The risks of blowing your own trumpet too soon on research

September 30, 2014 by Daniel Price, The Conversation
The sun sets behind BICEP2 (in the foreground) and the South Pole Telescope (in the background). Credit: Steffen Richter, Harvard University

It was dubbed a "spectacular" discovery – even "Nobel prize-worthy".

But the March announcement via a press conference that researchers at the BICEP2 facility in Antarctica had detected the imprint of relic from a period of super-fast expansion in the early universe now looks a little shaky.

As an astrophysicist who works on the , I wouldn't be surprised if the claimed detection eventually all went away. If so, this episode – much like the 2011 faster-than-light neutrinos story (more on that later) – is a telling example of the dangers of "science by press conference".

The BICEP2 team invited the press to Harvard University to announce their result even before it had been refereed, alongside which they posted a now-infamous video of their champagne-on-doorstep announcement to Andrei Linde, one of the theorists whose work they claimed to have proved:

Peer review – where scientists evaluate the quality of other scientists' work – may be the "least worst" system but it is the foundation on which modern science is built.

Open to review and scrutiny

Granted, the BICEP2 results were eventually published in a June edition of the journal Physical Review Letters – three months after the the initial announcement – and some would argue that putting it in the public spotlight involved being scrutinised by hundreds or thousands of expert opinions, instead of just one.

But the claim of discovery in science is a dangerous one, and in my view one best left to the gentle momentum built up over time as a result is confirmed by others and its importance understood.

At the very least it deserves waiting until the refereeing process has been completed, if only to avoid the embarrassment of the whole team should the result not hold up.

Of course, it's not just in physics that the temptation of science by press conference or by press release exists – some notable recent examples include successfully cloning a human baby.

Another press release announcement that caught the media's attention was that Oreos chocolate biscuits are as addictive as cocaine – but I'll examine a couple of examples from my own field in detail.

BICEP2: flexed or flabby?

The issue with BICEP2 was a fairly simple one—to observe the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the relic radiation from the Big Bang that fills the universe at microwave wavelengths, you have to first subtract the glow of our own galaxy in the same wavelengths.

Take for example the recent maps (below) of the sky in microwaves from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite.

ESA and the Planck Collaboration

The big red stripe is the microwave radiation from gas in the Milky Way, which has nothing to do with the microwave radiation from the early universe.

Subtracting this reveals (below) the small fluctuations in temperature from just after the Big Bang, which are the seeds of the galaxies that we see today.

ESA and the Planck Collaboration

A similar procedure applies to the observations of polarised light that was the basis of the claimed gravitational wave detection from BICEP2.

Polarised microwave light in our galaxy is produced by dust grains that spin on their axes and align like mini-compasses with the interstellar magnetic field.

Because the grains all line up in a similar direction this produces polarised light—precisely the kind of polarised light also produced by gravitational waves in the .

Now comes the tricky bit

In subtracting the galaxy, the devil is in the details. The interstellar medium is a complicated place, full of turbulent, messy gas.

Understanding the foreground emission is therefore a complicated business, and one that requires very detailed maps of the galaxy itself (we have a saying in astronomy: "one person's annoying foreground is another's data").

This is precisely what the Planck mission has been doing—so much so that the best results out of Planck for the first year or two were the exquisite maps they released of the gas and dust in the Milky Way, nothing to do with the cosmic microwave background.

By contrast, detailed maps of the dust polarisation from the Milky Way is precisely what the BICEP2 team were missing, so they had to rely on models of the dust emission to do the subtraction rather than actual maps.

So what? Well, it turns out they may have underestimated the foreground emission from dust, and therefore over-estimated the significance of any claimed gravitational wave detection.

Happily for science, we'll be able to resolve this fairly soon: accurate maps of the polarised dust emission are exactly what the Planck team have been constructing, so they'll be able to do a much better job of subtracting the foreground.

Indeed, Planck maps of the foreground , though not yet covering the patch of sky observed by BICEP2, are already being used to refine the foreground estimates, and these revised estimates are what is casting doubt on the claimed detection.

The need for quality control

Of course this is not the only case of scientists making their announcement too soon, before the research has been put forward for review.

Back in 2011 a team of physicists in Europe called a press conference to announce that they had measured neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.

The claim made headlines around the world because such as result would be in contravention of Einstein's special theory of relativity that nothing could travel faster than light.

One prominent UK physicist and broadcaster, Jim Al-Khalili, even promised to eat his boxer shorts if the results were found to be true.

Well the claim was soon tested and debunked by other teams of physicists who could not repeat the results. That lead to some resignations from the original team that first made the claim.

The erroneous result was eventually blamed on some faulty wiring in the experiment's equipment.

Let's bring back humility in science

Rather than the endless chasing of headlines and press-conference-worthy claims of results I'd like to see more considered papers such as the original discovery paper for the , published in the Astrophysical Journal in 1965.

It landed astrophysicists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics.

And what was the title of this ground breaking research? Just simply "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4,080Mc/s" and published in a regular journal. Possible explanations were left to others.

Explore further: Evidence of gravity waves clouded by interstellar dust

Related Stories

Evidence of gravity waves clouded by interstellar dust

September 24, 2014

In March, scientists working on the BICEP2 experiment, a microwave telescope based at the South Pole, announced that they had seen 'gravity waves' from the early universe, created just after the Big Bang. Ever since the announcement, ...

Are the BICEP2 results invalid? Probably not

May 20, 2014

Recently rumors have been flying that the BICEP2 results regarding the cosmic inflationary period may be invalid. It all started with a post by Dan Falkowski on his blog Resonaances, where he claimed that the BICEP2 had misinterpreted ...

Researchers image the Milky Way's magnetic fingerprint

May 6, 2014

(Phys.org) —Our Galaxy's magnetic field is revealed in a new image from ESA's Planck satellite. This image was compiled from the first all-sky observations of 'polarised' light emitted by interstellar dust in the Milky ...

Gravitational waves according to Planck

September 22, 2014

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last spring that it ...

Recommended for you

Scientists produce 3-D chemical maps of single bacteria

November 16, 2018

Scientists at the National Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II)—a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science User Facility at DOE's Brookhaven National Laboratory—have used ultrabright x-rays to image single bacteria ...

Quantum science turns social

November 15, 2018

Researchers in a lab at Aarhus University have developed a versatile remote gaming interface that allowed external experts as well as hundreds of citizen scientists all over the world to optimize a quantum gas experiment ...

Bursting bubbles launch bacteria from water to air

November 15, 2018

Wherever there's water, there's bound to be bubbles floating at the surface. From standing puddles, lakes, and streams, to swimming pools, hot tubs, public fountains, and toilets, bubbles are ubiquitous, indoors and out.

Terahertz laser pulses amplify optical phonons in solids

November 15, 2018

A study led by scientists of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science in Hamburg/Germany presents evidence of the amplification of optical phonons ...

261 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2014
Peer review – where scientists evaluate the quality of other scientists' work – may be the "least worst" system but it is the foundation on which modern science is built.
Modern physics has been derailed by anonymous peer rerview. How does a scientist know whether the so-called "peer" is really a "peer". In most cases they are not! I have had a "peer" that reviewed a manuscript of mine for Proc. Roy Soc. who wrote: " I am not an expert but would be surprized.......etc. Now if he is not an expert in the field I want to publish in how the hell could the editor "Sir" Michael Berry appoint him to do the refereeing? Quite clearly Michael Berry is not suitable to be an editor of a grade 2 classroom publication.

Although designed to be abused, the abuse will be less if a reviewer is known to the author, while the author is not known to the reviewer. Systems and institututions which can be corrupted and abused should not be allowed to exist. "If it can be abused it WILL be abused".
Eseta
Oct 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 01, 2014
Peer review is important, because the people are cheaters by their very nature and the temptation to fabricate the results is particularly strong in science
@eseta-Zephir
personal conjecture based upon transference
Coming from an acolyte of a religious order who's posts continually reflect a debunked and dead philosophy, your post is absurd as well as ironic
My greatest problem with peer-review is, it's ineffective for research
no.. your greatest problem is that it does not review crackpot pseudoscience like your precious awt which has already been debunked with modern physics and empirical evidence, such as here: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

I DO agree with your final sentence
how to COMPLEMENT it
with regard to Peer review... opening it to "laymen" is not a smart idea IMHO, as laymen often don't know squat about the subject (much like your continued intuitive drivel here on PO, or rc's diatribe on mod/troll gangs, etc)

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Goika
Oct 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Oct 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
(...or rc's diatribe on mod/troll gangs, etc)


What does it take, CapS?

To get through that obvious biased personal agenda of yours? Have you taken no heed of the lessons which the above article draws from the BICEP2 etc fiascos?

It shows clearly that science 'peer review' and 'scientific method' is NOT being followed/practiced as it was designed to do.

It is flawed; especially when the original thinker and his novel ideas/works have NO 'peers' capable of 'reviewing' them without BIAS from current orthodoxy paradigm creeping into it.

The damage to science discussions is even worse!

Because such 'publish or perish' crap is then used by YOU/other PRETENDERS to bash cranks with, thinking that 'the source' is ok just because it is 'mainstream'.

So you don't listen or check out properly, then you accuse everyone else of being cranks and keep linking to irrelevant prejudicial/political articles which disparage persons and are irrelevant as to the science.

Do better.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2014
Hi CapS. :)

It shows clearly that science 'peer review' and 'scientific method' is NOT being followed/practiced as it was designed to do.

It is flawed; especially when the original thinker and his novel ideas/works have NO 'peers' capable of 'reviewing' them without BIAS from current orthodoxy paradigm creeping into it.

The damage to science discussions is even worse!

Because such 'publish or perish' crap is then used by YOU/other PRETENDERS to bash cranks with, thinking that 'the source' is ok just because it is 'mainstream'.

So you don't listen or check out properly, then you accuse everyone else of being cranks and keep linking to irrelevant prejudicial/political articles which disparage persons and are irrelevant as to the science.


BRAVO!!! And AMEN. Well stated This is why modern physics (especially theoretical physics)is not self-corecting anymore!

We waste billions of dollars to build the biggest circus ring in the world so that bozos can search for bosons.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2014
We waste billions of dollars to build the biggest circus ring in the world so that bozos can search for bosons.

(and find them to seven sigmas of evidence)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2014
Because such 'publish or perish' crap is then used by YOU/other PRETENDERS to bash cranks with, thinking that 'the source' is ok just because it is 'mainstream'.

I don't get from Captain Stumpy that he believes in "Publish or Perish." Rather, I see him protesting the preponderance of suggestions coming from commentators that are either demonstrably wrong (such as claiming that there is no such thing as escape velocity), or not even wrong, (such as claiming there is an aether). Furthermore, the people he rails against assert their untested hypotheses (if you could even call them that) as fact.

This is a site for science. Speculation is fine--even encouraged, but acting like something that hasn't been scientifically demonstrated is true, is not okay.

Now, I do agree that 'publish or perish' is deleterious to science, but that is a symptom of our culture, not of peer review. As a culture, we need to recognize that quality is usually better than quantity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2014
Back in 2011 a team of physicists in Europe called a press conference to announce that they had measured neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light.

To be fair: Their initial announcement was very cautious and they put the results out in the hope that it might be scrutinized as they had run out of ideas to test for a bias. They didn't proclaim: "TaDaaa! FTL neutrinos exist!"

As to "Laymen-peer -review": That's a contradiction in terms. It's like asking someone who doesn't speak chinese to peer review chinese literature. You're not going to get any input beyond "it looks pretty".

The devil in scientific papers is in the details - not in the broad, opening statements. And if you have ever studied any subject you will know that to understand the subtleties you have to have studied it in depth.
Wikipedia-googling ain't enough.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2014
Well stated This is why modern physics (especially theoretical physics)is not self-corecting anymore!

Well, that's an unintentionally ironic statement, if I have ever seen one.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2014
We waste billions of dollars to build the biggest circus ring in the world so that bozos can search for bosons.

(and find them to seven sigmas of evidence)
As usual you are fool! Where is the experimental evidence (which ight bes falsifiable) that that this bit noise to "seven sigmas" gives "other particles" their mass? There is no such experiment possible and the claim that this noise "gives other particles their mass" should, accordingly, not be taken seriously a all.

I have already wasted too much of my valuable time on your absurd arguments; and will endeaour not to respond to your trolling in future!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2014
The devil in scientific papers is in the details - not in the broad, opening statements. And if you have ever studied any subject you will know that to understand the subtleties you have to have studied it in depth.
Wikipedia-googling ain't enough.

Excellent advice which the furbrain, Gatwat, Captain Frumpy etc. should consider to follow: However, they are only trolls who know NOTHING about logic and reductio ad absurdum. They embrace the absurd as reality, instead of realising that the absurd can never be reality. People who believe that simultaneous events can occur at different times and therefore that time-dilation is possible are insane!!!
thefurlong
5 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2014
People who believe that simultaneous events can occur at different times and therefore that time-dilation is possible are insane!!!

Or as I like to call them--people who possess more than a layman's understanding of relativity :). God, who, on earth taught you relativity? What did they do, pummel you in the face with a text-book until you repeated, "Clocks in the moving frame run slower than in the rest frame by a factor of the square root of the square root (1-v^2/c^2). Measuring sticks in the moving frame shrink by a factor of the square root of (1-v^2/c^2). Einstein is God. I will not question the words of God." ?

I could see such trauma how that might have turned SR sour for you later in life.
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2014
So uploading a paper to arXiv and sending a press release to anyone who would listen was *not* proclaiming "TaDaaa! FTL neutrinos exist!".
Read the paper again
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897
They initially did not suggest in any way the examination of the results for error. Only later did they start to back down after howls of protest.

A science *news* site like Physorg often helps the 'layman' appreciate recent developments. Some understanding is gained. Obviously if this site was in Mandarin or Cantonese then it would be useless to most Americans. So, I don't get your point AA.

Both the 'broad opening statements' and the detail should be clear and confirmed evidence based. Furthermore, if you only want to communicate findings to other specialists then the reasons for publishing in popular press make motives suspect. If a 'layman' does not understand then it's tossed in the same category as religion. Go ask your average American.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2014
I will boldly suggest that the reason for the Neutrino FTL announcement and the BICEP2 announcement among others, are due to funding. Publish or Perish, it's that simple. If you are going to perish then you have nothing to lose by tossing the dice. Hmmm ...
zz5555
5 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2014

They initially did not suggest in any way the examination of the results for error. Only later did they start to back down after howls of protest.


From your link:
"Despite the large significance of the measurement reported here and the stability of the analysis, the potentially great impact of the result motivates the continuation of our studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects that could explain the observed anomaly. We deliberately do not attempt any theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results."

So, that says that initially they were still looking for errors and directly contradicts your claim. Why didn't you bother to follow your own suggestion and read the paper?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
.. motivates the continuation of *our* studies in order to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects ..


In other words - give us more money to do more research.

It does not say anything about inviting others to verify the conjecture or continue the studies. They know that the research facility at the South Pole requires too much investment for any likely competing research team.

Why did they not wait for the Planck data?

bluehigh
1 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
.. to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects ..


They knew there were errors and they lied. Any assumption introduces the possibility of error.

Read between the lines. They mean, we want to 'investigate' the errors so give us more money. Deceit.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
One doesn't need to be a broody hen for (being able) to recognize an aged egg
@Goika-Zephir
One does not need to have internet to be full of fecal matter either, but you still are. You have yet to produce a comprehensive or valid argument for Peer review... in fact, your exapmles only show where it has worked well: getting the idiots and pseudoscience out of publications where legitimate science is being done.

What does it take
RC and johan in agreement: super TROLLING at it's finest
acerbic failed crackpot geriatric and denialist pseudoscience in one whack!

I would say that, given the announcement, peer review WORKS. See Furlong,zz5555 and AA_P posts for more info

by the way: you STILL haven't answered the questions with anything regarding specific points to the flaws, rc... just trolled.
and got reported.
and banned...
for baiting, trolling, flaming, etc. a known fact, btw.
(yeah, i know... it is everyone elses fault... right? -paranoid delusional troll)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Hi CapS. :) Note I am not banned. So you just lie again. What is the matter with you, mate? You've now posted enough hypocrisy, half-truths and outright lies to supply the most inveterate dissembler for two lifetimes worth of crazy. When do you stop your crazy, CapS? And you haven't provided that 'info' you and your crazy pal Ira have been touting is supposed to be about me, (but can't be, because you dangerously psycho stalking idiots have been mistaking some poor bugger with similar usernames with me; because you DON'T check your 'facts' before 'publishing' your stupid "investigation results" which make a mockery of all proper scientific objectivity principles). You have a big ego and an even bigger mouth and a stupendously moronic approach to science, humanity and 'investigating/comprehension' and hysterically ferocious personal dishonesty which the forum is still reeling from. Can't you just stop and think maybe it's YOU and Ira who are in the wrong? Have you not read the article?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
You have a big ego and an even bigger mouth and a stupendously moronic approach to science, humanity and 'investigating/comprehension' and hysterically ferocious personal dishonesty which the forum is still reeling from. Can't you just stop and think maybe it's YOU and Ira who are in the wrong? Have you not read the article?
AMEN!

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Note I am not banned. So you just lie again.
Oh, well then...
send me a private message on Physforum, or sapo'sJoint...

...since you are not banned.

by all means, please! send away.... we have much to discuss, Sam-i-am

AMEN!

i don't know if this was supposed to be ironic or just plain hyperbole, but I laughed so hard I spit coffee on my computer...

read that description, johannie... it is all you, bubba

yeah yeah... the world is out to get both you and rc

i know

conspiracy

LMFAO
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Hey CapS. :)
Note I am not banned. So you just lied again.
Oh, well then... send me a private message on Physforum, or sapo'sJoint... ...since you are not banned. by all means, please! send away.... we have much to discuss, Sam-i-am


CapS, you're babbling again. Your earlier comment was worded thus...
...you STILL haven't answered the questions with anything regarding specific points to the flaws, rc... just trolled.
and got reported.
and banned...
for baiting, trolling, flaming, etc. a known fact, btw.
(yeah, i know... it is everyone elses fault... right? -paranoid delusional troll)
...which implied I was banned HERE. You made no mention of either of those other sites in that post. :)

And as you already know, any bans I received at those other sites were PROVEN by internet experiment to be due to mod-troll abuses of power and trumped up charges using bait-and-ban collusion tactics as a gang. So your 'facts' are sadly as delusional as you are, mate. :)

Poor sod.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
PROVEN by internet experiment to be due to mod-troll abuses of power and trumped up charges using bait-and-ban collusion tactics as a gang.

