Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity

November 17, 2015
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein

A Florida State University high-performance computing researcher has predicted a physical effect that would help physicists and astronomers provide fresh evidence of the correctness of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Bin Chen, who works at the university's Research Computing Center, describes the yet-to-be-observed effect in the paper "Probing the Gravitational Faraday Rotation Using Quasar X-ray Microlensing," published today in the journal Scientific Reports.

"To be able to test general relativity is of crucial importance to physicists and astronomers," Chen said.

This testing is especially so in regions close to a black hole, according to Chen, because the current evidence for Einstein's general relativity—light bending by the sun, for example—mainly comes from regions where the gravitational field is very weak, or regions far away from a black hole.

Electromagnetism demonstrates that light is composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Linearly polarized light is an electromagnetic wave whose electric and magnetic fields oscillate along fixed directions when the light travels through space.

The gravitational Faraday effect, first predicted in the 1950s, theorizes that when linearly polarized light travels close to a spinning black hole, the orientation of its polarization rotates according to Einstein's theory of general relativity. Currently, there is no practical way to detect gravitational Faraday rotation.

In the paper, Chen predicts a new effect that can be used to detect the gravitational Faraday effect. His proposed observation requires monitoring the X-ray emissions from gravitationally lensed quasars.

"This means that light from a cosmologically distant quasar will be deflected, or gravitationally lensed, by the intervening galaxy along the line of sight before arriving at an observer on the Earth," said Chen of the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, which was predicted by Einstein in 1936. More than 100 gravitational lenses have been discovered so far.

"Astronomers have recently found strong evidence showing that quasar X-ray emissions originate from regions very close to supermassive , which are believed to reside at the center of many galaxies," Chen said. "Gravitational Faraday rotation should leave its fingerprints on such compact regions close to a black hole.

"Specifically, the observed X-ray polarization of a gravitationally microlensed quasar should vary rapidly with time if the gravitational Faraday effect indeed exists," he said. "Therefore, monitoring the X-ray polarization of a gravitationally lensed quasar over time could verify the time dependence and the existence of the gravitational Faraday effect."

If detected, Chen's effect—a derivative of the gravitational Faraday effect—would provide strong evidence of the correctness of Einstein's theory in the "strong-field regime," or an environment in close proximity to a black hole.

Chen generated a simulation for the paper on the FSU Research Computing Center's High-Performance Computing cluster—the second-largest computer cluster in Florida.

Explore further: Distorting the lens

More information: Bin Chen. Probing the gravitational Faraday rotation using quasar X-ray microlensing, Scientific Reports (2015). DOI: 10.1038/srep16860

Related Stories

Distorting the lens

February 9, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the most bizarre predictions of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is the existence of back holes, objects that are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational grasp. A related ...

Image: Gravitational lensing in galaxy YGKOW G1

January 27, 2014

(Phys.org) —In this new Hubble image two objects are clearly visible, shining brightly. When they were first discovered in 1979, they were thought to be separate objects—however, astronomers soon realized that these twins ...

What is gravitational lensing? (w/ Video)

February 6, 2015

Everyone here is familiar with the practical applications of gravity. If not just from exposure to Loony Tunes, with an abundance of scenes with an anthropomorphized coyote being hurled at the ground from gravitational acceleration, ...

Missing gravitational waves lead to black hole rethink

October 21, 2015

Human understanding of galaxies and black holes is being called into question after an 11-year search for mysterious gravitational waves—famously predicted by Albert Einstein 100 years ago—failed to find anything.

Doomed quasar is heading for a powerful explosion

November 10, 2015

(Phys.org)—PKS 1302-102 is one of the few known quasars with a pair of black holes within its accretion disc. It is also a curious case for astronomers as it will produce a powerful explosion when these two black holes ...

Recommended for you

Researchers improve qubit lifetime for quantum computers

December 8, 2016

An international team of scientists has succeeded in making further improvements to the lifetime of superconducting quantum circuits. An important prerequisite for the realization of high-performance quantum computers is ...

A nano-roundabout for light

December 8, 2016

Just like in normal road traffic, crossings are indispensable in optical signal processing. In order to avoid collisions, a clear traffic rule is required. A new method has now been developed at TU Wien to provide such a ...

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rossim22
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2015
"If detected, Chen's effect—a derivative of the gravitational Faraday effect—would provide strong evidence of the correctness of Einstein's general relativity theory in the "strong-field regime," or an environment in close proximity to a black hole."

Just to be clear, if Chen's effect is clearly not observed would Einstein's general relativity be viewed with scrutiny? A test is hardly valuable if it has no ability to falsify anything. What would the null hypothesis be? ... merely that GR is probably still right or that blackhole horizons are 'weird'?

I'm not expecting any particular result, I'm just trying to acknowledge the strong probability of confirmational bias in this study evidenced by this article.
viko_mx
3.3 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2015
The results of such simulations are as faithful as honest objective science to those who make them. Тhey give great opportunities for free interpretations. How is made the algorithm determines the results of the simulations.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (17) Nov 18, 2015
Just to be clear, if Chen's effect is clearly not observed would Einstein's general relativity be viewed with scrutiny?

It's constantly being viewed with scrutiny. Why else do you think it is constantly being tested?

