 12, 2014
You know why that is, George?
@Protoplasmix
please share with us all. this is a great learning experience
things were much simpler when I was in (82-86)
I was in Germany during that time. Ramstein and Wurzburg. when they bombed Ramstein. They tried to blow up Wurzburg and a few other places too.
PYTHON reference- awesome :-)
Note to Phys.Org
@TechnoCreed
and now you can add DoieaS to it too
@ Doiea-Skippy hooyeeei that ol Ira is one smart
@Ira
DoeiaS is the Socratic one LOL
BTW The uncensored copy of this page is here.
@DoieaS- Zephir
did you know that in the link you left showing the "uncensored page" the information has been put back in there... BUT UNDER THE DoieaS MONIKER, NOT OTERO, which was originally being used...
Uncle Ira
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2014
@DoieaS- Zephir
did you know that in the link you left showing the "uncensored page" the information has been put back in there... BUT UNDER THE DoieaS MONIKER, NOT OTERO, which was originally being used...


@ Captain-Skippy Is that what that thing is? My computer say it does not know what he is and would Ira-Skippy like to search on the interweb to find something to open it. I figured it was either one of them viral things or too much trouble to try to fool with.

@ Doiea-Skippy-Zephir-Skippy Okayeei Cher. Ha Ha on ol Ira. You got me Socratic-Skippy good on you and I'm glad I slipped up and gave the the good karma points. But now you got to go back on the bad list because of the ugly things you say to me the other day.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy Is that what that thing is?
@Ira
you can go here http://www.7-zip....oad.html
and get an extractor to read the information in the page.

its free
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
Poor, poor, Captain Stumpy. Still 'enabling' your 'friend' Uncle Ira dummy troll-bot operator on the forums? You're worse than him, because if you profess to want truth and science from others, you should know better than to 'enable' and 'friend' such internet-bot criminal frauds gulling suckers all over the net 'for fun and profit'.

Stop your driveling association and encouragement of known anti-science-ethics trolls and scammers like "uncle Ira' idiot. If he and you are not 'the same person', then you are being taken for a sucker by his internet-wide activities/socks manipulating weak-minded' and gullible types as 'cover' for his other 'hidden' activities you aren't even aware of.

Get real, Captain. Distance yourself asap and as far as possible from that moronic and incompetent crim Uncle Ira (alias etc etc in the past/elsewhere).

And for goodness sake, drop your 'personality cult' activities/habits, and get back to OBJECTIVE science discourse already!

I'll be readiGood luck.
DoieaS
3.8 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2014
The on-line copy of the posts censored from here you can read (and comment) here. Right here no physics can be actually discussed, as everyone can see.
Uncle Ira
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy Is that what that thing is?
@Ira
you can go here http://www.7-zip....oad.html
and get an extractor to read the information in the page.

its free


He's got to free and he's got to be easy too or I'll have trouble with him. I'm not at home so Mrs-Ira-Skippette and Little-Ira-Skippy can't help me with him like they usually have to. Is he something you think I want? Or is he something I won't ever need again because I have never needed one yet except for this Socratic-Skippy thing? This is the first time I never did run into something like this one.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2014
And the idiotic Cap-n-Ira farce continues.

Tragi-comic.

Captain, ditch that manipulating scumbag Uncle Ira twit asap. Your 'mutual goosing' giving each other '5's is embarrassing to watch now. :)
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2014
Is he something you think I want? Or is he something I won't ever need again because I have never needed one yet except for this Socratic-Skippy thing?
@Ira
save the link and have the Little Ira Skipette help you load it later... it will come in handy with other stuff... but you don't need the link zephir left. it is only the same rants he already got removed above and banned for, which is why he is back as DoieaS
The on-line copy of the posts censored from here you can read (and comment) here
@DoieaS-Zephir
you should talk to those who archived the page. Some of your private info is also linked in the page, which still has some of the java links to your profile here that was deleted (but still available with the links)
those hold some important info like IP and other stuff, which is why it shows up as DoieaS for ALL the posts, not as otero or your other sock-puppets

really should have fixed that before linking it
You know why that is
@Protoplasmix
please share it
DoieaS
3.9 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2014
got removed above and banned for
Negative, these posts were here two days without problem. I was deleted from here from another reason, which is explained above.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2014
Captain, wake up and ditch that manipulating scumbag Uncle Ira twit asap.