Sorta funny how normal people never get banned from forums, ain't it?
But I'm sure you need to believe in your 'explanation' to convince yourself that you are anywhere near normal.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
Sorta funny how normal people never get banned from forums, ain't it?
But I'm sure you need to believe in your 'explanation' to convince yourself that you are anywhere near normal.
By "normal people" you mean those that either are part of the mod-troll gang and 'protected' friends, and/or those who are too afraid to challenge and expose those gangs/abuses and/or those who 'suck up' and pretend to like the gang in the hopes of being spared the worst abuses?

Haven't you learned that the ones who are banned are the ones who speak out and try to make the gangs accountable?

Those who cow tow only encourage gangs...

"For evil to flourish, it is enough that good men do nothing".

And the worst for science discourse sites is EFFECTIVE CENSORING by PRETENDERS of otherwise free and open scientific discourse.

It's your sort of 'take' on this that leads to the very REASONS for the above article. It is the CORRUPTION of the PROCESS and DISCOURSE that creates BAD science.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
@ Reality Check,

I am constantly reminded of a young honest Afrikaner who during the 1970's opposed Apartheid and had to flee South Africa. The then minsiter of justice, Adriaan Vlok, assured him that he will get a "fair trial" in a "court of law" if he returns. Obviously this was (and still is) laughable.

It is just as laughable when a person assures an author of a manuscript that challenges mainstream physics that he will get a fair assesment of his manuscript by means of anonymous peer review. At least in the case of the absurd assurance given to this youngster by Vlok, his judge would not have been anonymous like "peer reviewers" are. This judge would have been openly criminal and would have had to repent later on in his life, like many of them had to do, when democracy came to South Africa.

In the case of anonymous peer review there is NEVER any redress possible. Criminal decisions remain to derail physics without any opportunity for rectification later on.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
.. to investigate possible still unknown systematic effects ..


They knew there were errors and they lied. Any assumption introduces the possibility of error.

Read between the lines. They mean, we want to 'investigate' the errors so give us more money. Deceit.



So let me see if I understand you. You're saying, "Forget the text contained in my link, it's just a red herring. Don't read what I linked, instead let me just interpret what my link contained." That's fascinating. You can't even be bothered to read your own link and you expect anyone to believe your interpretation of the link - which, as you've indicated, you couldn't even be bothered to read ;). The anti-science trolls are very interesting.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
...which implied I was banned HERE.
Considering those are usually the links I post when talking to Ira, then it is implied... after all, we've YET to finish that particular conversation.

Now, considering that you've never had a problem keep the conversation going regarding those points, then I assumed (wrongly) that you were intelligent enough to comprehend what I was referring to. I will always specifically refer to the multiple sites you've been banned from in the future, so that there is NO MISTAKING it, and those who wish can research it for themselves (and, of course, see that I am NOT lying!)
In the words of AA_P
Sorta funny how normal people never get banned from forums, ain't it?
But I'm sure you need to believe in your 'explanation' to convince yourself that you are anywhere near normal.

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

@antialias_physorg
You've hit the nail on the head
or should I say you've hit the rc on the head?
LOL
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2014
By "normal people" you mean those that either are part of the mod-troll gang and 'protected' friends, and/or those who are too afraid to challenge and expose those gangs/abuses and/or those who 'suck up' and pretend to like the gang in the hopes of being spared the worst abuses?

You know, I've been pretty active on a variety of forums since my student days (which means since the mid 90s) from gaming to cars to philosophy to science and then some. As you may have noticed: I have no inhibition about ripping into the occasional idiot. But I have never yet even gotten close to a ban.
So I'm gess you're doing something wrong. Could it be your personality? Your voluminous serial-spam-posts of...nothing much really? Your crack-pottery? Your inability to read forum gudielines (we ARE on private property, you know)?
Take your pick.

And since you know nothing about science (or peer review) your opinons on that, frankly, don't matter. Come to grips with it.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 03, 2014
Haven't you learned that the ones who are banned are the ones who speak out and try to make the gangs accountable?


I thought it was the ones with the mental conditions that gets the bans. Like the ones who dress up in lab coats costumes and go all over the interweb to seek and destroy the troll/mod/gangs/bot/mafias, is that not right Really-Skippy?

Well I tell you one thing Cher. You sure giving the troll/bot/mafia/gang/mods a run for their money you. You been banned everywhere except the physorg. Now all you got to do is get the boot from here and you will have rid the whole interweb of all the troll/mod/mafia/bot/gangs everywhere. Ooooweei, you got them running scared I gar-ron-tee you.

I would not ever have guessed that your success in troll/mod/bot/mafia/gang slaying was scored by the number of places you get the boot. Silly ol Ira would have thought that the troll/bot/gang/mod/mafias was winning on you Cher.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2014
So let me see if I understand you


Hardly likely that you can comprehend, while you hang on religiously to a false belief. The fact remains that they made serious mistakes and compromised the scientific effort in that area of research.

I don't need to convince anyone to believe me. The facts speak for themselves. Sad for you if you are too blind or too dumb to see.

Go worship you false idols like some indoctrinated disciple. I'll stick to valid, independently replicated research, not corrupted pseudo science like the BICEP2 fraudsters.

Damn, baited again by an ignorant retard ....
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2014
Damn, baited again by an ignorant retard ....


That's an interesting accusation, Bluehigh.

@zz5555:

zz5555, there are three doors. Behind one of them is a new car. Behind the other two are nothing. I ask you to pick one of the doors and you get whatever is behind it. Before we open the three of them however, I am going to open one of the two doors behind which is nothing. After that I'm going to give you the opportunity to change your initial pick to one of the two remaining closed doors.

zz5555, after I have opened one of the two doors with nothing behind them, should you change your initial pick before we open the two remaining doors?

I know this line of questioning may seem out of place, zz5555, but...please indulge me.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
I am going to open one of the two doors behind which is nothing.

The problem with that puzzle has always been that it's worded ambiguously. (The ambigious information is: do YOU know where the car is before you show one of the doors or don't you.)
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2014
I am going to open one of the two doors behind which is nothing.

The problem with that puzzle has always been that it's worded ambiguously. (The ambigious information is: do YOU know where the car is before you show one of the doors or don't you.)


Well, if I tell you that I'm going to open one of the doors that have nothing behind them, I must know what is behind all the doors. So, in case there's any doubt, consider that I know where the car is and won't open *that* door (as I wrote).
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2014
Well, if I tell you that I'm going to open one of the doors that have nothing behind them, I must know what is behind all the doors.

The way the puzzle is worded it can also mean: "Monty opens one of the doors. There is nothing behind it."
This doesn't necessarily mean he knew what was behind it when he opened it.

I know it's meant to be read the other way (i.e. we are supposed to assume that Monty has full knowledge), but the language isn't entirely clear.
johanfprins
Oct 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Goika
Oct 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
...which implied I was banned HERE.
Considering those are usually the links I post when talking to Ira, then it is implied... after all, we've YET to finish that particular conversation. Now, considering that you've never had a problem keep the conversation going regarding those points, then I assumed (wrongly) that you were intelligent enough to comprehend what I was referring to. I will always specifically refer to the multiple sites you've been banned from in the future, so that there is NO MISTAKING it, and those who wish can research it for themselves (and, of course, see that I am NOT lying!)
I never denied being banned there. In fact I exposed and proved by experiment and explained the mod-troll tactics used to ban me. But you still deny all that and pretend you have uncovered something? You are incompetent and dishonest to the max. A disgrace to whatever you profess to 'stand for'. It certainly isn't truth and justice and objective science discourse ethics.

In the words of AA_P
Sorta funny how normal people never get banned from forums, ain't it? But I'm sure you need to believe in your 'explanation' to convince yourself that you are anywhere near normal.
@antialias_physorg You've hit the nail on the head or should I say you've hit the rc on the head? LOL
Again you ignore my response to antialias, and just proceed to 'cheerlead' without any clue or shred of fair minded acknowledgement of all the facts in evidence. Shameful, CapS. Shameful.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Haven't you learned that the ones who are banned are the ones who speak out and try to make the gangs accountable?


I thought it was the ones with the mental conditions that gets the bans.
Isn't that why your "uncle Ira" attempt to infiltrate sciforums was banned from there, Ira? How ironic. :)

And the mod-troll gangs have been made less egregious in their abuses of power and sabotage, because of my proven by experiment exposures of their MO. They have been made less damaging now because I sacrificed the time and effort to bring them and their blatant colluding and abuses down a notch or two. Good luck, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
By "normal people" you mean those that either are part of the mod-troll gang and 'protected' friends, and/or those who are too afraid to challenge and expose those gangs/abuses and/or those who 'suck up' and pretend to like the gang in the hopes of being spared the worst abuses?
You know, I've been pretty active on a variety of forums since my student days (which means since the mid 90s) from gaming to cars to philosophy to science and then some. As you may have noticed: I have no inhibition about ripping into the occasional idiot. But I have never yet even gotten close to a ban. So I'm gess you're doing something wrong. Could it be your personality? Your voluminous serial-spam-posts of...nothing much really? Your crack-pottery? Your inability to read forum gudielines (we ARE on private property, you know)? Take your pick. And since you know nothing about science (or peer review) your opinons on that, frankly, don't matter. Come to grips with it.
Mate, for a supposed scientist you seem peculiarly self-serving in your blinkers and rationalizations trying to defend the indefensible.

How can you still take that line of evading the point, of blaming the victims, when its obvious that if YOU run with the pack YOU will be favored and not banned, and hence NOT become their victim? It's a self-selecting situation, mate. You go along and encourage such things as Ira's BOT rating and trolling idiocies, and now have the gall to stand there with a straight face and try to take the high ground using such specially specious double-speak excuses why YOU haven't been banned? You repeat and parrot the mainstream, and the mainstream pretending troll-mod gangs welcome YOU as one of their own! Protecting you from being banned by them. How could such a straightforward and obvious explanation for you not being banned be missed by your scientists' brain? What else have you missed, antialias, using that self-serving speciousness of rationalizing trying to defend the indefensible, mate? Good luck with that denial MO, antialias. :)

PS: And for all that you say about ME, itb was YOU and your trollish insensible buddies that fell for that BICEP2 crap and bashing cranks with it even though it WAS crap obviously to me, and I cautioned you to check more closely. Some 'scientist' and 'paragon of objectivity' you were then, hey? :)
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
And the mod-troll gangs have been made less egregious in their abuses of power and sabotage, because of my proven by experiment exposures of their MO.


All your proven experiment have proved is that you are not allowed in anymore. How you going to do any exposing if you can not get in the door? That don't sound like the very interesting experiments to me.

They have been made less damaging now because I sacrificed the time and effort to bring them and their blatant colluding and abuses down a notch or two.


You mean less damaging because you can not get in the door to get damaged by the troll/gang/bot/mafia/mod peoples anymore? I suppose if you were a person with a mental condition you could look at it that way.

So I suppose that means all the troll/bot/mod/mafia/gangs have been taken care of because you can not get in any more. Physorg is the only one who still lets you in so I suppose that means your work ain't finished yet, is that about right Cher?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
And the mod-troll gangs have been made less egregious in their abuses of power and sabotage, because of my proven by experiment exposures of their MO.
All your proven experiment have proved is that you are not allowed in anymore. How you going to do any exposing if you can not get in the door? That don't sound like the very interesting experiments to me.
Enough exposure and ridicule of the mod-troll gangs has been done so that most objective internet science discussion site readers will know by now who and what they are and what they have been caught/proven doing against all the scientific and humanity ethics. They are a shadow of their former mod-troll gang colluding/abusing potential/effectiveness. No need to do any more, Ira.

They have been made less damaging now because I sacrificed the time and effort to bring them and their blatant colluding and abuses down a notch or two.
You mean less damaging because you can not get in the door to get damaged by the troll/gang/bot/mafia/mod peoples anymore? I suppose if you were a person with a mental condition you could look at it that way. So I suppose that means all the troll/bot/mod/mafia/gangs have been taken care of because you can not get in any more.
Who cares about getting in the door once I proved they were abusing the site rules and members rights? That was the whole point. The risk was that they would ban me for demonstrating what they were and their abuses. The price to pay for doing the right thing is what it is, Ira. If you and others are cowtowing or afraid to pay the price for doig the right thing, then what good are you to science or humanity, let alone yourselves? Look to your own character and sense of fairness values, mate; there is obviously something terribly wrong there. :)

Physorg is the only one who still lets you in so I suppose that means your work ain't finished yet, is that about right Cher?
I had finished, and I had withdrawn from detailed science discourse due to risk from plagiarizers. But you and Captain Stumpy are so dense that you keep making cheap shot posts thinking I won't respond. How hysterically hypocritical mental-stupid can you and the CapS get, Ira? Surely even you two incompetent crazies can figure out why I post here at all now? If you stop your hypocritical lying cheap shot posts to/about me, I won't have to come in and counter and demonstrate your idiocy again. :)
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Enough exposure and ridicule of the mod-troll gangs has been done so that most objective internet science discussion site readers will know


that Really-Skippy was the only getting ridiculed and exposed. Don't you think that one is better?

The risk was that they would ban me for demonstrating what they were and their abuses.


Okayeei. Now I see. Your experiment was to see how long it take for you to get banneded. Skippy do you think that makes any sense? To anybody without the mental condition I mean.

Surely even you two incompetent crazies can figure out why I post here at all now?


I thought it was to give me something to do. Don't get mad with me Skippy. All I did was answer your foolishment to me. If you quit writing me the comments I would not have anything to make the fun with.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Enough exposure and ridicule of the mod-troll gangs has been done so that most objective internet science discussion site readers will know
that Really-Skippy was the only getting ridiculed and exposed. Don't you think that one is better?
You have the evidence that it was the other way round, Ira. The most egregious mod-trolls have been 'retired' and the rest made to look out for their own reputations now that they and their gang tactics have been rumbled and proven beyond doubt. Your idiot's version is just that, an idiot's version.

The risk was that they would ban me for demonstrating what they were and their abuses.
Okayeei. Now I see. Your experiment was to see how long it take for you to get banneded. Skippy do you think that makes any sense? To anybody without the mental condition I mean.
Your idiot's version again, Ira? The exeriements proved the collusion tactics/abuses of the mod-troll gangs to bait-and-ban people that threatened their ego-driven personal/abusive agendas. The experiments succeeded. No more need be said, except that your idiot's version is a perfect illustration where idiots are allowed to pretend they are not so. You fail in even that pretense, Ira. Obviously. :)

Surely even you two incompetent crazies can figure out why I post here at all now?
I thought it was to give me something to do. Don't get mad with me Skippy. All I did was answer your foolishment to me. If you quit writing me the comments I would not have anything to make the fun with.
I had wirhdrawn. But it was you-and-the-CapS idiots who kept making cheap shot posts after I had withdrawn. Hypocritical idiocy on top of your usual idiotic idiocy, Ira? How surprising...not!

You better find something else to do; that keeps you and the CapS creepy stalking idiots off the internet where you keep proving you are denser idiots of the first water, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
You better find something else to do;


Still think you are the BIG CHIEF Skippy? Non Cher, you don't even have any Indians for your parade non. Shoot, you don't even have a Flag-Boy-Skippy. Hard to make the parade like that you.

You better find a way to enjoy me baucoup if you are going to be telling ol Ira what he better do Skippy.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
You better find something else to do;
Still think you are the BIG CHIEF Skippy? Non Cher, you don't even have any Indians for your parade non. Shoot, you don't even have a Flag-Boy-Skippy. Hard to make the parade like that you. You better find a way to enjoy me baucoup if you are going to be telling ol Ira what he better do Skippy.
It was just good advice for your own benefit, for you to take or leave, Ira. :)

Just like the good advice I gave antialias and the rest of 'the smart peoples' to check BICEP2 closely before 'believing' and acting like 'excited schoolgirls' bashing the 'cranks' with the BICEP2 crap.

They didn't take my good advice then; and they came a cropper!

You can ignore my good advice too; but you have to realize the consequences of that may not be to your benefit.

And for a loner researcher and scrupulously independent observer and scientist like me, the very last thing I wish to be is 'big chief', especially when the 'followers' here (like you) are so clearly lacking any 'brave' qualifications, and are most occupied with making 'pointy hats' for yourselves by trying to be the 'big chiefs' telling others what is right/wrong when you have no clue yourselves! The uncomprehending pretenders' 'belief' in the BICEP2 crap proved that all too clearly, didn't it? :)

Give it up, Ira, you haven't the 'brave' nor the 'intellect' nor the 'honest' for it. Go fishing with the missus, hey? And do stop posting lies and idiocy to/about me, ok? Good luck. :)
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
And for a loner


I can see that.

researcher


So far all your experiments have only proved you are a funny guy with the mental condition.

and scrupulously independent observer and scientist like me,


You are not the scientist-Skippy, Skippy. You are the pretend scientist-Skippy who only went to the same Universal Physics school like I did, the interweb.

the very last thing I wish to be is 'big chief'


You mean like when you tell peoples what they "better" do? Or only when you are not telling peoples to "Do Better Diligence"? Oh yeah, and when you are telling who to talk to, who to be friends with, and what to say to each? Like that is what you mean?

And do stop posting lies and idiocy to/about me, ok?


That's on you Really-Skippy. All I'm doing and will always be doing is answering your silly postums to me. If you don't like me answering you can stop that by not giving me anything to answer. Your choice Cher don't matter to me non.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
And for a loner
I can see that.
But you don't comprehend what you 'see'. That is your problem, Ira.

researcher
So far all your experiments have only proved you are a funny guy with the mental condition.
My 'mental condition' is called:

"Being an unbiased intellect observing objectively and following the scientific and humanity ethics scrupulously and independently".

What is your mental condition called?: "Idiot pretending and trolling and BOT voting and just being plain stupid and hypocritical and pretty much useless and irrelevant to science and humanity". Way to go, Ira.

And my experiments have proved exactly what has been pointed out. That you keep ignoring the 'inconvenient truths' about what has been proven beyond doubt is your problem, not mine, Ira.

and scrupulously independent observer and scientist like me,
You are not the scientist-Skippy, Skippy. You are the pretend scientist-Skippy who only went to the same Universal Physics school like I did, the interweb.
See, you missed all the past conversations which would have given you clues that what you just aid is just more of your idiot's version not the reality, Ira.

the very last thing I wish to be is 'big chief'
You mean like when you tell peoples what they "better" do? Or only when you are not telling peoples to "Do Better Diligence"? Oh yeah, and when you are telling who to talk to, who to be friends with, and what to say to each? Like that is what you mean?
So, advising politeness, courtesy, objectivity, fair debating and better checking of the facts; and the ceasing of your and your 'friends' idiotic anti-science-ethics mod-troll gang tactics and perversions of the science discourse on a science site, is NOT good advice in your book? Wow, Ira.

