Physicists use offshoot of string theory to describe puzzling behavior of superconductors

Aug 05, 2010 by Anne Trafton
A small sample of the high-temperature superconductor Bi-2223. Image: Wikimedia commons

(PhysOrg.com) -- Physicists are divided on whether string theory is a viable theory of everything, but many agree that it offers a new way to look at physical phenomena that have otherwise proven difficult to describe. In the past decade, physicists have used string theory to build a connection between quantum and gravitational mechanics, known as gauge/gravity duality.

MIT physicists, led by Hong Liu and John McGreevy, have now used that connection to describe a specific physical phenomenon — the behavior of a type of , or a material that conducts electricity with no resistance. The research, published in the Aug. 5 online edition of Science, is one of the first to show that gauge/gravity duality can shed light on a material's puzzling physical behavior.

So far, the team has described a few aspects of behavior of a type of called cuprates. However, the researchers hope their work could lead to more general theories to describe other materials, and eventually predict their behavior. "That's the ultimate theoretical goal, and we haven't really achieved that," says Liu.

MIT graduate student Nabil Iqbal and recent PhD recipients Thomas Faulkner and David Vegh are also authors of the paper.

In 1986, physicists discovered that cuprates (ceramic compounds that contain copper) can superconduct at relatively high temperatures (up to 135 degrees Celsius above absolute zero).

At the atomic level, cuprates are classified as a "many-body system" — essentially a vast collection of electrons that interact with each other. Such systems are usually described using . However, so far, physicists have found it difficult to describe cuprates, because their behavior is so different from other materials. Understanding that behavior could help physicists find new materials that superconduct at even higher temperatures. These new materials would have potentially limitless applications.

Unlike most materials, cuprates do not obey Fermi's laws, a set of quantum-mechanics principles that govern microscopic behavior at very low temperatures (close to absolute zero, or -273 degrees Celsius). Instead, cuprates become superconductors. Just above the temperature at which they begin to superconduct, they enter a state called the "strange metal" state.

In this study, the researchers focused on two properties that distinguish those cuprate strange metals from Fermi liquids. In ordinary Fermi liquids, electrical resistivity and the rates of electron scattering (deflection from their original course caused by interactions with each other) are both proportional to the temperature squared. However, in cuprates (and other superconducting non-Fermi liquids), electron scattering and resistivity are proportional to the temperature. "There's really no theory of how to explain that," says Liu.

Using gauge/gravity duality — the connection between quantum and gravitational mechanics — the MIT team identified a system that has the same unusual properties as strange metals, but could be explained by gravitational mechanics. In this case, the model they used was a gravitational system with a black hole. "It's a mathematical abstraction which we hope may shed light on the physics of the real system," says Liu. In their model, they can study behavior at high and low energy (determined by how the excitation energy of a single electron compares to the average energy of an electron in the system), and it turns out that at low energy, the black-hole model exhibits many of the same unusual traits seen in non-Fermi liquids such as cuprates.

For example, in both systems, when an electron at the lowest possible energy level is excited (by a photon or another particle), the resulting interaction between the electron and the hole left behind cannot be described as a quasiparticle (as it can in ordinary metals), because the electron excitation decays so quickly. (The electrons decay so quickly because their scattering rate is proportional to the temperature.) Furthermore, the electrical resistance of the black-hole system is directly proportional to temperature — just as it is in cuprates.

Gauge/gravity duality offers a "map" that correlates certain features of the black-hole model to corresponding features of strange metals. Therefore, once the physicists calculated the features of the model, using general relativity, those values could be translated to the corresponding values in the strange-metal system. For example, the value of an electromagnetic field in the gravitational system could correspond to the density of electrons in the quantum system.

Physicists have previously used gauge/gravity duality to describe some characteristics of quark gluon plasma, the "hot soup" of elementary particles that existed in the first millionths of a second after the Big Bang. However, this is the first time it has been used to give insight into a type of condensed matter (solids and liquids are condensed matter).

The MIT team believes the approach could shed light on a group of rare metal compounds known as heavy fermion metals, whose electrons behave as if their masses were 100 to 1,000 times greater than those in ordinary metals. They also display some of the same non-Fermi liquid behavior seen in the strange metal phase of cuprates.

Explore further: Optimum inertial self-propulsion design for snowman-like nanorobot

More information: “Strange metal transport realized by gauge/gravity Duality” by Thomas Faulkner, Nabil Iqbal, Hong Liu, John McGreevy, David Vegh. Science, 5 August, 2010.

Related Stories

Physicists offer new theory for iron compounds

Mar 12, 2009

An international team of physicists from the United States and China this week offered a new theory to both explain and predict the complex quantum behavior of a new class of high-temperature superconductors.

Physicists discover surprising variation in superconductors

Jan 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- MIT physicists have discovered that several high-temperature superconductors display patchwork quilt-like variations at the atomic scale, a surprising finding that could help scientists understand a new class ...

Recommended for you

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

14 hours ago

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 143

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ShotmanMaslo
Aug 05, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jigga
2 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2010
Is red wine healthy for iron-based superconductors?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.0666
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 05, 2010
The atoms in heavy or ballistic fermion materials are forming a sponge mesh with compare to common metals, where electrons are forming continuous fluid penetrating atom lattice.

The foamy geometry of electrons in heavy fermion materials supports surface wave spreading of electrons, so these materials tend to high temperature superconductivity. For example for plutonium alloys (which are typical heavy fermion material) the temperature of supercritical transition reaches 18 K, which is rather close to cuprate superconductors(32 K), because electrons in plutonium are attracted to large surface of atoms in similar way, like the electrons to hole stripes in high Tc superconductors.

This is dual effect to ballistic motion of electrons inside of graphene, where electrons are moving in waves, i.e like they would be a much lighter.
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (13) Aug 05, 2010
It's not too difficult to imagine, why heavy elements with f-orbitals are behaving in such way. These orbitals are bulky, electrons are forced to move at large distance from atom nuclei in relativistic speed, which increases their effective mass. Electrons in f-orbitals are spread across large surface of atom, so they form rather thin "layer" here. The motion of each electron therefore requires a rearrangement of many electrons in neighboring places of foam in perpendicular direction which results in strong magnetic wave (so-called the Kondo effect).

http://www.aether...mion.gif

When free electron is forced to move through such foam, it leaves an empty place behing it, which sucks many electrons from outside to this empty place and these electrons are moving in direction, which is perpendicular to the motion of charge. The place where charge is concentrated travels with original electron, thus making it heavier, then it really is.
Mr_Man
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2010
I have never seen the use of parenthesis abused more in my life and I hope my comment isn't flagged for saying so. It made the article very hard to follow.
Jigga
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2010
Article is written by scientists of MIT in compact style and it's definitely difficult to comprehend for average layman - not only because of parenthesis abuse. String theory leads to 10E+500 solutions, which enables it for "explanation" of virtually anything.
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2010
this is the first time it has been used to give insight into a type of condensed matter
String theory has been applied for description of superconductor behavior many times already.

http://www.physor...923.html
http://qpt.physic...ws09.pdf
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2010
Failed theories of superconductivity - historia magistra vitae.

http://arxiv.org/...0447.pdf
RobertKarlStonjek
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2010
"Physicists are divided on whether string theory is a viable theory of everything..."
should be:
"Physicists are divided on whether string theory is a viable theory of anything..."
TabulaMentis
3.3 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2010
Just out of curiosity, what is the most popular theory next to string theory in the event string theory is found to be incorrect?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2010
Right now the biggest problem of string theory is that it is thought to be impossible to disprove it. So finding it incorrect will be a bit difficult.

One favorite is Loop Quantum Gravity.

It is occasionally covered here:
http://www.math.c...rdpress/

But nothing on the front page today. That is the somewhat infamous Not Even Wrong site by Dr. Peter Woit. Infamous for its dislike of the String Hypothesis. I don't read it very often. Gets too dense for me for one thing. For another Woit is Not Even Funny.

He did have a nice link to an article by Stephen Hawking.

http://www.cosmos...-physics

A couple of links on Loop Quantum Gravity:
http://en.wikiped..._gravity
http://www.einste...um/loops

Ethelred
MustaI
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
.. what is the most popular theory next to string theory in the event string theory is found to be incorrect?
LQG is dual to string theory, it suffers with the same problem: inconsistency of postulates, which leads to the fuzziness of its solution.

http://www.physor...533.html

the biggest problem of string theory is that it is thought to be impossible to disprove it. So finding it incorrect will be a bit difficult.