I'm just trying to acknowledge the strong probability of confirmational bias in this study evidenced by this article.

Science doesn't deal in right or wrong it deals in useful/incomplete. Relativity has shown to be very good (or more precisely: spot on) in many circumstances. Those results would not change if falsified by this. Note also that 'falsified' doesn't mean the same as "completely wrong". It could then be that Relativity just makes an assumption that doesn't hold under extreme circumstances but is negligible in all other cases.
The physical laws we write down aren't reality. They _model_ reality. And models can be bad, good or very good - but they can never be 'ultimately' correct (at least not provably so).
rossim22
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2015

It's constantly being viewed with scrutiny. Why else do you think it is constantly being tested?

GR seems to be the only answer in the minds of physicists, are alternative ideas really investigated? Or is there just no need to search for alternatives because GR has been 'confirmed' so many times?


Science doesn't deal in right or wrong it deals in useful/incomplete.

I disagree with this statement. For example, a p-value is the probability that rejecting the null hypothesis is a mistake... which is quite a right/wrong statement. Your interpretation makes it useful or not, which is exactly my point in regard to this article.

It could then be that Relativity just makes an assumption that doesn't hold under extreme circumstances

Ad hoc dark matter and dark energy along with lack of gravitational waves are evidence that GR is fundamentally flawed but physicists can point to about 100 lensing effects and attribute them as confirmations of GR.
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (14) Nov 18, 2015
GR seems to be the only answer in the minds of physicists, are alternative ideas really investigated?
@rossim
if GR were the only answer, where did MOND come from?
yes, alternative ideas are investigated... just like GR etc are always being tested (as AA_P noted)

that is how the scientific method works... and just because something is true today, doesn't mean it will always be thus... case in point- Newton

also... as AA_P also stated, falsified doesn't mean completely wrong, nor even not useful
this is demonstrated best by Newtonian Physics... although "falsified" and replaced by GR/SR, it is also still used for most applications of launches, probes, space/planet/comet/etc exploration, and more...
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 18, 2015
"If detected, Chen's effect—a derivative of the gravitational Faraday effect—would provide strong evidence of the correctness of Einstein's general relativity theory in the "strong-field regime," or an environment in close proximity to a black hole."

Just to be clear, if Chen's effect is clearly not observed would Einstein's general relativity be viewed with scrutiny? A test is hardly valuable if it has no ability to falsify anything. What would the null hypothesis be? ... merely that GR is probably still right or that blackhole horizons are 'weird'?

I'm not expecting any particular result, I'm just trying to acknowledge the strong probability of confirmational bias in this study evidenced by this article.

The conviction that the odds are great that the effect will be confirmed influences the wording
but I am sure Chen's career will benefit even more if the effect is nonexistent.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2015
The results of such simulations are as faithful as honest objective science to those who make them. Тhey give great opportunities for free interpretations. How is made the algorithm determines the results of the simulations.

This is a very well known algorithm called GRT.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2015
GR seems to be the only answer in the minds of physicists, are alternative ideas really investigated?

Sure. But remember that an alternative does not just have to be better at predicting observation X. It has *also* to be at least as good as GR at matching all observations that have ever been made (otherwise it's just a useless niche fit). That's a tall order. If you have any in mind - let's see 'em.

I disagree with this statement. For example, a p-value is the probability that rejecting the null hypothesis is a mistake... which is quite a right/wrong statement

A p value is a level of confidence (not an absolute right/wrong). E.g. a p value of 0.05 says: in 19 out of 20 cases the placed confidence in such a hypotheis is good (on average, barring unsuspected bias in method). In that last one case out of 20 we will misplace our confidence (false positive). Note also that the value for p is rather arbitrary and varies from scientific field to scientific field.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2015
Ad hoc dark matter and dark energy along with lack of gravitational waves are evidence that GR is fundamentally flawed

GR makes no statement about what types of matter or energy the universe does or doesn't have. Gravitational waves are predicted, but the predicted strength of these waves is still below our detection capabilities (so it's not really surprising that we haven't detected any)

Neither of your assertions are a problem for GR (if we get down to the level of detection sensitivity where gravity waves must show up that may change).

physicists can point to about 100 lensing effects and attribute them as confirmations of GR.

Because GR predicted them before they were even observed. If a theory can do something like that it's a pretty good theory (and awesomely useful!), wouldn't you say?
Hyperfuzzy
3 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2015
Why are we still playing with this busted deck of cards. The speed of light is easily provable as "Not" constant. Gravity is easily computed as a superposition of the EM fields of all the protons and electrons. Anyway, changing your grid to make your erroneous theory work, instead of proper optics, is beyond being wrong, it is a scientific crime that remains un-reconciled. Anyway, Faraday was not that stupid! He would probably say, "Leave my name out of it!" Oh forgot, we have Not defined the Poynting Vector and the relationship of the field with the particle motion so $hit was invented to compensate. Something like the erroneous particle wave duality from misguided experiments, Fresnel! Not!
matt_s
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2015
"The speed of light is easily provable as "Not" constant."

So do it. And win a nobel.

viko_mx
3 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
"This is a very well known algorithm called GRT."

This is very well know game for space-time gamers. Like all other 3D games on the market.