Your incestuous 'mutual goosing' automatically giving each other '5's is getting even more embarrassing to watch now.

Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2014
That "Uncle Ira" bot-operating idiot didn't realize I have been testing him and his bot's MO and 'response time' for its 'automated rating' from its programmed list of targeted poster names.

Now that silly Uncle Ira idiot operator has just manually intervened to re-program his bot's previously 'in-less-than-30-seconds' automatic rating 'response time' (after I explained above how that, and its either/or '5-or-1' rating pattern, were dead giveaways!).

So predictably he just now changed the 'response time' reaction/posting loop to more than the previous 'less-than-30-seconds' value.

I wonder how long it will take for that idiot to also program in a randomized '>1 & <5' range for its ratings value, so that it won't be so conspicuously bot-rating 'value' as before?

What a maroon, that Uncle Ira is. Transparent and incompetent to boot. Dumb as his bot program....dumber than his own shite. LOL

bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2014
Judean People's Front, and the People's Front of Judea, and -- I really shouldn't make light of it ...


* Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't NEED to follow ME, You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals! *

... Now back to modelling the notion of space time gravitational effects. Or not? Settle people please. It's a privilege to be here, not a right.

DoieaS
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2014
Settle people please. It's a privilege to be here, not a right.
You apparently missed the point. All people who were willing to discuss some physics were deleted from here, only twaddlers remained. The PO staff provides in this way, no controversial topics will be discussed here. So until you will not discuss any serious topic, you can remain here as long as you wish.

This study in particular models the phenomena, which were ignored if not dismissed with mainstream physics for many years (the attenuation of Tesla scalar waves, the overunity of graphite crystal batteries and graphene cells). Everything what you tell about subject will be therefore considered a crackpot science, i.e. a taboo. Which is the reason, why no actual on topic post can remain here.
Dr_toad
Jul 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DoieaS
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2014
How many of you did they delete?
You can try to calculate it.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
All people who were willing to discuss some physics were deleted from here, only twaddlers remained
@Zephir
1- you were discussing SOME physics, then sharing KNOWN DEBUNKED physics like AW which is pseudoscience and against forum rules. THAT is why you got deleted. THAT is why you generated all those sock pupets and are now on a crusade to support ALL known pseudoscience
The PO staff provides in this way, no controversial topics will be discussed here
they are LEAVING controversial stuff and deleting pseudosceince, per the forum rules. when you taint your profile with pseudoscience, they delete the profile taking posts with it... you can plainly see that CANTDRIVE posts are still up (controversial) even though he posts KNOWN pseudoscience too, likely because the mod's do not know enough about physics to comprehend where some of his EI is impossible. stuff even YOU've downvoted, zeph

why don't you just stick to reddit if you like it so much?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2014
You'd count your drooling idiocies as on-topic? Why am I not even a little bit surprised?

How many of you did they delete?
@Dr. Toad
NONE of the sock puppets from THIS list as far as I can tell :

rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca
You can try to calculate it.
@zephir
if reddit lets you post your DAW/AW then why do you annoy REAL science here?
go play there
or go find a forum that welcomes pseudoscience and conspiracy theory like you share