It's actually quite simple. Inconsistency of string theory is, it considers Lorentz symmetry of special relativity and existence of hidden dimensions, which would manifest just by violation of Lorentz symmetry. If you build formal theory, which is based upon special relativity and it's violation at the same moment, you'll get fuzzy uncertain solution.
MustaI
2 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2010
We can illustrate this consistence problem with dense aether model of water surface: for tiny capillary waves the motion of waves is invariant to the motion of underwater, because they're driven by surface tension of water nearly completely, thus following the principle of Lorentz invariance.

Of course, we can assume existence of hidden dimensions, because water surface cannot exist without underwater. But this underwater would manifest just with weak dispersion of surface waves, which would make them dependent on the motion of underwater (which is known as so called Lens-Thirring effect at the case of vacuum).

It's not so difficult to detect extradimensions - but after then we shouldn't expect the validity of Lorentz invariance anymore.

Mathematicans cannot realize it, because they cannot imagine, how these two postulates are related mutually. In this way, string theory is serving for them as a huge and expensive random generator of various solutions, i.e. salary generator.
frajo
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
historia magistra vitae.
If one listens carefully to the rhythm of the words it should be obvious that the original sentence is "Historia vitae magistra est".
Rhyme, rhythm, alliteration were primary tools to remember basic principles.
frajo
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
I have never seen the use of parenthesis abused more in my life and I hope my comment isn't flagged for saying so. It made the article very hard to follow.
I don't agree. There are only 10 first-level brackets. Brackets are of great help to structure texts in order to make them easier to understand.

No real programmers around here?
frajo
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
String theory leads to 10E+500 solutions, which enables it for "explanation" of virtually anything.
This sentence - which is often heard nowadays - sounds impressive only for non-physicists. First, this is the number of meta-stable vacua which yield universes somewhat resembling the known universe. This number is only finite and therefore immensely smaller than the infinite number which is possible in ST.
This problem is equalled in severity by the (non-string) problem of the observed cosmological constant which is (according to QFT) too low by a factor of 10**120.
Thus, ST doesn't look worse just because of the quoted argument.
Maybe the ST landscape can be better structured once we find the answer to the problem of the cosmological constant. Or the other way round.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
..this sentence - which is often heard nowadays - sounds impressive only for non-physicists.....
It's used regularly as an argument even with top physicists, like Lee Smolin in fight with Greene:

"We have no idea which of the 10-to-the-500th-power versions of the theory corresponds to reality. Worst of all, there is not a single prediction made that might be confirmed or falsified by a doable experiment"

http://www.wired....mackdown

Actually Mr. Smolin as a proponent of alternative theory is biased toward strings and I've such an idea in the same way, like Mr. Smolin undoubtedly has - nevertheless, from pure formal perspective the string theory just replicates the fuzziness of aether foam and dispersive character of energy spreading through it. In certain sense it describes reality as well as it can and its fuzziness is intrinsic and physical - it corresponds the number of states, which are observable by our brains.
KBK
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2010
I have never seen the use of parenthesis abused more in my life and I hope my comment isn't flagged for saying so. It made the article very hard to follow.


Complex thoughts, many times, need be expressed in such a manner in order to get the point across in a cogent (complex thought grouping, as a unit-whole) fashion.

It's a sign of and advanced mind. An evolved mind, even. Some people say things like 'bring it down to my level', which is not correct, people need to bring them selves UP to the idea and the given expression, not bring the idea down.

Something about evolution and growth of the self, IIRC......Something about chewing bubblegum and tripping also comes to mind.

So, dudes and dudettes, psychologically evolve, or die on the vine.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
It's a sign of and advanced mind
Not very advanced in interpersonal communication, though. Do you remember Dr. Sheldon Cooper PhD. from The Big Bang Theory sitcom with his long fractally nested sentences?
KBK
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
Getting back to the article, the entire PMG group and some outside of it can be made to behave much like, OK, I'll stop being polite... they can behave identical to the cuprates group. In all of the cuperate forms, there is an adjunct to similar behavior in the PMG group and some of the poor metals (and a few others..).

You just need to know how to tease those 'states' out of those elements.

As for the interpersonal communication, I think it might be best not to 'average' out people according to one's own communication system as an internal evolved setting/wiring.

It is our 'space oddity' people and dudes out there that bring something different to the table. Nothing says that from the viewpoint and position of the mainstream, that it will be easy to identify with and communicate through such people and thoughts. As a mental through on such pondering..the exact opposite is the only reasonable interpretation. Ie, new things are inherently difficult, if not, we'd know them already.
jesse_bmx
3 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2010
Alright, so I'm not an idiot for writing like that. A lot of times my thoughts are such that the only way i can organize the sentence is to use parenthesis. Otherwise they seem like enormously long run on sentences, and organization with commas is worse.
frajo
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2010
Do you remember Dr. Sheldon Cooper PhD. from The Big Bang Theory sitcom with his long fractally nested sentences?
You didn't read Bohumil Hrabal's "Tanecni hodiny pro starsi a pokrocile"?
frajo
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
"there is not a single prediction made that might be confirmed or falsified by a doable experiment"
1) Steinhardt & Turok say (in "Endless Universe") that refined measurements of the E-M polarization of the microwave background will enable physicists to decide between either the inflation hypothesis or their ekpyrotic/cylic model.
2) The predictions of string harmonics. (Postulating a "doable experiment" is an invalid restriction of scientific observations to present times.)
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
you didn't read Bohumil Hrabal's "Tanecni hodiny pro starsi a pokrocile"?
This is not quite good example of interpersonal communication at all....:-)) It's an experimental, one book long monologue.
..postulating a "doable experiment" is an invalid restriction of scientific observations to present times..
If yes, I can say easily, aether theory can be verified, if we visit distant galaxies in Hubble depth field and make sure, no end of Universe exist here... Actually the existence of many solutions limits string theory falsifiability for unlimited future already.
frajo
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
aether theory can be verified
Do you understand the different meanings of "verification" and "confirmation" ("verifikace" and "potvrzeni")?
Scientific theories are either confirmed or falsified by experiment, but never "verified".
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
..Scientific theories are either confirmed or falsified by experiment, but never "verified".

Why not? Prove it.

http://www.physor...182.html
http://www.thefre...verified
panorama
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
Ever is uneven any stringing but never was not even one stringst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all strings are always without theory because with practum is also not the real string. To be read downunder my website.

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean? I mean I recognize the words used.
frajo
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2010
..Scientific theories are either confirmed or falsified by experiment, but never "verified".

Why not? Prove it.
This confirms that you don't know what science is.
http://www.physorg.com/news66994182.html
Sloppy language.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verified
Their example "experiments that verified the hypothesis" shows that the authors of that page are not scientists.

No number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can verify a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive. (Unfortunately, the wiki page on Karl Popper uses "confirm" instead of "verify".)

PS:
As I'm not a native speaker I have to define my usage of "verify" and "confirm":
"Verify" has essentially the same semantics as "prove". "Confirm", however, means that the outcome of an experiment is in accordance with the theory.
A verified theory would be true for eternity, whereas a confirmed theory could be falsified by the next experiment.

Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2010
..As I'm not a native speaker..
Stop with this comedy - and keep the subject, please. String theory, superconductors... you know.

http://www.rozhla...802.jpeg
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2010
This problem is equalled in severity by the (non-string) problem of the observed cosmological constant which is (according to QFT) too low by a factor of 10**120.
That too is a big problem. I just don't sweat that one since I don't know how they came up with that vacuum density number and why no one has fixed it since it is blatantly at odds with the Universe.

And one of the reasons I find it hard to take when someone claims that QM has the best fit to testing of any theory. Utter crap and I see it all the time. QM is important but it clearly has more problems than GR. QM is usually tight but then the numbers are plugged in by experiment as there is no way to predict them due to the renormalization trick.

So just how full of it is that stuff I just wrote?

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2010
Otherwise they seem like enormously long run on sentences, and organization with commas is worse.


I, Ethelred, am enamored, most of the time, with the precision use of commas, not the way we are taught, usually, rather, I use them as I speak, to mark breaks, for emphasis, to gather ones thoughts, and to clarify otherwise ambiguous wording.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
I mean I recognize the words used.


I didn't recognize ALL the words.

For instance in that tiny bit of the mess you quoted:
stringst unever, bey quadrate


Only quadrate might be a word. But it would have to be explained first.

I wonder why he links to what he says, sorta, is his web site. There doesn't seem to actually be ANYTHING there but random words in at least several languages.

The first stunningly bizarre sentence or perhaps LINE would be a more exacting term:
Dear Jesus, exersicerhttpglobaler maximalsfictions planet:spint todayste//horizonste genastropsychicalsthella strugglingerblacker


It might be an attempt to game a search engine but there is NOTHING else there but stuff like that.

All I can say to that web site is

Oingy Boingy

To bring up an old web behavior experiment. At least we thought it might have been an experiment. Well, someone claimed it was an experiment.