Can you define physical forces, laws and constants without absolute reference point?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
"The speed of light is easily provable as "Not" constant."

So do it. And win a nobel.

Yeah, that's going to be a neat trick. Because if you posit a non constant speed of light then you suddenly also have to let go of niggling stuff like 'cause before effect' and any number of conservation laws (not least of which conservation of momentum)
bluehigh
3 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2015
I can't restrain myself. Anti-thinking you are a dribbling narrow minded fool. Cause before effect is not dependent on your observation and therefore independent of light speed. If you derive a result that suggests otherwise then your experimental process and logic are flawed.

Have we gone so far astray that basic paradigms of reality are being considered as possibly mutable?

Not that Anti-thinking is listening .. It's a belief system to him and he can't cope with the idea that 'all those years at the academy' may have been wasted.

* light is composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields *

They are properties. Not the composition.

antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2015
I can't restrain myself. Anti-thinking you are a dribbling narrow minded fool.


For simple explanation look here
https://en.wikipe...ltaneity

Notice this part:
"However, if the two events could be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is greater than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), the order is preserved (i.e., "event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference."

If speed of light was not constant you could create frames of references where effect preceeds cause (which would allow you to construct a grandfather paradox - wiping out the cause by using the effect. That's not allowed in nature as far as we know)
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2015
Cause always precedes effect. Not the speed of light, not frames of reference, not math, not philosophy, absolutely nothing changes the fact. It's an immutable foundation of reality. If you derive from any (un)reason for cause preceding effect to be violated then you've made a mistake. The speed of light, constant or not, has no bearing on cause always preceding effect.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
Cause always precedes effect. Not the speed of light

I think you're misunderstanding what 'speed of light' actually means. It's not just the speed of photons (or any other masless particles like gluons). It's the speed at which *information* can be transferred between two points. If the speed of light is variable then you can produce information paradoxes (as demonstrated in the link I gave)....which would let you do all kinds of shenannigans: from time travel to free energy production to retroactively preventing the universe from ever having been.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2015
I remain tired and bored with your stupidly, Theres no paradox. Nothing to do with the speed of light. No fiddling with photons or imaginary gluons,

The shenanigans are yours. Just your ego tripping nonsense.

Once more for the dummy .. It's simple ... Cause always precedes effect.

And you wonder why perhaps I suggest ... Wipe your chin.
You're dribbling nonsense. You are ignoring reality.

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
Cause always precedes effect.

Unless you actually take the trouble to learn about SR you won't understand that this is exactly why c is a constant.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Nov 20, 2015
Theres no paradox. Nothing to do with the speed of light...The speed of light...has no bearing on cause always preceding effect
@blue
actually, you're wrong... read that again (with the link too)
I think you're misunderstanding what 'speed of light' actually means...It's the speed at which *information* can be transferred between two points. If the speed of light is variable then you can produce information paradoxes...

"However, if the two events could be causally connected (i.e. the time between event A and event B is greater than the distance between them divided by the speed of light), the order is preserved (i.e., "event A precedes event B") in all frames of reference."

If speed of light was not constant you could create frames of references where effect preceeds cause (which would allow you to construct a grandfather paradox - wiping out the cause by using the effect
AA_P is right, unless you have some evidence that you're not sharing?
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2015
"This is a very well known algorithm called GRT."

This is very well know game for space-time gamers. Like all other 3D games on the market.

Can you define physical forces, laws and constants without absolute reference point?

You mean a supernatural being that created us all and now is blowing up quasars at the edge of the universe but will come back one day to throw me in a "lake of fire" like absolute reference point?
Yes I can.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 20, 2015
Hi antialias. :)

Your scenarios/arguments trying to 'justify' claim, that speed of light creates/determines cause-effect relationship, is based on philosophical/metaphysical/abstract mathematical 'constructs', not real physical constructs.

Your 'grandfather paradox' gambit fatally flawed in reality/logics, as follows:

- 'grandfather' is NO LONGER EXISTING in corporeal matter form in some 'frozen concrete past' to which the grandson can 'travel' in real corporeal form;

- so, only LIGHT from the LIVING grandfather's IMAGE at that energy-space cause-effect-train juncture is 'traveling', not his 'live' body;

- so any grandson 'traveling faster than that light' only 'catches up' with a LIGHT IMAGE, not his corporeal grandfather himself;

- and a grandson traveling faster than light/image in order to 'interact' with that light/image, effectively brings a NEW 'cause' to that NEW local interaction which produces a NEW 'effect' on THAT light/image ONLY.

OK? Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 20, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? I am still good again too, thanks for asking.

I found your Clubhouse place on the interweb. Hooyeei, that is some cool stuffs you wrote there. Why you don't invite everybody here to go there so they will have some sort of idea about what they are in for when you finally finish your toes book?

Is it okay with you if I put up the link here so everybody that you really are writing up a lot of good scientifical stuffs that is even better than the stuffs you usually write here on the physorg?

http://earthlingclub.com/

Oh yeah, I almost forget. You and glam-Skippy should join up as a team with your interweb pages, he has a good one too with cartoons of him wearing a silly looking pointy cap with stars and moons on him.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 20, 2015
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

I forget to put up the linkum for glam-Skippy's interweb place. Bet you thought I was kidding about him wearing the silly looking pointy cap. With the stars and moons on him.

http://www.kamburoff.com/
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
I found your Clubhouse place on the interweb. Hooyeei, that is some cool stuffs you wrote there.
@Uncle Ira
you understood all that?
i need you to translate then, Ira!

and when is he gonna add his climate cavalry ToE's ?
I am trying to get my solutions into 'presentation' shape in time for the next major International Climate Change Conference sometime this year...The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not.
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

i wonder if it was put there because he couldn't even get a vanity publisher to put it out like reg did?

