Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision

Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision
Credit: Physics

(Phys.org) —A team of researchers working at the Experimental Storage Ring in Damstadt, Germany have conducted an experiment using ions pushed to 40 percent of the speed of light to verify time dilation to a new level of precision. In their paper published in Physical Review Letters, the team describes how their experiment was conducted and how it allowed them to validate the time dilation prediction to just a few parts per billion.

When Einstein came up with his theories on , the world was introduced to the idea of measuring —where an astronaut would age at a different rate than those left behind on Earth—due to the being a constant. Relativistic time dilation comes from the Lorentz invariance, which says that no matter where in the universe an object is, or at what speed it might be traveling, the rules remain the same. Since Einstein's time, scientists have conducted many experiments to prove the theory true—some by using natural objects such as the movement of the Earth in relation to other celestial bodies—others by conducting experiments in the lab.

Such experiments have proven successful and today, the idea of measuring time dilation is more about precision than adding proof that the theory is correct. In this latest effort, the team working in Germany caused ions to move very fast using an accelerator, then fired lasers in opposite directions to look for and measure the relativistic Doppler shift as it occurred. As part of the experiment, the researchers used a new technique to keep the relative velocity of all the ions very low, and another involving optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy to detect very small changes in brightness.

The experiment allowed for measuring the shift in laser frequencies relative to what the transition frequencies would be for ions that had not been accelerated. By combining the two frequency shifts, uncertainties could be eliminated making it possible to validate time dilation predictions to an order of precision much higher than previous limits. It also demonstrated that it's possible to improve time dilation measurement precision in a lab, which means that scientists no longer have to rely on celestial bodies, which tend to come along with assumptions that may or may not be based on actual facts.


Explore further

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

More information: Test of Time Dilation Using Stored Li+ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120405 – Published 16 September 2014. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ … ysRevLett.113.120405
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

© 2014 Phys.org

Citation: Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision (2014, September 19) retrieved 21 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-09-ions-relativistic-dilation-precision.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2096 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 19, 2014
Note, among other things, the reference to modern tests about supposed "time dilation" being "more about precision than adding proof that the theory is correct". Only a shallow and superficial individual would accept that. Because, if, at any range of precision, the results consistently vary from that predicted, that means the theory is not true! It might look pretty to some, but, if it doesn't comport down to the smallest detail, it is not valid! If it's correct, why look to higher precision measurements to see if it holds? Every increase in precision brings the theory closer to being demonstrated as at least applicable but at no point can it said to be absolutely proved.
A red flag, too, can be seen in the constant use of lasers to "prove" "relativity". One suspects that in environments with multiple, uncoordinated radiation sources, "relativity" breaks down, at least at finer measurements.

Sep 19, 2014
Perhaps this is not the best place to put this question, a layman's - and maybe a stupid - one. But I'm already posting it, together with apologizing for doing so: how can an absolute value, like the speed of light, be consistent if the factors in its expression, time and space, are not absolute? If time dilates and space shrinks from the perspective of an object moving at light speed and not from an external observer point of view, and if this dilation-shrinking is somehow noticed or experienced by this external observer, then isn't it right to assume that this phenomenon also affects the external observer?
I'm perhaps talking 'just' from a philosophical standpoint and about a problem already solved, though I've been unable to find anywhere this solution. Anyone to help?

Sep 19, 2014
Perhaps this is not the best place to put this question, a layman's - and maybe a stupid - one. But I'm already posting it, together with apologizing for doing so: how can an absolute value, like the speed of light, be consistent if the factors in its expression, time and space, are not absolute?

A fair question.
If time dilates and space shrinks from the perspective of an object moving at light speed and not from an external observer point of view, and if this dilation-shrinking is somehow noticed or experienced by this external observer, then isn't it right to assume that this phenomenon also affects the external observer?

Absolutely everything is relative to the observational reference frame. Time does not dilate and distance does not actually shrink in the "object at speed of light" reference.
It only APPEARS that way when the two reference frames are compared.
Don't let it over complicate itself.

Sep 19, 2014
Thanks, Whydening Gyre, for your answer, for it seems it puts an end to how science media 'translates' science jargon into 'more palatable' language driving a lot of people into thinking that time dilation and space shrinking at light speed is an actual phenomenon, not an appearance of a phenomenon.
But the problem seems just to step further: does your answer allow people to say that, at least in points like this one, physics is about appearances - as opposed to actual facts?
Anyway, beyond the ability to formulate theories - a feature seemingly more common than proving them - the crux of physics looks like the conception of experiments, as necessarily they must involve a selection of variables and thus an obstacle to the making of more general assumptions on their (experiments') bases - for in Nature the variables can't be easily counted (if so much). As a trap to 'force Nature to speak' the experiment may not be getting all that their creators were after.

Sep 19, 2014
I thought it was a good question too, and good job Whyde. 5s for you both (and whoever gave wal a 1 is >something I can't say on this site<).

wal, remember also that while space and time are not absolute, but dependent upon the state of the observer, *acceleration* is absolute.

Another way to say this is that inside the speeding space ship, there is no experiment you can do that will tell you how fast you're going unless you peek outside. On the other hand, if your space ship is *accelerating* (and remember for physicists that also means decelerating, which is negative acceleration) you can always perform an experiment that will tell you so. What you cannot do is tell the source of the acceleration, that is, whether it's gravity, or rockets, or a motor driving wheels, or whatnot.

Sep 19, 2014
First comment is an anti-science troll of the worst sort, since the article describes how this is accepted science. As one can check in the nearest encyclopedia.

@wal_reis: Whydening Gyre is correct. That you can't find a description, "a solution", seems odd, this is relativity 101 since it is the basics. Already Wikipedia describes: "space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other." [ http://en.wikiped...lativity ]

But it is really the quantitative physics description you need, which is based on reference frames. Words, however beautiful, can't encapsulate the physics. I had to walk through that at the university and solve some problems before I grokked special relativity. (GR is still an unconquered area for me.) I know there are free MOOGs, say Susskind's youtube Stanford Lectures on relativity. [tbctd]

Sep 19, 2014
[ctd] (And a series of the minimum tool set of physics you need before that, if you need to start out fresh; well, from high school level, I guess.)

As a side note on words, be wary of old memes/incomplete descriptions like time dilation which are misleading (in many's experience such as yours). What an outside observer sees is not that, but a distortion: Penrose-Terrell "Rotation".

"People sometimes argue over whether the Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction is "real" or not. That's a topic for another FAQ entry, but here's a short answer: the contraction can be measured, but the measurement is frame dependent. Whether that makes it "real" or not has more to do with your choice of words than the physics.

Here we ask a subtly different question. If you take a snapshot of a rapidly moving object, will it look flattened when you develop the film? ...
[tbctd]

Sep 19, 2014
[ctd] Calling it a rotation can be a bit confusing though. Rotating an object brings its backside into view, but it's hard to see how a contraction could do that. ...

... the image of the galaxy slides up the sphere, keeping the same face to us. In this sense, it has rotated. Its apparent size will also change, but not its shape (to a first approximation)."

[John Baez, usenet/web Physics FAQ; http://math.ucr.e...ose.html ]

***
Re "appearances vs facts" or observations vs reality, it is more a philosophical question. Obviously relativity means physics laws are elevated to universal laws.

I've been going on too long already, so let me point to Carroll's text:

"The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood"

[ http://blogs.disc...CgpR_tgY ]

Sep 19, 2014
It's not a philosophical anything. The clocks on the gps satellites run slow from our POV due to their speed and a correcting factor has to be applied. It's not some esoteric thought experiment and it isn't quantum entanglement as some seem to think.

Sep 19, 2014
Good stuff, Torbjorn.