Ethelred
frajo
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2010
due to the renormalization trick
That's the one spot in science which disturbs me most. How can we trust physical results obtained by mutilating mathematics?
frajo
2 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2010
Dear Jesus, exersicerhttpglobaler maximalsfictions planet:spint todayste//horizonste genastropsychicalsthella strugglingerblacker

It might be an attempt to game a search engine but there is NOTHING else there but stuff like that.

All I can say to that web site is

Oingy Boingy

To bring up an old web behavior experiment. At least we thought it might have been an experiment. Well, someone claimed it was an experiment.
We take it for granted that everything has sense or at least intends to make sense.
But we have to accept the right of non-sense to exist. Not the everyday nonsense which claims to convey more sense than the common man's sentences.
But the determined act of being without any sense. It's art.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2010
It's not mutilating mathematics - renormalization is simply interpolation between results of relativity (which predicts zero vacuum density) and quantum mechanics (which predicts some 10E+90 kg/cm3). We cannot interpolate function between zero and infinity easily, but we can use higher derivations for it (because derivation doesn't change so drastically during this). Nevertheless, the theory which is using existing mutually contradicting theories on background will always predict just an fuzzy interpolations. As the result, string theory predict vacuum density (and corresponding cosmological constant) in range 10E+40 or so, which is still apparent BS both from GR, both QT perspective.

http://www.aether...ion1.gif
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2010
Otherwise they seem like enormously long run on sentences, and organization with commas is worse.


I, Ethelred, am enamored, most of the time, with the precision use of commas, not the way we are taught, usually, rather, I use them as I speak, to mark breaks, for emphasis, to gather ones thoughts, and to clarify otherwise ambiguous wording.

Ethelred
They are useful for breathing and talking at the same time,,,
yyz
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2010
" Ever is uneven any stringing but never was not even one stringst unever, bey quadrate. Mean, all strings are always without theory because with practum is also not the real string. To be read downunder my website.

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?"

Word salad: http://en.wikiped...zophasia ;)
yyz
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2010
And I see "...the contrived palindrome "Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas" is not considered schizophasia."

That's a relief.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2010
Why thread bellow every topic ends with such an OT BS's (usually yyz/otto1923 related)?
otto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2010
Why thread bellow every topic ends with such an OT BS's (usually yyz/otto1923 related)?
wy thread bellow everi topik begins with such so OT BS's usuallyie Jigga-dumpingg??
yyz
3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2010
"Why thread bellow every topic ends with such an OT BS's (usually yyz/otto1923 related)?"

Finally, a question dense aether theory apparently DOESN'T answer.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2010
Actually it could be related to dispersion of waves into noise at the water surface. People with chaotic thinking simply cannot keep the subject...

http://www.pitt.e...ples.jpg
otto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2010
Also, and jigga post-dumping Could be related to dispersion of waves in defective wet-brains:
http://www.wrongd...osis.htm
-Aether is NEVER the subject.
xamien
not rated yet Aug 08, 2010
If yes, I can say easily, aether theory can be verified, if we visit distant galaxies in Hubble depth field and make sure, no end of Universe exist here... Actually the existence of many solutions limits string theory falsifiability for unlimited future already.


Do you realize the term "unlimited future" has absolutely no meaning, the way you use it? If all is infinite, with no beginning or end, there is no such thing as future or past, except as a mildly absurd way to organize conversation.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
? If all is infinite, with no beginning or end, there is no such thing as future or past,


That is like saying zero, one, and all the other numbers don't exist because the number line is infinite in length in both directions with no beginning and not end.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
Alizee

Do you really have to be so self destructive. I has not ranked even once in this thread. Then you went and gave me a bunch of unwarranted ones. Don't bother lying about things off topic since you rated me one for posts that anyone would consider on topic and you did not give ones to the person I was replying to.

So now you get ones for all your posts here. AND the same on every other thread you did that on today. AND on at least two threads for each thread you did that on. Which means, at present count, you are getting four threads extra all ranked one.

And don't bother lying about the ranking either because you started the crap up again.

Ethelred
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
I has not ranked even once in this thread. Then you went and gave me a bunch of unwarranted ones.
If I'm counting well, you downvoted me at least twelve times just in this thread, you liar.

http://www.aether...ting.gif

You even downvoted the completelly matter-of fact posts of mine, like this one:

"String theory has been applied for description of superconductor behavior many times already.

http://www.physor...923.html
http://qpt.physic...f"

This is post is completelly relevant to subject and it doesn't contain anything, then just reference to peer-revived articles. All people, who downvoted this post (ubavontuba, yyz, thermodynamics, frajo, Ethelred, otto1923, Skeptic_Heretic, DamienS, TehDog, MustaI) will be downvoted systematically.

Please note the occurance of apparently fake identities like the "JiggaSockpuppet", who were created by existing users here.
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
If I'm counting well, you downvoted me at least twelve times just in this thread, you liar
You can't read. I said that I had not YET ranked you. I did after I posted that. Not before.
You even downvoted the completelly matter-of fact posts of mine, like this one:
Of course. You did that same thing FIRST, so I returned the favor. I will continue to do so till you stop your puerile behavior. Tit for tat is a proven method of dealing with people with vile behavior patterns.
Please note the occurance of apparently fake identities like the "JiggaSockpuppet", who were created by existing users here.
Does seem likely. Kind of like you only in retaliation for YOUR behavior. I haven't done so YET but I am prepared to do it myself if you don't stop the crap.

In fact the main reason I haven't started it is that you had stopped SOME misbehaving for 24 hours. Maybe even 36.

You still use multiple logins. And you still lash out stupidly just as you did in this post.

Ethelred
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
You did that same thing FIRST, so I returned the favor.
I was downvoted systematically by various people here even at the time, where I used the only one (my very first) account here. During this people reasoned their behavior by prohibiting me in spreading of dense aether theory for not to confuse other readers here. Therefore the per-person downvoting of my posts has a much longer tradition here, then my usage of multiple accounts. After all, I always used single account - I'm just changing computers with registration stored in cookie occasionally. This is why I'm using different account over weekend.
In fact the main reason I haven't started it is that you had stopped SOME misbehaving for 24 hours. Maybe even 36.
That's noble stance, but many other users doesn't use such policy. I really interrupted the downvoting before some time, but some people (like otto1923) continued me in downvoting on per-person basis - so I reversed my policy for not to give them advantage.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
So, if you want to stop the voting war, you've basically only two options by now.

1) You can ask the other voting trolls here via PM for not to downvote me on per-person basis.
2) When some trolls will downvote me maliciously, you could upvote me to compensate their abuse of voting system. The threshold of positive voting is 2,5 points per post.

If I will see, you're upvoting me systematically, I'll remove you from my personal black list - but not before. Of course, you cannot expect immediate effect for this in the same way, like me.

As a general rule, downvoting feature shouldn't replace counter-arguments here. So you should downvote the other posters just after clear expression of particular reason of your stance in subsequent posts. This indeed doesn't apply at the case of apparent cases of misbehavior, for example after inserting spam with advertisement links. After all, in such cases I'm just using "report abuse" link directly, not only downvoting.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2010
I was downvoted systematically by various people here even at the time, where I used the only one (my very first) account here.
Yes. You post a lot of crap. People get tired of it.
After all, I always used single account - I'm just changing computers with registration stored in cookie occasionally.
There is no reason you can't use the same account on all the computers.
That's noble stance, but many other users doesn't use such policy.
Its not noble. It is a matter of being fair and reasonable even with people that post crap. And tit for tat requires NOT hitting unless hit.
really interrupted the downvoting before some time,
Less than 48 hours. It takes time to notice. Especially when you don't mention it.

Tit for tat. I have titted for the day. Do it again and it will get even worse. I too can use multiple accounts should I choose to. As many as I wish. Kind of like a logic puzzle.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
So, if you want to stop the voting war, you've basically only two options by now.


Wrong. YOU have to stop it. I am just responding to YOUR reprehensible behavior. AND you just did it again while I was responding to your first post. So I am NOT done titting for the day. YOU get THREE threads done this time.

1 - Not my problem. Its yours. YOU made the enemies.

2 - Ditto.

If I will see, you're upvoting me systematically,


Then you will know that I have lost my mind. Cranks do not deserve my support in that way. You have the right to be an idiot. We all have the right to point it out.

. Of course, you cannot expect immediate effect for this in the same way, like me.


The only thing I expect from you is more foolish actions like this latest one.

YOU must prove YOURSELF.

As a general rule, downvoting feature shouldn't replace counter-arguments here


Hypocrite. You made the mess. You have to make the first move. AND not keep it a secret.

Ethelred
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
You have to make the first move. AND not keep it a secret.
The only thing, which I really have to do is to die. But OK - I'll stop downvoting until thursday morning AGAIN.