"buy into my club" - for when "peer reviewed journal study published here" is not a viable option due to the lack of scientific integrity and failure to pass the peer review
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
"You mean a supernatural being that created us all and now is blowing up quasars at the edge of the universe but will come back one day to throw me in a "lake of fire" like absolute reference point?
Yes I can."

Do it. Try to define physical forces, laws or constants without absolute reference point.
my2cts
4 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2015
"You mean a supernatural being that created us all and now is blowing up quasars at the edge of the universe but will come back one day to throw me in a "lake of fire" like absolute reference point?
Yes I can."

Do it. Try to define physical forces, laws or constants without absolute reference point.

That is a lot of work you are asking from me, but if I refuse that strengthens your delusion. Emotional blackmail.
Fortunately it has already been done. It is called physics. Check out
https://en.wikipe...f_Units.
my2cts
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

I forget to put up the linkum for glam-Skippy's interweb place. Bet you thought I was kidding about him wearing the silly looking pointy cap. With the stars and moons on him.

http://www.kamburoff.com/

Hilarious !
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2015
Again you refuse to take responsibility and defend your believes with personal explanation based on scientific facts. Because your believes and scientific knowledge are very weak and you can not rely on scientific facts obtained by observation or experiments. In this case the best you can do is to learn to respect people with different than your opinion.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2015
... unless you have some evidence that you're not sharing?
- CS

The evidence of causation is reality.

Please go ahead and show verifiable physical empirical evidence of effects before cause.

There's a Nobel prize waiting for you and the dribbling nutter Anti-Thinking, Together you might destroy the foundations of scientific endeavour. Hardly likely.

On this occasion your not just wrong ... Your being illogical.

my2cts
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2015
Again you refuse to take responsibility and defend your believes with personal explanation based on scientific facts. Because your believes and scientific knowledge are very weak and you can not rely on scientific facts obtained by observation or experiments. In this case the best you can do is to learn to respect people with different than your opinion.


In spite of the fact that I do not respect you nor your opinions, I answered you fully and correctly. Now get lost and take your delusion with you.
Vade retro.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2015
Captain,

Cause precedes effect - always. It's an axiom.

Considering otherwise is (as you would say) - Pseudoscience.

or as I might say ... Bullshit.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2015
And causation works every single time whether you observe it or not. As I said .. Speed of light nor anything else makes any difference. Not ever.

Unless you have some evidence that you're not sharing?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
show verifiable physical empirical evidence of effects before cause
@blue
you misunderstand: read this carefully (without the alcohol this time)
If speed of light was not constant you could create frames of references where effect preceeds cause (which would allow you to construct a grandfather paradox - wiping out the cause by using the effect
IOW- IF the speed of light wasn't constant, you could argue effect before cause... this is like reading about superluminal anything, which would also show the same (effect before cause- hitting a target before you shoot, etc)
Cause precedes effect - always
right. & it's because the speed of light is a constant
(point made several times above)

and i'm not suggesting any pseudoscience or illogical thought
it's explained, but you are either not able to see it or not able to understand it

we've already established you didn't comprehend what i said right at the beginning...

please don't make it worse with a rant
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
@blue cont'd
the whole argument you are making is because you are not understanding the argument (and you really hate Antialias_physorg)

no one is stating there IS effect before cause, the argument, simply put, is that:
IF the speed of light were NOT constant, then you COULD create frames of references where effect preceeds cause

we know that "Cause precedes effect" therefore it can be used in argument and as evidence that the speed of light is constant

you can't get a more simple explanation, really
and if you don't get it, try this: http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

you'll find the same argument pointed out in the courses (i forget which one, sorry)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2015
Hi CapS, bluehigh. :)

That...
IF the speed of light were NOT constant, then you COULD create frames of references where effect preceeds cause
...is a non-sequitur argument; because abstract math/geometric analytical construct 'frames of reference' co-ordinate systems are NOT real physical determinants of anything.

Only a body's 'proper' co-ordinates/events are in any sense real.

Light info/image FROM a body may be graphed and analyzed according to different chosen abstract co-ordinates/frames 'constructs', but not all can be real physical determinants of cause/effect in the locally real interaction/event.

For a better understanding of the non-sequitur/subtleties involved, please read above my response to antialias's own non-sequitur use of that argument.

Yes, there is no effect-before-cause; so there is nothing in real physics which can argue one "could create frames of references where effect precedes cause" except in imaginary 'exercises'.

Ok? Cheers, guys. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2015
Hi CapS, bluehigh
@RC
1- stopped there. TL;DR

2- talking to blue: butt out unless you want to post you ToE as evidence

(after it's peer reviewed and validated, that is... not that crappy web page club of yours filled with horse-patootie and delusion)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

When you enter a conversation between others you don't have the same attitude against yourself; so why hypocritically use that attitude now to evade addressing the correct science point I made in my post?