And do stop posting lies and idiocy to/about me, ok?
That's on you Really-Skippy. All I'm doing and will always be doing is answering your silly postums to me. If you don't like me answering you can stop that by not giving me anything to answer. Your choice Cher don't matter to me non.
But you posted to/about me FIRST, even after I had already withdrawn; and you and your 'friend' continued to do so even after I came back in to counter your cheap shots and ask for you to stop. Hypocrite, not good, Ira.

Please stop it, Ira.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
not good, Ira.


I'll be the judge of what's good for me, eh Cher?

Please stop it, Ira.


I told you that was on you Skippy. You the one who keeps putting up the long silly postums. It would be rude of me not answer them since you spend so much time working on them.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
not good, Ira.
I'll be the judge of what's good for me, eh Cher?
Your demonstrated incompetence at almost every level of judgement and observation/reading clearly demonstrates you wouldn't have clue one about what's good for you. You don't take good advice and keep making an ass of yourself along with your daisy chain gang of stupids BLOCK voting uncomprehendingly in the ratings pages. Better ask your missus to spell out your failings there, Ira. Maybe you'll listen to her and take the good advice to stop fooling yourself in open forum like that.

Please stop it, Ira.
I told you that was on you Skippy. You the one who keeps putting up the long silly postums. It would be rude of me not answer them since you spend so much time working on them.
On me? I wouldn't have to post at all if you hadn't kept driveling your cowardly cheap shot to/about me after I'd withdrawn.

What does it take to make insensibles like you get an inkling, Ira?

Please stop.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Oct 03, 2014

zz5555, after I have opened one of the two doors with nothing behind them, should you change your initial pick before we open the two remaining doors?

I know this line of questioning may seem out of place, zz5555, but...please indulge me.


I'm assuming here that this is the standard Monty Hall problem? If so, then the answer is to change my pick. I'll note here that probability isn't my forte. I regret not taking statistics and probability in grad school, but I was discouraged from doing so by my advisor and there were plenty of other courses that needed to be taken.

I am wondering about this line of questioning. I'll follow it for now, but I've had enough tests in my life. I'm also wondering what this has to do with bluehigh not reading his own link.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
Ira, you crazy cajon, you keep after him. That RealityCheck needs one, he is just to caught up in blowing his own horn to recognize his horn is a boot. Seems to me there is an article about blowing your own horn too soon.......
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Please stop.


That's up to you Cher. The long postums to me only cause me to think you don't want me to stop. Ain't nothing much else to do, might as answer you since you are putting so much into them.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2014
Modern physics has been derailed by anonymous peer rerview. How does a scientist know whether the so-called "peer" is really a "peer". In most cases they are not! I have had a "peer" that reviewed a manuscript of mine for Proc. Roy Soc. who wrote: " I am not an expert but would be surprized.......etc. Now if he is not an expert in the field I want to publish in how the hell could the editor "Sir" Michael Berry appoint him to do the refereeing? Quite clearly Michael Berry is not suitable to be an editor of a grade 2 classroom publication.


The lunatic ranting of a failed, pushed aside, ignoble has never been. Your rambling discourse and factless assertation of genious are what barred you from being published.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Maggnus. :)
Ira, you crazy cajon, you keep after him. That RealityCheck needs one, he is just to caught up in blowing his own horn to recognize his horn is a boot. Seems to me there is an article about blowing your own horn too soon.......
Hehehe. Since when is advising polite and non-troll-bot-voting-gangs skewed science discourse 'blowing one's horn', Maggnus? And since when is good advice to 'check the facts' before bashing the cranks with flawed BICEP2 crap 'blowing ones horn', Maggnus?

Were you among those 'experts' here who just 'believed' that BICEP2 crap just because it was from 'mainstream'?

Maybe a good old fashioned RealityCheck of your own motives and performance/objectivity wouldn't be a bad idea about now, hey? Beat the rush! Good luck.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira.
Please stop.


That's up to you Cher. The long postums to me only cause me to think you don't want me to stop. Ain't nothing much else to do, might as answer you since you are putting so much into them.
No problem at all in composing and posting when it is in a good cause like demonstrating your failures when it comes to science and humanity discourse here, Ira. It is the work of a moment for me to put the lie to your failed attempts at cowardly cheap shots when you think I had gone and wouldn't come back in to show you are just being a HYPOCRITICAL lying insensible self-deluding troll again, Ira.

Your choice. Please stop and I won't have to defend against your continuing posting of incompetent idiocy and lies. Ok? Good luck, Ira.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Your choice.


No Cher, I said that first. YOUR choice.

Please stop and I won't have to defend against your continuing posting of incompetent idiocy and lies


I don't care what you have to do. It makes no difference to me. I am not so very much busy, might as well answer your silly postums.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Your choice.
No Cher, I said that first. YOUR choice.
Since you kept making the cheap sot lying posts which caused me to return and post back, then your hypocrisy is yet another indication of your insensibility to the max. Maybe your Missus is more right about your character and your mental capacities than you can realize in that dense troll capesa of yours, Ira.
Please stop and I won't have to defend against your continuing posting of incompetent idiocy and lies
I don't care what you have to do. It makes no difference to me. I am not so very much busy, might as well answer your silly postums.
So your "not so busy" justifies your idiocy on the open forum for all to see and despair at? Wow, such a simple 'reason' for the bot voting and other idiocies you've been getting up to here, hey Ira? Just because you're "not busy" you are being stupid. Got it. Good luck with that 'excuse' to the missus when she next catches you doing something stoopid that embarrasses the heck out of her and all the family!

Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)


Hi your own self Really-Skippy. Do Better Diligence Skippy and watch out for the troll/mod/gang/bot/mafias because I hear they are on your trail.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Hi Ira. :)


Hi your own self Really-Skippy.


If you have stopped your driveling posts to/about me, then it's Bye for now Ira. And good luck. :)

Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2014
If you have stopped your posts to/about me, then it's Bye for now Ira


Bye for now your own self Skippy. I will be here when you come back.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
If you have stopped your posts to/about me, then it's Bye for now Ira
Bye for now your own self Skippy. I will be here when you come back.
Hopefully by that time you would have done a serious RealityCheck of yourself and your motives and behavior here and elsewhere; and hopefully realized what an ass you have been; and then maybe you would have something to offer the science and humanity discourse here and elsewhere apart from hypocrisy and bot-trolling stupidities. In the meantime, try not to trip over your hypocritical ego and your dishonesty and your incompetence as "an investigator", as these self-delusional troll attributes will trip you up every time, Ira. Good luck and enjoy what discussion/activity you are capable of in the meantime! Bye for now.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2014
Hi Ira. :)


Hi your own self again Really-Skippy.

Bye for now.


Golly gee boy, make up your silly mind. Bye for now again your own self Skippy.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
Hi again, Ira. :)
Hi Ira. :)


Hi your own self again Really-Skippy.

Bye for now.


Golly gee boy, make up your silly mind. Bye for now again your own self Skippy.
Well shucks! That's easy, Ira. This just to say there's no personal animosity or lingering hard feelings towards anyone from my end, Ira, everyone. It was just the principle of the thing. No more, no less than that. Bye again for now, Ira! :) :) :)
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Hi again, Ira. :)


Boy you are one crazy couyon. Hi again your own self Really-Skippy

Bye again for now, Ira!


I ain't falling for that one again Skippy.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
PS: Ira, your mindless BOT 'automatic rater from a list' is still connected to the site. See to its removal asap if you please. Thanks. Bye again for now. :)
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
See to its removal asap if you please.


I do not please. You are stuck with it.

Bye again for now.


Yeah, right.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
Hi again, Ira. :)
See to its removal asap if you please.
I do not please. You are stuck with it.
So you refuse to disconnect your mindless BOT 'automatic rater from a list'? Why not? Have you no intention of improving your behavior? Not even for the sake of science and humanity discourse as well as your own rehabilitation pathway away from trolling subhuman to decent human being and scientist? Aww, go on, disconnect it, mate. Just to show willing, hey? You can do it if you try, Ira!

Bye again for now.
Yeah, right.
The 'for now' should give you a clue that such things are subject to changing circumstances. And the request for you to disconnect your BOT from this science discussion site is reasonable circumstance permitting my continued presence until you have shown more willing to be better than you have been, Ira. Good luck.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
The lunatic ranting of a failed, pushed aside, ignoble has never been. Your rambling discourse and factless assertation of genious are what barred you from being published.

There are some editors who are not fooled by the motives of reviewers and will not, like "Sir" Michael Berry, allow a review to stand if the reviewer claims "I am not an expert". These editors are few and far between, but thank God there is still a bit of integrity when publising physics. I have published two seriously reviewed manuscripts since December: Arsehole!!!The editor kept on demanding from the reviewers to motivate their criticisms in term of REAL physics. The latter does not happen within journals like Nature and Science anymore!
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
How can you still take that line of evading the point, of blaming the victims,

It's very simple, and I'll spell it out for you: They aren't victims.

They are just the people who are, by their pesonality, total a-holes. And it is the nature of such people to not realize that they are such (if they did, then they would change their behavior, right?). A-holes get banned. It's simple.

I am not defending the ones who are 'persecuting' because no one is persecuting people like you. There are simply people who are tired of dumb people posting BS and disrupting productive conversation of grown-ups*. And if that person is a mod you get banned.

(*Yeah, I know you are not a child, but you haven't yet grown up)
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014
Well AA, I am surprised at the intensity of your comment. Mostly you are tolerant and reasonable. I guess all those trumpets blowing upset you.

Anyway enough of this, there's a good science show on TV.

They demonstrate dark matter for propulsion and unveil a new element, Transformium.
Age of Extinction it's called.

Really exciting new physics!
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014

zz5555, after I have opened one of the two doors with nothing behind them, should you change your initial pick before we open the two remaining doors?

I know this line of questioning may seem out of place, zz5555, but...please indulge me.
I'm assuming here that this is the standard Monty Hall problem?
Correct.
then the answer is to change my pick.
Correct.
I am wondering about this line of questioning. I'll follow it for now, but I've had enough tests in my life.
No worry, that's all there was to it.
I'm also wondering what this has to do with bluehigh not reading his own link.
When confronted with the same question from a PhysOrg article on that topic, Bluehigh was unable to wrap his head around the problem (or the answer), even disambiguated (as AA noted). Even presented in terms of 100 doors, 98 being opened.

I thought it was a little rich of him to label someone else "an ignorant retard" given that, and the help he got to eventually figure it out.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014
Aww shucks thanks for your help. I tend to believe in real validated science but you guys have educated me to believe anything published to arXiv must be treated religiously as sacrosanct , even ifs unverified and illogical. Thanks guys. Now I'll go back to the science show, it's on TV so it must be true.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2014
Hey you got me going now. Perhaps BICEP2 could make number one in science fraud. In the meanwhile this is alarming for the worshippers of bad science.

The Sokal affair was a hoax by Alan Sokal (a physicist) perpetrated on the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, he submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon to see if the journal would "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

bluehigh
1 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2014
The paper, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in "Science Wars" that year. On the day of publication, Sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax. He said that Social Text was "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense". Much heated debate followed, especially regarding academic ethics.

Another recent example of this same situation is the 2005 Rooter Paper; this was a paper randomly generated by a computer which was submitted – and consequently approved as legitimate – to a scientific conference.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2014
I tend to believe in real validated science but you guys have educated me to believe anything published to arXiv must be treated religiously as sacrosanct , even ifs unverified and illogical.


I can't speak for others, but I haven't seen any claim that arXiv is sacrosanct, so nice straw man. ArXiv has it's uses, but there are clearly going to be nonsense in it as well as valid papers. If you don't already understand the science, you should treat arXiv carefully. My complaint on your claim was that you posted a link that clearly showed your claim was incorrect. As a rebuttal, you just re-interpreted what the paper you linked to said in order to pretend to be correct. And now you seem to be re-interpreting what others have said in this thread.

Feel free to re-interpret my posts. Just include puppies in your re-interpretation. I like puppies. ;)
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Of course this all explainable by um err ... A grab for money or fame.

Don't forget The Piltdown Man. That's evolutions credibility screwed by lying egocentric scientists. No wonder the average person does not trust scientists.

And you guys want me to believe the BICEP2 researchers are crystal clean honest folk.

You're delusional.
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
And just for clarification, my interpretation of the BICEP2 paper was to understand the motives behind the deceit, knowing that the paper was flawed. Sadly, some dimwits religiously believe scientists immune from immoral and corrupt behaviour. Ignorant retards.
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
I like cookies and pineapples. I don't like bullshit red herrings from Tards that worship deceitful liars needing money to continue flawed research. Just for the record, again, the BICEP2 researchers should be tortured slowly and publicly as an example to other money grubbing researchers, for bring science into disrepute.

Now stop it. You are upsetting me and I must get up early tomorrow, even on a public holiday here, to go work.

Who moved my meds?
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
I exposed and proved by experiment
nope. no control group, therefore it was just you trying to get past the MODS to bait & troll & flame others
Sorry
epic failure
ALSO - no science
OT/trolling / baiting
you ignore my response to antialias
no i didn't. it is a lie. how can a newbie with no affiliations or friends on site be part of a MOD/TROLL gang? you lied and got caught- you lied about "experiment" because it was just you trying to get back on the site to bait/troll others. that is a PROVEN FACT by the MODS on that site. sorry.
P.s. AA_P stated it perfectly correct and is absolutely 100% correct in his assumptions about you

also- not replying to your stupidity about that anymore. it is in black and white HWY you were banned. it is not refutable by you as you've NO PROOF, only your "word" that there is a mod/troll gang after you on all the sites therefore it is paranoia wrapped in conspiracy theory and debunked by simply talking to the MODS on the sites
END OF STORY
TROLL
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
since when is good advice to 'check the facts' before bashing the cranks with flawed BICEP2 crap 'blowing ones horn',
actually, this was also followed by denigrating a team and NOT posting ANY EVIDENCE proving that you knew WTF you were even talking about (still to date), therefore it can be stated truthfully that though it is NOT blowing your own horn, it IS considered baiting/trolling as well as LIES, which will continually haunt you as you've never answered for your lies here
just 'believed' that BICEP2
it was NEVER about 'belief" you idiot, it was about YOU not proving your CLAIMS, which is called: 1-LIES, and 2-baiting/flaming, and 3- personal conjecture without evidence

and MAGGNUS is correct about the REST

and you can post all you want replying to this, I will only report it as flaming/baiting/trolling because it is a matter of black and white proof. we can PROVE you've never answered, you can't prove you did

rc = FLAMING/BAITING/TROLL
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
If you have stopped your posts to/about me, then it's Bye for now Ira


Bye for now your own self Skippy. I will be here when you come back.
Uncle Ira
did you notice that even when you are saying BYE that he cannot help but respond with his BS?
that is because he is a TROLL and cannot prove ANYTHING other than: he is a troll

Sadly, some dimwits religiously believe scientists immune from immoral and corrupt behaviour. Ignorant retards
@bluehigh
there is a reciprocal belief that all peer reviewed articles are false based upon the flawed system... there are extremists in every camp

The point was spelled out, clear, concise and valid, and you ignored the point with a reinterpretation of your same evidence which was still wrong.

And assigning traits to scientists without knowledge, proof or evidence is like nailing jell-o to a tree: you can try, but you are doomed to failure

justify your comments on intentional deceit with evidence, please
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
Uncle Ira
did you notice that even when you are saying BYE that he cannot help but respond with his BS?


I am beginning to think that BYE means something different where he is from than it does here in Louisiana. That is one crazy couyon and a funny man.

With his experiments and his toes and his troll/bot/gang/mafia/mods I wonder why they have not locked him away for his mental conditions.

He maybe should not visit Louisiana no, they will put him in a place he does not want to be in. If he don't believe that he should just ask Returning-Skippy when he gets out again.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
The bastardization of science finds its origins in the AGW Cult.
http://skepticden...iew.html
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Gawad,
Thanks for the heads up. It always amazes me that people with no apparent interest in science are excited to come to a science website to criticize science.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
but you guys have educated me to believe anything published to arXiv must be treated religiously as sacrosanct ,

I'm pretty sure you can't substantiate that. Arxiv isn't peer reviewed. (Even peer reviewed articles aren't sactrosanct. There is no such thing in science, since that would be an "argument from authority")
That said: There is a certain tendency to give people who have done work, have succesfully passed peer review in the past with similar work, and who aren't afraid to show their work over those that simply go "it ain't so" more credit. If you're not at home with that attitude then maybe you should explain why...(and I have the lease for an Eiffel tower for you to buy)

@Gawad: Monty Hall is actually a very good problem for teaching people (even math/physics students!) that just 'intuiting' a problem - even one as simple as this - often leads to wrong results. And that we should follow up intuition with solid math.

Trust the work. Not the knee-jerk analysis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Hi greasy asshole ;)
You would do well to apologize at once to the forum and all those countless known and unknown victims of total a-holes perpetrators in positions of power who abuse that power in their ego-tripping insanity
You are a flooder. Your posts have no content beyond flaming and harrassing. You ignore the character limit. Youre a liar.

You have no respect for the site or the people who visit or post here. Why dont you apologize?
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Be careful on that slippery slide to total douchedom

Werl, I was just explaining what happened to you in the past. But - for the reason also explained in my post - you don't get it.
You'll just keep on doing what you're doing (and as Uncle Ira so poignantly explained: not achieve anything beyond getting laughed at, pitied, and finally banned again and again).
I guesss you must somehow keep uo this pretense to be an 'unsung genius' for...what exactly? Some psychological need? Whatever floats your boat, I guess..

Oh..and conflating banning trolls with sexual abuse is a bit disingenouous, don't you think? Victims of sexual abuse didn't do anything to deseve that. They are victims. You, on the other hand are NOT a victim. You are simply treated the way you deserve. Total different ballpark.

RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Poor Caps and Ira. :) Still mutually goosing each other and pretending to be relevant to either science or humanity? Poor slobs.

CapS/Ira, how many times does it take to get through that idiotic pall that pervades your every post here lately? I suggested YOU checked out the BICEP2 claims and indicated which types of flaws I saw. I already explained more than once to you that I could say no more because of risks of plagiarism of my ToE insights/explanations in this area if I detailed them. How many times does it take?

As for "controls" for my internet experiments exposig /proving mod-troll collusion activity/abuses, I already pointed out that sciforums allowed "RealityCheck" back in as "Undefined" after I PROVED to the admins satisfaction that the mod-trolls were responsible for abusing the rules to select and sabotage victims with the intent to trump up charges for banning them while letting their colluding 'protected troll' perpetrators off with slaps on the wrist, again and again! And every site, by virtue of its SITE RULES and MEBERSHIP who DO follow those rules, are the "controls" for observing/proving which Mod-Trolls do NOT follow those ruels and go so far as to abuse them egeregiously, as PROVEN by the necessary types of EXPERIMENTS within those APPLICABLE parameters and INHERENT "controls".