If I'll get downvoted after then by some people again on per-person basis, I'll restore my policy of downvoting, because I cannot keep my posts visible just with using of single account, when they're downovoted by two-three trolls. It's more effective to downvote all these trolls with single point instead, after then.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2010
Cranks do not deserve my support in that way.
You should prove first, they're crackpots - or you cannot expect support anyway.
Not my problem. Its yours. YOU made the enemies.
In contemporary envious society you can made enemies just with spreading of new original ideas (after all, in the same way, like at Galileo times - the human society didn't changed during this).

So I cannot accept your stance at all - you're all responsible for my situation, because you're not helping people, who did nothing, then just revived old aether theory for better understanding of contemporary physics.

If you don't realize it, I'm just trying to help the people with it in my free time - whereas you and other trolls here are just a public vandals.
Jigga
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 08, 2010
I too can use multiple accounts should I choose to. As many as I wish.
Actually it's unnecessary. Systematic downvoting under single account (like Skeptic_Heretic is doing by now) is sufficient to make whole voting feature useless fast. You can even create an automatized script for it easily.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
I too can use multiple accounts should I choose to. As many as I wish.
Actually it's unnecessary. Systematic downvote under single account is sufficient to make whole voting feature useless. You can even create an automatized script for it easily.

Yeah, except the only person who cares about their ranking on the pages is you. The rest of us just turn the filter off.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2010
The rest of us just turn the filter off
This is not the usage, which the voting filter was designed for. Voting feature wasn't designed for expression of personal animosities here. If you wouldn't vote people on per-person basis and if you wouldn't replace arguments by downvoting, nobody would be required to disable his filter here. If you will continue in downvoting me, I'll continue in downvoting of you, too.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
The rest of us just turn the filter off
This is not the usage, for which the voting filter was designed for. If you wouldn't vote people on per-person basis and if you wouldn't replace arguments by downvoting, nobody would be required to disable his filter here.

Anyone with a reasonable mind wouldn't use the filter anyway. Although someone may disagree with a comment, that comment is still important, even if it's filled with total lunacy and utter bullshit.

Science doesn't work on what's popular, and that's 90% of your problem.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2010
Anyone with a reasonable mind wouldn't use the filter anyway.
This is not your business. Default setting of this filter is at 2.5 point threshold for good reasons. You're just expected not to abuse voting feature here. But if other users are apparently willing to tolerate your behavior, they shouldn't be surprised, if they would suffer by it too.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
This is not your business. Default setting of this filter is at 2.5 point threshold for good reasons. You're just expected not to abuse voting feature here. But if other users are apparently willing to tolerate your behavior, they shouldn't be surprised, if they would suffer by it too.
The ratings system is a statement of how much one personally agrees with the comment. I often gave you a 1 rank because you spout silly philosophical crap and have a distinct inability to recognize that you're an utter twat.

Well now, since you've begun your sockpuppet festival, I rank you with a 1 to offset your bad behavior and abuse of the system.

You are the original abuser in this issue. You cut more accounts to up rank yourself because you think everyone is out to get you, so your twisted ethics tell you that this is a good idea.

You're acting like a little kid at Halloween, unwilling to put the work in, so you steal candy from smaller kids. For shame Alizee.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2010
..you spout silly philosophical crap and have a distinct inability to recognize that you're an utter twat..
Stop babbling and prove it. If it's so easy to recognize it, would you dare to explain it? Actually it's quite easy to say, someone is twat or crackpot. It costs nothing.

Whereas you're a twat definitely - because of apparent lack of arguments. If nothing else, I've some arguments for my stance. The person with arguments will always have the last word, remember it.
.The ratings system is a statement of how much one personally agrees with the comment. I often gave you a 1 rank because you spout silly philosophical crap..
Statistically it's quite improbable, you're the only person, which can recognize all my above posts silly philosophical crap. Actually it's highly probable, your motivation is completely different. You're downvoting systematically for good reason - it blocks my comments from viewing by occasional visitors, who didn't disable their filter yet.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2010
Of course, you cannot expect immediate effect for this in the same way, like me.
What cannot be expected from you is well known:
1) Doesn't know how to use Google to search for "german telepolis forum".
2) Doesn't know how to use translate.google.com .
3) Learning that "bellow" is the wrong translation for the Czech preposition "pod".
4) Learning that the correct word to use in comparisons is "than" instead of "then".
6) Learning that physical theories cannot be proven/verified.
(And that's not all at all.)
frajo
3 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2010
You're downvoting systematically for good reason - it blocks my comments from viewing by occasional visitors, who didn't disable their filter yet.
... thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. ... thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.

I'm very sorry, but there's a special medical term for that ...
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2010
OK, guys - from now we are talking just about strings and superconductors, right? Everything else will be downvoted by me - no persecution intended.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
Stop babbling and prove it. If it's so easy to recognize it, would you dare to explain it? Actually it's quite easy to say, someone is twat or crackpot. It costs nothing.
"The quantum structes of foamy dense aether can describe why your keyboard is black."
Sound familiar?
The person with arguments will always have the last word, remember it.
The fool typically gets the last word when everyone else has left the room.
Statistically it's quite improbable, you're the only person, which can recognize all my above posts silly philosophical crap.
Sample size of 1. Probability automatically becomes 100%.
Actually it's highly probable, your motivation is completely different. You're downvoting systematically for good reason
You got it!
- it blocks my comments from viewing by occasional visitors, who didn't disable their filter yet.
Nope, you dropped it. Paranoia, thy name is Jigga.
Auxon
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2010
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Any time I hope there will be some interesting comments, or somehow we can have an intelligent discussion about the ideas in the articles, I am faced with the Alizee comments and subsequent flamewar. It's getting kinda tiresome, but for some reason, I keep reading them. It's like watching a train wreck I guess. ;-)
Auxon
4.8 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2010
BTW, I do think voting down anyone for providing simple links to information about something is overkill. If he doesn't mention AWT, and the link is useful, then maybe skipping the vote-down is a good idea? You know, positive reinforcement? Ah, forget it, not like anyone will listen. :) (Hmm, I just realized the 3 minute flood-control mechanism must mean that you guys fighting the flamewars have to sit around for a long time, posting replies back and forth ... kinda a waste of time.)
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (12) Aug 08, 2010
Actually the article can be understood easily just by using of dense aether theory in following steps:

1) electrons within superconductors are superconductive because they're heavily compressed mutually. Each electron is surrounded with so many other electrons from many sides, their repulsive forces compensate mutually and the electrons are moving freely

2) Dense droplets of electrons are similar to black holes, which are formed with heavily compressed droplets of fermions, too (you should forget the singularity blurbs in this moment)

3) The heavily compressed particles are forming nested foam of density fluctuations, pretty similar to dark matter streaks and/or density fluctuations inside of condensing supercritical fluid

4) The energy spreads in strange way through such foam, because it disperses and returns back again from all directions like the light of light bulb covered with foam. We can observe all objects there both from inside, both from outside at the same moment.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2010
This stuff manifests itself even at the water surface, because water is elastic and every transverse wave disperses into it in longitudinal waves, which are returning back like sound waves. The AdS/CFT (gauge/gravity) duality just enables to relate the portion of energy released in transverse waves and returned back in longitudinal waves and to describe the five-dimensional geometry of their spreading from entropic balance.

Actually the whole stuff has nearly nothing to do with string theory as such, because AdS/CFT correspondence follows from holographic principle and it was just applied to string theory first (later to QCD and other theories). Just the money involved into string theory research helped to derive this advanced formalism, which is independent to string theory in the same way, like the supersymmetry, though.

http://icamconfer...T09_.pdf
JiggaSockpuppet
3 / 5 (10) Aug 09, 2010
Please note the occurance of apparently fake identities like the "JiggaSockpuppet", who were created by existing users here.

I'm just a concerned physorg citizen doing my duty to help redress abuses of the ranking system.

MustaI will be downvoted

Trying to disassociate from your former sockpuppet identity? You already claimed ownership.
MustaISockpuppet
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
Every person you downrank with a known alias will be summarily upranked to nullify your actions. The rankings system is only important to you. So as you abuse the system, the system will abuse you.
AlizeeSockpuppet
Aug 09, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
Great, now we have a full on screen name arms race. This site officially sucks now.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
Great, now we have a full on screen name arms race. This site officially sucks now.
As otto tells you always, war is Inevitable due to overpopulation (of sockpuppets)
danman5000
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Any time I hope there will be some interesting comments, or somehow we can have an intelligent discussion about the ideas in the articles, I am faced with the Alizee comments and subsequent flamewar. It's getting kinda tiresome, but for some reason, I keep reading them. It's like watching a train wreck I guess. ;-)

I do the same, it seems. Sadly any article with more than 10 comments inevitably involves marjon or Jigga, and the corresponding much-repeated arguments. Certainly entertaining though, particularly this one with the xxxSockPuppet accounts "arms race." That made me smile.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
I am faced with the Alizee comments and subsequent flamewar. It's getting kinda tiresome, but for some reason, I keep reading them. It's like watching a train wreck I guess. ;-)
Glauben Kampfen Siegen
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
Intro

I wrote most of this before seeing Alizee's later posts so it may be moot. However I am going to post it anyway on the assumption that somewhere in Alizee's head is some sense. Despite the vast evidence otherwise.