Nilbud, but from the POV of the satellites their time is perfect and ours is dilated. The question is not what we see from our frame, but whether what we see from our frame is "real," and as Torbjorn says, this is not a physical question but a philosophical one.

Sep 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 19, 2014
Hi Forum. :) In another thread, Zephir linked...

http://arstechnic...the-lab/

...which explains technique: Optical-Optical Double Resonance Spectroscopy...
...involves measuring if the ions emit light, which only happens if they had previously absorbed light. Now, instead of trying to detect small changes in brightness against a bright background, you are trying to detect the presence of any light against a dark background.


Question: What about Laser photons slightly too red/blue shifted to be absorbed? They're reflected, yes? Won't they complicate otherwise assumed 'dark background' predicated on no other than absorbed-&-re-emitted' photons coming back at detectors? These reflected photons would still form a 'bright' background, no? How were such photons eliminated so detectors depending on 'dark' background actually are looking into a dark background?

Zephir, any ideas how they did that? :)

Sep 19, 2014
RC,
simple answer is - they don't absorb if at a particular point in their "spin", They only deflect. Absorption is only done if angular perspective is within 60 degrees of their optimal absorption phase. likewise with re-emission, but 180 degrees opposite of absorption phase.

Sep 19, 2014
And he's asking Zephyr for comments. Amazing.

Sep 19, 2014
wal, remember also that while space and time are not absolute, but dependent upon the state of the observer, *acceleration* is absolute.

Only because it "appears" they are expanding... In actuality, they are an "almost" closed loop...
(think PI)
Another way to say this is that inside the speeding space ship, there is no experiment you can do that will tell you how fast you're going unless you peek outside. On the other hand, if your space ship is *accelerating* (and remember for physicists that also means decelerating, which is negative acceleration) you can always perform an experiment that will tell you so. What you cannot do is tell the source of the acceleration, that is, whether it's gravity, or rockets, or a motor driving wheels, or whatnot.

How can you know you are accelerating (or decelerating) without a reference from "outside"? And - If you're in a "ship" you know what is accelerating you - you are using it...

Sep 19, 2014
Question: What about Laser photons
From where?

Are you unaware that lasers are monochromatic?

Where did your supposed red/blue shift come from?

Sep 19, 2014
And he's asking Zephyr for comments. Amazing.

Actually, Zeph has a unique sense of things. His difficulties lie in his ability to translate them to mutually understandable terminology.

Sep 19, 2014
wal, remember also that while space and time are not absolute, but dependent upon the state of the observer, *acceleration* is absolute.
Only because it "appears" they are expanding... In actuality, they are an "almost" closed loop...
(think PI)
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

How can you know you are accelerating (or decelerating) without a reference from "outside"?
Because you can perform an experiment inside the ship that will tell you so, for example observing an accelerometer, for example releasing an object to see if it moves. Just like if you were in a gravity field, you could tell. The thing is, the Equivalence Principle says you can't tell the difference between gravity and acceleration; but GRT says you can always measure acceleration with a local experiment, which means no peeking outside.

And - If you're in a "ship" you know what is accelerating you - you are using it...
Not without peeking outside.

Sep 19, 2014
Dang, I should drink more. I had to Crown's neat and I really getting what I'm reading and saying.:-)

Sep 19, 2014
wal, remember also that while space and time are not absolute, but dependent upon the state of the observer, *acceleration* is absolute.
Only because it "appears" they are expanding... In actuality, they are an "almost" closed loop...
(think PI)
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


Time is the "metronome" to which space appears to be expanding(I personally, think it's more just "moving"). I'll explain the almost closed loop thing when I have it better fixed in my head...

Sep 19, 2014
How can you know you are accelerating (or decelerating) without a reference from "outside"?

Because you can perform an experiment inside the ship that will tell you so, for example observing an accelerometer, for example releasing an object to see if it moves. Just like if you were in a gravity field, you could tell.

The accelerometer is dependent on a gravity field to compare the motion of you against it (consider that a peak "outside"). So you are saying there is a gravity field in interstellar space?


Sep 19, 2014
There is a gravity field everywhere. It might be zero, but it's there. Just like the electromagnetic, strong, and weak fields, and the Higgs field.

The accelerometer, however, measures the same whether it's measuring gravity, or measuring your space ship's acceleration due to, as stated, wheels, or sails, or rockets, or whatever means of propulsion you're using with Newton's Third Law.

Sep 19, 2014
wal, remember also that while space and time are not absolute, but dependent upon the state of the observer, *acceleration* is absolute.
Only because it "appears" they are expanding... In actuality, they are an "almost" closed loop...
(think PI)
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.


Time is the "metronome" to which space appears to be expanding(I personally, think it's more just "moving"). I'll explain the almost closed loop thing when I have it better fixed in my head...
Errr, time and space are one thing, spacetime, as Einstein said after he had seen Minkowski's work. While we perceive them as separate, the truth is they're the same in a fundamental way. They're dimensions.

Sep 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Question: What about Laser photons
From where?

Are you unaware that lasers are monochromatic?

Where did your supposed red/blue shift come from?
It's right there, in the above article and in the link to Zeph's article I posted above. The shift is relative, caused by the velocity spread among the collection of ions being accelerated in the experiment. The lasers are shone on them from either end, and those photons relatively shifted enough to NOT be absorbed must be reflected, and so cannot form part of the emitted-after-absorption photons.

Hence my question what they do to eliminate those reflected (not absorbed) photons so that the 'bright background' problem is eliminated as they indicate in the article where the detection was now done against a 'dark background'.

Sep 19, 2014
Hi WG. :)
RC, simple answer is - they don't absorb if at a particular point in their "spin", They only deflect. Absorption is only done if angular perspective is within 60 degrees of their optimal absorption phase. likewise with re-emission, but 180 degrees opposite of absorption phase.

Yes, whatever the cause for reflection of photons, including relative blue/red shift by ions' velocity spreads, that was what my question was about. The article explains that the technique depended on a 'dark background', but reflected photons (as distinct from the sought emitted-after-absorption photons) would still cause a 'bright background'. I haven't seen explained how they eliminate the reflected photons to leave only the 'emitted-after-absorbed' ones. That was the point of my question, not how reflection as such occurs. Thanks. :)

Sep 19, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Question: What about Laser photons
From where?

Are you unaware that lasers are monochromatic?

Where did your supposed red/blue shift come from?
It's right there, in the above article and in the link to Zeph's article I posted above.
So you're pretending that the effect the experiment is designed to demonstrate is interfering with the experiment.

Like I said, got a reference for that?

Sep 20, 2014
Since Einstein's time, scientists have conducted many experiments to prove the theory true...


Since Einstein's time, scientists have conducted many experiments to prove the theory *false*

Fixed that.

So far without success, but that won't stop them continuing to try.


Sep 20, 2014
Since Einstein's time, scientists have conducted many experiments to prove the theory *false*
Herbert Dingle succeeded to prove that the interpretation of Einstein's Special; Theory of Relativity is absurd.
So far without success, but that won't stop them continuing to try
Dingle succeeded since nobody to date have been able to prove him wrong by explaining the absurdity he raised in terms of sane reality!

Sep 20, 2014
That's why they call him Dingle.

Sep 20, 2014
Note, among other things, the reference to modern tests about supposed "time dilation" being "more about precision than adding proof that the theory is correct". Only a shallow and superficial individual would accept that. Because, if, at any range of precision, the results consistently vary from that predicted, that means the theory is not true!


No, it just means there is a limit to the precision that is contingent upon the experimental apparatus,.... which says nothing about the theory itself.

Sep 20, 2014
Absolutely everything is relative to the observational reference frame. Time does not dilate and distance does not actually shrink in the "object at speed of light" reference.
It only APPEARS that way when the two reference frames are compared.