So, CapS/Ira, If it was proven properly to the admins satisfaction then (and the most egregious troll eventually was banned and the colluding mod 'disappeared' soon after), whar is YOUR beef with that proven case now?

Is it that your own trolling and abuses of the site rules and the sabotage of science discussions here is not going as smoothly as you would have wished, because I have challenged and exposed YOUR and Ira's USE OF A BOT to 'rate automatically from a list' irrespective of science/content posted by your VICTIMS on that BOT's list?

I asked Ira politely to disconnect that BOT and start afresh as a proper member discussing honestly without such personality cult and troling and sabotaging ego-tripping agendas.

But here you two are again, even after you said you had quit making your cheap shot lying hypocritical posts which forced me to respond to you. How low can you and Ira go before you wise up and start afresh honestly and with such bot-troll gang tactics and agendas? The forum will see how you go from now on. Good luck 'wising up to yourselves', CapS/Ira. :)
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
not one mod abused their power or broke the rules for their personal agendas

I don't know - haven't been to all sites in the world. Those I went to had pretty good mods. In the end: it's their site. They can do whatever the hell they please.
To grab my favorite forum guideline rule from the WoW forums:

"10. Thou Shalt Not Mention "Freedom of Speech." Or we'll vomit. All over your Treads of Cthon, we promise you."

And who exactly would these *grown ups* be to whom you allude, antialias?

Most everyone else, here. Isn't that obvious?

You would do well to apologize at once to the forum

Or else...what? You gonna go crying to mommy? All you said was "it ain't so" - providing not a shred of evidence why.
Forgive me for being somehwat less than impressed by that. Currently I'm waiting for what the PLANCK data comes up with. It's pretty exciting.

Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
Werl, I was just explaining what happened to you in the past.
Sorry about that one star AA_P... the page finished loading when I tried to vote on rc and it jumped to your post and got you instead... I meant to 5 star your post.

Be careful on that slippery slide to total douchedom, antialias!
as you are continuing, I am just going to downvote you and report your posts for being spam/trolling/baiting/flaming and irrelevant
If it was proven properly to the admins satisfaction then
and according to the MOD who let you in, he felt sorry for you because you were crying and sobbing... and someone who didn't know you appealed to their soft side...

that same person got to know you and asked that you be removed as well for being a troll

Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
I asked Ira politely to disconnect that BOT and


and ol Ira told you back politely that that he did not want to to do that diligence. I got a right to vote any way I want to vote. You got to learn to get used to that Skippy.

How low can you and Ira go before you wise up and start afresh


I can not answer for the Captain-Skippy but ask any of the Tea-Party-Skippys from the Bully-Pulpit-Tea-Party-Forum how long I can go. If you are going to wear me down you won't be able to finish your toes for another 10 or 9 years at least. I am fit and healthy and raring to go.

Now quit writing postums to me Skippy so you can get to work on your toes. You are taking more than your fair share of my time.
DeliriousNeuron
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Who cares what Captain stumpydick and asshole Ira think.
I get enjoyment coming here down voting all thier posts.I don't even read em. They only only post here to bash ideas people post expecting to get votes.
Stumpydick and ol aunt ira need to get a juice box, jumbo crayons and go play together.
They don't need to be here posting their useless crap.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
Be careful on that slippery slide to total douchedom
Werl, I was just explaining what happened to you in the past. But - for the reason also explained in my post - you don't get it.
You're in denial mate, and making lame rationalizations to avoid taking responsibility for your own complicity. You still haven't explained how you alleged *grown ups* FELL for that BICEP2 crap because you didn't check it out properly as I suggested. Face it like a man (assuming you are male) instead of squibbing it at every turn when you are confronted with such 'inconvenient truths', antialias.

You'll just keep on doing what you're doing (and as Uncle Ira so poignantly explained: not achieve anything beyond getting laughed at, pitied, and finally banned again and again). I guesss you must somehow keep uo this pretense to be an 'unsung genius' for...what exactly? Some psychological need? Whatever floats your boat, I guess..
No need to expose/prove-by-experiment that mod-trolls were active and abused the rules; nor that BICEP2 was an obviously flawed publish or perish' 'exercise'.

And what I have been doing is being an honest and objective scientist and human intellect. How different a contrast to what some of you alleged *grown ups* have been doing; who were so willingly SUCKED IN by, and bashed 'cranks' with, such OBVIOUSLY flawed BICEP2 crap because you alleged *grown ups* couldn't or wouldn't take the time and unbiased approach to tell the difference between crap and 'fact' in that simple straightforward instance requiring even more scrutiny than ever before. Such lack of objectivity makes you UNFIT to judge others, antialias. See t your own faults before alleging faults in your victims, hey?

Oh..and conflating banning trolls with sexual abuse is a bit disingenouous, don't you think? Victims of sexual abuse didn't do anything to deseve that. They are victims. You, on the other hand are NOT a victim. You are simply treated the way you deserve. Total different ballpark.[/qHow slow or self-serving is that alleged *grown ups* mind of yours, antialias, that you ignore the OBVIOUS COMMONSLITY in the MO of ALL types of gang/institutionalized POWER gangs abusing VITCIMS and using that old argument of blame (and sabotage and disparage and deny a vocie to) their victims instead of accepting responsibility as 'the perpetrators'. Have you no common sense at all left, antialias? Must you 'rationalize' like that forver because you are doomed to never face your own faults and responsibilities in both the science and humanity instances of such ABUSES of POWER that BLAMES and attempts everything crooked in order to FURTHER DENY VOICE and LEGITIMACY to victims?

Get a conscience and some sense of proper ethics and responsibility for your own actions and faults, antialias. No amount of evasive rationalizations and blaimg vitims is going to excuse you alleged *grown ups* who have demonstrated you have acted shamefully as anything BUT DISHONEST and self-serving *grown DOWNS* in recent instances.

As a start in your RealityCheck into your own self and motives etc, read again the above article and learn from its message. Then go back and review your behavior over the period (since March 17 ?) after I suggested good advice that you check BICEP2 'claims' and 'exercise' more closely before acting like excited schoolgirls and just believing before checking properly.

Good luck facing 'inconvenient truths' about yourself, antialias.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Hmm..this may be a bit hard for you to understand: My opinion - and the opinion of anyone else on a comment section - doesn't matter on the BICEP paper. (Heck, my specialty isn't astrophysics - so I wouldn't presume to make a definite pronouncement in any case.)

The BICEP results aren't something that is decided by vote. It was published, and they took great pains to eliminate any sources of error. Other papers have come forth with possible sources of error. THAT's where the scientific discourse happens - not here.
And when the PLANCK results come in we'll see how it turns out. it will be interesting either way. I have absolutely no problem with it if my initial assessment may turn out to be wrong. So what?
That's just the normal scientific process.

and blaimg vitims

You aren't a victim, remember? You're the perp (troll, spammer Dunning-Kruger poster child, ...take our pick.) Perps get punished.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
I have absolutely no problem with it if my initial assessment may turn out to be wrong. So what?
That's just the normal scientific process.
@antialias_physorg
this is the biggest problem people like him have, you know.
that is why delirious, reg, johan, rc and more cannot comprehend the science... because it continually refines itself to make it more accurate

And they think that a study that uses other studies to build upon as a foundation is flawed in some way... or that the peer review is flawed in some way because they can't get published

It never occurs to them that they can't get published because there is no science or empirical evidence in their paper (see reg, johannie and above for more proof of that) or that there are no repeatable experiments

I get enjoyment coming here down voting all thier posts.I don't even read em
@delirious
if a TROLL downvotes me, that is GOOD
you downvote me & it is a GOOD thing, it means I am on the right track
TROLL AWAY, d. :-)

antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
tl;dr
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
tl;dr
@antialias_physorg
here is something interesting to read
http://www.livesc...d=558434

The investigators found that Internet trolls tended to have personality traits related to sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism – a term used by psychologists to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. The link between trolling and sadism was the strongest out of all three traits, the researchers said

So what could explain the links between trolling and sadism? Simply put, some people seem to enjoy being argumentative and purposefully disruptive, according to the researchers
sound familiar?
especially that last line?

DeliriousNeuron
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
Stumpydick. .....fyi...I very much understand astrophysics. I got my first telescope in 1982 and I was hooked. By 9th grade I was in to physics.
I think YOU are the one that can't comprehend astrophysics.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
here is something interesting to read
http://www.livesc...d=558434

Interesting. Though I don't know how the sadism would be served as it says in the article that there may be a predilecton for causing "pain and discomfort" in others.
Well, maybe in his mind he's 'hurting' others. But in reality? We're on the internet for cryin' out loud. He doesn't matter. What he says doesn't matter. No one who matters with regard to the posted popular blurb articles about scientific papers published elswhere is here. Doesn't he realize that?

All he's really invoking here is pity. (and a sort of hilarity...I mean: why would we even debate him, otherwise? I'm here for the fun of it - not to work. If it's not fun I'll just not read his stuff. Simple as that)
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
I mean: why would we even debate him, otherwise? I'm here for the fun of it - not to work. If it's not fun I'll just not read his stuff. Simple as that)


I try to explain that to him the other day. A couple of times. But he is stuck thinking this is where the professional-scientist-Skippys come to do their science stuffs. I told him that if the professional-scientist-Skippys come here it was only for a good laugh at the silly things peoples say when they are pretending to be as smart as the real scientists.

They come here mostly to laugh at peoples like the Really-Skippy when he says stuff like "I went to the Universal Physics school." (That's the same physics school I went to, it's called the interweb.)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
But you and your other allegd *grown ups* were doing the interrupting of conversations between those who DID see the flaws in BICEP2

Ya know: you didn't see the flaw in BICEP (and as of now we don't know whether it IS flawed). You just posted "ain't so" without an argument.

You do that with basically everything. You're like verkle who just googles 'evolution' and posts "ain't so" every time.
That's not "contributing to the discussion". That's just tedious repetition (in your case in the hopes of getting a lucky hit sometime)..as I said: I'm not particularly impressed by that approach.
If you had posted arguments then we'd have a different picture.

And again: I have no issue with being wrong. I'm not an astrophysicist (beyond a laymans interest). You're trying to make out as if I am supposed to be bothered by liking a paper that turns out to be (maybe) wrong. Well, I'm not bothered by that. My opinion on the paper doesn't matter.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
@ Really-Skippy you are abusing the special permission you said the physorg peoples give you for posting up more letters than everybody else. Why you not play fair and use 1000 letters like everybody else, eh?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Hi greasy asshole ;)
You would do well to apologize at once to the forum and all those countless known and unknown victims of total a-holes perpetrators in positions of power who abuse that power in their ego-tripping insanity
You are a flooder. Your posts have no content beyond flaming and harrassing. You ignore the character limit. Youre a liar.

You have no respect for the site or the people who visit or post here. Why dont you apologize?
So Ghost, your concerned more with the format than the truth? Figures, troll.

And I only responding to posts by lying hypocritical types who sabotage and censor proper discourse. Otherwise I would not be posting at all now. So blame yourselves for my having to come in and post counters to your trolling lying crap. :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
Stumpydick. .....fyi...I very much understand astrophysics
@deliriousneurotic
doubtful, given your predilection for supporting eu, which is a failed, debunked pseudoscience
I got my first telescope in 1982 and I was hooked. By 9th grade I was in to physics
owning a telescope doesn't make you an astrophysicist any more than standing in a garage makes you a Toyota
I happen to own two, and several lower power scopes
I think YOU are the one that can't comprehend astrophysics
think what you want
I have 2 four year bach degree's
one in physical science and the other in business management
and I've been retaking physics at MIT for fun lately - Professor Walter Lewin's course is a HOOT

I have SOME problems with certain things, true, but overall it appears that I have a far better grasp on the basics than you do. Perhaps you can use some refresher courses?
http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy you are abusing the special permission you said the physorg peoples give you for posting up more letters than everybody else. Why you not play fair and use 1000 letters like everybody else, eh?
Your (wrong) assumptions keep coming! And since others make many and/or 'split' posts which in many instances add up to more text than in one of my posts (in which much text is used to QUOTE my interlocutors), then it's no big deal.

So, Ira, you still refusing to disconnect your BOT' automatic rater from a list' from this site? Not nice, Ira. Go on, mate, do it to redeem your character at least, if not for science and humanity ethics per se, hey? :)

PS: I see where the CapS is 'studying' a course. No wonder he has been so 'adamant' and hysterical lately. He is studying something that is incomplete and replete with gaps which are papered over by ad hoc non-answers and fantasies. His cognitive dissonance must be getting serious after that BICEP2 fiasco.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
So, Ira, you still refusing to disconnect your BOT' automatic rater from a list' from this site? Not nice, Ira. Go on, mate, do it to redeem your character at least, if not for science and humanity ethics per se, hey?.


If you mean for me to turn off my computer so you can act silly without me noticing I already told you I am not going to do that no. My character is doing just fine with it on.

But if I had a way to tell the physorg peoples to take your permission to use as many letters as you want when everybody else got to do with less I would write them and tell them that isn't fair. If they let you do it then they should let everybody do it.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
I have WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussions

Funny. How can you withdraw when you never entered?

If you're not going to enter detailed discussion then you have nothing to add. So...meh...by that statement you pretty much admit that all your postings are pointless. So I guess you see now why no one is taking you seriously?

Good job understanding. I didn't think you could.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
Well, maybe in his mind he's 'hurting' others. But in reality? We're on the internet for cryin' out loud. He doesn't matter. What he says doesn't matter
@antialias_physorg
I think the key point to that is the "in his mind" part
There is also the "pain and discomfort" of having to sift through post upon post of irrelevant drivel like above, so there is a little truth to the pain and discomfort part.

then there is the blatant lie's as well... of which he seems impervious of. He truly cannot see where he has done any wrong or is flawed in any way (part of the delusion he has)

so maybe THAT is what they are referring to in that article?
http://www.livesc...d=558434

I think that this is a mental illness issue... like tourette's or ocd

that is why it continues without end & there is no stopping him even when you just say bye

gotta run!
PEACE
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
even when you just say bye


You don't want to get him started with BYE stuffs. He got really weird and silly with that foolishment last night. If he tells you BYE just skip over it because it doesn't mean the same thing to him as it does to other peoples. I thought he was going to keep BYEing me all night. Maybe that is part of his mental condition too.

He told me BYE. Then I tell him BYE YOU TOO. Then not five or four minutes later he tells me Hi again. And BYE again. So I tell him BYE YOU TOO again, and the silly couyon is back in five or four minutes with another Hi and another BYE. Just kept on doing it until I told him that I wasn't falling for the BYE again after about 10 or 9 times of that foolishment.

Craziest thing I never did see.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
There is also the "pain and discomfort" of having to sift through post upon post of irrelevant drivel like above, so there is a little truth to the pain and discomfort part.

There's a handful like him I mostly just scroll past. I only engage in stuff like this when I'm feeling mischievous or when the movie I'm watching is in a lull or similar.

..and stringing him along keeps him off the 'streets' elsewhere...which is always a nice bonus. It's fun to watch.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2014
@ Really-Skippy you are abusing the special permission you said the physorg peoples give you for posting up more letters than everybody else. Why you not play fair and use 1000 letters like everybody else, eh?


I've been reporting him every time he does it.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
...I would write them and tell them that isn't fair.
What's this? Now it's YOU "whining" about not being treated "fair"? Wow!

When I proved by experiments that the mod-trolls were NOT 'being fair', you and your stooge friends didn't give a hoot about 'fairness' at all!

What has changed in your capesa, Ira, that you suddenly give a damn about 'fairness'?

And didn't antialias just tell us all that site admins could do as they please because it's their site?

This self-serving hypocrisy double standards is too much! LOL

Perhaps you, CapS and antialias should get up a joint Symposium-of-Hypocrite-Elitists-and-Insensible-Trolls to sort out once and for all whether you DO or DO NOT want 'fairness' in these sites/discussions.

Then you could issue a Hypocritical-Memorandum-of-Misunderstanding to the press? Making your usual TWO-FACED rationalizations for blaming victims of unfairness and excusing perpetrators of same?

Then we would all know which 'fence' you 'straddle'.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
I have WITHDRAWN from detailed science discussions

Funny. How can you withdraw when you never entered?

If you're not going to enter detailed discussion then you have nothing to add. So...meh...by that statement you pretty much admit that all your postings are pointless. So I guess you see now why no one is taking you seriously?

Good job understanding. I didn't think you could.
How 'conveniently' you ignore my past discussions here and elsewhere, which puts the lie to your (again) convenient self-serving versions. I only withdrew from such discussions when it became to risky as to plagiarism by others if I gave any more details than I did in the past. Shame on you, antialias, for denying your own cupidity/culpability and still disparaging the messenger. Not good, double-standards hypocrite.

PS: did you see Ira squeal about unfairness on a science site? Your rationalization that site admins can do what they like must be 'comforting' for him! :)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2014
Shame on you, antialias, for denying your own cupidity/culpability and still disparaging the messenger.

Hmm..I don't remember you ever coming up with any details to your theory to me or anyone else.
But since the details you supposedly divulged are already out on the net then I'm sure you'll not mind repeating them now, why don't you? They can't be plagiarized a second time, can they? Here's your chance to prove us all wrong without any additional risk to your ToE. Go for it!

PS: did you see Ira squeal about unfairness on a science site?

I just see you squirming and making a fool of yourself (moreso than usual), along with breaking about every comment section rule they have. It's sorta sad to watch (and funny in a retard-funny way)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
Well, maybe in his mind he's 'hurting' others. But in reality? We're on the internet for cryin' out loud. He doesn't matter. What he says doesn't matter
@antialias_physorg I think the key point to that is the "in his mind" part There is also the "pain and discomfort" of having to sift through post upon post of irrelevant drivel like above, so there is a little truth to the pain and discomfort part. then there is the blatant lie's as well... of which he seems impervious of. He truly cannot see where he has done any wrong or is flawed in any way (part of the delusion he has) so maybe THAT is what they are referring to in that article? http://www.livesc...d=558434 I think that this is a mental illness issue... like tourette's or ocd that is why it continues without end & there is no stopping him even when you just say bye gotta run! PEACE

What are you ON, mate? Let's see, you have been making:

- incompetent "investigations" and STALKING the WRONG persons on the net and via google maps references;

- hysterical hypocritical posts which requore countering for the record (just like this one);

- attacking ME for merely suggesting you CHECK YOUR FACTS (as in the BICEP2 case) before accusing others of trolling/cranking/lying etc;

- keep making bait and lie posts to/about me even after I had withdrawn, and yet have the stupidity to accuse ME of trolling when I am merely RESPONDING TO YOUR idiocy posts;

- keep denying and lying about the PROVEN by experiments troll-mod gang UNFAIRNESS in banning me/others (note that your 'mate' Uncle Ira has just squealed about site unfairness, are you going to attack and blame him too?); and...