This is such a bleeding waste of time trying to reason with you on this or pretty much anything but I will give one last try. Read it. Don't go screaming about till you have thought it over for a while. If nothing else it might improve my writing skills. Can't see it changing you in any way. You have adamantly refused to learn pretty much anything here except rule bending. Oh and contrary to some claims your English has improved. Unfortunately it just the things that were ambiguous probable into sorta clear and certain crap.

Thus ends the intro - chapter one approaches
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
Chapter One
It's more effective to downvote all these trolls with single point instead, after then.
They are not trolls just people that are tired of your behavior. A troll is someone is someone that posts crap looking to provoke an arguement.
You should prove first, they're crackpots
Every time you claim that an article was already proven By AWT you are a crackpot, mainly because you do it so often and can't point to where you proved it in the past.

It is bog standard crackpot behavior to claim their ideas explain everything.

Everytime you claim human behavior is covered by AWT you PROVE you are completely without scientific competence in any way. Human behavior is the result of chemistry and if AWT actually can produce the chemistry we see, that STILL wouldn't actually explain human behavior. Emergent properties are nearly impossible to predict except by accident. Even in games testing is needed to discover the emergent properties of the rules.

Chapter two follows
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2010
Chapter two
In contemporary envious society you can made enemies just with spreading of new original ideas
Only you aren't doing that. You are using Meno's ideas AND distorting the hell out of the ideas of others and then calling it AWT. New original ideas MUST be proved and you refuse to even try. You just make wild unsupported claims that usually can't stand up to a moments thought.

You refuse to the math that MUST be done to prove you are right. It is physics you are claiming and that means MATH not some gobbledegook you label as Predicates Logics. Which is usually not logical and always based on dubious assumptions.

Einstein didn't have the mathematical skills he needed for GR. So he LEARNED what he needed to know to do the math to support his ideas. Without that math there was no way to test how much light should be bent by the Sun.

Oh dear, the next paragraph, I should have read it before starting this reply, you go completely off the rails at that point.

More
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
Chapter three
So I cannot accept your stance at all - you're all responsible for my situation,
The speaks the mind of a paranoid crank. YOU created the situation by being a crank, and a saturation posting crank, at that thus getting a lot of people annoyed beyond the usual for cranks. THEN you pissed ME and others off by using multiple logins and going to the mattresses against those you felt were persecuting you which means anyone with sense.

The multiple logons is the sole cause of MY going after you. You want ME to stop retaliating YOU will have to stop the actions that I am responding to.
, because you're not helping people,
I certainly am. I am helping every person YOU have transgessed with your multiple logins. Which is a lot by now.
who did nothing
No nothing at all BESIDES going to war with multiple logins against anyone that ever disagreed with you.

Try lying to someone stupid enough to believe you. Like yourself I suppose.

Brandy, throw more brandy
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2010
Chapter four
then just revived old aether theory for better understanding of contemporary physics
A theory that was dead for a reason AND that is hardly the only thing you did. You have no tolerance for criticism, you engage in behavior that NO ONE can even afford to tolerate with the way you misuse accounts, AND you clearly try to apply a crank IDEA, not theory, to EVERY BLOODY THING ON THE SITE.
If you don't realize it, I'm just trying to help the peopl
Utter and unadulterated bull fertilizer.
- whereas you and other trolls here are just a public vandals.
YOU are the one saturating thread after thread with rubbish to the point that the interesting parts are drowned in a sea of disproven nonsense. THEN there is the multiple logins which few sites tolerate and most would give you a permaban. And that is without abusing them like you do.
Actually it's unnecessary.
LIE. It is likely it will be needed to counteract your intolerable actions.

One to go
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2010
Chapter four
Systematic downvoting under single account (like Skeptic_Heretic is doing by now)
Not enough to repair the damage you generate.

--------------------

Looking at further posts by Alizee the Crank I see that he has already violated his agreement is using a sockpuppet, with a fraudulent nationality at that, to uprate himself.

Then began one rant after another.

Then engaged in threats.

So no truce till you change your behavior. Each rant with threats will get reported as abuse which is what you doing. Abusing the system and the people here. And yourself as no one can act as you do without hurting themselves.

Is there any chance that Alizee is actually American? He is as out of self-control as Derek Smart was during the Great Battle Cruiser 3000 Flame war. Which is the number flame war in Usenet history and likely the number for a single poster, Derek Smart, on one side.

Ethelred
barakn
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
Why all the references to Alizee? The troll's original name is Zephir.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2010
..Emergent properties are nearly impossible to predict except by accident...
Well, the "nearly" is important word here. What will happen, if for example dense gas condenses? How its fluctuations change shape in such case? Aren't they similar to strings of string theory, for example?

http://www.chem.l...co24.jpg

This behavior can be modeled easily with particle simulation at computer. The modern multiprocessor GPU's are enabling to simulate more then 100.000 particles in single run. We can introduce periodic or impulse perturbations into such system and model the energy spreading through it.

http://superstrun...logy.gif
It is bog standard crackpot behavior to claim their ideas explain everything


http://www.pbs.or...ing.html
http://en.wikiped...erything

Actually it's quite popular stance between contemporary physicists. But I'm not saying it.
Jigga
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 09, 2010
On the other hand, when some apparent analogy exists between mainstream theory and or human society and the fluid, gas or foam behavior, I can see no problem in pointing-out of such analogy at public, if such analogy really exists there.

It could help the professionals to focus on particular problem and to understand its principle for laymans. Many people have problem with intuitive understanding of relativity and or quantum mechanics - why to hide these apparent connections to classical physics - especially at the cases, when such connection was confirmed with experiments?

http://www.physor...511.html

The "serious" physicists often don't realize, even intuitive understanding of physics can evolve towards higher perfection - not just formal math. My experience is, many people really don't want learn the math in depth - but most of people really want to understand the principle of various physical phenomena. My approach to physics is focused just to these needs.
Ethelred
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2010
Why all the references to Alizee? The troll's original name is Zephir.


Many more posts as Alizee and the use of sockpuppets to inflate its ranking started while it was still using Alizee and Zephir was long gone.

However if you wish to call him Zephir everyone will know just which wanker you are talking about.

AND on a further note said wanker has been spotted giving multiple ones to Frajo today. If I spot any more then

The vile entity known as:
slotin
alizee
zephir
jigga
VestaR
nisaJ
MustaI
seneca
ZeroX
GeneH.
alexa and possibly others.
Is going to get a LOT of ones.

So can it Zephir-Alizee.

Ethelred
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2010
The superconductor act like that because at absolute zero you suppress the movement in time and space so everything else moves at much higher speed, the multiple universes are just frames moving from the infinite past to the infinite future.
MustaI
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
High temperature superconductors contain layers of positively charged atoms (so-called holes), which attract electrons from distance. These electrons are collecting around them like pigeons around corn and forming less or more continuous stripes of chaotic superfluid there. At the moment, when concentration of holes is sufficient, the superconducting phase is formed within superconductor.

The model discussed in the article describes special sort of superconductors, where electrons tend to move in perspendicular direction to current direction because of charge motion is constrained to special orbitals surrounding atoms.

http://www.physor...102.html

In these materials the high mobility of electron isn't achieved by their attraction to special hole atoms, rather by their repulsion from common atoms. Whereas the mechanism appears exactly the opposite to the former case, its result is the same: materials are becoming superconductive at low temperatures.
MustaI
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 10, 2010
Because electrons are repulsive mutually, the drift motion of conducting electrons at the current direction isn't the only limiting factor here. When conducting electron changes location within crystal lattice, some other electrons must create place for the new location of electron in motion and another electrons must fill the empty place (a "hole") after the motion occurs. These electrons do not move in the direction of conducting electron - rather in direction, which is perpendicular to it within lattice, which is known as so called Kondo lattice. As such they're source of anomalous magnetic momentum which contributes to magnetic momentum of atoms within lattice.

It turned out, the temperature of superconductive transition can be increased both by compressing of conductive electrons, both by compressing of Kondo electrons - because the motion of both types of electrons contributes to charge transfer across lattice of certain materials with conductive electrons in f-orbitals.
frajo
3 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
Is there any chance that Alizee is actually American?
His use of Czech tiny URLs and a lot of Czech links, his repeating the same linguistic mistakes - it all could be red herrings. He always responded evasively to comments containing Czech snippets. His inability to use translate.google.com or to look up a German forum certainly is feigned.