Incorrect. [Yes, in the "object at speed of light" reference, but the poster who asked the question went on to interprete SR as merely appearance]. If it was not real and merely appearance, then there would have been no need for Einstein, as Lorentz and Fitzgerald had already suggested that. There are a number of physical effects caused by velocity approaching c, that cannot be undone by a clever choice of coordinate reference frame. See twin paradox (which is not a paradox) or Hafele & Keating, increased half life of muon, etc

Sep 20, 2014
The accelerometer is dependent on a gravity field ..
- drinking artist

Maybe I need a few bourbons to accept that statement. There's an equivalence (in motion) but not a dependence.

Then again, I'm known for saying 'less speed, more precision' when dealing with students. Seems appropriate for this discussion.


Sep 20, 2014
@nilbud: Da Schneib nailed it.

Let me add this though: Reality exists, as already Dr Johnson noted, "I refute [non-reality] thus" and kicked a stone. That we robustly see constrained reaction on constrained action (e.g. laws applied on systems) tests that. However, what it is is slippery philosophic.

First, note that these tests are part of mechanics already (action-reaction in classical mechanics, observation-observables in quantum mechanics). Yyou don't add anything new, the test is a "test". Reality = mechanics, so to say.

Second, relativity makes observables local instead of universal, quantum mechanics makes them non-local to some degree and also not "real" before the observation. That is of course because particle fields are the systems, not particles/waves. But it also puts reality (laws, fields, systems) removed from the observables as such.

This is why scientists have no use for the concept of "reality", it is built into science already. Which we should have suspected.

Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 20, 2014
Not sure if anyone has been forthcoming over the velocity of the wave front from various sources. So this experiment has no merit within sensibility as well as the velocity from astronomical sources. So are we simply guessing?

Sep 20, 2014
Consider the calibration and synchronization, potential energies, and position precision for making the original measurements from space. What is the correct precision to used using the accumulated error. Also what is the repeatability of these measurements using different sources for the light measurements. What other off earth measurements do we have. Hence, the original assumption is a foolish guess. real science would not throw out the contra argument until absolutely proven. For timing and received time, what signals are being used to verify same upon each vehicle? This is absurdity at it's far flung best! Who gets paid?

Is this what physics has turned into, a popularity contest?

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Question: What about Laser photons...
From where? Are you unaware that lasers are monochromatic? Where did your supposed red/blue shift come from?
It's right there, in the above article and in the link to Zeph's article I posted above.
So you're pretending that the effect the experiment is designed to demonstrate is interfering with the experiment. Like I said, got a reference for that?


Practice what you preach, Schneib. Stop your strawmanning and false attributions, and just address the straightforward aspect asked about. So far you have been indulging inn trolling and snide tactics, not science discourse. I asked how the 'dark background (necessary for their "optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy" technique to work) was ensured. They depend only on absorbed and re-emitted photons for that technique, but there are still UN-absorbed (reflected, and possibly fully-transmitted...thanks Zeph!) photons because of the velocity spread of ions.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Zeph. :)
What about Laser photons slightly too red/blue shifted to be absorbed? They're reflected, yes?
If the color of laser light is shifted from absorption peak of ions, then it would pass through it them freely. On the contrary, the mirroring of light is an indication, the absorption and subsequent radiation of light proceeds massively with ensemble of entangled particles (i.e. entangled at the distance comparable to the wavelength of light).
If that also happens, then it is worse for the technique used in that experiment. Since the velocity spread is still there, and the transmitted (and also any transiently reflected) photons would give a false reading to the detectors which are used under the assumption that whatever photons ARE received is only those within the range they were expecting ONLY from the specific 'absorbed-and-re-emitted photon cases. So the whole 'measurement' would include non-targeted photons as well as those from the target 'process'. Hmmm.

Sep 20, 2014
No reference, and no science, RC.

Sep 20, 2014
No reference, and no science, RC.
They were questions with discussion points of reference from the articles/experiments themselves, Schneib. You missed that too?

How silly do you want to look, Schneib? If 'real stupid silly' is what you're aiming for, then just keep up your hypocritical, semantics, strawmen and inane trolling tactics....non-scientist.

Sep 20, 2014
BTW, did you forget that they can check the frequency shift against the original laser pulse?

This is duh.

Sep 20, 2014
BTW, did you forget that they can check the frequency shift against the original laser pulse?

This is duh.
Never said they couldn't, Schneib. Stop the false attributions and strawmen tactics, Schneib. It's wrong, even for you non-scientists.

And no checks would tease out the reflected/transmitted (as distinct from the specifically targeted/sought absorbed-re-emitted) photons which the optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy technique they use depends on for being detected against a 'dark background'; which assumes no other photons close to those frequencies will be reflected/transmitted due to the inescapable velocity spread effects of relative red/blue shifts involved and reflections/transmissions possible.

If you can't make sensible contributions/answers, then just stay out of it, Schneib. Practice what you preach.

Sep 20, 2014
I never said you did. I said what you claim implies it.

It's how you got to claiming that they screwed up, and it's wrong.

Just like you're wrong when you say there's no way to determine where the photons came from. It's really simple: direction. Photons travel in straight lines; they certainly don't turn around in mid-flight like they'd have to for direction not to be a key indicator of their origin.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I never said you did. I said what you claim implies it.

It's how you got to claiming that they screwed up, and it's wrong.

Just like you're wrong when you say there's no way to determine where the photons came from. It's really simple: direction. Photons travel in straight lines; they certainly don't turn around in mid-flight like they'd have to for direction not to be a key indicator of their origin.


I didn't claim anything. I just asked how they eliminated the reflected (and as Zephir points out, fully-transmitted) photons which would otherwise contaminate the specific emitted-after-absorbing ones they were after, assuming no other photons would contaminate that and so effectively be detecting same against a 'dark background'.

And the direction of those which stay essentially along-tube from either direction may complicate things. Any answer? That's all I wanted to have clarified for me. That's it. No claims at all as you keep wrongly attributing.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
I never said you did. I said what you claim implies it.
I didn't claim anything.
LOL

You're lying again, RC, and all anybody has to do is note that that statement is a version of the "Cretan Liar's Paradox."

"I never claimed anything," huh? That's a good one, I'll have to remember that.

Sep 20, 2014
What are you on about now, Schneib? Here was my post asking for clarification, in context...
Hi Forum. :) In another thread, Zephir linked... http://arstechnic...the-lab/ ...which explains technique: Optical-Optical Double Resonance Spectroscopy...
...involves measuring if the ions emit light, which only happens if they had previously absorbed light. Now, instead of trying to detect small changes in brightness against a bright background, you are trying to detect the presence of any light against a dark background.
Question: What about Laser photons slightly too red/blue shifted to be absorbed? They're reflected, yes? Won't they complicate otherwise assumed 'dark background' predicated on no other than absorbed-&-re-emitted' photons coming back at detectors? These reflected photons would still form a 'bright' background, no? How were such photons eliminated so detectors depending on 'dark' background actually are looking into a dark background? Zephir, any ideas how they did that? :)


Where's the 'lying' in any way therein?

And it seems to be you totally 'at sea' and lying to save face from your faux pas earlier. First you din't know "what laser", then you didn't know "what red/blue shifts", and when I pointed out it was all there in the referenced article/experiment, you wen silent and didn't admit to being confused and just kneejerking because you actually not reading/comprehending properly.

And you keep coming back with your 'tactics' of avoidance and false attribution distractions?

Practice what you preach, Schneib.

Sep 20, 2014
Where's the 'lying' in any way therein?
Now you're cherry picking. The most obvious (but not only) lie is: "I didn't claim anything," which is, itself, you will note, a claim. And therefore a lie.

Say "d'oh."