- still 'cheerleading' crap uncomprehendingly (as above and in BICEP@ erc cases), without bothering to understand subtleties posted, just because of your idiotic bias.

There, that's enough for the forum to get the true picture when reading your usual 'hypocritical half-truths lying idiots version' of reality.

Poor hypocritical insensible self-serving self-deluding mutual-goosing sods. Don't you ever wise up enough to stop digging your own troll-tripping holes?

Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
When I proved by experiments that the mod-trolls were NOT 'being fair', you and your stooge friends didn't give a hoot about 'fairness' at all!.


You mean the experiments that showed the troll/mod/bot/mafia/gangs were on their toes and wouldn't let you in? From what I heard it would have been fair if they banneded you a long time ago and they let slide because you were funny to watch with your silliness. Yeah I guess those were some pretty good experiments, you really showed them and made them change their ways of doing things. That's why the only place you can still get in is the physorg.

Ain't really an experiment I would be proud of but then you have the mental condition that help you think you are doing things scientific and such not. Really-Skippy you are weirdest couyon I never did see so far. Experiments don't seem to be what you are very good at, unless you were out to prove those troll/mafia/bot/gangs/mods are on their toes.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Hi antialias. :)
Shame on you, antialias, for denying your own cupidity/culpability and still disparaging the messenger.
Hmm..I don't remember you ever coming up with any details to your theory to me or anyone else. But since the details you supposedly divulged are already out on the net then I'm sure you'll not mind repeating them now, why don't you? They can't be plagiarized a second time, can they? Here's your chance to prove us all wrong without any additional risk to your ToE. Go for it!
Anyone sufficiently unbiase and determined enough to research my posts over the last decade is welcome to the insights involved/divulged therein. I have grave reservations that any would-be plagiarists would work THAT hard to carry out their nasty plagiarism!

Anyhow, for your info, I've been posting since 2005 on one site, and only a few years in the rest (total FOUR sites). I have sounboarded some interesting insights as well read/discussed others' takes on them and their own ideas. The detailes of my ToE as such have NEVER been set out, because of the plagiarism risk. However I have engaged in andeven started some of my own threads. But the troll=mod gangs were so blatant and pervasive, I stopped. No matter, I would have stopped anyway due to plagiarism risk. The fact that these PROVEN troll-mod gangs could so severely sabotage reasonable discussions/people and BOAST about it, made it my duty to make certain further internet forays as EXPERIMENTS aimed at exposing and making less damaging those mod-troll abuses so proven on more than one site since then.

If you want to actually see my ToE, you'll have to wait until I publish t COMPLETE, and not is such 'publish or perish' bits like the BICEP2 and other past 'papers' have been. I don't succumb to publish or perish or 'elitist herd mentality' imperatives. I know that's not the way some 'give it to me now' types would like it. But what do they or their opinons on what they haven't yet seen 'whole' matter, hey? I will not be rushed; have patience. :)

PS: Antialias, did you see Ira squeal about unfairness on a science site?
I just see you squirming and making a fool of yourself (moreso than usual), along with breaking about every comment section rule they have. It's sorta sad to watch (and funny in a retard-funny way)
Really? The fact that Uncle Ira TROLL who BOT-votes from a list irrespective of content posted, is now aquealing about 'unfair sites', does not strike you as HILARIOUSLY IRONIC since he and you and CapS and others like to blame unfairness on the victim instead of the troll-mods in sites having proven unfairness banning tactics/abuses?

What does it take, antialias, to get through to your inner decent person/scientist? Will you not realize that all your rationalizations have been based on self-serving double standards cop-outs for avoiding your own cupidity and culpability in ceratin instances? try, mate.

And save some of your 'laughing at you' for yourselves, mate; you're a hoot with the double standards and rationalizations fro defending the indefensible! Good luck.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Anyone sufficiently unbiase and determined enough to research my posts over the last decade

Why am I not surprise you'd start to weasel? And a decade? Seriously? Others write half a dozen books in that time.
Since you don't plan on sweating anything as hard as 'data' or 'experiment' that pretty much clinches it: Your 'ToE book' is just a fantasy.

BOT-votes from a list irrespective of content posted

How would you know it's irrespective of content? Your content certainly deserves every 1 it gets in my book. So I'd say he is spot on. Or can you point to any post where you actually contributed anything of substance in this thread?

What does it take, antialias, to get through to your inner decent person/scientist?

Not much. Just being decent and posting logical arguments. Haven't seen that from you, though.

All I see from you is a lot of hot air and self-aggrandizing bravado along with nothing to back it up. That doesn't impress the scientist in me.

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 04, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
When I proved by experiments that the mod-trolls were NOT 'being fair', you and your stooge friends didn't give a hoot about 'fairness' at all!.
You mean the experiments that showed the troll/mod/bot/mafia/gangs were on their toes and wouldn't let you in? From what I heard it would have been fair if they banneded you a long time ago and they let slide because you were funny to watch with your silliness. Yeah I guess those were some pretty good experiments, you really showed them and made them change their ways of doing things. That's why the only place you can still get in is the physorg. Ain't really an experiment I would be proud of but then you have the mental condition that help you think you are doing things scientific and such not. Really-Skippy you are weirdest couyon I never did see so far. Experiments don't seem to be what you are very good at, unless you were out to prove those troll/mafia/bot/gangs/mods are on their toes.
When you stop squealing and whining about 'site unfairness' in that insensibly hypocritical way of yours (which didn't care a damn when it happened to others), maybe you could spare one of your two remaining brain cells and apply it to do some honest talking?

The original admins were decent enough to see and accept the proof of the mod-troll collusion which led to RealityCheck being banned. They allowed me back as Undefined. Since then there has been a 'race to the bottom' in that place as far as admin/mod standards go, and the decent admins/mods have basically given up on that site. However, since my experiments proving their past and present mod-troll gang abuses of power for presonal ego agendas, the mod-trolls have to be more circumspect and explain what they are doing before they can just ban anyone they don't like. Before, it was open slather and no accountability at all. So things have improved, hence my experiments were successful in their aims to help future members who obey the rules to escape the worst mod-troll abuse excesses of the past.

What have you contributed to the science and humanity diwcourse and ethics lately, Ira? Oh, yes, I forget, your insensible mindless BOT-rating from alist of people you 'like/dislike' despite your having NOT a CLUE of what is being discusse/presented for discussion? Way to go, insensible idiot on a SCIENCE site. Amazing (not) that antialias does not also ask you to stop BOT-voting mindlssly from a list of PERSONAL TROLLISH likes/dislikes, which have nothing to do with the science under discussion. :)

Stop digging your troll-trap-holes if you keep falling into them all the time like that, Ira. You stop your lying hypocritical trolling posts to/about me, and I will stop responding to/about you. Is that 'fair' enough, Ira? :) :) :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Oct 04, 2014
Hi you lying scumbag ;)
Hi Ghost. :)
Hi greasy asshole ;)
You would do well to apologize at once to the forum and all those countless known and unknown victims of total a-holes perpetrators in positions of power who abuse that power in their ego-tripping insanity
You are a flooder. Your posts have no content beyond flaming and harrassing. You ignore the character limit. Youre a liar.

You have no respect for the site or the people who visit or post here. Why dont you apologize?
So Ghost, your concerned more with the format than the truth? Figures, troll.

And I only responding to posts by lying hypocritical types who sabotage and censor proper discourse. Otherwise I would not be posting at all now. So blame yourselves for my having to come in and post counters to your trolling lying crap. :)
Hey look - I fucked up on purpose har
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2014
@ Really-Skippy you tricked me before 3 or 2 times with those apologies you try to make. I am not going to fall for that again me.

Now Skippy, why don't you just Do Better diligence and quit interrupting the smart peoples who come here to talk about science.

Do Better Matey.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
you have been making
wasn't talking to you
reported for baiting/trolling/lying
references added
Hi antialias... Are you so stupid?
nope. you are. he's a PhD
You're too lazy to research the facts for yourself
nope. the info you keep saying is out there is not there, unless you mean that historical page of BS crap that spells out some of your "ToE" with your address at the top?
You're too lazy to research the facts for yourself
Thats why he is a PhD and you are????
Uncle Ira ADMITTED IT
he doesn't like you. no one does. get over it
I have been speaking for the victim and the scientific impartiality ethics
no, you've been telling us you're the victim. that is different. and a lie
you can just stop it and get back to science and humanity ethics
again, he's a PhD, you are a moron posting to a pop-sci site about how you got banned for being a moron on a moderated page
deal with it

go work on your TOES & shut up
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
incompetent "investigations"
Libel
STALKING
Libel and personal conjecture without evidence (IOW- liar)
hysterical hypocritical posts which requore
spellcheck and dictionaries are free- this is conjecture and factually incorrect (IOW-Liar)
attacking ME for merely suggesting you CHECK YOUR FACTS
no. for not providing PROOF of comment, which was: 1- attacking the BICEP team and mainstream scientists & 2- never providing details pointing out any "flaws" which means you are a Liar
keep making bait and lie posts to/about me
you are the one who keeps flooding with OT and Lies (see above)
keep denying and lying about the PROVEN by experiments troll-mod gang UNFAIRNESS
you mean pointing out that they were doing their JOBS while keeping a lying troll out of the site? makes you a Liar again
cheerleading
I like to make sure people who are trying get recognition- GOOD JOB IRA

http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
There's a handful like him I mostly just scroll past. I only engage in stuff like this when I'm feeling mischievous or when the movie I'm watching is in a lull or similar.

..and stringing him along keeps him off the 'streets' elsewhere...which is always a nice bonus. It's fun to watch
@antialias_physorg
yeah... I've been collecting his posts for some time
I have about 100 pages of his stuff where he rants about the same thing as above, to various people (myself included)
Our psyche class really gets into his posts... they are telling of his state of mind as well as his intelligence and more
I would post his page, but I promised a friend that I would not
it contains his address, name, phone number and more

he would only deny it, too... even though he cannot deny that his IP was logged as the creator of the page (can't hide from ADMIN MODS)

HAVE FUN with him, AA_P
I hope you don't mind me sharing a little about your education! I've been enjoying your publications
thanks!
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
Poor poor CapS. Poor poor insensible sod. Sad.
DeliriousNeuron
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
Captain stumpydick. ...tell me more about your scope. Dobsonian, reflector or refractor or sct? By the way....low power scopes mean nothing. They take the best wide angle photos. A larger diameter scope gathers more light for deep sky objectsl.Schmidt-Cassigrains or (sct's) are great scopes too for astrophotography. These are just some of the classic types of telescopes that bring you pics and measurements that confuse you.

I've never said the eu theory is the holygrail of astrophysics.
Lay a piece of ferrous metal on the ground. Grab a magnet while your at it. Pick the piece of metal up with the magnet.
Congratulations, you've just proven magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Now explain exactly how the dominant force is gravity based?
You can't. About every few days, phys.org posts articles that defy mainstream physics.
After 30+ years of learning gravity based theories, when physicists can't fit thier observations into thier models, its obvious something isn't right.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
Maybe gravity is an emerging force of magnetism. Who knows.
But by having open discussions about these subjects, its a great way to new discoveries. Why do you insist on bashing peoples views? Do you have something to protect? Is it your reputation? Are you a paid employee of the powers of pier review scientific papers? Is it about greed? Are you one of those people that continue to fund nowhere science projects? The neutrino projects come to mind....
Who's side are you on anyways? Science WILL continue to evolve with or without you. It always has and ALWAYS will. Do you really think gravity based theories can sustain its reputation much longer? Do you read?? Seriously! Open your eyes and do not be afraid to learn something new.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
What do you think SCIENCE is, antialias, some sort of 'race' to publish first'

Since you're obviously afraid of 'plagiarism' something doesn't grok here. On the one hand you're termnally afraid someone publishes first and on the other you don't want to publish. Yeah. It gets more and more obvious. That book of yours doesn't exist other than in some fantasy world of yours. You could have pre-published (e.g. on arxiv) to ensure precedence long ago. I call BS on the whole thing.

What does YOUR opinon about the number of books that others post have any bearing on the real ToE coming in its own good time and completeness?

I've seen people write books. Serious scientists. The only time you take decades is when you're travelling all over the world: doing a global taxonomy of some animal or other.
Since, by your own admission, you just intuit stuff - no data, no math, no experiment..what's taking you so long? Stll learning your ABCs?
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
I hope you don't mind me sharing a little about your education! I've been enjoying your publications

As long as you keep my name out of it that's fine.

Antialias, the choice is before you now as never before. You can continue to evade and ratioinalize trying to defend the indefensible,

here's a seriosu question, though. Why do you feel the need to kiss up to me? Are you so in need of someone reputable to aid you? Isn't it abundantly clear that - in my opinion - you're nowhere near what science/scientific means but have passed the crackpot-horizon a long tme ago and are still accelerating?

So I wish you luck on your 'book'. May the fantasy of it comfort you (or whatever).

On to greener pastures.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
@furbrain
Once again you malign me without provocation. I quote your earlier comment,
that are either demonstrably wrong (such as claiming that there is no such thing as escape velocity), or not even wrong, (such as claiming there is an aether). Furthermore, the people he rails against assert their untested hypotheses (if you could even call them that) as fact.

This is a site for science. Speculation is fine--even encouraged, but acting like something that hasn't been scientifically demonstrated is true, is not okay.
I say that there is no such thing in reality as escape velocity. You say there is, and justify this by quoting a mathematical model utilising asymptotical approach based on UNPROVEN laws of "gravity". You can quote NO EXAMPLE of an object obtaining escape velocity, only transfer from one zone of influence to another. You are a total hypocrite. Just look at the Pioneers, whose track does not conform to any predictions made by Newt/SR/GR or any other mainstream crap
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
To Everybody but Cap'n Grumpy and Irate
There has been a lot of comment on this thread about "peer review".
On other threads, the Cap'n persistently offers to "peer review" my book if I send him a free copy. The question is, do you think he would do a "fair review" as a "peer"?, Answers, please, on a postcard, addressed to Arvix.
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
and I have the lease for an Eiffel tower for you to buy
- AA

Now AA if your gonna make this personal between us, then I would suggest to you that 'people in glass houses should not throw stones'. As I have said before you are a respected contributor that mostly avoids off topic insults. I couldn't be bothered now to point out your multiple egocentric failures but next time you trip up, watch your back. Or did I misunderstand your intent?

bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
It was published, and they took great pains to eliminate any sources of error.
- AA

That's just a foolish statement. Please, AA don't disappoint me, I think you're generally a smart bloke. How do you justify them publishing with a guess rather than waiting for the appropriate Planck data.
bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
CS,

there is a reciprocal belief that all peer reviewed articles are false based upon the flawed system... there are extremists in every camp

...... The system has its problems but it kinda works.

The point was spelled out, clear, concise and valid, and you ignored the point with a reinterpretation of your same evidence which was still wrong.

..... I disagree. It's okay. Thanks for not shouting at me :)

bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
PS: South Sydney won the NRL grand final here in Sydney tonight after a few decades of failure. A very popular win and lots of celebrations. Tough game well played. They should be blowing trumpets all night!
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
How do you justify them publishing with a guess rather than waiting for the appropriate Planck data.

The way I read their paper they were confident enough about the results. It's like that sometimes - you can always wait forever for all kinds of new data to come in. Some time you just get to a point where you feel the results are good.
You will find many cases where research gets later qualified or invalidated. That's the normal scientific process. Research is at the edge of what's barely discernible. If you're looking for infallibility there then I think you're confusing science with religion.

AA don't disappoint me,

Oh man, you would not be-LIEVE how little your opinion means to me. I could fill universes with the f*cks not given.

I couldn't be bothered now to point out your multiple egocentric failures but next time you trip up, watch your back.

Oooh. Internet threats. I'm all a-quaking in my booties. Feel free to point away. Punk ;-)

bluehigh
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
AA, you sad little egocentric sociopath. Such an immature reaction. You often read articles and fail to comprehend them, only to get your little gang of worshipping followers to defend you. Have you considered psychiatric treatment?

Repeat to yourself. Must get real data not make assumptions.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
AA, you sad little egocentric sociopath. Such an immature reaction. You often read articles and fail to comprehend them, only to get your little gang of worshipping followers to defend you. Have you considered psychiatric treatment?

That it? You feel better now? I was expecting something...you know: substantive.

I think someone once said: you must get real data.

Oh ..wait...I think that was you.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
Blowing your own trumpet AA? You don't have a clue what substantive means. Certainly doesn't apply to you. Do try to focus. That's it .. The noise you hear is called 'thinking'. I know you don't do that very often, you being a Wikipedia parrot PhD!

Once more for the terminally stupid. Why did the BICEP2 team choose to make an assumption, rather than wait for the Planck data?

Think. Money.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
By the way....low power scopes mean nothing
@delirious
depends on what you are doing. I don't need 500-1000x to look at the moon
stumpydick
I am straight, sorry
tell me more about your scope
Dobsonian- 500x similar to this http://www.telesc...E027.pdf

you've just proven magnetism is stronger than gravity
And since I can see birds flying and deer jumping, i can prove they are stringer than gravity too. your point?
posts articles that defy mainstream physics
don't confuse pop-sci writing to actual reality.
there is a difference: ask your psychiatrist/psychologist. they will verify this
Why do you insist on bashing peoples views?
only pseudoscience
if you prefaced everything with IMHO or "my belief is" then it is different... it is known to be a personal opinion and can be ignored
but I have wasted too much time reading pseudoscience posted here (like eu/awt)

i am just warning others that eu is pseudoscience

a public service
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
Who's side are you on anyways?
@delirious
the side of empirical evidence and reality
when eu can publish in a reputable journal that has an impact in astrophysics while maintianing the KNOWN laws of physics and not being so idiotic as to assume plasma discharge made the grand canyon and all the moon craters, then I will be far more open to it
eu is debunked, however, so I make sure those who are NOT in the know are shared the info proving that point
Open your eyes and do not be afraid to learn something new
learn the basics and learn about reality FIRST... speculate about your faith later: go here and take your own advice

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

the evidence speaks volumes
the source of the evidence speaks even louder
if your evidence comes from a known pseudoscience site while claiming peer review, and there are no links proving the paper has not been retracted... I would ask if you see where I am going with this but you will only ignore it and get pissy

oh well
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
Once more for the terminally stupid. Why did the BICEP2 team choose to make an assumption, rather than wait for the Planck data?

Just look at my last post on that subject. I explained it to you.

If you think science is some infallible method of never making any mistakes then I guess you have a lot to learn about it. And if you think scientists are in it for the money, you're sadly mistaken.

You don't have a clue what substantive means.

Something that contains substance? Something that is supported by fact? You know: stuff that has an actual basis in reality and somesuch. You 'threatened' some action to that effect.

Hic Rhodus. hic salta.