I sure would like to see the apache logs at PhysOrg.
Are there commercial enemies of PhysOrg?
Jigga
Aug 10, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2010
No such a reason actually exists. Dense aether theory of Oliver Lodge was never refused by mainstream - it was simply ignored for one hundred years.

Lodge didn't develop the Aether theory, he merely defended it.

Lodge's theory was that all matter is composed of electricity. He also published this theory in the peer reviewed annals of "Harper's Magazine"
http://www.oneill...e40.html
Jigga
2 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
..Lodge didn't develop the Aether theory, he merely defended it.
Dense aether concept is quite trivial - nevertheless I never found physicist who proposed it earlier, then Lodge. Albeit some ideas of Maxwell were based on concept of elastic fluid, too - Lodge was first, who realized, such fluid must be very dense for being able to mediate even extremely strong nuclear forces.

http://www.scribd...of-Space
yyz
3 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2010
"I never found physicist who proposed it earlier, then Lodge."

Wha? With your frequent links to Wikipedia I would assume you would be well versed in the history of aether theory ( http://en.wikiped...d_aether for starters). Yet you claim you have "never found physicist who proposed it earlier". How can you be so ignorant of the very notion you try to advance. That alone should make any thinking person suspicious of your claims...as if another reason was necessary.

I can see why you are attracted to "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything" that you linked to above.
Jigga
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
Dense aether theory is specific variant of aether model (which was described in vague form by ancient Sumerians already). Actually it's quite intriguing, from where these ancient civilization got their insights, which most of modern people aren't even able to understand?

Before Lodge it was believed, aether is forming thin sparse gas, pervading space. Of course, such aether cannot serve as a luminiferous aether forming space, because such thin environment cannot mediate energetic waves of X-ray and gamma radiation. But because these energetic forms of EM radiation weren't known in Maxwell's times, Maxwell could still be quite right in his assumption, the visible light would be dragged with aether motion. He didn't knew, the light can become way way more energetic. Therefore his (false) prediction of Michelson-Morley result was rather mistake in estimation of aether density. Now we know, the gamma ray is actually dragged and dispersed with vacuum motion due the presence of CMB noise.
Jigga
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 10, 2010
Actually if physicists would think more consistently, they should realize before years, the vacuum must be formed with very dense stuff - because they knew already, light spreads in transverse waves.

The presence of such waves requires, the density of their environment must always remain a much higher, then the wave energy density. When waves are becoming more dense then their environment, they're always spreading in longitudinal waves instead (i.e. in similar way like the sound waves through air).

From Hertz experiments with radiowaves it was known, light spreads in pure transverse waves (their polarization depends on orientation of antenna) - so that the nature of vacuum could be guessed correctly before 150 years - all basic evidence was known already at 1860...
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
The Universe is formate by waves moving in all directions, everything is made of Mather hold together by waves like sound or water waves forming a body above, so we start fast and slow down and day even our voices change from high to low frequency, our days are long at the beginning and short later in life, a astronaut will go to the future if travels at high speed so if we freeze the movement we will go to the past.
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2010
Nothing is solid but hold together by a force that moves forward in time and space at different speeds and frequencies and they interact forming new waves and lite proves friction against some form of Aether.
The Sumerians new all the moons of all the planets in our solar system and descriptions also give them names saying that giants came from above and thought them science.
yyz
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2010
"The Sumerians new all the moons of all the planets in our solar system and descriptions also give them names saying that giants came from above and thought them science."

That's a pretty bold statement, Alizee. What evidence do you have? Refs, please.
DoubleD
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2010
----------------------------------------------
I, Ethelred, am enamored, most of the time, with the precision use of commas, not the way we are taught, usually, rather, I use them as I speak, to mark breaks, for emphasis, to gather ones thoughts, and to clarify otherwise ambiguous wording.

Ethelred
--------------------------------------------------

Comma, comma, comma chameleon....
DoubleD
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2010
FLAMES and DOWNRATING

Keep up the good work. I have never seen another group of (apparently) intelligent people squabble so over such trivia. I mean, seriously! Crying over downrating like a little girl with a skinned knee ? Hilarious.

Keep it up nerds, it's very entertaining. Its even funnier than Jimmy and Timmy going at it on South Park.

XOXO
DD
yyz
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 11, 2010
"The vile entity known as:
slotin
alizee
zephir
jigga
VestaR
nisaJ
MustaI
seneca
ZeroX
GeneH.
alexa and possibly others...."

Others like Tahoma and Tomrelative, just appearing today. What's up with that?

GravityPhD and sckavassalis (accounts supposedly belonging to Ms Kavassalis) are still active too(moderators, are you listening?). Along with Deesky and assorted xxxSockPuppets. With over 16 known aliases, why not start your own blog? Maybe gather them up as a team to prepare a paper on AWT for submission. ;)

@Tomrelative:

My question is still out there, wrt your Sumerian post(s) above.
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2010
There is 1500 tablets in a museum with the Sumerians data even a map of the solar system and all planets, look at Zecharia Sitchin.
yyz
Aug 11, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
Aug 12, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
Aug 12, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2010
There is 1500 tablets in a museum with the Sumerians data even a map of the solar system and all planets, look at Zecharia Sitchin.
To be precise: Z. Sitchin is a person who interprets certain Sumerian and Pre-Nubian texts in this way. The vast majority of experts on Sumerian scripts and historians, however, don't share his view. They don't even consider him to be a scientist. And we all know that the ancient cultures knew only 5 of the planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

As long as you can't provide a serious science link for your claim it will be regarded as speculation. At best.
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2010
I also don't believe all from any one, I search and research as a scientist and philosopher, all science we have comes from imagination (speculation) that ends up to be true or maybe, you got look on all directions end find common facts, do your work if you are interested on the truth (it is out there)(but not 100% with the scientific community, because of bias.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2010
all science we have comes from imagination (speculation) that ends up to be true or maybe
Imagination and speculation are legit methods to arrive at scientific (i.e. falsifiable) results. It is not legit, however, to present speculation as fact like this:
There is 1500 tablets in a museum with the Sumerians data even a map of the solar system and all planets
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
like I said there is many founts of this knowledge all over the world ex: Book of Enoch etc... at list 200 similar notations plus the high technology devices found so far (book of Daniel: But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Tomrelative
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
But you are right,
(Imagination and speculation are legit methods to arrive at scientific (i.e. falsifiable) results. It is not legit, however, to present speculation as fact like this: Theory of Evolution)
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
like I said there is many founts of this knowledge all over the world ex: Book of Enoch etc


That is rather like saying that there is a fount of knowledge in The Book of Urantia or Theosophy books. Crap sources are not founts of knowledge. They are founts of misinformation.

AND NOW for news on the MultiName front.

Many posts on this thread where down rated by AT LEAST three different MultiName accounts.

Let us see just how many bogus ranking I will get from a single source for this one.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
. It is not legit, however, to present speculation as fact like this: Theory of Evolution)
Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory, not a fact any more then General Relativity is and no less a theory either. It fits the evidence which is why it is STILL a theory and not left by the wayside.

However evolution is something that simply cannot not happen. We KNOW that there are mutations. We KNOW that some are beneficial. We KNOW that some are bad. We have no reason to think that the beneficial mutations will not increase in the population and thus accumulate in the gene pool of all species.

Therefor to claim that Evolution is a MERE THEORY is a totally silly statement. It IS A THEORY that fits the facts. Unlike Young Earth Creationism which does not. And unlike Intelligent Design which says there had to miracles despite the total lack of evidence supporting the claim.

Special Relativity is also just a theory but the bomb still blew up. And evolution still happens.

Ethelred
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2010
Show me a prove or evidence of Evolution, Refs please.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2010
It IS A THEORY that fits the facts.
It is _the_ theory that fits the facts better than anything else. To coin it with Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky, "a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology for his work in shaping the unifying modern evolutionary synthesis":
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
Dobzhansky was a member of the Eastern Orthodox church. (A small reminder for our militant atheists who mistakenly believe that every believer dismisses evolution.)
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2010
Show me a prove or evidence of Evolution, Refs please.
We can't help you as long as you don't understand that scientific theories can only be falsified, but never proven. (See the Wiki page on Karl Popper.) Thus it's up to you to falsify the theory of evolution.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2010
Show me a prove or evidence of Evolution, Refs please.


As Frajo pointed out NO theory can be proven. However a preponderance of evidence can be shown.

What refs?
Megatons of fossils. Lots of lab experments. This site alone has many articles every month that show evolution.