Those tactics only demean yourself and the discourse, mate. Try to resist that in future, CapS. Chill and engage in honest conversation instead of your usual trollish TL;DR;OT etc etc excuses for not engaging in polite genuine science discourse on the science involved/posted and not continuing 'personality feuds/links' etc.

PS: Note that antialias has NOT been able to refute the point made in my post addressed to him earlier and in my post to you/bluehigh above. So CapS, take that as an indication that you may be 'enthusiastically wrong' on several levels/issues. So show us all that your intelligence can be constructive to advancement of science/humanity discourse. Good luck changing your MO at this late stage, CapS. But you can do it if you try! Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2015
Hi Cap
stopped there
TL;DR
OT
not relevant

talking to blue, not you

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Can't you drop the silly deny-and-accuse tactics for avoiding addressing the issue of your own error and my correctness in more than one instance now?

Be a man. Be honorable. Be scientist. Be genuine interlocutor; instead of mindless/malicious spammer/downvoter etc on a science site.

Admit you were wrong and me right in that other thread where Da Schneib admitted same. Then we can all move on afresh, hey, CapS? :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Can't you drop the silly deny-and-accuse tactics for avoiding addressing the issue of your own error and my correctness in more than one instance now?

Be a man. Be honorable. Be scientist. Be genuine interlocutor; instead of mindless/malicious spammer/downvoter etc on a science site.

Admit you were wrong and me right in that other thread where Da Schneib admitted same. Then we can all move on afresh, hey, CapS? :)


@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

You are not working up to doing another one of your interweb experiments again are you? The last couple of them you did didn't really pan out. But I am still really enjoying your clubhouse stuffs,,, is all that going to be in the book about toes?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 22, 2015
Admit you were wrong and me right in that other thread where Da Schneib admitted same
@rc
Okee dokee... i give in

i admit YOU WERE WRONG and ME right! and DaSchnieb admitted you were wrong too

feel better now rc?

Now... go away... or are you trying to get banned?
you know, your baiting, trolling and flaming got you banned TWICE at sciforums
once as RealityCheck
http://www.scifor...?page=19

once as Undefined
http://www.scifor...?page=13

& this isn't counting all your sock puppets you tried to get back in with

you will never beat zephirs record here, you know
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
Admit you were wrong and me right in that other thread where Da Schneib admitted same
@rc Okee dokee... i give in...i admit YOU WERE WRONG and ME right! and DaSchnieb admitted you were wrong too feel better now rc?

...are you trying to get banned?
Why are you treating forum/admin/mods like mugs by trying such childish evasions again, CapS? Everyone can read for themselves in other thread (relevant exchange dated Oct 10, 2014)...

http://phys.org/n...per.html

...where Da Scneib bravely admits he was in error and I correct. To quote Da Schneib:
I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.
Why is it you can't do likewise, CapS? And why keep denying evidence provided you/everyone already that my bans elsewhere were due to my proving, via internet experiments (perforce necessitating a number of pseudonyms to conduct same), which vindicated me in every case.

Why keep crying for 'bans' while it is YOU being OT/evasive? :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
by trying such childish evasions again
BOY
there is just no pleasing you, is there? i did exactly as you said, using your own words even...
But NO, you aren't happy with that at all!
instead you want to bait! (you do know that is why you were banhammered everywhere else, right?)

you will never beat zephirs record here, you know

if you want to know what people think of you, read antialias_physorg's post here
http://phys.org/n...tic.html

Oh, almost forgot
didn't read past the first line
TL;DR
OT/BAITING
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Nov 23, 2015
Hi CapS. :)
Oh, almost forgot
didn't read past the first line
TL;DR
OT/BAITING
You didn't read, yet you keep accusing/denying everything that proves you dishonorably evade properly admitting error without playing semantic games with the truth?

CapS, can you not see that your above-demonstrated sort of self-serving prejudicial/blinkered approach to facts makes you no sort "Investigator" worth a damn to anyone, especially not to science?

Honorable intellects (eg, Da Schneib) will straightforwardly admit error when the facts/science presented to that effect cannot any longer be honestly denied except by dishonorable interlocutors.

Come on, CapS. Drop all the games/semantics ploys to avoid straightforward honest admission you (Captain Stumpy) were in error and I (RealityCheck) was correct. Go on, CapS; if a YOUNG man like Da Schneib can be man enough to admit his error, surely a MATURE man like yourself can be man enough to do likewise. Show us all you CAN do it, CapS. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2015
you will never beat zephirs record here, you know


The only person who could ever beat Zephir-Skippy is one of Zephir-Skippy's puppets

if you want to know what people think of you, read antialias_physorg's post here
http://phys.org/n...tic.html


At first I thought I was going to read about a Cool-Dim-Dwarf named Really-Skippy. But it was still pretty good. Anti-Skippy sure has him pegged, especially the part about the football players. Hooyeei, that is Really-Skippy to a tee, eh?