I've never downvoted legit science from you unless you include some stupid AW/dAW DEBUNKED SCIENCE which deserves it.
IF YOU CAN'T share LEGIT science from LEGIT resources, why are you posting here when you could be someone's HERO on another site?
DoieaS
3.9 / 5 (21) Jul 13, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: I'm sorry, but you're deeply bellow my level of discussion, just face it. If someone would try to post the same at my site, you would be immediately deleted for ignorance and idiocy. The AWT was never disproved, only downvoted with scripted bots and senile trolls of the same IQ. This is indeed a difference.
DoieaS
4 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2014
If you would take a look at my posts in their condensed state, I'm just discussing the physics at quite different level, than anyone of you here. This is how the posts at PO site should appear: no name calling, no down/upvoting, no desperate frog&mice personal battles - just links to publications and PHYSICS. Such a way of discussion is fully inconsistent with thinking and posting the absolute majority of all of you, who were preselected for idiocy here with PO staff. I'm sure, you're feeling itself unhappy from your apparent incompetence to organize any better matter of fact discussion here. This is because every just a bit more insightful post gets downvoted and censored out with you instinctively and systematically.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
but you're deeply bellow my level of discussion
@zephir
just what is it that this link supposed to represent to you?
someone would try to post the same at my site, you would be immediately deleted for ignorance and idiocy
that is because you don't like empirical data. I HAVE shared WHY AW was debunked, and if you go to ANY physics laboratory/site/learning forum/etc, you will find the SAME argument as well as the SAME point of view for the SAME reasons, with only ONE exception: YOUR SITE.
WHY is that?
The AWT was never disproved
WRONG AGAIN
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

here is the empirical evidence to the 10^17 level
Captain Stumpy
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2014
If you would take a look at my posts in their condensed state, I'm just discussing the physics at quite different level, than anyone of you here
@zephir
discussing debunked physics at any level is still discussing debunked physics
UNTIL you can bring EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to the table proving that it DOES exist, as well as proving the historical EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE wrong, then all you are doing is talking in circles trying to convince those who are NOT literate in physics of your point of view...

IOW - it is just like RELIGION at that point.
you want power and accolades with notoriety or even infamy. You think this is what makes a person, and you believe so strongly that you are willing to lie, cheat and steal to get it.
THIS is why you created all those sock puppets. NOT because you have EVIDENCE
because I would NEVER downvote EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE... it is against MY code of honor! it is the source of MY belief.

THIS is your fallacy
DoieaS
3.8 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2014
that is because you don't like empirical data
On the contrary, all my posts here were based on empirical data. The attenuation of scalar waves is empirical fact observed and routinely demonstrated with Nicola Tesla, Eric Dolllard and Konstantin Meyl, the graphite self-charging batteries and graphene cells are experimental facts. I know and understand perfectly, what the above study is actually about - it just masks the scalar waves (which are dismissed with mainstream physics) for gravitational waves (which are soughed obstinately instead). Otherwise it's about well known "crackpot physics" from A - Z.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
This is how the posts at PO site should appear: no name calling, no down/upvoting, no desperate frog&mice personal battles - just links to publications and PHYSICS
@zephir
and I've done that till I was blue in the face, even getting told that I was an idiot by OTTO for doing so because you wouldn't listen.
NOW i have PROVEN AWT WRONG and DEBUNKED
PLEASE PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DATA FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE (NOT PSEUDOSCIENCE LINKS) THAT SHOWS WHERE I AM WRONG

you will not
you will use your sock puppets
you're feeling itself unhappy from your apparent incompetence to organize any better matter of fact discussion here
nope. I've provided logic and evidence
You've provided sock puppets and whiny claims of conspiracy
and you will continue because YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR RELIGION CALLED AW/DAW

and now you will downvote/sock pupet the forum to death because they (the MODS) made you play by the rules... and you are mad about it
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
On the contrary, all my posts here were based on empirical data
@zephir
fallacious claim. no empirical evidence yet proving my article wrong
I know and understand perfectly, what the above study is about
as do others.
you are arguing against the MODS by attacking the MEMBERS
the MODS deleted all your comments because of the support your profile at that time was giving to AW/DAW, which, per the forum guidelines, is a known pseudoscience and debunked science