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2014
the Cap'n persistently offers to "peer review" my book if I send him a free copy
The question is, do you think he would do a "fair review" as a "peer"?
i only offered to publicly review it

I am not an astrophysicist, I was simply giving you the opportunity to share your book and give you a review of the contents- something most authors would actually LIKE

Except that I would also be reviewing the science and posting snippets of what you screw up and what you get totally wrong...or right
and THAT is where the thing takes a whole different turn

I would be FAIR in that if I found something WRONG I would point it out WITH REFERENCES proving my point
If I found something irrelevant, I would also point that out
and a new idea with merit? that too

Peer review feedback is normally not published on line, is it?

Maybe you should ask AA_P to read it? he is a PhD (though not in astrophysics)

Or Thermodynamics- He is published too
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
you being a Wikipedia parrot PhD!
@bluehigh
i gotta sound off on this: no, he is a PhD in Biomed engineering, if I got that correctly (AA_P? that's correct, right?)
Once more for the terminally stupid. Why did the BICEP2 team choose to make an assumption, rather than wait for the Planck data?

Think. Money.
this is what is called personal conjecture without evidence
this is essentially what certain other people whom I call flaming/baiting/spamming/trolls does (see above- Otto calls them "lying scumbag")

There is a way to prove a point. that would normally be the introduction of evidence supporting your conclusions. The best evidence comes from reputable sites with peer reviewed publications that have an impact in the area of discussion... saying that someone does something for money without proof is just pointing out the shortcomings of your argument.

Now, if you could substantiate your argument... that would be something that we could review for clarity etc
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
i gotta sound off on this: no, he is a PhD in Biomed engineering, if I got that correctly (AA_P? that's correct, right?)

PhD in human biology (university diploma in electrical engineering. I specialized in biomedical electrical engineering after the common electrical engineering courses).
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
i gotta sound off on this: no, he is a PhD in Biomed engineering, if I got that correctly (AA_P? that's correct, right?)

PhD in human biology (university diploma in electrical engineering. I specialized in biomedical electrical engineering after the common electrical engineering courses).
okee dokee... I had that mixed up with someone else then
THANK YOU for clarifying that
I know you've told me that in a message.

and I loved those robotics video's you PM'ed me! THANKS

if you ever need a volunteer to build into a "Bionic man", let me know! :-D
I have feet that need to be replaced!
DeliriousNeuron
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2014
Stumpydick wrote:
And since I can see birds flying and deer jumping, i can prove they are stringer than gravity.

By posting this its clear you don't have a clue. You are simply a wannabe mainstream troll.
F*@king incredible! LOL!

DeliriousNeuron
2 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
Your public service Stumpy, is rapidly losing ground, so you better find another topic to troll. You are making yourself look quite pathetic.
You must have a lot at stake with mainstream physics. All those years of creating your own custom puzzle pieces, trying desperately to make them fit into the puzzle.
Fear not Stumpy....old dogs CAN be taught new tricks.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
Your public service Stumpy, is rapidly losing ground
@delirious
personal conjecture without evidence
already proven YOU are a troll... http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
so far, your "delirious beliefs" in eu is why you cannot fathom mainstream physics
You must have a lot at stake with mainstream physics
personal conjecture without evidence
i have absolutely nothing at stake
i simply require empirical evidence, which is why YOU fail so often to prove a point!
because you cannot bring evidence to the table
old dogs CAN be taught new tricks
That is why I left you the link to the MIT site

let me know if and when you are able to learn something, d! you are too repetitious (Alzheimer's or mental illness?)
I get enjoyment coming here down voting all thier posts.I don't even read em
if a TROLL downvotes me, that is GOOD
you downvote me & it is a GOOD thing, it means I am doing something correctly

TROLL AWAY, d

:-) LMFAO
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
And stay out.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I would be FAIR in that if I found something WRONG I would point it out WITH REFERENCES proving my point

You mean, anything I say that disagrees with your accepted interpretation of mainstream drivel.
You really don't get the point of all this at all, do you? You think anybody who does not parrot mainstream physics is "A LYING PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL" (your words), don't you? You are a pathetic small ignorant moronic pile of crap.
PS I won't be taking advantage of your magnanimous offer.......
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
And stay out.
And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....?

Good luck with that 'personal-political attitude' in your 'discussions' Ghost; especially as 'dispassionate-objectivity attitude' is really what scientific method/discourse demands. :)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
tl;dr

It's just gonna be reiteration of your other waffel posts in any case.
If you can't stick to the rules you can't expect anyone to bother to read.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
You mean, anything I say that disagrees with your accepted interpretation of mainstream drivel
@reg
no
i mean, specifically, that you should provide evidence using the scientific method in the same way that studies are performed and written
That is the purpose of the book, right? to share your new idea in the same way as a peer reviewed article, but instead playing an end run to get out of the peer review?
You really don't get the point of all this at all, do you?
actually, I think YOU don't get the point
i am open to new ideas, as long as there is some evidence supporting them (as I have stated in the past)
so debunked eu is OUT, but I also know that plasma physics has benefit to astrophysics (just not as they interpret the evidence)
I won't be taking advantage of your magnanimous offer
Which only solidifies my argument against you as promoting pseudoscience

you only lose if you are promoting pseudoscience with my offer
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
Hi again, antialias. :)
tl;dr

It's just gonna be reiteration of your other waffel posts in any case.
If you can't stick to the rules you can't expect anyone to bother to read.
And that about sums up what is wrong with your approach here and in scientific discourse generally. You DON'T read or you read with self-serving BIAS. That is the surest way of NOT getting ALL the facts in evidence before you go on to make your opinions. No wonder what you said about your opinions on this site is so true: "... they don't matter". Yet you pretend to have anything proper to say about others; especially when YOU and your fellow alleged *grown ups* can so easily be hoodwinked by that BICEP2 fiasco and I was not.

You probably didn't read the above article either; or you read it with self-serving BIAS.

When will you finally stop the excuses and diversions, and just HONESTLY and HUMBLY take the message of the above article and move on a better human being and scientist?

Good luck. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
You think anybody who does not parrot mainstream physics is "A LYING PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL" (your words)
@reg
actually, I have said (and I still say) that anyone who cannot bring empirical evidence from a reputable source that has an impact in the subject is a PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL

This means: eu, zephir and awt, and as of right now, you
I won't be taking advantage of your magnanimous offer
One last comment about this:
the reason that you don't want to send me a book is fear
if a non-scientist can pick apart your theory and then make sure it is publicly well known that there is a severe failure on your part to provide a workable philosophy, then you will keep it to yourself and just make people waste money on the unknown purchase

you forget that if you can convince me of your philosophy, then it will also be known and posted
where is the loss here unless you published a book of pseudoscience?

Vietvet
5 / 5 (8) Oct 05, 2014
"And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....?"

From someone who hasn't demonstrated any expertise at maths or physics.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
You are a pathetic small ignorant moronic pile of crap
@reg
lashing out is not helping your cause, either
it only reinforces what I am saying above...
and besides... if you ARE trolling, then you only honor me by being mad and lashing out, like certain other verbose idiot trolls posting above who have no grasp of reality

so names will never hurt me here.

I am giving you a chance to prove that you are NOT pushing pseudoscience. that is why I am not voting on your post: it is important to let you know that I am willing to give you a chance to convince me of the validity of your work

a small gesture, sure, but offered with sincerity

you can only lose if you are pushing pseudoscience or make failed assumptions based upon a faith or intuition and not hard science and evidence

your choice
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy. Here is another really good one that is the big fun.

http://www.physfo...amp;st=0

You will notice that this was after one of those really good experiments had put the troll/mod/bot/gang/mafias in their place so they had learned their lesson about the troll/gang/mod/mafia/bot misbehaving. See how well he got those evil troll/bot/mafia/mod/gangs to get on with the doing better diligence with science discussions. After they give the boot and lock the door.

Hoooweei, I bet they are not going to try to go up against the Really-Skippy again, I gar-ron-teee they won't. Those experiments are the thing no man can go up against no.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
Hi fatass ;)
And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....?
-And yours is -? Youve never presented anything. Review the above thread and ponder the wonderous amount of NOTHING but BULLSHIT youve posted.

Quit lying and GTFO.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
Hi Vietvet. :)
"And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....?"


From someone who hasn't demonstrated any expertise at maths or physics.
How little you know, mate. Why make such uncomprehending downvotes in the ratings pages when you haven't clue one of the maths/physics subtleties and novel insights necessary for completing the reality maths-physics ToE which the 'professionals' have been failing to accomplish for a CENTURY now?

Good luck in your elitist arrogance based on incomplete theory/beliefs and biased incomprehension of what you think you do 'know', mate. That sort of thing is what has hampered the 'professionals' for a century, and your encouragement of same is not helping science one bit towards the completion of consistent reality maths-physics ToE.

Read the above article and take the message in, stop making your mindless uncomprehending gang 'block votes' based on your personal likes/dislikes. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
HI Ghost. :)
Hi fatass ;)
And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....?
-And yours is -? Youve never presented anything. So quit lying and GTFO.
You too have missed my decades of posts across four sites which puts the lie to what you just opined from incomplete data? What a 'scientist' you'd make...not. Mate, go to the personal-political social media sites; they cater for irrelevance like yours. Good luck.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Captain-Skippy. Here is another really good one that is the big fun. http://www.physfo...amp;st=0 You will notice that this was after one of those really good experiments had put the troll/mod/bot/gang/mafias in their place so they had learned their lesson about the troll/gang/mod/mafia/bot misbehaving. See how well he got those evil troll/bot/mafia/mod/gangs to get on with the doing better diligence with science discussions. After they give the boot and lock the door. Hoooweei, I bet they are not going to try to go up against the Really-Skippy again, I gar-ron-teee they won't. Those experiments are the thing no man can go up against no.
Thank you VERY MUCH for bringing up that physforum example of the ABUSE of MOD-TROLLS gang of ALL ETHICS.

If you had taken the time and trouble to ASK ME before you posted that and made a fool of yourself again, Ira, you would have found out that the site was being sabotaged by a truly insane troll and sockpuppeteer who used a commercial system for generating hundreds of sockpuppets to sabotage rpenner and the site! That insane troll's names were "Dave" alias "Lady Eliabeth" etc etc.

It was "lady Elizabeth who opened that thread (note the "check" in "Realitycheck" begins with LOWER CASE "c") purposely to further break all the rules of fair play. That site has 'gone to shit' under the SOLE MOD "rpenner". And HE also sabotaged the site hoping to (as he openly boasted) poach members for a site HE was interested in. How's that for a mod?

Moreover, that same sole mod perverted the rules of decency and science by HACKING into my "signature field" and making obscene comments to mislead futher any reader about RealityCheck.

Anyhow, that site and its sole moderator has been irretrievably compromised and brought into disrepute so that it is only fit as a CAUTIONARY EXAMPLE of what happens when moderators run BAD. I tried to warn rpenner about "Lady Elizabeth" and his crazy antics, but rpenner ignored him until it was too late. And so rpenner is DOOMED to be forever associated with the damage to physforums due to his own malice and ego as well as his now-permanet-associate crazy "Lady Elizabeth" who just took you in as well!

It's funny to watch you and the CapS 'play detective" and not realizing when your 'conclusions' are based on your incompetence in checking the facts.

Hahaha. Really made my day, Ira. Good job making a fool of yourself and giving me an opportunity again to point out what mod-troll idiocy ws going on there in the past due to rpenner and his crazy 'limpet' Lady Elizabeth troll. They deserve each other for all eternity. LOL
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
@ Yeah Cher, I hear what you think you are saying. But it must have been another of one of scientifical experiments you do what leaves you outside looking in and all the peoples in there making fun with Really-Skippy while they inside all warm and cozy, eh?

You do these experiments everywhere you go Cher? Don't you try one here because then you won't have anywhere to go to do your diligence and stuffs.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Yeah Cher, I hear what you think you are saying. But it must have been another of one of scientifical experiments you do what leaves you outside looking in and all the peoples in there making fun with Really-Skippy while they inside all warm and cozy, eh? You do these experiments everywhere you go Cher? Don't you try one here because then you won't have anywhere to go to do your diligence and stuffs.
You missed what I said before. The JOB was DONE and dusted. No need to worry about what the festering puss of mod-troll gangs are getting up to now , there or anywhere where they were EXPOSED as PROVEN scumbags and crazies. They can say all they like, but they cannot undo the RECORD (although rpenner tried with mass deletions/distortions and outright hacking and lying there!) that they WERE peoven and exposed. It matters not a whit now to me, since they cannot be anywhere near what they were before being proven/exposed. :)

If they DO attempt NOW to be what they were THEN, it would only be pathetic and further damage their and the site's reputation. More proof of their already exposed/proven scumbaggery from their own 'crazy horses mouths' is always welcome!

Ira, you're thinking like a troll, and assuming that their further self-incrimination like that therein would upset me. It doesn't, you see, because I am not a troll like you, and so when trolls like you and them do such things, it self-demonstrates that I was RIGHT all long.

Better luck next time, Ira. :)

PS: And my internet experiments HERE already led to exposure/proof of the Dr_toad troll's insanity. Where is he gone? He is back as "saposjoint". So sockpuppets of your ;friends' is ok, but of others is not ok? Hmmm. And of course you and the CapS antics have been somewhat tarnished lately, hey?:)
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
@ Well Really-Skippy I will tell you the truth. Ol Ira is not a super smart genius scientist Skippy like you aren't either. I don't have what it takes to keep up with who's socks are puppets and who's socks are just more silly couyons. Don't make no difference to me.

The only thing I know about sockpuppets is when you were making me the misere by stealing my material from here and snip and gluing it into that other place so it looked like you were doing diligence with the interweb troll/bot/mafia/gang/mod meanies. I am still a little bit mad with you on that one but not too much mad. I am mostly over it now so we can let that one go.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Well Really-Skippy I will tell you the truth. Ol Ira is not a super smart genius scientist Skippy like you aren't either. I don't have what it takes to keep up with who's socks are puppets and who's socks are just more silly couyons. Don't make no difference to me.

The only thing I know about sockpuppets is when you were making me the misere by stealing my material from here and snip and gluing it into that other place so it looked like you were doing diligence with the interweb troll/bot/mafia/gang/mod meanies. I am still a little bit mad with you on that one but not too much mad. I am mostly over it now so we can let that one go.
Still in denial mode, Ira? Come on, mate, it's over, you were sussed and banned before you could 'couyon your accent' there. You and CapS both tried to stalk me and lie about me there, just as you were proven to have been doing here. No amount of trollish denials will save you from your failed foray into sciforums, silly troll. :)
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 05, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. I got to give you the BYE today for a little while. We got the new pilot on the crew starting today and I have to stay with him while he's at the sticks until he gets comfortable with this boat and crew. That means I got to stand my own two watches, and a shorter dog watch in between too.

Just so your feelings don't get hurt to bad I will try to check in and give you the usual votes so you will at least have something to talk about while you are doing your diligence doing.

And you don't need to start that Hi BYE foolishment again either because I won't have time to play that silly thing with you.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 05, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. I got to give you the BYE today for a little while. We got the new pilot on the crew starting today and I have to stay with him while he's at the sticks until he gets comfortable with this boat and crew. That means I got to stand my own two watches, and a shorter dog watch in between too. Just so your feelings don't get hurt to bad I will try to check in and give you the usual votes so you will at least have something to talk about while you are doing your diligence doing. And you don't need to start that Hi BYE foolishment again either because I won't have time to play that silly thing with you.
Maybe you have reached the ceiling of your 'intellectual competence' and 'human character' with that, mate. If you can't admit to trying to infiltrate and failing sciforums with your "Uncle Ira" couyon-Skippy 'schtick', then it doesn't bode well for your future 'development' if you deny such realities so close to home as that. Mindless BOT-voting still, hey Ira? Oh well, what are ignorant trolls like you for, if not to bot-vote mindlessly while being total 'couyon' schmuck on the net! Good luck with that determined self-degradation "foolishment", Ira.

Oh, I almost forgot...Bye for now, Ira! :) :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2014
Hi fatass ;)
HI Ghost. :)
Hi fatass ;)
And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....?
-And yours is -? Youve never presented anything. So quit lying and GTFO.
You too have missed my decades of posts across four sites which puts the lie to what you just opined from incomplete data? What a 'scientist' you'd make...not. Mate, go to the personal-political social media sites; they cater for irrelevance like yours. Good luck.
I can imagine it's all just more of the same empty neurotic bullshit.

What can you say about someone who enjoys posting for decades just to get people pissed off at him? Which is all you've tried to do since I've been reading your crap.

Normal people can't imagine why people like you find this in any way fulfilling. Most people would look at it as an enormous waste of time, at best.

Has your whole life been just an enormous waste of time. It would seem so.

Ta ta you freak.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Hi fatass ;)
HI Ghost. :)
Hi fatass ;)
And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....
? -And yours is -? Youve never presented anything. So quit lying and GTFO.
You too have missed my decades of posts across four sites which puts the lie to what you just opined from incomplete data? What a 'scientist' you'd make...not. Mate, go to the personal-political social media sites; they cater for irrelevance like yours. Good luck.
I can imagine it's all just more of the same empty neurotic bullshit. What can you say about someone who enjoys posting for decades just to get people pissed off at him? Which is all you've tried to do since I've been reading your crap. Normal people can't imagine why people like you find this in any way fulfilling. Most people would look at it as an enormous waste of time, at best. Has your whole life been just an enormous waste of time. It would seem so. Ta ta you freak. See, you don't know what I novel insights posted/discussed over the decade, nor do you acknowledge what I already explained that the latter couple of years I have been gradually withdrawing from detailed discussion to work on my ToE and, at then same time, doing my duty as an objective scientist fairminded human being and citizen of the world civilization, to expose/prove and generally be the Nemesis of all those crooked/crazy mod-troll gangs infesting the science discussion forums who were skewing, censoring and generally biasing otherwise proper discussions/ideas and banning people for the gang-members' selfish amusement and power trips.

But you remind me of the types of people who the above article is all about: people who self-servingly ignore the facts and try to pass off their biased versions for personal-political-mercenary agendas. Casting aside objectivity, fairness and honor for what they perceive to be personal gain no matter the truth and the science and the principles and the ethics.

Good luck proving again and again being just exactly that type or person which prompted the above article, Ghost. You'll need it if you are going to keep that up. :)

RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
Above reformatted:

Hi Ghost. :)
Hi fatass ;)
HI Ghost. :)
Hi fatass ;)
And your own original contributions towards completion of the reality maths-physics ToE, is.....
? -And yours is -? Youve never presented anything. So quit lying and GTFO.
You too have missed my decades of posts across four sites which puts the lie to what you just opined from incomplete data? What a 'scientist' you'd make...not. Mate, go to the personal-political social media sites; they cater for irrelevance like yours. Good luck.
I can imagine it's all just more of the same empty neurotic bullshit. What can you say about someone who enjoys posting for decades just to get people pissed off at him? Which is all you've tried to do since I've been reading your crap. Normal people can't imagine why people like you find this in any way fulfilling. Most people would look at it as an enormous waste of time, at best. Has your whole life been just an enormous waste of time. It would seem so. Ta ta you freak.