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Where's the 'lying' in any way therein?
Now you're cherry picking. The most obvious (but not only) lie is: "I didn't claim anything," which is, itself, you will note, a claim. And therefore a lie. Say "d'oh."
How desperate must you be, mate? The above post of mine lays out clearly my question and request for clarification. Period. All other attributions of 'claims' and 'lies' are your 'projections' easy for all to see in the full context above. Your own faux pas and claims about lies, and your false attributions and strawmanning, plus your own failure to address the question/request for clarification and instead attack the questioner makes you certainly a troll interested only in 'the person' rather than the question. Talk about cheery picking, semantics, evasions and plain insensibility from a non-scientist, you take the cake, mate. Have you no sense at all? Quit while you are still being humored because of politeness; in others, not you, obviously.

Sep 20, 2014
I'm not the one who's desperate. I'm not making up lies.

You're amusing to bat around on a Saturday Night, RC, but if anything really interesting comes up you're toast. You don't even know the Cretan Liar's Paradox.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib.
I'm not the one who's desperate. I'm not making up lies.

You're amusing to bat around on a Saturday Night, RC, but if anything really interesting comes up you're toast. You don't even know the Cretan Liar's Paradox.
Still at it? Evasions and projections. You ignore context and issues and keep making snide irrelevant remarks to cover your own failures and faux pas. And now you admit it, you are a non-scientist internet junkie, one of those who is here to troll and amuse yourself with your own silliness while you sabotage proper discussion between others, for sport? That explains a lot. You're an ego-tripping social-media-trolling type, and a waste of time and effort therefore, Schneib. Your inane one-liners define you now, Schneib, as does your futile and irrelevant downvoting even before the discussion point is done one way or the other. Childish pique, sneak to downvote in ratings page instead of facing the points made honestly. Bye.

Sep 20, 2014
If you knew the CL Paradox you'd have quoted it; you don't even have the pride to go look it up.

You're pitiful, RC.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
If you knew the CL Paradox you'd have quoted it; you don't even have the pride to go look it up.

You're pitiful, RC.
First irrelevant semantics, then irrelevant strawmen, then malicious false attributions, now it's this diversion tactic you are counting on to save your reputation? Too late, Schneib, you've effectively dented your own reputation over the last day or so, even more effectively than before.

Go to the ratings page and make more futile and childish downvotes to assuage your trollish desire for cheap revenge on those whom you could not fool with your pretense at knowing/understanding anything really, subtly, deeply scientific worth knowing/understanding. You're done, mate. Any more of the same BS from you will only make you more futile and irrelevant. Do better in future, Schneib, even if you are an admitted non-scientist and orthodoxy parroting troll. Good luck.

Sep 20, 2014
Quote the CL Paradox, RC. At least have the courage to go look it up.

It will be good for you. You will respect yourself more afterward, instead of knowing you're despicable.

Sep 20, 2014
And BTW, FTR, I read every post I grade, up or down.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Quote the CL Paradox, RC. At least have the courage to go look it up.

It will be good for you. You will respect yourself more afterward, instead of knowing you're despicable.
So quoting from a reference is what makes you a scientist in your book? No wonder you 'believe anything' from your selected source, even if it is wrong. That CL paradox is not relevant, mate, since it's you projecting, strawmanning that. Try another one, Schnieb.

By the way, did you catch the scientific implications of my PS to you in the particle detection/experiment thread. See the reason I asked "excess to what" therein, while you just dismissed and started kneejerking all over the place with your inane irrelevancies? Learn.

Sep 20, 2014
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist in any field but computer science.

OTOH, I do claim to know a lot about QM and SRT and GRT, and you do too and what you claim is BS. And I keep pointing it out, and it keeps making you mad.

Get over it. Or stop lying. Your call.

Do you have any idea how stupid doubling down on lies makes you look? You wouldn't do it if you did, I think.

Sep 20, 2014
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist in any field but computer science.
And I'm an EE. Wouldn't want to deceive anybody.

Sep 20, 2014
Hi Schneib.
Again, I never claimed to be a scientist in any field but computer science.
Many 'mainstream defender/pretender' trolls have had fun lambasting such 'credentials' in others in the past.

OTOH, I do claim to know a lot about QM and SRT and GRT, and you do too and what you claim is BS. And I keep pointing it out, and it keeps making you mad.
What you claim is not relevant; what parroted incomplete orthodoxy you keep kneejerking all over the place is even less relevant, when subtle/cutting edge issues are being canvassed.

Get over it. Or stop lying.
Practice what you preach, Schneib.

Do you have any idea how stupid doubling down on lies makes you look? You wouldn't do it if you did, I think.
You're 'Projecting' again, Schneib. Habitual for you now.

And I'm an EE. Wouldn't want to deceive anybody.
No, you wouldn't, would you? :) Again, 'mainstream defender/pretender' trolls have made great sport of such in past.

Just do better, Schneib. :)

Sep 20, 2014
RC, no science, and more claims without evidence.

There is no projection, I'm merely documenting your behavior. You're transparent, RC. I'm embarrassed for you.,

Do better, RC.

Sep 21, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
RC, no science, and more claims without evidence.
You keep missing it.

There is no projection, I'm merely documenting your behavior. You're transparent, RC. I'm embarrassed for you.,
Meanwhile you are presenting with the classic internet troll agenda/tactics. Better concentrate on looking at your own actions/motives, Schneib.

Do better, RC.
Practice what you preach. And that's my advice to you long since; so your imitation is noted. And as the saying goes: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Stop the flattery and just take the sound advice, Schneib. Bye for now! :)

Sep 21, 2014
Wow... Another Saturday nite in Phys.org-land...

Sep 21, 2014
I'm not missing anything. You're lying like a rug.

No science RC.

Do better RC.

Sep 21, 2014
Your one-liners give you away, Schneib. Evasion-and-projection-via-cheap-shot-one-liners tactic is a dead giveaway of the internet troll mentality and agenda. Do try not to be so terribly obvious in future, mate. It's embarrassing to watch such ineptitude, even in trolls.

Practice what you preach, Schneib. Bye for now. :)

Sep 21, 2014
My one-liners are for anti-science idiots like you, RC.

Sep 21, 2014
It appears RC is a subscriber to Zephir's newsletters,.... not realizing he will eventually be lured into a dark basement. It's usualy how such things end.

Sep 21, 2014
@Scneib. :)
My one-liners are for anti-science idiots like you, RC.
Your trolls' one-liners are irrelevant to all except other trolls. Not wanted here.

@Noumenon. :)
It appears RC is a subscriber to Zephir's newsletters,.... not realizing he will eventually be lured into a dark basement. It's usualy how such things end.
See where 'appearances' can be deceiving, especially if you are one to 'just believe' things without checking them out properly for yourself rather than just base your 'beliefs' on trolls lies and innuendos? I subscribe to no-one's newsletter. And whenever Zeph is right and others wrong, which is happening more frequently lately, it doesn't bode well for you 'just believers' of troll lies and mainstream GIGO 'exercises', now does it? Concentrate on your own cupidity for wrong science wherever and whenever you 'read' it, and don't believe everything just because a 'mainstream troll' or 'mainstream scientist' tells you BS. Good luck.

Sep 21, 2014
What's not wanted here is cranks with pet theories who abuse people who don't want to hear about off-topic crap.

Sep 21, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
What's not wanted here is cranks with pet theories who abuse people who don't want to hear about off-topic crap.
Haven't you twigged yet? The ideas, new and old being canvassed is the lifeblood of scientific discourse/advance. What's not needed is a gang of stooges pretending to scientific knowledge/authority when they haven't a clue, and understand neither the orthodoxy they parrot nor the new/old ideas being canvassed by others, including those you label cranks. Trolls and pretenders like you are obvious to spot. Just look at this ratings page and spot the gang of trolls and pretenders voting as a mindless block without even understanding what they are rating...

https://sciencex....k/?v=act

Just look with sadness and pity upon those daisy-chains of-trolls-and-stupids and pretenders, deluding themselves that their block-vote downrating from their own idiocy is somehow relevant to open science discourse based on ideas not persons. Sad.