THerefore your profile was deleted, and all your posts with it
that meant ALL YOUR LEGITIMATE POSTS AS WELL
to which you reply by creating sock puppets and abusing the site with more cyber terrorism

THIS IS NOT REFUTABLE as you can SEE it happening in real time above.
and you can see it in your support of known pseudoscience in other areas (CD)
THAT is not debatable ... you are angry and lashing out
also not debatable is your continual pseudoscience posts and your inability to refute the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE I posted
DoieaS
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2014
now you will downvote/sock pupet the forum to death because they (the MODS) made you play by the rules
I don't absolutely care about some voting here. For what? Why I should do it? This is just a philosophy of name callers and similar idiots. And I'm not mad about anything - do you think, it's the first time I was deleted from some forum? My existence doesn't depend on it at all.
more cyber terrorism
LOL. The development of voting bots is UncleIra game, not mine one. He just plays with you, that's all.
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2014
I'm not mad about anything - do you think, it's the first time I was deleted from some forum? My existence doesn't depend on it at all
@zephir
are you angry? it MUST be a yes. your TACTICS prove only that you've been hurt in some place, like your ego or your religious beliefs, to which you are lashing out now on the site. This is basic, VERY basic psychology here. look it up yourself...
not your existence, but the existence of your beliefs... when I post stuff like
http://ieeexplore...D5543217
the links prove your belief is wrong, and yet you cling to it. this is the BASIS of my study, to which you are responding in like manner, which was the REASON that you are being pushed like you are.
I've explained this to you before, and you STILL dont get it!

You are my least complicated and most prolific poster, Zeph, and I have TONS of your posts backing up my arguments
You-0
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
LOL. The development of voting bots is UncleIra game
@zephir
wait... yesterday it was MY game and I was making the bots according to you... which is it? better get your story straight...

just like the last time I posted the above links you said that "no magnetic" source could prove the aether wrong, to which I replied "read the link again"
what is it today, zeph?
why is the study wrong today?
what empirical evidence are you going to provide proving AW/DAW is correct?
there has been ZERO to date in conversations with you
OR you've linked to pseudoscience sites

where is the credible site with peer reviewed source like I have given you?

I await your empirical data from reliable peer reviewed sources
DoieaS
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2014
the links prove your belief is wrong, and yet you cling to it
I already explained you many times, that you cannot find the reference frame of vacuum just with microwaves. Even at the water surface the ripples of the same wavelength do behave, as if no underwater was present here (capillary waves). How many times I tried to explain it to just you here? Six-times? Seven-times?
and I was making the bots according to you
You? Oh, come on. You're too silly for being able to do it at the first sight.
Dr_toad
Jul 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DoieaS
3.8 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2014
Being a Zephir (or whatever else) IMO doesn't violate the forum rules.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
How many times I tried to explain it to just you here? Six-times? Seven-times?
@zephir
you've tried to explain it far more than seven times... the problem does NOT lie with your attempts to EXPLAIN it... but with your EVIDENCE.
TO WHICH I AGAIN REQUEST THAT YOU PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE PROVING MY LINKS/STUDIES WRONG

this has ALWAYS been the crux of my argument with you, zeph. ALWAYS. it has been YOU who takes it into a flame war/etc.
You? Oh, come on. You're too silly for being able to do it at the first sight
then why did you post (as otero) that it was me?
CD verified this in another post here http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