Oh, almost forgot
didn't read past the first line
TL;DR
OT/BAITING


Yeah, that is the Really-Skippy's favorite part. He won't tell me, so maybe you could ask if his toes is about finished? And how the Really-Skippy-Cavalry thing went over? I still have not seen anything in the papers about Really-Skippy saving the world and I hope he is not neglecting that because he wants to fool around here at physorg with you.
SuperThunder
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2015
Thing about replacing Relativity is that it encapsulates some observations that are just weirdo universe weird, so the competing hypothesis has to explain why the universe is also weird. Weird is where pseudoscience flops a lot, since the universe is weirder than human imagination.

If I were going to moon-howl, I'd be a negative energy howler. Of all the stuff that math says maybe to, but nature seems to not be into, negative energy emotionally satisfies me the most, simply because I want a starship. Teleologically, all I have to do to magic up a space ship is make the phys.org scientists believe I'm right. Whoa, you know, from the point of view of the howlers, scientists sort of look like deities, or guardians of the gate to paradise. It's creepy in a Joseph Campbell way.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
@EVERYONE ELSE
something interesting with an arXiv pre-print link:
http://www.jpl.na...rst=4776

,

,

Hi
@rc
stopped there, you're still gonna BAIT/TROLL etc
TL;DR
OT
reported

Ira wanted me to ask you something, since you are ignoring him
so maybe you could ask if his toes is about finished? And how the Really-Skippy-Cavalry thing went over? I still have not seen anything in the papers about Really-Skippy saving the world and I hope he is not neglecting that because he wants to fool around here at physorg with you
i am curious too!
you promised to save us all: : http://phys.org/n...fic.html

i never saw your name at ANY climate conference and i still haven't seen your ToE's published
(i hope you're using polish)

you can't be the greatest if you never actually DO anything
http://phys.org/n...tic.html
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2015
"you can't be the greatest if you never actually DO anything"
----------------------------------------

That is exactly what I have been telling you.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
That is exactly what I have been telling you
@gkam
no, it isn't: you've been saying (to me and anyone who would listen) that:
"I (gkam) am the greatest and that everyone should listen to me (gkam) because i've (gkam) held every possible engineering job in history, and you (everyone else) should ignore when i (gkam) make mistakes because i (gkam) have a masters in professional studies/life experiences so i (gkam) must be right, regardless of the evidence that says contrary"

IOW- you are pulling a Benni-TROLL and saying: because you have an MS, you're infallible, despite the evidence to the contrary

BIG DIFFERENCE there, g!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
Hi CapS (and antialias, rest of 'gang'). :)

When you lot are finished with your present flurry of half-truths, dishonest denials and chat-bot conversation crap between yourselves, there remains the question of your running away from your serious responsibilities to admit your error.

Da Schneib admitted his error, but you, rest of troll gang (who egged him on until that admission) have yet to admit being likewise in error on that occasion.

So, please drop the childishly transparent shenanigans/distractions etc, and do the honorable thing: Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (antialias, CapS etc) wrong.

It might hurt/deflate your over-inflated egos/arrogance, but it is a necessary cathartic process if you want to be respected by honest objective observers again. Go on, it'll only hurt a little bit for a little while, and then you can rejoin the ranks of honorable men/women who want to concentrate on the science not personality/ego. You CAN do it. :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
(rest of 'gang')


I guess that's me, eh Cher?

So, please drop the childishly transparent shenanigans/distractions etc, and do the honorable thing: Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (antialias, CapS etc) wrong.


If I do that can I be a "Honorary Earthling" as long as I do not bring the disrepute on the Earthling Clubhouse? I hope it is free to be one but I don't know because you did not put anything about on the member fees the Clubhouse interweb place.

and then you can rejoin the ranks of honorable men/women


I would rather join the ranks of the "Honorary Earthlings" if it is free to join. If it's all the same to you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
Hi CapS (and antialias, rest of 'gang'). :)

When you lot are finished with your present flurry of half-truths, dishonest denials and chat-bot conversation crap between yourselves, there remains the question of your running away from your serious responsibilities to admit your error.

Da Schneib admitted his error, but you, rest of troll gang (who egged him on until that admission) have yet to admit being likewise in error on that occasion.

So, please drop the childishly transparent shenanigans/distractions etc, and do the honorable thing: Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (antialias, CapS etc) wrong.

It might hurt/deflate your over-inflated egos/arrogance, but it is a necessary cathartic process if you want to be respected by honest objective observers again. Go on, it'll only hurt a little bit for a little while, and then you can rejoin the ranks of honorable men/women who want to concentrate on the science not personality/ego. You CAN do it. :)
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. I realize you are busy saving the climatic scientists and with the Earthling Clubs and keeping the members honorary and all that. But if you don't have the time to write up some sort of original foolishment at least go back and get something a little older than 10 or 9 minutes to repostum, something we have not seen in awhile I mean.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2015
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. This is part I was asking about if I qualified to be,,,,

However:The title of HONORARY EARTHLING (i.e., non-voting member) may from time to time be conferred on deserving individuals/organisations worthy of that title---said title being capable of being promptly stripped without appeal in cases where a permanent (voting) member deems that an "Honorary Earthling" has knowingly brought dishonour upon themselves and/or the club and/or its ideals.


See, the way I see it. Louisiana is part of the HONORARY EARTH. And I am a full fledged member of the State of Louisiana (I am registered to vote, and got the driver's license too me) so I figure I am also eligible to be the HONORARY EARTHLING since Louisiana is already a part of the Earth.