Sep 21, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. That's pretty cool Cher. How you do that? Look up the karma points I mean. Can you tell me how to look up mine too or is that a secret like the long postums thing?

Sep 21, 2014
Hi Ira. You just caught me before I logged out again! So briefly before I go...
@ Really-Skippy. That's pretty cool Cher. How you do that? Look up the karma points I mean. Can you tell me how to look up mine too or is that a secret like the long postums thing?
Just click onto your username at the top left hand corner of any of your posts; then click on the "all >>" box at the end of the (second) blue bar named "Recently commented" appearing on the page you were redirected to; and you're there!

Cheers and good luck and good thinking to you Ira, everyone! Bye for now. :)

Sep 21, 2014
Just click onto your username at the top left hand corner of any of your posts; then click on the "all >>" box at the end of the (second) blue bar named "Recently commented" appearing on the page you were redirected to; and you're there!


Hooyeei. That was so easy I did it in no time me. Thanks. I see why you was getting the bad moods over when I was giving out the bad karma points for you. Maybe you should try to make the apology with some more peoples like me so we can get the better grades, eh?

Sep 21, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Hooyeei. That was so easy I did it in no time me. Thanks. I see why you was getting the bad moods over when I was giving out the bad karma points for you. Maybe you should try to make the apology with some more peoples like me so we can get the better grades, eh?
It's not about me or you, it's about the science and the polite and open objective and fair science discourse based on ideas, not people/source. I did not take any notice of those ratings pages because they were sabotaged by trolls voting without understanding anything they rated either way. The only reason I pointed to those pages was to illustrate/prove the kind of troll gang herd mentality which demeans all science/scientists/discourse. Which is what the trolls want. I haven't voted on anyone for a long time now, since it's the discussion/points in open forum that interest me, not 'backroom' ego-plays. Good luck Ira. Be objective in reading and discussing, and leave ratings games to the troll losers. Bye.

Sep 21, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. There is no need for you to get all teechy and prickly with me about it. You brought him up, all I asked is how to find that for me. These troll/gang/mod/bot/mafia seems to bedevil you everywhere you go.

Maybe you try to see if my advice might work for you. Relax and have more fun I mean. Life too short to spend it in the bad mood all the time. Peoples are going to be what they are being. Trying to change them isn't going to do anything but gar-ron-tee you stay frustrated and in the bad mood more than you need to be. You take this stuffs to serious Cher, not any of this is that important.

Sep 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 21, 2014
I really like a lot of the comments on here. Good/stimulating stuff everyone.

NOM
Sep 21, 2014
That's got to be a bot

Sep 22, 2014
In the parable where one twin brother travels in a fast spaceship and the other stays on earth, why is it that the one in the spaceship comes back younger compared to the one on earth? Relative the brother in the spaceship, isn't the earth moving away very fast? That way, the earth bound brother should stay young and the brother in the spaceship should age more.

Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. There is no need for you to get all teechy and prickly with me about it.
One can only "teechy" people prepared to drop their own prejudices/personal agendas and take note of the substance of said "teeching". The choice is with the listeners whether they want to take heed of objective facts and good advice presented.

These troll/gang/mod/bot/mafia seems to bedevil you everywhere you go.
You have that backwards, mate!

I was THEIR 'Nemesis", not they mine. Get it now? :)

For decade+, I've challenged the troll gangs whenever/wherever I encountered them sabotaging science-discourse and unfairly baiting/banning OTHERS.

That made me a 'target' too. But I kept exposing/proving their mod-troll-gang abuses. Any true scientist's duty to do so.

Peoples are going to be what they are being. Trying to change them isn't going to do anything...
You miss the point. "Likes/Dislikes" and personal "fun/troll" agendas is irrelevant to science advances. :)

Sep 22, 2014
@ Really-Skippy I guess we just got to disagree about what we agree on Cher. But you snipe & glue my words wrong there, let me fix him. I said,

Trying to change them isn't going to do anything but gar-ron-tee you stay frustrated and in the bad mood more than you need to be.


Not,

Peoples are going to be what they are being. Trying to change them isn't going to do anything...


You miss the point. "Likes/Dislikes" and personal "fun/troll" agendas is irrelevant to science advances. :)


See the difference in that?

I didn't miss any point no, you missed out on some the words in my point. You should not do that Cher, it is disrespectful to me while I'm trying to be nice and give you some advice that maybe might make your life less angry and uptight.

Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :) I tried as best I could to keep the context despite having to reduce the text for limited text format. The point was that Personal aspects, whether about 'trying to change people or not', is irrelevant. Only relevant things are the open science discourse based on ideas/content not person/source. Whether one 'likes' or 'dislikes' anything or anyone is neither here nor there. And troll fun/entertainment is the least relevant thing of all on any science news/discussion site. get it? I don't want to 'change people' at all. These personality-cult agendas are better suited to the non-science social media sites. If you want 'personality cult' based fun and trolling and 'trying to change people/opinions' etc, then go there. This is about discussing the new ideas/science/tech etc which may advance the current status quo OF that science/tech/ideas, not 'changing of people/sources/opinions' as such. I just point out the mod-troll abuses and failures, and the rest follows. Good luck. :)

Sep 22, 2014
@ Really-SkippyI don't believe in the good luck or the bad luck either, but thanks anyway. Okayeeei, we just disagree on the comment place on the physorg. You think it is the place where the real-professional-scientist-Skippys come for their ideas. I disagree with agreeing that is right.

I think the real-professional-scientist-Skippys come here to laugh at peoples like you and me because we don't know what they know and pretend like we do know it better than they know it. Well I try not to do that me, maybe they just come to laugh at me because of the way I look.

This just a place for peoples with weird made up names to come to pretend to be like the scientist-Skippys. Otherwise they would make some rules about some of the foolishment that peoples postum here. Shooeei, they let anybody in and don't care what they post. They probably couldn't find somebody who would try to be the moderator over these couyons, eh Cher?

Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-SkippyI don't believe in the good luck or the bad luck either, but thanks anyway.
Beliefs don't matter either way to objectively happening occurrences of chance events which neither you nor I or anyone may 'have seen coming'. Life is full of chance events which humans have had no part in bringing about/affecting one way or the other. Hence my Good luck" wish to you and yours was real, not just figure of speech or belief etc. :)

Okayeeei, we just disagree on the comment place on the physorg.
It's more than that. It's just one venue where science news/ideas are discussed in the best traditions/principles of science/humanity discourse and advancement. The old venues were LOCAL 'coffee houses' and 'pubs' etc, but now internet sites provide GLOBAL venues/replacement for such. You'd be surprised who anonymously 'visits', reads or posts here and at other sites. What you think about these internet sites readership/consequence is opinion, not fact. Bye! :)

Sep 22, 2014
You'd be surprised who anonymously 'visits', reads or posts here and at other sites.


Well you are right about that Skippy. I would be really surprised if the real professional-scientist-Skippys came to the physorg comment page for good ideas for their next science theory. Have you actually read some of the foolishment that gets put here? They probably have a professional-scientist-Skippy place to go on the interweb where they don't allow so many peoples with the mental condition in.

What you think about these internet sites readership/consequence is opinion, not fact.

You can pretend it is that paper called "Science" or the "Nature" or the "Journal of Smart-Skippy Stuff" if you want to do that, I don't care one way or the other way.There are some really smart Skippys here, and I learn a lot from them. But you have to admit there are some really weird Skippys here too with the crankpot stuff. This is the only place that allow them in so they have to come here.


Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
You'd be surprised who anonymously 'visits', reads or posts here and at other sites.
Well you are right about that Skippy. I would be really surprised if the real professional-scientist-Skippys came to the physorg comment page for good ideas for their next science theory. Have you actually read some of the foolishment that gets put here? They probably have a professional-scientist-Skippy place to go on the interweb where they don't allow so many peoples with the mental condition in.

See, you admit to not being any sort of scientist and to not knowing as much as the science smart people, but then you go on to make such obvious agenda-driven mistaken assessments.

I ask you right back, in your own words: "Have you actually read some of the foolishment put by/in the professional-scientist-Skippy places"?

Obviously you missed that some of the latest stuff from those 'professional-scientist-Skippy' places/theories is so BAD and UNSCIENTIFC that no self-respecting 'crank' would even think to put forth. So your opinion on such things/venues means nil, in both cases.

What you think about these internet sites readership/consequence is opinion, not fact.
You can pretend it is that paper called "Science" or the "Nature" or the "Journal of Smart-Skippy Stuff" if you want to do that, I don't care one way or the other way.There are some really smart Skippys here, and I learn a lot from them. But you have to admit there are some really weird Skippys here too with the crankpot stuff. This is the only place that allow them in so they have to come here.
Where do you think some of the "really smart Skippy's" go when they are out of ideas and are just left with 'parroting orthodoxy' in order to convince THEMNSELVES that they are 'smart' when even Blind Freddy can see they are stumped and have no clue what either the orthodoxy OR the alternatives involve at the deepest and most subtle levels?

Ira, just because YOU have 'learned' more than you knew before, is no reason to STOP learning and thinking for yourself now that you are aware that what you have learned from "some really smart Skippys" may be OUT OF DATE or just some techincal details without proper understanding of all the implications and the flaws being pointed out.

Sure, accept what you have learned is more than you knew previously; but do NOT accept that what you have learned is ALL done and dusted stuff. Much of it is still speculation and beliefs and ad-hoc 'non-answers' due to the obvious incomplete orthodoxy as it stands now.

Be open to more learning, from more points of view and objective reviews of what these professional science Skippys have 'put' there or anywhere to date. ok? Good luck, Ira! :)

Sep 24, 2014
In the parable where one twin brother travels in a fast spaceship and the other stays on earth, why is it that the one in the spaceship comes back younger compared to the one on earth? Relative the brother in the spaceship, isn't the earth moving away very fast? That way, the earth bound brother should stay young and the brother in the spaceship should age more.
Because the brother on the ship turned around and came back.

Sep 25, 2014
My one-liners are for anti-science idiots like you, RC
@Da Schneib
TRUE that!
usually you are QUITE verbose and very helpful with your explanations! and we APPRECIATE IT!
much like Torbjorn_Larsson_OM, Q-Star and others here! THANKS GUYS

as for Insipid re and his bounced check
So quoting from a reference is what makes you a scientist in your book?
nope. makes him a FACT checker and proves his post by link or quote
something insipid re never does
you admit to not being any sort of scientist and to not knowing as much as the science smart people, but then you go on to make such obvious agenda-driven mistaken assessments
it is NOT agenda driven mistaken assessments to require a person to PROVE what they are saying, provide links or supporting info for their post, or to back up what they say
one reason you are hated, rc: your failure to provide SCIENCE
proof?
see above

& I am backing away from serious science talk, don't post to me RC
I've a new TOE
Do better, Mate :-)

Sep 25, 2014
CapS. :) You're getting more shrill and incoherent again, mate.

Did you come in just to fan the flames again? Obvious.

Well, it's consistent with your by-now-obvious-to-all biased and self-serving 'personality-cult' MO of 'doing science discourse' and 'investigation/reporting', anyway.

If you agree with 'fact checking' process, why attack me for suggesting you did that for yourself in the now-proven-multiply-flawed BICEP2 case?

And since when does mindlessly linking to a 'fact' you don't understand the fuller/deeper implications of, any way to 'do science discourse' on questions not yet fully known/settled in the orthodox theory?

Your agenda is clear, mate. You just want to fan the flames to 'entertain' your friends the personality cult troll types, while making a mockery of what you profess to 'stand for'.

Hypocrite and liar, desperate to 'make friends at all costs' with a gangs of trolls, is no way to be. Do better, mate. :)

Oct 01, 2014
No science, RC.

Oct 01, 2014
No science, RC.
@Da Schneib
might as well get used to it... although I DID find this interesting little blurb:

I come from a theoretical physics background
located here: http://cosmoquest...-t-Exist

WOW huh?
a theoretical physicist that cannot tell a physicist what he means by "fatal flaws"
LMFAO

can anyone say PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT RED FLAG ?
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

just giving you fair warning Da Schneib!

https://www.googl...KwxA!2e0

Oct 01, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
You must be missing me, mate! I had withdrawn from science discussion on the net, remember? Never mind, carry on. :)


Oct 01, 2014
Hi CapS. :) Mate, this is why you will never become a true scientist, nor any other kind of real and objective investigator. You are too eager to make it 'personal' and your 'investigations' are biased and your conclusions half-baked.

FYI, there have been OTHER PEOPLE ON THE NET, past and present, called "reality check" (all lower case letters, space between the two words) AND "Reality Check" (space between the two words). Whereas MY NAME is "RealityCheck" (with NO SPACE between the two words). These are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. Get it?

You could have asked, and I would have told you it wasn't me. I have in the past posted a CAUTION at SCIFORUMS when rpenner and others made similar MISTAKEN IDENTITY based comments/innuendoes etc. You obviously missed it.

CapS, let it go. Chill. Drop your 'personal' angles on everything. Just discuss/conclude objectively, and we might just make a real, true, competent scientist and investigator out of you!

Bye for now. Good luck! :)

Oct 01, 2014
PS to CapS. :) Mate, in the name of science and humanity, why did you rate that a '1', when it was YOU that made the mistaken identity based boo-boo? I corrected your wrong impression. Stop your ratings page games and concentrate on really important matters. Good luck.

Oct 01, 2014
in the name of science and humanity, why did you rate that a '1'
no science
off topic
irrelevant
TROLL POST
trying to bait/flame

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

do better and get a life, pathétique petit homme sans colonne vertébrale

physicien faux
:-)

Oct 01, 2014
Hi CapS. :) That's funny, your above list perfectly describes YOUR previous post!

In which you did all that, based on a mistaken identity boo-boo YOU made in "an investigation" of THE WRONG PERSON!

And instead of acknowledging your error, and apologizing, like any real true scientist and humanist would do, you 'project' your own transgressions and rate '1' for my post correcting your mistaken identity boo-boo?

Fair go, mate! Own up and apologize instead of making yourself even more ridiculous than you have been since you started on this unreasoning personal vendetta against me just because I suggested you checked out the facts better before making an ass of yourself with that BICEP2 flawed claims fiasco.

By the way, CapS, before you go on your next ranting faux pas personal vendetta-driven foolishness, you might do well to read this...

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

...and take heed; especially of the "Let's Bring Back Humility in Science" advice.