Lots on this site:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
And here:
http://pandasthumb.org/
And a mess of links:
http://www.pbs.or...olution/
http://www.nap.ed...id=11876
http://books.nap....;page=49
http://www.nap.ed..._id=6024
http://www.archae...cies.htm
http://www.nhm.ac...olution/

More stuff coming
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
OTTO

PLEASE STAY OUT OF THIS.
Unless you can behave yourself for once.
-----------

Threads in which I have engaged in far more discussion and thought about this than you have. Or the guys at Answers In Genesis who have done more than you, I suspect. Of course at Answers In Genesis they don't actually think about evolution they think about ways to obfuscate and often just plain lie.

You should be able to login as a guest. If you actually want to read this.
http://forums.pro...=17233.1
http://forums.pro...7764.194
http://forums.pro...=21562.1

Now what do you have to support YOUR beliefs? Actual evidence that is. For instance do you really believe in the Great Flood and if so where is the evidence? If you look at the links you will see that I have seen the usual stuff already. Please surprise me with something I haven't seen a dozen times already.

Ethelred
Xaero
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2010
theories can only be falsified, but never proven
This is just a theory, too. In addition, Karl Popper himself never said something like this - it's just urban legend parroted with various people, including you - who never read Popper's books in original. He just told, theories can be falsified more easily, then proven. Actually we know many theories, which were proven right and confirmed reliably (atomic theory or heliocentric theory of Copernicus, as an example).

http://en.wikiped...iability
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2010
OTTO

PLEASE STAY OUT OF THIS.
Unless you can behave yourself for once.

Ethelred
First off, kiss my hairy ass. Second, WTF are you talking about? I havent posted in this thread for awhile.

Thirdly, kiss my hairy ass. Otto posts where and what he wants. You dont like it, go back to your experts. Do you understand me?
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2010
For each evidence there is a counter, fossils show no evidences for there is cross of items of different eras in each layer, the historical ref. are more reliable, this world is a experiment by higher beens, we are made like a computer program, so everything else. Humans are like monks trying to understand.
The bible tells the history of it, they keep humanity going and all ways save a seed to continue, in the event of total annihilation a giant space craft will come end save the best seed (the elected) (6000 sq M pyramid) with 12 doors(with a force field) that will take the remnant(genetically perfect) to another planet and start terraforming (revelation). You can take truth from all fountains for nobody will put only lies.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
First off, kiss my hairy ass
Perhaps you should think about shaving your ass.
Second, WTF are you talking about? I havent posted in this thread for awhile.
You seem to be incapable of seeing a creation vs. evolution discussion without actively trolling the Creationists. Which turns the discussion into crap. Not even useful crap. So I tend to leave as I prefer REASON over emotion laced ignorance. Are you and uvavontuba having fun yet? Will you ever?
Thirdly, kiss my hairy ass.
Can't get laid?
Otto posts where and what he wants
Craps there too.
You dont like it, go back to your experts
On this subject I AM the expert. Richard Dawkins would have difficulty surpassing me at this. He does know more facts than I but he doesn't have the discussion skills to debate Creationists as well.

He might do better on his feet face to face. Just not on the web.
Do you understand me?
Do you understand the concept of a reasoned debate? Sans hairy asses.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
For each evidence there is a counter
Not on your side.
fossils show no evidences for there is cross of items of different eras in each layer,
That phrase makes no sense. Perhaps if you elucidate it. With actual evidence to back it up. I have NEVER seen anything to support that without there being fairly clear reasons for the OCCASIONAL RARE crossing of layers. For instance some animals DIG. Which has covered every instance I have seen.
the historical ref. are more reliable
Its rather hard to see evolution occuring over short periods of time. It has been seen but only rarely.
this world is a experiment by higher beens
No. Not a shred of evidence supports that.
we are made like a computer program
No. We grow. We are NOT Turing Machines.
Humans are like monks trying to understand
No. We have actual profesional scientists as well as amateurs. Monks are NOT interested, in most cases, in understanding the world around us.

More dropped jaw typing to come
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
The bible tells the history of it
No. It has many claims that don't fit the evidence. For instance:
And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Notice all that growing stuff and mornings and evening on the third day. Then note that the SUN WASN'T THERE till the fourth day. That is four days without a Sun. Which is just plain silly at best.

By the pricking of my thumbs
Something insane this way comes
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2010
For each evidence there is a counter, fossils show no evidences for there is cross of items of different eras in each layer, the historical ref. are more reliable, this world is a experiment by higher beens, we are made like a computer program, so everything else.
Sorry, no, and utterly ridiculous.

Find a single pre-cambrian rabbit.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2010
in the event of total annihilation a giant space craft will come end save the best seed (the elected)
Oh dear you do have a strange version of Christianity. When will you be putting your Nikes and putting a bag over your head? Sorry that is harsh but it matches your words.

to another planet and start terraforming (revelation)


Funny how no one else has ever noticed the claims of a space ship in Revulsions. Not even the Mormons.

I am sorry to have disturbed you with a bit of reality. Perhaps when you get in touch with someone rational even by the standards of Creationists, you might be better prepared to discuss this.

Never mind Otto. You are welcome to go Trolling with this one. It thinks the Bible is about space ships. Have fun.

Oh and I should put this here as well.

Please surprise me with something I haven't seen a dozen times already.


OK so he gets a high five for that. I am most definitely surprised. Stunned as well.

Ethelred
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
On this subject I AM the expert. Richard Dawkins would have difficulty surpassing me at this. He does know more facts than I but he doesn't have the discussion skills to debate Creationists as well.
Well you know, now that you bring it up, I did have a few suggestions... You are certainly prolific but you seem to have a problem with attention span, addressing points with only a sentence or 2. Maybe try typing with 2 or more fingers? Dawkins and myself- we tend to use paragraphs.

And though you expound at length and in detail you never seem to get anywhere. I mean these people just keep returning when I would think the desire is to get rid of them. I think Ethel enjoys the pleasant discourse more than scoring points which actually damage his opponents.
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
Which leads me to my last issue; your comments may sometimes be witty but they lack emotion, which is why Otto can grab hold of discussions and leave Ethelred blowing buttsmoke- Otto is emotionally engaged in his personal efforts to discredit religion. Ethelred is personally engaged in himself, yes, a little bit, I think?? -And so is less effective as a result.

Though they may be informative, I am usually just not compelled to read through entire Ethelred posts.

Hope this helps.
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2010
Do you understand the concept of a reasoned debate? Sans hairy asses.
Otto prefers Sturm and Drang. I think it's pretty clear that you will NEVER talk a religionist out of their affliction, much as you enjoy trying. I think it is essential to show them and others the real effects of religious dogma on the world past and present, and how people FEEL about this.

Their superstition is based on emotion, not thought. Most will not respond to reason AT ALL. Why try? Tell them how you FEEL about the consequences of their beliefs, is ottos credo.
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
Genesis give a simple explanation of a complex matter, but we are talking about beens with a technology to create suns and life, (there is others fountains of knowledge) it is a puzzle, shows a Earth destroyed and rebuilt, because of creatures that didn't work well(Book of Enoch), and they start all over again.
The New Jerusalem that came down from heaven is a giant pyramid 6000 M sq. has light and produces water for the new Earth also heat (and I so a new Earth without Sea and Sun)(Revelation). This man John was taken to a place out of this world and saw futuristic technology. The Bible also says "don't you know that you are observed by a multitude of whiteness". People make religion of things they don't understand, I see the Bible as historic and informative and proven accurate with a lot of man religion mixed in it, that has to be taken out, to be useful.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
And frajo. Another one who fears to get emotionally involved except for mild disdain. And instead of answering posts he/she doesn't like, hits the 1 star instead rather than risk confrontation (and losing).

There is a place for emotion in discussions, and expressing it doesn't make one a troll if the intentions are sound. Trolls are consistently self-serving whether being obnoxious or polite, and resent interference; would this make Ethelred a troll?

The majority who post here are expressing emotion at the core, including certainly religionists, which would put people like Ethelred and frajo in a distinct minority.

frajo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
And instead of answering posts he/she doesn't like, hits the 1 star instead rather than risk confrontation (and losing).
Disagreement isn't equivalent to not liking. And yes, I'm not Heraklis and I'm usually not going to clean your stables by investing more of my scarce remaining time than is needed to put a "1".
There is a place for emotion in discussions, and expressing it doesn't make one a troll if the intentions are sound.
I don't mind emotional expressions. I'm afraid, however, that your "emotions" are equivalent to my "inaccuracies".
The majority who post here are expressing emotion at the core, including certainly religionists, which would put people like Ethelred and frajo in a distinct minority.
That's quite flattering.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2010
Disagreement isn't equivalent to not liking. And yes, I'm not Heraklis and I'm usually not going to clean your stables by investing more of my scarce remaining time than is needed to put a "1".
Poop.
I don't mind emotional expressions. I'm afraid, however, that your "emotions" are equivalent to my "inaccuracies".
Sorry. Dass macht kein Sinn.
That's quite flattering.
You translated it wrong.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2010
You are certainly prolific but you seem to have a problem with attention span, addressing points with only a sentence or 2.