See, you don't know what I novel insights posted/discussed over the decade, nor do you acknowledge what I already explained that the latter couple of years I have been gradually withdrawing from detailed discussion to work on my ToE and, at then same time, doing my duty as an objective scientist fairminded human being and citizen of the world civilization, to expose/prove and generally be the Nemesis of all those crooked/crazy mod-troll gangs infesting the science discussion forums who were skewing, censoring and generally biasing otherwise proper discussions/ideas and banning people for the gang-members' selfish amusement and power trips.

But you remind me of the types of people who the above article is all about: people who self-servingly ignore the facts and try to pass off their biased versions for personal-political-mercenary agendas. Casting aside objectivity, fairness and honor for what they perceive to be personal gain no matter the truth and the science and the principles and the ethics.

Good luck proving again and again being just exactly that type or person which prompted the above article, Ghost. You'll need it if you are going to keep that up. :)

Reg Mundy
1.9 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2014
You think anybody who does not parrot mainstream physics is "A LYING PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL" (your words)
@reg
actually, I have said (and I still say) that anyone who cannot bring empirical evidence from a reputable source that has an impact in the subject is a PSEUDOSCIENCE TROLL

This means: eu, zephir and awt, and as of right now, you

I've provided empirical evidence for expansion (redshift) and explained how proportion is maintained for solar system bodies. You choose to ignore this.

I won't be taking advantage of your magnanimous offer
One last comment about this:
the reason that you don't want to send me a book is fear
I dont do freebies for wankers.

you forget that if you can convince me of your philosophy, then it will also be known and posted
where is the loss here unless you published a book of pseudoscience?

You actually think anybody would buy a book recommended by you? Get real!

Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2014
I've provided empirical evidence for expansion (redshift)
@reg
you've not been able to give any proof how this applies to your philosophy
you simply say that modern science has interpreted the data wrong... that is NOT supplying proof of your idea, it is denying physics
and explained how proportion is maintained for solar system bodies
you tried to explain this, but failed, and then thefurlong tore apart your argument, to which you had no rebuttal
You choose to ignore this
I watched it and responded, so it is you who is delusional there, spanky
You actually think anybody would buy a book recommended by you?
it is all in how it is written
I can have my daughter review it. she is an electrical engineer. Or perhaps you would prefer Thermo, furlong or AA_P?
Q-Star reviewed your book HERE and you are STILL crying about THAT
http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2014
this is what is called personal conjecture without evidence
- CS

Fair enough. Just expressing my opinion. Perhaps too strongly.

* puts trumpet into case and moves away *
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
Hi there you carking fatass ;)
self-servingly ignore facts
What facts? Your facts are comprised of empty claims about 10yo posts in other forums, and empty flaming bullshit. THATS IT. Where is the satisfaction in this??

Explain to me just why and how you are as fucked up as you are. Where is the reward in getting strangers to respond to your trolling? You honestly have nothing better to do than come here and play with yourself for an audience??

Does it feel like revenge to you? Your wasted life is not our fault.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2014
I've provided empirical evidence for expansion (redshift)
@reg
you've not been able to give any proof how this applies to your philosophy
you simply say that modern science has interpreted the data wrong... that is NOT supplying proof of your idea, it is denying physics
and explained how proportion is maintained for solar system bodies

So, disagreeing with "modern science data interpretation" is "Not physivs", eh?
you tried to explain this, but failed, and then thefurlong tore apart your argument, to which you had no rebuttal
You choose to ignore this
I watched it and responded, so it is you who is delusional there, spanky

Furbrain never responded to it, you live in dreamland. Just shows how you "watch and respond", doesn't it? You dickhead.
Q-Star reviewed your book HERE and you are STILL crying about THAT
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2014
Hi There Ghost! :)
Hi there you carking fatass ;)
self-servingly ignore facts
What facts? Your facts are comprised of empty claims about 10yo posts in other forums, and empty flaming bullshit. THATS IT. Where is the satisfaction in this??
It was posts DURING a decade, NOT 'a decade old', silly. Can't you read or research properly?

And how would you know what I posted of the science (as well as the anti-troll mod experiments/exposure etc), Ghost, if you haven't a clue what that decade's worth of posts entailed, silly.

Explain to me just why and how you are as fucked up as you are. Where is the reward in getting strangers to respond to your trolling? You honestly have nothing better to do than come here and play with yourself for an audience?? Does it feel like revenge to you? Your wasted life is not our fault.
Look to yourself there, boyo. Seems it's you keeps fanning the flames with strangers on the net. Just like you are doing now, with your 'language' and 'anger' and ego-tripping insults etc.

Are you intimating that anyone working on long term scientific projects is wasting his life? If so, you had better tell that to all the legions of 'professionals' who haven't yet been able to complete the theory to consistently and intelligently include the real physical Gravity Mechanism explanation.

And don't you think it the duty of every right thinking scientist and humanist to take all the trouble and time necessary to confront Bullies, Trolls and others of their ilk hwose ego-tripping abuses sabotage free and open proper dicourse in science and humanity?

Perhaps you could spare some 'emotional energy' to do a deep RealityCheck of yourself . Like your own motives for wasting your own life on the net; and so 'emotionally and rudely' wasting everyone else's time while you are doing it?

Good luck with your RealityCheck introspection, Ghost. :)

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2014
So, disagreeing with "modern science data interpretation" is "Not physivs", eh?
@reg
have no idea what you are trying to say: drink much?
disagreeing is one thing, but you say that you have proven something when you haven't... you've only disagreed with the modern interpretation of the evidence
Furbrain never responded to it, you live in dreamland. Just shows how you "watch and respond", doesn't it? You dickhead
Yes, he did, as well as Q-Star and others
you got mad and played the "buy my book 'cause graphs" & "I can't post the graphs here" card and left in a huff
And there was no reason for me to interrupt or repeat when they were trouncing you as hard as they were, cornholio

and for a troll to call me names means I am on the right track
guess you are mad about being outed
considering your trolling and spamming with "buy my book"... you deserve worse, but some tissue time is enough for now
deal with it
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Q-Star reviewed your book HERE and you are STILL crying about THAT

Q-Star reviewed my book BEFORE there were any sales,and thus betrayed himself as a nasty little wanker. I pointed this out to Amazon, but they said as long as his review didn't cross their guidelines there was nothing they could do. Eventually, I got Q-Star (Quinn, etc.) to admit it. He than bought the book himself, and tried to justify his views. In the end, he couldn't refute the logic, and lamely said "its just a different way of looking at things..". You are worse than him, you not only revile the book without reading it, but openly rely on the review of another wanker who did the same! I'm fed up trying to respond to your crap, I will ignore you in future.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
Hi there waste-of-time! ;)
like your own motives
I enjoy sharing my unique perspective on various issues and also learning new things by reading articles and doing research.

You seem to enjoy lying about past postings and also pissing people off. You see our motives are different.

You have no theory, you've never talked about it on the net, and you're idea of entertainment is provoking the emotions of others by lying about these things.

IOW you're a waste of time.

;)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
and tried to justify his views
@reg
you really believe that?
In the end, he couldn't refute the logic, and lamely said "its just a different way of looking at things.."
holy crap! you DO believe that!
actually, what he said was there was absolutely nothing to your book!
no empirical data, maths, or anything else that was substantial enough to be considered a hypothesis even, let alone a theory, which means that your book doesn't even rate hypothesis status, and is a philosophy only in that it offers a point of view that can only be substantiated by faith in the authors words

word salad with NO REDEEMING QUALITIES. No MATHS. all garbage
So my theory is actually a philosophy, and therefore unproveable
Feb 5, 2014 post
it boils down to this, reg: you want to sell your book but we are asking you to produce some actual science to support the fact that you know at least a LITTLE bit about what you are saying... you've given us NADA... nothing... zilch.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2014
You are worse than him
@reg
comming from a reviled spamming troll like yourself, I take that as a compliment
you not only revile the book without reading it
AH, ah, ahhh... I revile the author, not the book
the author (that's you, reg) has yet to prove that he even has a basic foundation in physics, let alone explain his philosophy
openly rely on the review of another wanker who did the same
I rely on Q-Star's review because he gave me a review of what he read
I am using his words after he read it
then I also take what you are posting on line and compare it to what Q-Star said... and lo-and-behold! there is a similarity in that you've not been able to explain anything here on PO either!
I will ignore you
you've already said that reg
I don't care if you do... all i hope to do is make sure some poor newbie doesn't take you literally and think you know anything about physics that can't be found on wiki

ya push pseudoscience
ya troll
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2014
Hi there, Ghosty!
like your own motives
I enjoy sharing my unique perspective on various issues and also learning new things by reading articles and doing research.

I also! But with the added attraction that I have been working out the complete and consistent reality-based maths-physics ToE 'from scratch' while doing all the above.
You seem to enjoy lying about past postings and also pissing people off.
My decade of science and anti-troll posts/discussions are there for anyone to find if they really wanted to. Others have. But you don't seem to want to; you seem to want to lie about them, obviously, for personal-political motives (which are 'conveniently' omitted from the mention of your motives above).

You see our motives are different.

Indeed. All too obvious.

You have no theory, you've never talked about it on the net, and you're idea of entertainment is provoking the emotions of others by lying about these things.

How would you know, since you haven't really looked (as others have, and found some preliminary/discussion-point forms/aspects of it)? You really must drop your ego-tripping claims based on your own apparent ignorance of my posts/theory, else you will sound like a self-serving 'fantasy argument' troll not interested in the reality in evidence all across the forums over the decade.

IOW you're a waste of time. ;)

More obvious self-serving 'fantasy argument' based on your personal-political ignorance and/or denial of evidence that others have confirmed in the past and lately. You are consistent in that at least, Ghosty. Good luck with that attitude in the future.

PS: Ghosty, if that is all you got you should think about dropping it now. Bye for now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2014
How would you know, since you haven't really looked (as others have, and found some preliminary/discussion-point forms/aspects of it)
-Because youre a bullshit artist. Obviously. Look at how you trashed the above thread. No substance whatsoever, only unrelenting bullshit.

Zephyr clones all got banned. At least zephyrs stuff has some substance. Your trash has none at all. The mods here really ought to ban you as well, in the fine tradition of all the mods who have allegedly banned you in the past, for disrespecting fellow posters, consistently violating site rules, and using these threads as a toilet.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2014
Hi Ghosty! :)
How would you know, since you haven't really looked (as others have, and found some preliminary/discussion-point forms/aspects of it)
-Because youre a bullshit artist. Obviously. Look at how you trashed the above thread. No substance whatsoever, only unrelenting bullshit.

Zephyr clones all got banned. At least zephyrs stuff has some substance. Your trash has none at all. The mods here really ought to ban you as well, in the fine tradition of all the mods who have allegedly banned you in the past, for disrespecting fellow posters, consistently violating site rules, and using these threads as a toilet.
Let's see now, you are still ignorant of my science posts over the last decade, even though others have found them, and you ignore that flaw in your argument about my veracity in order to again disparage my veracity? Ghosty, you have a twisted self-serving way of doing 'science research/discourse' with your personal-political bias/malice. Give it up, mate.
barakn
5 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2014
Lay a piece of ferrous metal on the ground. Grab a magnet while your at it. Pick the piece of metal up with the magnet.
Congratulations, you've just proven magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Now explain exactly how the dominant force is gravity based? -DeliriousNeuron
Now pull the magnet away from the metal. At some distance, and at every distance beyond that to infinity, the force of gravity will be stronger than the force of magnetism. This is because gravity is a 1/r^2 force whereas a dipole magnet's is 1/r^3 (here I've been kind and assumed you weren't dumb enough to use a refrigerator magnet dominated by higher order poles) times a directional component (we've kept the magnet pointed in the same direction to make it easier). Congratulations, you've just shown magnetism is a short-range force vs. gravity, the long range force.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2014
Lay a piece of ferrous metal on the ground. Grab a magnet while your at it. Pick the piece of metal up with the magnet.
Congratulations, you've just proven magnetism is stronger than gravity.
Now explain exactly how the dominant force is gravity based? -DeliriousNeuron
Now pull the magnet away from the metal. At some distance, and at every distance beyond that to infinity, the force of gravity will be stronger than the force of magnetism. This is because gravity is a 1/r^2 force whereas a dipole magnet's is 1/r^3 (here I've been kind and assumed you weren't dumb enough to use a refrigerator magnet dominated by higher order poles) times a directional component (we've kept the magnet pointed in the same direction to make it easier). Congratulations, you've just shown magnetism is a short-range force vs. gravity, the long range force.

Ain't no gravity, its all expansion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
Let's see now, you are still ignorant of my science posts over the last decade
I am ignorant of all kinds of bullshit. Im kind of proud of that. I attribute it to my common sense and character judgment.

Youre full of shit. Thats not hard to figure out at all.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
Ain't no gravity, its all expansion.
@reg
personal conjecture not based upon science

there is no proof or evidence of this conjecture that does not also support the current cosmological theory

therefore your insistence upon re-posting this crank assessment is simply another means of baiting and posting pseudoscience

Given that you've repeatedly tried to give explanation for your own "self admitted" philosophy and you have yet to be able to functionally describe certain things easily described by GR/SR, as proven here: http://phys.org/n...ong.html

and given that the bulk of your answers will somehow end up being "buy my book"
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

then I will also conclude that you are TROLLING

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
Ain't no gravity, its all expansion.
@reg
personal conjecture not based upon science

there is no proof or evidence of this conjecture that does not also support the current cosmological theory....TROLLING
And of course we can see that johanfprins is totally against this, because, much like poor reg, his philosophy is not based in reality or provable

@johan
how about you provide some actual peer reviewed published papers that support your faith that Einstein was wrong, that quantum mechanics is wrong and that only your conjectures can be viewed as verifiable and correct

So far, the only thing you've supported is that you believe in a conspiracy against you (as shown here): http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

You've not been able to refute thefurlong or provide reputable evidence you are correct
(vanity press self publications are NOT reputable evidence)
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Stop trolling, Cap'n. Nobody gives a damn about your opinions.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 12, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
Stop trolling, Cap'n. Nobody gives a damn about your opinions.
@reg
not asking for an opinion
I am asking you to provide empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics

or to show me your papers that were published in a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics which explain your philosophy that is in your book about orbits, tides, and your famous mass dependent expansion and why it does not show a proportional difference when observed today

This means that I am asking for you to provide some evidence for your supposed philosophy

some evidence that supports the conclusions that you are saying (which are supposedly defined in your book but somehow there is no evidence of out there OTHER than in your book)

I am asking you to prove that you are NOT a TROLL
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
@Cap'n
why it does not show a proportional difference when observed today

You have asked this same question dozens of times. I have gone to the trouble of explaining why proportions are maintained providing the appropriate equations and worked example using solar system bodies. You persistently ignore this and continue making an arse of yourself. I ain't gonna do it all again, and earnestly request that you go forth and multiply.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
I have gone to the trouble of explaining why proportions are maintained providing the appropriate equations and worked example using solar system bodies
@reg
which was tore up by various people including (but not limited to) thefurlong

just because it makes sense in your head doesn't mean it makes sense to anyone else

Like I said above:
I am asking you to provide empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics

or to show me your papers that were published in a reputable peer reviewed source with an impact in astrophysics which explain your philosophy that is in your book about orbits, tides, and your famous mass dependent expansion and why it does not show a proportional difference when observed today

This means that I am asking for you to provide some evidence for your supposed philosophy
Perhaps you have historical peer reviewed papers you could add to the mix?
maybe some other evidence (not your book)?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
You've not been able to refute thefurlong or provide reputable evidence you are correct
(vanity press self publications are NOT reputable evidence)

I have proved time and again ON THIS FORUM from the Lorentz transformation from IRF=K' into IRF=K, NOTHING ELSE, that the furlong is wrong. He insists that the SAME INSTANT IN TIME can occur simultaneously at different times. "Simultaneous" has ONLY ONE meaning, and that is THE SAME TIME. It is impossible to convince any person who embraces SUCH AN OBVIOUSLY ABSURD ASSUMPTION (THAT THE SAME INSTANT IN TIME CAN OCCUR AT DIFFERENT TIMES). THIS CAN ONLY BE BELIEVED BY AN INSANE PERSON!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
I have proved time and again ON THIS FORUM
@O' Johannie boy
this is actually the exact thing that I was pointing out above, or did you not get that?

You think you are proving something correct
ok!
great!

Now
GIVEN that you've taken SO MUCH time to post the above stuff
now can you please provide the peer reviewed paper in which you published the above "proof" that you've done time and again that shows where you published your empirical evidence in a reputable peer reviewed publication that has an impact in astrophysics where we can see that the above comment is supported by REPUTABLE scientists as well?

That is all I am asking Johan
just for some reputable feedback regarding your continued "proof"

THANKS
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
I have proved time and again ON THIS FORUM
......the peer reviewed paper in which you published the above "proof" that you've done time and again that shows where you published your empirical evidence in a reputable peer reviewed publication that has an impact in astrophysics where we can see that the above comment is supported by REPUTABLE scientists as well?

That is all I am asking Johan
Sigh! There is NOTHING worse than a MORON who does not WANT to see!!! So let me post it AGAIN!!!!!!

J F Prins: Directional emissions from a moving light source: Coincidence and Simultaneity: Physics Essays vol. 27 (2014) 38-54

You and the furlong are the biggest IDIOTS I have ever come across. I apologise to the idiots in this world since by calling YOU TWO idiots I am insulting idiots!
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
Now
GIVEN that you've taken SO MUCH time to post the above stuff
now can you please provide the peer reviewed paper in which you published the above "proof" that you've done time and again that shows where you published your empirical evidence in a reputable peer reviewed publication that has an impact in astrophysics where we can see that the above comment is supported by REPUTABLE scientists as well?
J F Prins: Directional emissions from a moving light source: Coincidence and Simultaneity: Physics Essays vol. 27 (2014) 38-54

Oh, wow! Wowie, wow, wow!

Johan's been published in a physics journal with an impact factor of 0.36, an SJR of 0.197, and a cited half life of 3.6. I am in awe of this journal's repute. It is so reputable and so peer reviewed, that...uh...almost nobody pays attention to it. Captain Stumpy, you sure walked into that one!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
Johan's been published in a physics journal with an impact factor of 0.36, an SJR of 0.197, and a cited half life of 3.6. It is so reputable and so peer reviewed, that...uh...almost nobody pays attention to it.
This is the ONLY journal whose editor INSISTS that the reviewer must motivate his decision in terms of REAL PHYSICS . It is ALSO the ONLY journal whose editor then insists that, when the reviewer rejects, the author can question this motivation. It is also the only journal whose editor then insists that the reviewer must prove the author's counter-arguments wrong before rejecting the publication.