Good luck! :)

Oct 01, 2014
describes YOUR previous post!
Answering Da Schneib and warning him about your attempts to proselytize @cosmo- so relevant: you just don't like it

By the way, rc, before you go on your next ranting faux pas personal vendetta-driven foolishness, you might do well to read this: http://phys.org/n...nce.html
or this
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

and this: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
you are described in them

and lastly: I rate your posts 1 because you are nothing but a whiner troll flooding the site with your stupid diatribe. you are a troll and the MODS ban you for violating the rules. that is the FACT, and you don't like it... and instead of acknowledging your error, and apologizing, like any real true scientist and humanist would do, you 'project' your own transgressions and TROLL

now, don't talk to me because I am removing myself from serious scientific discussion to work on my TOES

do better, troll! :)

Oct 01, 2014
P.S. @ rc
Fair go, mate! Own up and apologize instead of making yourself even more ridiculous than you have been since you started on this unreasoning personal vendetta against me just because I suggested you actually provide PROOF of what you were talking about when you started denigrating BICEP2 as well as the team that published the study...

in fact, given that you never did post your "fatal flaws" or the supposed "problems" that you saw with BICEP, then we can conclude that the particular posts you trolled with are nothing but your feeble attempts to get attention.

Now, I will not reply to you again unless I need to straighten you out and correct your mistakes. After all, I am removing myself from serious scientific discussion to work on my ToEs and avoid plagiarism from thieves like you. this is why you will never become a true scientist: You are half baked

do better, troll
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

Oct 01, 2014
FYI, there have been OTHER PEOPLE ON THE NET, past and present, called "reality check" (all lower case letters, space between the two words) AND "Reality Check" (space between the two words). Whereas MY NAME is "RealityCheck" (with NO SPACE between the two words). These are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. Get it?


Two Really-Skippys pretending to be from New Southern Wales in Australia who started troll trawling the interweb with their TOES at the same times in 2008 and 2007? Well Cher you know I never claimed to be the scientist but I know a stinking lying ol fish that been out of the water for six years rotting.

Oct 01, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
FYI, there have been OTHER PEOPLE ON THE NET, past and present, called "reality check" (all lower case letters, space between the two words) AND "Reality Check" (space between the two words). Whereas MY NAME is "RealityCheck" (with NO SPACE between the two words). These are DIFFERENT PEOPLE. Get it?
Two Really-Skippys pretending to be from New Southern Wales in Australia who started troll trawling the interweb with their TOES at the same times in 2008 and 2007?
I just checked out that other bloke, and he (I am assuming male) is from WELLINGTON in NEW ZEALAND. I reside in NSW in AUSTRALIA. You're as bad 'an investigator' as your 'friend' the CapS, Ira.

And I already told you I posted a caution at sciforums some time ago to everyone about that mistaken identity possibility if one doesn't check out the facts before attacking the wrong person. Meanwhile you still haven't owned up to your sciforums 'Uncle Ira" sock that got permabanned from there. Now that is fishy.

As to the probably very many internet site posters being from Australia or New Zealand, it doesn't surprise; me because we are relatively geographically isolated here Down Under, and many have long taken to the airwaves (and now the internet) out of necessity for doing business and keeping in touch with what is going on in the rest of the world.

PS: Ira, I haven't laid out my ToE on the forums; so no-one knows what it consists of; so no-one can have been "troll-trawling" it. :)

PPS: And as for the coincidences of similar usernames using the 'reality check' paraphrasings, the term "reality check" was common usage last decade, and so it's not surprising to find a number of different people opting for usernames in that vein. Why, there is even a TV SHOW on the air here in Oz at the moment called "Reality Check"! Go figure, 'they' must be 'me' too, hey Ira! :)

Oct 01, 2014
Hi CapS. :) I advised you to check your facts before you bashed the cranks. You didn't listen;instead you attacked me for suggesting you checked your facts. Period. I was WITHDRAWING when I made that suggestion. I was no longer at liberty to say any more than I did then, when I listed the categories of flaws in BICEP2 as "systemic", "assumptive" and "methodological"....all of which have been confirmed by mainstream since.

See? I had WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion. Get it yet, CapS?

CapS, really, it's getting out of hand on your part. If you don't drop this personal obsession with stalking and mistaken Identity attacks, you'll get into trouble with the internet stalking cops. And the fact you own guns and are acting so maliciously personal and delusional (thinking you are any sort of "an investigator" of any competency) on the net may well get you into deeper trouble with the men in white coats. You still haven't explained to the forum what your linked Google Map reference was all about. Who is your mistaken identity stalking victim there? You are being the epitome of a troll, and crazy dangerous with it. Linking to silly internet sites/articles about crazies and trolls is ironically sad, since you are disturbingly close to the type of 'character' which those linked articles apply to.

Chill, mate. Give it a rest and get some normal company and drop your personal animosities. Life is too short to keep that up for as long as you have. Leave well alone for a good while, CapS; and I won't have to come back and set you straight again. Ok? PEACE and bye for now. :)

Oct 01, 2014
Two Really-Skippys pretending to be from New Southern Wales in Australia who started troll trawling the interweb with their TOES at the same times in 2008 and 2007?
I just checked out that other bloke, and he (I am assuming male) is from WELLINGTON in NEW ZEALAND. I reside in NSW in AUSTRALIA. You're as bad 'an investigator' as your 'friend' the CapS, Ira.


Yeah, I know you claim that. But so did the "other" really-Skippy until about an two hours ago. Since this morning he packed up and move from New South Wales to New Zealand. That makes him the even bigger coincidence. You should have left it alone because now there is no way you can claim there are two Really-Skippys Cher.

Do Better Really-Skippy, and quit moving around. Everybody is beginning to think you are really the 35 year old with the mental condition on the west coast like you are. Is time to let your TOES alone and do some troll/bot/mod/gang/mafia hunting?


Oct 01, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Two Really-Skippys pretending to be from New Southern Wales in Australia who started troll trawling the interweb with their TOES at the same times in 2008 and 2007?
I just checked out that other bloke, and he (I am assuming male) is from WELLINGTON in NEW ZEALAND. I reside in NSW in AUSTRALIA. You're as bad 'an investigator' as your 'friend' the CapS, Ira.
Yeah, I know you claim that. But so did the "other" really-Skippy until about an two hours ago. Since this morning he packed up and move from New South Wales to New Zealand. That makes him the even bigger coincidence. You should have left it alone because now there is no way you can claim there are two Really-Skippys Cher. Do Better Really-Skippy, and quit moving around. Everybody is beginning to think you are really the 35 year old with the mental condition on the west coast like you are. Is time to let your TOES alone and do some troll/bot/mod/gang/mafia hunting?
Hahahaha! You into the 'puff n stuff' again, Ira? Really mate, you shouldn't be driving a push-pull boat (or a keyboard) when you are 'off the planet' like this. You might have a nasty accident, and when the cops show up they won't be as amused as the forum is with the 'investigations and explanations' issuing straight out of your spliff-bong-bottle. :)

Still, it gave me a good belly laugh to see you make such a silly out of yourself for the forum's entertainment. Thanks Ira! :)

Oct 01, 2014
Still, it gave me a good belly laugh to see you make such a silly out of yourself for the forum's entertainment. Thanks Ira! :)


Really-Skippy, did know that other peoples from me also visit that interweb page? There are too many witnesses for you to get that lie to fly. We been talking about it since yesterday. The Captain-Skippy even posted the link about New South Wales before the "other" Really-Skippy moved to New Zealand. The "other" Really-Skippy packed up and moved since this morning.

Do Better Really-Skippy because you dropped the ball on that silly one matey.

Oct 01, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Still, it gave me a good belly laugh to see you make such a silly out of yourself for the forum's entertainment. Thanks Ira! :)


Really-Skippy, did know that other peoples from me also visit that interweb page? There are too many witnesses for you to get that lie to fly. We been talking about it since yesterday. The Captain-Skippy even posted the link about New South Wales before the "other" Really-Skippy moved to New Zealand. The "other" Really-Skippy packed up and moved since this morning.

Do Better Really-Skippy because you dropped the ball on that silly one matey.

What "interweb page" you talking about, Ira? Can you link to it please, so I can see what hare you are running after now? Thanks.