I seem to see a LOT more posts from you.

As for the way I take things apart, I developed the technique in 2000. It works for me. All I am realy doing is writing down what I think as I read. That way I don't have that nasty feeling that I had an idea and lost it. I go back over what I wrote when I get the end to make sure that it works as a whole. Try it sometime.

Maybe try typing with 2 or more fingers?


Sorry but I have been using ten since 1963. I am not going to start hunt and peck now. Now my brother uses five and seems to manage. That's two on the left and three on the right.

I am
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
Dawkins and myself- we tend to use paragraphs
I think Dawkins would do a better job of noticing that I use paragraphs as well. I keep them short for the sake of clarity. Indeed some of the original paragraphs are quite long and then I cut at appropriate places. It seems to improve legibility on the Net. Now if I could cease leaving out words. NOT is a really bad word to leave out.
And though you expound at length and in detail you never seem to get anywhere
Nonsense.
I mean these people just keep returning when I would think the desire is to get rid of them
And you have succeeded so well. Kevin for instance is willing to respond to you. He leaves as soon as I post. Mabarker also.

I think Ethel enjoys the pleasant discourse more than scoring points
Funny how upset some of them get with me. Even lurkers come out of the closet to express outrage that I might actually insist on using reaon. I just had some twit claim I was promoting eugenics. BIG SCORE.

Rolling
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
Now if you can chase off marjon or the MultiNamed Crank I will be impressed. Very impressed.
but they lack emotion,
What a tragedy. Ooh that's emotion. I must expunge it.
why Otto can grab hold of discussions and leave Ethelred blowing buttsmoke-
Grab hold and trash anyway.
Otto is emotionally engaged in his personal efforts to discredit religion
Which why you get into such long shit throwing matches.
Ethelred is personally engaged in himself, yes
You are projecting. Of course EVERYBODY is at least a bit engaged with themselves. I like reason. I find that excessive emotion in a conflict leads to losing. Any fencer can tell you this. Emotion in many sports is for losers. Cold calculation works better. Keep in mind I said EXCESSIVE emotion. Adrenaline helps IF you can stay in control. I don't need adrenaline to type. It does help in a fleche. Worse than worthless in a distance run. And yes I have done those. I hate long runs.

Otto is
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
Trolling
I am usually just not compelled to read through entire Ethelred posts
That is why you haven't learned how effective they are.
Otto prefers Sturm and Drang
The Germans have lost a LOT of wars.
I think it's pretty clear that you will NEVER talk a religionist out of their affliction, much as you enjoy trying
Well I have done so. At least talked some out of being Creationists anyway.
and how people FEEL about this.
Would you like to see the places where people accuse me of hating god? Might not be any here yet. They mostly have been running away instead. Mostly.
Most will not respond to reason AT ALL. Why try?
Two reasons.

ONE - Some do. Those are the ones with enough brains to make a difference.
TWO - It improves MY thinking.
Trolls are consistently self-serving whether being obnoxious or polite, and resent interference; would this make Ethelred a troll?
Bull. Trolls look to upset people. Interference is, for them, a sign they succeeded.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
but we are talking about beens with a technology to create suns and life,
Not in the Bible we aren't. There it is Jehovah.
shows a Earth destroyed and rebuilt, because of creatures that didn't work wel

Well that didn't happen so I guess the Aliens didn't either.
The New Jerusalem that came down from heaven is a giant pyramid 6000 M sq. has light and produces water for the new Earth also heat (and I so a new Earth without Sea and Sun)(Revelation)
A peculiar, at best, interpretation of a book that is best left to disturb the disturbed. I think that would count as deranged squared.
This man John was taken to a place out of this world and saw futuristic technology. T
And you do have some evidence to support this then?
The Bible also says "don't you know that you are observed by a multitude of whiteness".
Which is a meaningless noise even by Biblical standards. So then, perhaps some of the authors did a bit too much worshiping of Sativa.

There will be more
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2010
People make religion of things they don't understand,
And sometimes people write down things they don't understand and thus put future readers in a difficult situation. Which is not going to stop you I see. You will interpret nonsense into vastly more silly nonsense.
I see the Bible as historic and informative and proven accurate
Only problem with that line is that a lot of the Bible has been proven false. Most of Genesis for instance.

Such as an incorrect order of Creation. Excuse me, TWO different orders of Creation and both wrong.

A flood that never happened.

All of human life drowned except for eight and that never happened either.

Considering that the Flood never happened that makes Noah rather hard to accept as well. So there goes his ancestors as fictional people don't have them. Which wipes out the Book of Enoch.

More amazed maundering to come
frajo
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
That's quite flattering.
You translated it wrong.
Don't think so.
The majority who post here are expressing emotion at the core, including certainly religionists, which would put people like Ethelred and frajo in a distinct minority.
Not "expressing emotions at the core" would place people like Ethelred and myself in a distinct minority. Right?

Fine. To be a member of a distinct minority is great. Because it gives rise to great emotions.
But emotions cannot be expressed by words. Words may induce emotions, but they are quite bad at conveying one's true emotions.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2010
The Germans have lost a LOT of wars.
Depends on what you mean by 'lose'.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
I seem to see a LOT more posts from you.
Good
As for the way I take things apart, I developed the technique in 2000. It works for me. All I am realy doing is writing down what I think as I read. That way I don't have that nasty feeling that I had an idea and lost it. I go back over what I wrote when I get the end to make sure that it works as a whole. Try it sometime.
for
Sorry but I have been using ten since 1963. I am not going to start hunt and peck now. Now my brother uses five and seems to manage. That's two on the left and three on the right.
you.
I am
So
I think Dawkins would do a better job of noticing that I use paragraphs as well. I keep them short for the sake of clarity. Indeed some of the original paragraphs are quite long and then I cut at appropriate places. It seems to improve legibility on the Net. Now if I could cease leaving out words. NOT is a really bad word to leave out.
fucking
Nonsense
what?

-Nah, tried it, dont like it
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2010
The defense
Bull. Trolls look to upset people. Interference is, for them, a sign they succeeded.
rests.
Funny how upset some of them get with me. Even lurkers come out of the closet to express outrage that I might actually insist on using reaon. I just had some twit claim I was promoting eugenics. BIG SCORE.


-I dont know, maybe it'll work for some occasions. Takes the proper rhythm.
Don't think so.
That was actually meant to be subtle sarcasm. You continentals...
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
it, that has to be taken out, to be useful.
Yes if you take out all the pages that make no sense or are clearly false or contradictory then the parts left might be useful. If you can find any left.

So I did ask a question or two and they seem to have been forgotten. So I will just ask them again.

Now what do you have to support YOUR beliefs?
For instance do you really believe in the Great Flood and if so where is the evidence?

And here is another. Are you into Von Daniken? Or is this stuff your own?

Please notice that I DO remember that I asked questions and notice when they are evaded.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
Depends on what you mean by 'lose'.


At least you ask what I mean by 'is'.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
-Nah, tried it, dont like it


I don't think that counts as trying.

Or even as satire.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2010
The MultNamed Wanker has Yet Another Login. And is using to rate people more than once. What a creep.

hodzaa

Joins the host of Zephir accounts. Most likely he had another account banned again.

Which means that Zephir is going to more ones as he simply is incapable of even pretending to be an honest person.

We, not just me, keep telling the idiot that if he sticks to one login he will get what he wants. Less ones. In his infinite stupidity and dishonesty he just creates more logins to exercise his foolishness.

Ethelred
Tomrelative
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2010
I don't believe anything, faith is the tool of the fool, I just have not been indoctrinated by society nor educational system, I observe research and find clues, sorry but our discussions are over. your bias clouds your judgments.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2010
I don't believe anything
You sure weren't saying that before.
The New Jerusalem that came down from heaven is a giant pyramid 6000 M sq. has light and produces water for the new Earth also heat (and I so a new Earth without Sea and Sun)(Revelation). This man John was taken to a place out of this world and saw futuristic technology
Since there is NO evidence to support that claim it IS a BELIEF.
faith is the tool of the fool
So why the exceedingly silly claim quoted above?
I just have not been indoctrinated by society nor educational system
Well the latter certainly seems to fit what you have been posting.
I observe research and find clues
Reading an ancient book is not observing and when the book is known to be wrong on many things it can't be considered a source of reliable information. So where is the research and what are the clues?
sorry but our discussions are over. your bias clouds your judgments
SOMETHING is clouding your judgment.

Ethelred