How about it Cher? Am I in?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2015
Hi Forum. :)

As you can plainly see, the offending 'gang' is trying to 'bury' the record of their shame. That 'gang' is taking the forum/mods for mugs if they believe you will fall for their childish/dishonest tactics. Not very respectful of them, is it Forum? :)

Hi CapS et al. :)

Again, when you lot finish with your present flurry of half-truths, dishonest denials and chat-bot conversation crap between yourselves trying to 'bury' and 'evade' the truth of the matter, there remains the question of you still trying to run away from your serious responsibilities to admit your error. Da Schneib admitted his error, but you et al troll gang (who egged him on until that admission) have yet to admit being likewise in error on that occasion.

So, please drop the childishly transparent shenanigans/distractions etc. Do the honorable thing:

Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (antialias, CapS etc) wrong. No more games. Time to show us you aren't total trolls, guys. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2015
Hi CapS (and antialias, rest of 'gang')
@rc
1- Stopped there
2- there is no "gang"

TL;DR
baiting/trolling
reported - both times

.

,

Hi Forum.
TL'DR
baiting.trolling
reported

.

.

PS- for ANYONE ELSE interested in real life
want to know more about Sam-i-am rc and the reason he flood like above?
read these links
http://www.yourli...artid=65

http://www.outoft...ion.html

https://www.psych...ttle-ego

pay close attention to the first and last links... then re-read all of the above

Thanks for reading!

bluehigh
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2015
IF the speed of light were NOT constant, then you COULD create frames of references where effect preceeds cause.


Simply nonsense. You CANT create ANYTHING REAL where Effect precedes Cause.

The speed of light, constant or not makes no difference and is irrelevant.

How do you not understand?

Go play with your reference frames or whatever it is that's making you go blind.

bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
To clarify, that's at you Captain.

I don't so much 'hate' Anti-Thinking. It's just he's a senile narrow minded old fool that dribbles too much. If Anti-Thinking tells you it's raining outside, you best go check personally.

As for you Captain, I see you've been getting a bit angry and frothing at the mouth recently. How about you ease up on the negativity toward other points of view.

I thought you were a fireman not a policeman.

gkam
1 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Stumpy is mad at me because I am real. I proved what I have done and who I am, to his inconvenience. He is used to dealing with phonies and cowardly snipers, such as otto and ira and anti, not real people. If you want good references in science, go to Stumpy, but not for opinions of people - he gets too emotional.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2015
Stumpy is mad at me because I am real
No youre not. Youve consistently lied about your education, your experience, your service, and your knowledge of the topics you comment on.

"They are... manipulators, liars, and fabricators of truth. They do so convincingly because they believe their own lies. After all their life is nothing but a lie, a sham, how can we possibly assume they know anything different."

-The saddest thing is that you actually believe in this huge pile of shit you hide behind..
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2015
How do you not understand?
@blue
i know who you were talking about..

i've been asking myself the same question about you... it is really simple, IMHO, so where is the problem?
It's just he's a senile narrow minded old fool that dribbles too much
and i know him personally. he isn't
he does share his opinion a lot, but so what? considering the pseudoscience trolls here, i consider it refreshing to read his insights vs say... bschott, benni, cantdrive, or other delusional folk
- at least i know when he is speculating... those others actually believe in their delusions!
I thought ...fireman not a policeman
both, actually. i started as a FF, then into investigations, ended up in homicide
ease up on the negativity
a POV is one thing. i don't care about that

someone spouting an opinion as though it were fact? entirely different

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
Stumpy is mad at me because I am real
no, george, i am irritated because you're posting chronic lies and denigrating veterans who served

and because any time anyone says anything against you, you take it as a personal attack and say stupid sh*t like
I am real. I proved what I have done and who I am, to his inconvenience
no amount of argument from authority will make me believe a LIE, especially one that is so easily found out

and yeah... i do take it a mite personal when some idiot air farce punk calls me a mass murderer because he is pissed that i outed him in a lie

call me kooky
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Do the honorable thing. Da Schneib did. Why can't you et al?

Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (Captain Stumpy et al) wrong.

No more games. Time to show us you aren't total trolls. :)

PS: CapS, the forum read my posts highlighting/proving you were in error; even if you childishly shut your eyes to it all in order to continue with your half-truths, hypocritical/false accusations spam in these threads in order to deny and evade admitting your error like an honorable man. Do the honorable thing like Da Schneib did, Stumpy. Try. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2015
H
stopped there
TL;DR
OT, BAITING, TROLLING
reported
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Do the honorable thing. Da Schneib did. Why can't you et al?

Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (Captain Stumpy et al) wrong.

No more games. Time to show us you aren't total trolls. :)

PS: CapS, the forum read my posts highlighting/proving you were in error; even if you childishly shut your eyes to it all in order to continue with your half-truths, hypocritical/false accusations spam in these threads in order to deny and evade admitting your error like an honorable man. Do the honorable thing like Da Schneib did, Stumpy. Try. :)


@ Really-Skippy. How you are? Oh yeah, I am fit as a Cajun fiddle today me, thanks for asking.

I don't want to interrupt the scientifical discoursing and objectionable observing and biased confirming the that you and the Captain-Skippy are doing, it's some Really-Skippy good stuff, so I will make this short.