if I am too silly, then why are you feeling threatened by me?
especially so much as to create an army of sock puppets? THIS is the question you should ask yourself
doesn't violate the forum rules
as long as you keep to science, to which AW/DAW is NOT...
DoieaS
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2014
why are you feeling threatened by me? especially so much as to create an army of sock puppets?
You have it quite opposite. I'm not maintaining any army of sock puppets for voting bots - when someone deletes my account I just create a new one. After all, "Captain Stumpy" is not your first, neither last account here as well - so where the problem is? I see, the problem is, many people here feel threatened with me instead - which is the reason, why I'm banned periodically from here. It just serves as an evidence for me, I'm doing my work well.
Dr_toad
Jul 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DoieaS
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2014
@Dr_toad: You have nothing to say about subject (and you also told nothing about it here). Whereas I already provided many links and posts for the support of this subject already. Apparently I'm much better informed about effects of gravitational waves in graphene, than just you. So I don't understand, why you should feel bored with me - and not vice-versa.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
After all, "Captain Stumpy" is not your first, neither last account here as well - so where the problem is?
@zephir
first and only... just because YOU are banned from everywhere doesn't mean we all are. and I've never been on before. I read for about a year and a half before my first post, intermittently when I was at a library. no internet
many people here feel threatened with me instead
spoken like a true religious radical.
you are only a threat to those who do not know physics. ANYONE with an internet connection can research your posts and see that you have NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE for support

and I ask again: PLEASE PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM LEGITIMATE PEER REVIEWED STUDIES REFUTING MY POSTS

and that, zephir, is why you are not a threat.
no empirical evidence. when you find some, then you will be more interesting, but still not a threat
I'm banned periodically from here
for violating FORUM rules, especially the ones about pseudoscience

NO CONSPIRACY THERE
Uncle Ira
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2014
LOL. The development of voting bots is UncleIra game, not mine one. He just plays with you, that's all.


Okayeeei Skippy. Name one voting bot I have made? Just one? Everyone and all of my votes comes from IRA.

So you are like the the Really-Skippy, the BIG OL LIAR BOT. Ira-Skippy is only one bot all by him self. You are 50 or 49 voters and posters. Don't the ciphers have any place in your science? Count them up and see for your self you stupid-Skippy.. You and the Really-LIAR-BOT-Skippy deserve each other.
DoieaS
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2014
Everyone and all of my votes comes from IRA.
This is account, which your voting bots are using too, as Reality Check demonstrated. All other votes aren't indeed yours ones, but these ones of bots.
Uncle Ira
1.4 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
@ Socratic-the OTHER-LIAR-BOT-Skippy. And one more another thing about the voting bots. You look up there at the top where you first brought out your voting bots. You see that ol Ira don't mind all the bad votes. I take him as a compliment that someone go to that much trouble to get my attention. It makes me feel that some one go to so much work to let me know I got my message out. It's the proof I am on the right track. And last this night you work so hard to try to make me feel bad but all it does is make me feel better. So keep on working and switching forward and backwards again because I really do like it.

Ha that joke is on you Skippy, it does the opposite of what you want, it makes me joie.
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2014
Everyone and all of my votes comes from IRA.
This is account, which your voting bots are using too, as Reality Check demonstrated. All other votes aren't indeed yours ones, but these ones of bots.


That couyon did not demonstrate nothing except he got the mental condition. This account is not a bot, it is the Ira-Skippy. He just mad because I wait around for him and give him the bad vote because I don't like him no. And it ain't no more complicated than that Cher.

Some time it is like the scientists say: The simple answer is usually the right answer. I don't like him. I know my vote he don't like. I wait until he show up and vote. And he let's me and the world that I was successful.

And it seem like my ONE vote gets a lot more done than your TWENTY votes, eh Cher?
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2014
I was in Germany during that time. Ramstein and Wurzburg. when they bombed Ramstein. They tried to blow up Wurzburg and a few other places too.

Wow, first I've heard of it. Had to check—the Red Army Faction, originated from student protests, thought they were fighting fascism/imperialism and the 'Auschwitz generation'. They were upset that former Nazis still held positions in government and business. I should clarify what I meant re 'nobody messes with anybody' as being a reference to the Cold War and mutual assured destruction.
Captain Stumpy
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
as Reality Check demonstrated
@zephir
the ONLY thing RC demonstrated was that Ira was On-line at the time, and that is it. his post is designed to TROLL and start a flame war. that is it
he still has ZERO evidence of his BICEP2 claims!