Oct 01, 2014
Hello, Hello? Ira? Are you there?

I, and the forum, are all waiting for that link to this other 'Real-skippy' you've mistaken for me.

C'mon, c'mon, mate. You've just rated my above post '1', so we know you are there, somewhere, Ira.....unless that was your BOT doing the rating again, hey!

That link, if you please, Ira; so we can see what poor innocent sod your drug-n-drink delusional incompetent "investigations" have led you to harass and stalk this time.

Oct 01, 2014
Hey Ira, your BOT just downrated a '1' again; but where are YOU; and where is that link, Ira? :)

Oct 01, 2014
Hi Ira, CapS. I'll put you out of your self-embarrassment misery and tell you that I have only ever posted on the following science discussion forum sites:

- (old)PhysOrg....since split into (new) phy.org and (remainder)...

- ...physforums;

- saposjoint; and

- sciforums.

That's it. That's how I can be so sure that anyone else posting anywhere else under whatever usernames is NOT ME.

There. Now drop your silly trolling and stalking of innocent people whom you (in your incompetence and malice) mistake for me. Your internet activity is creepy and dangerous, and not what proper science and humanity principles and practice expects of sane and honest and objective thinkers and scientists. And do drop your trolling and ratings games, it's a dead giveaway that you are being the trolls and stalkers here and across the net. Obvious to all except yourselves. Not seemly. Ok?

Goodbye for now; and good luck. Peace.

Oct 01, 2014
See? I had WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussion
yep
HUNDREDS of claims where you say that... but then come back and troll/spam/flame/bait
just like you will do so after this post
the rest of your post is gibberish, trolling/flaming/baiting spam
and reported

just so you know...

There are too many witnesses for you to get that lie to fly
@Uncle Ira
Just ignore him from now on
Ignore and report him for trolling/baiting/flaming

He is just trying to goad you into a flame war, Ira
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
http://www.politi...e_13.php

See his tactics here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

and here: http://phys.org/n...nce.html

we ignore him and he will eventually go away

See you, Ira!
:-)

Oct 01, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
yep HUNDREDS of claims where you say that... but then come back and troll/spam/flame/bait
just like you will do so after this post
the rest of your post is gibberish, trolling/flaming/baiting spam
and reported

just so you know...

There are too many witnesses for you to get that lie to fly
@Uncle Ira
Just ignore him from now on
Ignore and report him for trolling/baiting/flaming

He is just trying to goad you into a flame war, Ira
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

we ignore him and he will eventually go away

See you, Ira!
:-)
Didn't you read that I had withdrawn from detailed science discussion, BUT NOT from defending against, and exposing, YOUR continuing idiocy rooted in your biased/personal agendas, which lead you to attack/stalk innocent third parties whom you mistake for me, because YOU DON'T CHECK YOUR 'facts' like I suggested you should in that BICEP2 case?

I had gone. But YOU two keep posting to/about me. Hypocrites. Blame yourselves. :)

Oct 01, 2014
@Uncle Ira
Just ignore him from now on


I might as well do that me.
You notice he keeps asking for the linkum that got all this stuffs going? He pretends to not have already used him to check out the "other" Really-Skippy and tell him to move from Wellington in the New South Wales to the Wellington in New Zealand on his cosmic forum page? He already said he "checked him out" so why is he asking ol Ira for the linkum?

He is one Really-Stupid-Skippy if he thinks nobody noticed that.


Oct 01, 2014
He is one Really-Stupid-Skippy if he thinks nobody noticed that
@Uncle Ira
Yep!
kinda makes him look a mite stupid

Again, if you look at what he is doing here, and then compare it to some predicted TROLL tactics from the PO links
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
and also here
http://phys.org/n...nce.html

and he matches SO many of these: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

Now, also read about the link below, Ira... see how much it is like him?
http://www.politi...e_74.php

he is still whining about being moderated like everyone else...
BUT he expects us to drop everything and answer him, yet he never answers or proves anything he says! LOL
That is one reason to ignore him!

He can't even READ... he thinks I will never be an investigator... HA!

I am waiting for a reply from the author of a study... gotta run and check on it.. sorry Ira!

IT IS RELEVANT
unlike rc

Oct 01, 2014
Hi Ira, CapS. :)
I might as well do that me.
You notice he keeps asking for the linkum that got all this stuffs going? He pretends to not have already used him to check out the "other" Really-Skippy and tell him to move from Wellington in the New South Wales to the Wellington in New Zealand on his cosmic forum page? He already said he "checked him out" so why is he asking ol Ira for the linkum?
He is one Really-Stupid-Skippy if he thinks nobody noticed that.
What 'pretend'? I told you I checked THAT bloke out in CapS' link, but you spoke of some bloke moving from Oz to Wellington "since this morning". That couldn't be the same bloke who joined there 2008 and lives in New Zealand then. So who exactly ARE you two talking about that "moved since this morning"? Please post all info/posts you allude to, so we can see what you base your "claims" on. :)

He can't be me, anyway; since I only ever posted to FOUR sites, and that wasn't one of them. I listed them for you above. Read it?

Oct 01, 2014
Hey Ira, CapS, I and the forum are waiting for your 'info' to support your 'claims'. Before you proceed, please do read my above post where I listed the FOUR ONLY science sites to which I have EVER posted. Then double-check your 'facts' and come back and apologize for wasting everyone's time with your personal agenda driven driveling lies and incompetent "investigating".

You two are the perfect personification of the symptoms which afflict so-called 'scientists' who 'mouth' the scientific method principles, but do not follow them.

Your ego-driven 'publish or perish' and 'personal agendas' way of "investigating/reporting" is letting all us truly objective scientists down; not to mention the scientific method you pretend to 'honor' but flout in every way while carrying on like this, stalking and attacking innocent people because of YOUR OWN MISTAKES.

Here, read this article again:

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

...since it obviously hasn't sunk into your capesas yet.

Oct 04, 2014
can anyone say PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT RED FLAG ?
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Personally I like Baez' Crackpot Index: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Oct 04, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
You must be missing me, mate! I had withdrawn from science discussion on the net, remember? Never mind, carry on. :)
This is a science forum. If you're not going to discuss science, you are here to troll.

Thanks for admitting it. Hope a moderator sees that. I'll help them by reporting it.

Oct 04, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science, RC.
You must be missing me, mate! I had withdrawn from science discussion on the net, remember? Never mind, carry on. :)
This is a science forum. If you're not going to discuss science, you are here to troll.

Thanks for admitting it. Hope a moderator sees that. I'll help them by reporting it.
@Da Schneib
Me To!
In fact, I forwarded it to the Site Admin just to make sure that someone would notice.
better safe than sorry, right?

Personally I like Baez' Crackpot Index: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
I rather liked that as well... but given the LENGTH of it, and the multiple points that certain above mentioned people rack up continuously, it is tiring calculating all the points! LOL

I use the red flags link as a BINGO sort of game! especially during Psyche class- all i have to do is reply to any rc post, something that has rc in it, or has something to do with him or BICEP2, and I BINGO... won $$$ that way too!


Oct 04, 2014
No Schneib, CapS, I am withdrawn ONLY from detailed science discussion. That does not abdicate my responsibility to come in in RESPONSE to your own non-science posts filled with trollish baits and lies posted to/about me. You miss that obvious fact already explained to you more than once, and you still pretend to the high ground? Trolling dipsticks like you have no high ground, just more inane tactics and hypocrisy to spew all over the forum floor. So blame yourselves for my having to come in and counter your trolling lies and hypocrisy for the record, insensible trolls.

You stop hypocritically trolling/lying to/about me with your cheap shots, and I will not have to post again. Get it yet? :)

Oct 04, 2014
Ions? Relativity? Time dilation? Precision?

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