Am I IN or am I OUT? The Honorary Earthling I mean.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Every new denial/evasion of your responsibilities to admit your error puts yet another portion of shame-by-association upon all those real brave and honorable Firemen whom you claim to be a former colleague of.

Do the brave and honorable thing, CapS. Da Schneib did. Why can't you et al?

Admit that I (RealityCheck) was correct and you (Captain Stumpy et al) wrong.

No more games. Time to show us you aren't total trolls. :)

PS: CapS, the forum read my posts highlighting/proving you were in error; even if you childishly shut your eyes to it all in order to continue with your half-truths, hypocritical/false accusations spam in these threads in order to deny and evade admitting your error like an honorable man. Do the honorable thing like Da Schneib did, Stumpy. Every denial/evasion only demonstrates more and more that you are less than honest/honorable. Do the honest and honorable thing, Stumpy. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2015
TL;DR
OT, BAITING, TROLLING
reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Your 'reporting' of others while you are the one in error, and will not honorably admit it, is the height of hypocrisy and dishonorable conduct which brings shame-by-association on the Firemen and Firewomen with whom you worked alongside. Why betray their trust in you by acting as such a dishonorable 'role model' to the younger generation of Firemen and Firewomen who will join their ranks in future, CapS? Do the honorable thing, CapS, and admit that you (Captain Stumpy) were in error and I (RealityCheck) was correct all along. That's all it takes to regain respect. Da Schneib was brave and honorable enough to do it, so why can't you, CapS? Go on, do it and stop this silly game of evasion and hypocritical "reported" etc to distract from your responsibilities here, as a fireman and a gentleman. I promise I won't gloat or crow or anything like that. You know I won't. Ok? :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2015
@sammie penguin-head
TL;DR
OT
BAITING
TROLLING

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

How old did you say you were, mate? You certainly don't behave/sound like an honorable veteran of the fire dept. Try honesty instead of childishly transparent denial/evasion tactics, mate. Da Schneib bravely admitted being in error, so why can't a brave ex-Captain Stumpy of a fire dept? Go on, find the 'honorable adult and brave fireman' in you again, CapS. Admit your error and end your self-inflicted torment over this. Just do it,mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2015
@sam-you-am; chief Earthling Club headhunter & purveyor of pseudoscience

are you attempting to brainwash us?

TL;DR
OT
BAITING
TROLLING

reported
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
Hi Forum. :)

There goes CapS again, evading his responsibility to truth and honor, by not straightforwardly admitting/apologizing for his grievous errors and malicious trolls and false accusations against me....all while he spams his "OT" etc evasion/distraction tactics in denial of it all. If he were an honorable man he would have "Reported" himself long ago, instead of still "reporting" a victim of his ignorant trolls and childish denials.

FYI, here's where CapS' personal trolling, errors and insensible 'campaign' against me began...

http://phys.org/n...nal.html

...wherein I cautioned that BICEP2 'paper/work' was multiply flawed and should not be used as 'proof' or 'support' for anything at all (let alone for 'justifying' attacks on perceived cranks!). He/others, who fell hook line and sinker for that BICEP2 'publish or perish' crap never forgave me for being right.

But did he/they at least learn from that debacle on their part?

[cont...]
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2015
[...cont]

Apparently they didn't learn from that debacle; because a few months later CapS/they were at it again...

http://phys.org/n...per.html

...wherein they ignorantly/arrogantly trolled my exchange with Da Schneib (see exchange Oct 10, 2014 therein), where I tried to (and eventually succeeded) in convincing Da Schneib re Plasmoids in our sun and possible connection to Mass Ejections etc.

To Da Schneib's eternal credit/honor, he admitted his error and allowed that I was correct.

But to this day neither CapS, nor any one of those trolls who were WRONG to troll/accuse me on the BICEP2 matter and on this Plasmoids-in-Sun matter, have admitted to being wrong and apologized for trolling me and lying about me the way they did...and still do.

Instead what do they do, well CapS still denies and spams his "OT" and "reported" silliness in his childish attempt to convince the forum that I am the one to blame and not HIMself?

Q.E.D.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2015
The question now, Forum, is how long can CapS keep spamming in denial of these facts and pretend he is all virtue and light while being so egregiously unscientific and dishonorable and childish in his continuing denial of the reality that he/they (Captain Stumpy et al) have been WRONG and I (RealityCheck) correct all along?

His next post will be very enlightening on that score.

If he stops his childish evasions and admits his error, then we can all get on without any further distractions like these from him lately. If he does continue his lame denial and "OT" and "reported" silliness, then you can make up your mind as to what respect he deserves on this site.

Let's hope it will be the former response from CapS. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2015
TL;DR

are you attempting to brainwash us?

OT
BAITING
TROLLING

reported

must have hit a sore spot if it took ya 3 posts to cry about you being "victimized"
http://www.yourli...artid=65

http://www.outoft...ion.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2015
Hi CapS. :)

Count the number of your own posts spamming/dissembling. Learn. :)

I am a patient and forgiving human and scientist. Take your time, mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2015
H
TL;DR

are you attempting to brainwash us?

OT
BAITING
TROLLING

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Dec 13, 2015
*Sigh*

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.