Well, Zeph?
I AM WAITING
PLEASE PROVIDE EMPIRICAL PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE FROM A LEGITIMATE SITE PROVING AW/DAW CORRECT AND MY POST WRONG

This is the game you and RC like to play
troll, bait, get the other side going. It is why I ignore RC!
proof he is a liar= NOTHING said about WHAT was wrong re:bicep2 until AFTER
he guessed & played the 50/50 game
it is all here already in black and white, INCLUDING his past bans from other sites
PROOF that he is the UBER TROLL he was labeled as
Name one voting bot I have made? Just one? Everyone and all of my votes comes from IRA
@Ira
don't let him get to you, Ira. He is baiting you with the intention of making you fly off the handle and start posting irrelevant nonsense: AKA TROLL
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 13, 2014
re 'nobody messes with anybody' as being a reference to the Cold War
@Protoplasmix
Yep. I got that. the only messing around was done via spying and terrorism...
which was the Red army faction problem. There was Red Hand out of Italy too, and a few local home grown anti as well as pro nazi youth factions running around too (still were in 1996 last time I left there-especially in Bremmerhaven)
Wow, first I've heard of it. Had to check
I keep forgetting about the news and how it was publicised (not well)... it was BIG news in the stars and stripes and AFRTS, militaryTV/News
I lost a friend in that bombing (not publicised)
lost one in the Wurzburg bombing too as collateral damage (hit by a car trying to evacuate a bldg that had a bomb in it)

grew up with terrorism
DoieaS
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2014
Irrelevant nonsense are all posts of Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira in this thread, as everyone can see (it's over seventy posts by now and none of them actually deals with gravitational waves in graphene not at least). The PO admins managed to delete just the only six posts, which were on topic here during last three days.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2014
.........yep, and neither one of them can talk the language of the science of gravity & energy, that language is known as "differential equations", I seriously doubt either one could solve a problem involving a trigonometric function much less the language of Einstein's thesis on gravity.
Uncle Ira
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2014
@Ira
don't let him get to you, Ira. He is baiting you with the intention of making you fly off the handle and start posting irrelevant nonsense: AKA TROLL


Yeah I know you are right on that Captain-Skippy. He acts like the Really-Skippy and him discover some super smart thing about proving this or that and how they is showing to the world this thing they was able to figure out. Machine bot foolishment is all they discover there.

Like I told him, the easy answer is the only that make any sense.

I don't like Really-Skippy for the ugly names he called me. I wait until Really-Skippy show up. I give the Really-Skippy the bad vote because I know he don't like it. And Really-LIAR-BOT-Skippy comes back and tells me I got it right. If I'm on my toes and catch him quick it makes it better for me because then he starts with the BOT stuffs.

How hard is it to figure all that out? Makes me believe that Really-LIAR-BOT-Skippy is a lot more stupid than he hopes nobody will notice.
Captain Stumpy
2.1 / 5 (21) Jul 13, 2014
The PO admins managed to delete just the only six posts, which were on topic here during last three days
@zephir
no, they deleted the profile for violating the forum rules, like I told you, which then deleted your posts

And my post IS on topic
you made a claim with an imbedded link
you can read (and comment) here.
I PROVED THAT YOU POSTED KNOWN A PSEUDOSCIENCE LINK BY PROVIDING WITH A LEGITIMATE PEER REVIEWED PAPER SUPPORTING MY CONCLUSION THAT AW/DAW was PSEUDOSCIENCE and DEBUNKED TO A HIGH DEGREE OF ACCURACY

just like you wanted. You alluded to a scientific claim with your link
I chose to refute it with KNOWN SCIENCE
YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVEN IT WRONG

It is YOUR request to make a scientific statement proving my point, to which I did, and I still request peer reviewed legitimate proof otherwise.

Sorry zeph, that is ON TOPIC BASED UPON THE ARGUMENTS OF YOUR POST
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (20) Jul 13, 2014
.........yep, and neither one of them can talk the language of the science of gravity & energy, that language is known as "differential equations", I seriously doubt either one could solve a problem involving a trigonometric function much less the language of Einstein's thesis on gravity.


Well Bennie-Skippy I been asking for months for you to show these different equations you have and how they work. I notice you leave out the semi circle universes on this one. You saving that for later or is that another theory.

Now's your chance to show us how you really know about these stuffs. We waiting on you to tell us how it works now.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2014
...........I like Einstein find the above language incomprehensible. What did any of the above have to do with gravity? Okay, I get it, it's the language problem, yours versus the language of science.
Captain Stumpy
2.2 / 5 (23) Jul 13, 2014
the only six posts, which were on topic here during last three days
@DoieaS-zephir
you make the following claim
Irrelevant nonsense are all posts of Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira in this thread
but forgot about your post 5 hours ago when you stated
The AWT was never disproved, only downvoted with scripted bots and senile trolls of the same IQ. This is indeed a difference.
I've given EMPIRICAL PROOF that it was debunked, not downvoted with scripted bots.
You made a claim that has been refuted with empirical data
you have also failed to provide ANY empirical data refuting this to date
neither one of them can talk the language of the science
@beni-haha
but Ira sure can spot NONSENSE
he spotted you

you've made claims in other threads with no empirical evidence backing you up, why are you so mad at anyone else then? prove yourself first;

http://dialogueso...nge.html
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2014
.............and I see you're still having a "language" problem, the "language of science" problem.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2014
@Protoplasmix Don't want to words in George's mouth but would that be something to do with the amoun tof energy increase and the amount of energy from that increase, available to do the 'extra' work one desires? I've deliberately used common/inaccurate terminology and no equations.

Yeah, it kind of sounds like I put words in George's mouth when I said gravity isn't electromagnetism. Actually I put George's words in Newton's equation for the force of gravity. And I was wrong to say 'proportional'—as particle velocity increases, so does omega and the apparent mass of the particles. I should've said that the mass doesn't increase by a factor of omega, but rather increases by a factor of (1 – v^2 / c^2)^-1/2. To answer your question, that 'something' would be special relativity.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
@Protoplasmix yes I knew that SR was involved because of the gamma term but I was mistaken about the general application. I was thinking about colliders and that sometimes as little as 30% of extra energy input is available for the experiment (depending on what is being collided etc.). Sorry about that.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2014
I keep forgetting about the news and how it was publicised (not well)... it was BIG news in the stars and stripes and AFRTS, militaryTV/News

In the barracks, the only MTV was music, I recall their first broadcasts. At the hangar there were copies of TAC Attack and the base newspaper. I was never stationed overseas, never heard a peep about terrorism. Although I recall aircraft hijackings happened every now and then (all the more reason to feel betrayed on 9/11), but it wasn't reported as terrorism per se.

I lost a friend in that bombing (not publicised)
lost one in the Wurzburg bombing too as collateral damage (hit by a car trying to evacuate a bldg that had a bomb in it)

Sorry for your loss.

grew up with terrorism

Grew up in the Midwest, no one ever locked their door.. Bush said not to change how we live our lives or else the terrorists would win, and immediately thereafter circumvented the law of the land with a 'patriot [sic] act' - gave them their victory.
nikola_milovic_378
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
It is not logical that something is so far unknown and intangible, such as gravitational waves (if they exist) can see and measure something that is material or, at best, in relation to light (laser). There are no gravitational waves, because gravity is an unbalanced force between matter and ether, from which it emerged matter. They will never be able to measure anything that does not belong to the entity of matter and energy, and there is a curvature of space-time, because both are created for the matter: a space for its location and movement of the time prescribed by law, to measure the movement. With that manages the spiritual entity of the universe and it is futile to attempt to explore if you do not believe in the spiritual entity of the universe.
Dr_toad
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rah
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2014
This article must be intended as satire or as a test to see who can get the goofiest press release published. Or there is a big substance abuse issue in the science departments.