Other journals with "high impact factors" like Proc. Roy. Soc., have editors like "Sir: Michael Berry, who rejects a manuscript even when the referee admits that he is NOT an expert in the field. I have this in writing.

The papers in Physics Essays are superior to those in other physics journals, also those of the APS, Nature and Science.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2014
disregard this comment
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2014
It is also the only journal whose editor then insists that the reviewer must prove the author's counter-arguments wrong before rejecting the publication.

But Johan, what is the criteria for proving the author's counter arguments wrong? For example, Gawad, Noumenon, Da Schneib, I, and others are confident in our having demonstrated your arguments' incorrectness. Yet, you refuse to believe us.

Who is the arbiter of deciding when you've been shown to be incorrect? What criteria do you use?

Keep in mind that in submitting a paper to a journal, you are SELLING your idea to them. The onus is upon you to convince them that your submission is worthwhile. It is not upon them to accept your submission, no matter how much you shout at them with spittle flecks.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2014
Hi Ghosty! :)
Let's see now, you are still ignorant of my science posts over the last decade
I am ignorant of all kinds of bullshit. Im kind of proud of that. I attribute it to my common sense and character judgment. Youre full of shit. Thats not hard to figure out at all.
But but but....you boast that you ARE ignorant of what science I have posted and yet you are assuming it is BS even though you haven't bothered to find same and actually see what it is or is not in fact? You've just done yourself and the scientific method NO favors with that admission of lack of knowledge or objectivity, mate. Good luck in future, Ghosty. :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
t Johan, what is the criteria for proving the author's counter arguments wrong?
This is easy in a respectable journal like Physics Essays. The reviewer must argue in terms of the correct postulates and then prove that the arguments and derivations the author made from these postulates are absurd. In this specific manscript I did not post any other postulates but applied the Lorentz transformation to laser beams emanating in different directions around 0' starting at time t'=0. In other words the first wavefront of each laser beam falls SIMULTANEOUSLY on the surface of a sphere of radius ct' at any time t' later within K'.

In contrast the coresponding times of these wavefronts within K are DIFFERENT times t(1), t(2), t(3) etc. Thus, if time-dilation is correct, the clock in K must simultaneously show different times t(1), t(2) , t(3), etc. This is obviously absurd and thus impossible! To be continued.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
The reviewer tried his/her best to get around this but had to concede in the end, after also involving a second reviewer that I must be correct. It took a year of correspondence going step by step through the whole manuscript. This is not possible within a journal like Phys. Rev. Letters, where you have idiots like Jerome Malenfant acting as editors.

For example, Gawad, Noumenon, Da Schneib, I, and others are confident in our having demonstrated your arguments' incorrectness. Yet, you refuse to believe us.
Why should I? It is obvious that you are not experts in this field, and when it comes to physics you are not on a level which can define you as my peers. Where have any one of you published in this field within ANY peer reviewed journal? NOWHERE!. But you are large enough crackpots to think that you can argue physics! LOL! Furthermore you base your arguments on the assumption that "time-dilation" is not an absurd concept. continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
You even claimed that the end point of a rod moving within K is simultaneously at another time than the beginning of the rod. When Einstein derived length contraction, by unfortunately using the Lorentz transformation incorrectly, he at least was not so stupid: Einstein clearly stated that within K the times at the beginning and end rod the rod MUST be instantaneously THE SAME!

Who is the arbiter of deciding when you've been shown to be incorrect? What criteria do you use?
In this specific case, the editor allowed arguments until it became clear that either the arguments of the reviewer or the arguments of the author led to an absurdity. The reviewer had to concede in he end!

Keep in mind that in submitting a paper to a journal, you are SELLING your idea to them. The onus is upon you to convince them that your submission is worthwhile.
This is EXACTLY what I did!! And BTW, I have done this in MANY peer reviewed journals including Physical Review.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
It is not upon them to accept your submission, no matter how much you shout at them with spittle flecks
The editor of Physics Essays did not allow any shouting and/or insults. In fact he had to reprimand the reviewer quite a few times not to "shout spittle flecks".
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
@johan
It's no use, you are arguing with idiots.
Look at their responses to any theories with which they cannot find a logic fault. They either ignore them (do not respond) or sidetrack the argument into realms of fantasy(a favorite trick of the furbrain).
I say the laws of gravity are wrong, and cite the track of the two Pioneer spacecraft as evidence (the tracks do not conform to ANY of the accepted "laws" of gravity), they simply ignore this. I ask furbrain to do a simple equation proving that redshift of light when applied as an expansion of photons assumed for all matter results in "gravity" as produced by the Earth's mass. He spuriously declines because "you can't calculate the distance of galaxies without using redshift" despite the fact that galactic distances were long calculated using the standard-candle properties of cepheid variables long before Hubble, plus other methods. Furbrain simply stops replying.
So, throw some more of your pearls before them, if you must.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2014
@ Reg Mundy

You are absolutely correct that we are dealing with morons. But we should not allow such stupid people to intimidate us. It is obvious that there are many aspects of modern theoretical physics which are wrong. All physics based on Minkowski's ludicrous 4D space-time is in violation of the rules that applies to the linear independence of coordinates, and it absurdly requires that the same instant in time can simultaneously occur at an infinite number of different times. So yes, I agree with you fully, Einstein's theory of gravity MUST be deeply flawed. You should also read what Stephen Crothers has to say about this: Especially the theory of black holes.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
Captain Stumpy, you sure walked into that one!
@thefurlong
i know
that'll teach me, right johannie-boy?
It is also the only journal whose editor then insists that the reviewer must prove the author's counter-arguments wrong before rejecting the publication
@oh-johannie-boy
those pipes are calling, but you should have turned them down, because apparently they were NOT filled with tabaco

and apparently this was the ONLY crackpot editor who had not heard of all the verified experiments done in relativity proving it to a high degree of accuracy as well!
you forgot that part!
http://phys.org/n...tum.html
http://journals.a...0.030501
http://journals.a...3.120405
http://phys.org/n...ion.html

whoopsie!

those links alone prove that the only idiots posting here are you & reg!
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
They either ignore them (do not respond) or sidetrack the argument into realms of fantasy(a favorite trick of the furbrain)
@reg
this is your tactic, bubba
the curriculum of pseudoscience in which yall have gotten a masters and are working on the PhD program
some indicators are: self reference
"buy my book"
no peer reviewed support (this is especially for reg, but johannie is mostly in this category as well)
the fact that "any idiot can understand" is a core part of your argument (like kohl and his creationist arguments for perfume vs reality)
appeal to conspiracy to keep you out of publication (this is ESPECIALLY JOHAN... reg doesn't actually have any science so it doesn't count)

anyone else have anything to add to this?
so far, they score quite high here: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

here's one for you both as it contains both reg/johan arguments
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
@Oh-Johannie-boy
@reg-the-brownnoser
the final few links undermine johan
as well as show where johannie is wrong about his personal faith that he continually thinks he "proves" here on PO
https://en.wikipe...echanics
https://en.wikipe...echanics
http://plato.stan...ries/qm/
http://physics.ab...sics.htm
http://www.spacea...nics.htm

Why?
simple
if it didn't work (or was not correct), it would not be the single most successful theory in existence and everything we know from computers to satellites, etc would collapse

and prins would be rich, famous and telling everyone "i told you so"

special note: at least prins got SOME things peer reviewed, which is a far cry from what reg has (= NOTHING)
johanfprins
Oct 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 14, 2014
WOW
i say "jfp is wrong, here is the proof" and he says
Stumped-eeeeh!...
Fuck off you moron!...
You have not even published in a grade 2 class leaflet...
You most probably have not yet passed grade 2 in primary school!...
ARSEHOLE! ARSEHOLE! ARSEHOLE!!!!
I guess i hit a sore spot
at least I proved him wrong... AGAIN!

@what a huge pri...er, prins!
watch the blood pressure now little guy!

if there wasn't already enough proof showing how wrong you were, then your reactions, and especially your coprolalia, cemented it for everyone to see

thanks for that

but please be careful!
i know that at your age, getting that worked up can be dangerous and with that kind of blood pressure buildup, you could stroke out or something

night night, tiny
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2014
There is an old saying, BBB, Bullshit Baffles Brains.
The Cap'n Grumpy and his like are merely intent on being provocative, they have no answers to logic except bullshit.
By the way, Johan, thanks for the link to Stephen Cother, a worthy member of the collective that RC thinks he doesn't belong to, who will never be a PhD under the establishment despite the fact they cannot dispute his claims. There is a growing army of us who can prove Einstein was wrong, and I repeat my decades-old refrain - there ain't no gravity!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2014
Reg. :)
I know you mean no offense, mate, but this is a strict policy with me. I ask you again to not imply or otherwise involve me in/with any other group or collective. I am strictly lone independent scientist/researcher/commentator, and I speak only for myself at all times. There is no group or collective, on any 'side', which has the complete and consistent reality-based maths-physics 'energy-space mechanisms' ToE perspective which I have scrupulously and independently worked out 'from scratch' on my own. Anyone else's 'partial perspective' (whether amateur or professional) is theirs and my 'complete perspective' is mine. Please don't 'associate' me in any way shape or form with anyone else or their work. Strict and unadulterated independence is important to me and to the understanding of others when reading my comments and, eventually, my ToE. Thanks for your co-operation in this important matter. Bye for now, Reg. :)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2014
I guess i hit a sore spot
at least I proved him wrong... AGAIN!
You know far too little about physics to prove anybody wrong. According to your own reasoning, to argue physics with authority you must have a lifetime of experience and numerous publications with numerous citations. I have that: You have nothing! You keep on claiming that one only knows physics after your knowledge has been peer reviewed. I have asked you time and again to give me the names of journals in which your knowledge has been peer reviewed: SILENCE: Proving that you are an arrogant fool.

It is amazing how many crackpots there are in the world like you. There are still people like you who believe that the earth is stationary (and flat) and that the sun, moon and stars move around this earth. After all this model has been "peer"-reviewed by the great Aristotle himself: Thus according to your simplistic thinking this proves that it must be right and can therefore NEVER be proved to be wrong.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2014
@RC
Read my comment again, pal, it says" the collective that RC thinks he doesn't belong to".
I have not included you in a collective, so please don't nitpick.
But I get your drift, and will not refer to you again.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
Look at their responses to any theories with which they cannot find a logic fault.

And what theories would those be, Clever Hans?
They either ignore them (do not respond)

I have responded to your silly tripe and Johan's silly tripe.
or sidetrack the argument into realms of fantasy(a favorite trick of the furbrain).

Uhhh...as in...using equations derived from known physical laws to extract the only possible conclusion without making stuff up?
I say the laws of gravity are wrong,

Because you are an imbecile.
and cite the track of the two Pioneer spacecraft as evidence

Oh? Are you talking about the pioneer anomaly?
(the tracks do not conform to ANY of the accepted "laws" of gravity)

Haha. The anomaly is explained by thermal radiation pressure forces. Try again.
they simply ignore this.

Meaning that they don't dwell on problems that have been solved a long time ago as "proof" of incorrectness.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
I ask furbrain to do a simple equation proving that redshift of light when applied as an expansion of photons assumed for all matter results in "gravity" as produced by the Earth's mass. He spuriously declines because "you can't calculate the distance of galaxies without using redshift"

Haha. Nope! Try again. I declined because you are a slippery weasel and
1) you always dismiss any calculation I give you as "meaningless" equations, and is therefore a waste of time and
2) I don't know what you have in mind, especially since I don't know which equations you consider valid. For example, do you consider distance modulus valid?
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
despite the fact that galactic distances were long calculated using the standard-candle properties of cepheid variables long before Hubble, plus other methods.

Well, it sounds like you have a good way of calculating distance. I am not going to bother wasting any more of my time guessing what you consider valid. As I said, derive your own damn equation. If it's so simple as you keep claiming, then it won't be too much trouble for you to show me up and derive it yourself for us.

My qualms with your "theory" are very simple, and no derivation of distance using cepheid variables will change that. You claim that there is no such thing as escape velocity, but you have yet to tell me why you can't have hyperbolic trajectories with large final velocities, and you can't because you are an unimaginative crackpot.
Furbrain simply stops replying.

Or there's another possibility. That he doesn't have much time to reply to your nonsense these days. :)
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
The reviewer must argue in terms of the correct postulates and then prove that the arguments and derivations the author made from these postulates are absurd.

Well, I don't know what arguments he made, but I do know what arguments you make, and further, I know enough SR to tell that you are stupidyingly wrong. The question is, was there a competent enough third party to understand how incorrect you were.
In this specific manscript I did not post any other postulates but applied the Lorentz transformation to laser beams emanating in different directions around 0' starting at time t'=0.

But you don't actually understand the postulates, as you have demonstrated.
In other words the first wavefront of each laser beam falls SIMULTANEOUSLY on the surface of a sphere of radius ct' at any time t' later within K'.

Well sure. Everyone will measure the beams to move at the same speed. This is not the problem with your reasoning.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
Thus, if time-dilation is correct, the clock in K must simultaneously show different times t(1), t(2) , t(3), etc.

The is one of the problems with your reasoning, that claiming that different people measuring something to have happened at different times is equivalent to something happening at different times simultaneously. You don't understand the meaning of simultaneous. If you did, you would not be claiming that conventional SR predicts this. It doesn't. Every event is singular. A clock is incapable of showing different times. This would be a contradiction if it were a consequence of conventional SR, but it isn't. You just think it's a prediction of conventional SR because you don't understand its fundamental concepts.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
The reviewer tried his/her best to get around this but had to concede in the end, after also involving a second reviewer that I must be correct.

Well, not having been present at these exchanges, I can't speak for the reviewer, but I can tell you, given the arguments that you have provided so far, that if both he and the editor were rational people, it wouldn't have taken much for him to convince the editor of your wrongness. Sorry, Johan, but isn't like you've uncovered a subtle, overlooked, detail in SR. You're making rookie mistakes. And if the reviewer was not an SR rookie, then he would have seen them quite easily. But all I can do, in this regard is speculate. If you want, you can give me the contact information of this reviewer, and I would gladly email him and inquire about this exchange between you and him. I am sure his account would greatly differ from yours. In fact, you know what? I think am going to contact Physics Essays myself, and ask what happened.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
@johanfprins
Here is a screenshot of the email I sent to them. I doubt they'll reply, but we'll see what happens.
http://s25.postim...3529.jpg
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
@Reg Mundy
As for distance calculation using Cepheid Variables, while I confess that I am not well versed in the methods of distance calculation in Astronomy (except for parallax), I am rather puzzled that you would pick a method that relies on periodic behavior, as an example of distance calculation that would not be dependent on redshift. Now, others more knowledgeable about this method can correct me if I am wrong, but since we are dealing with periodic behavior, it seems that it would be subject to the Doppler effect.

This seems to imply that we wouldn't be able to calculate distance without knowing how quickly such stars are moving WRT us. Of course, being the eminent genius you are, I am sure you have figured out how to deal with that. Still, I am curious about this. Does anyone here have experience with calculating distance using Cepheid variables? Is it possible to do this calculation without knowing how quickly the star is moving WRT us, assuming it is far away?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
@ the furlong,

I am sure that Physics Essays will realise what an arsehole you are. You have NO standing in the field of relativity or ANY other field of physics. If you had you would not hide behind a pseudonym. You are just a person without a grain of integrity.

If you think that you know any physics, stop hiding like a criminal behind anonymity and argue like a decent person would do. I think that you do not even know who your parents are: A whore and a pimp? Most likely!
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
You have NO standing in the field of relativity or ANY other field of physics.

You're correct about that. So, it's pretty pathetic that even I can spot the egregious errors you make. Other crackpots do it better than you do.
If you had you would not hide behind a pseudonym.

No, I would still hide behind a pseudonym, this being the internet, and all. You never know when a crazy person might decide to start harassing you offline on account of the personal information you've shared.
If you think that you know any physics, stop hiding like a criminal behind anonymity and argue like a decent person would do.

Why? What would be the benefit of that? So you can call my PI and complain to him?
I think that you do not even know who your parents are: A whore and a pimp?

My mother died of COPD last January, and, as you know, my father died this summer. They were each almost your age. Classy, Johan. Real classy.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2014
Hi Reg. :)
@RC, Read my comment again, pal, it says" the collective that RC thinks he doesn't belong to". I have not included you in a collective, so please don't nitpick. But I get your drift, and will not refer to you again.
Thanks, Reg. Understood. No sweat, mate. The only reason I wanted to clarify the situation beyond any misunderstanding at all was that your phrasing left open the possible misinterpretation/misimplication that I 'belonged to that collective' no matter what I thought. That could have been used by some malicious types to go on and misrepresent me based on their own willful misconstruing of your innocent 'tacit inclusion' there. :) Thanks again for your understanding and co-operation in this very important (to me and my objectivity/independence) matter. Good luck, Reg...and everyone! :)
johanfprins
Oct 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2014
How the FUCK would I know when your father died if I do not even know who you are

Because I mentioned it to you.
I do not know whose ashes you strewed, and you most probably also do not know!

Off topic and offensive. You have been reported. It's one thing to attack me. It's another thing to speak ill of the dead. Shame on you.
Just accept it that you are FAAR too feeble minded to ever make a contribution to physics.

That might be the case, but at least I have the faculties to be self correcting.
To claim that YOU proved me wrong is further proof that you are an idiot!

I don't need to claim it. I have done it. It wasn't difficult. What's difficult is getting you to understand that I have demonstrated your incorrectness. I once had hope this was possible. Now I see that I was wrong about that.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
@ the Furlong,

You have NOT proved me incorrect.

Now to give you some advice: Instead of trying to harrass the editor of Physics Essays, hounorable people who are not the children of whores and pimps, will read the manuscript that has been allowed by Physics Essays, and if they find (in their opinion) that the published physics is wrong, they will submit a manuscript to Physics Essays giving the proof that my manuscript is wrong. This is how physics is supposed to be done.

Not in the way you are doing it. What you do is to give derivations based on absurd assumptions, like claiming that simultaneous does not mean the same time, and then claiming that you have given a valid proof. Now if you are really so stupid to believe that you have proved me wrong, send in your manuscript to be peer reviewed like mine was. If you do not want to do the latter then stop parading around as if you are an expert on relativity; while you are, so obviously, actually an uneducated imbecile.
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
If you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit. But remember, the pig likes it.
@furbrain
There are several means of calculting the distance of a galaxy, I won't spoil your entertainment by pre-empting your investigation, but simply say that you may pick whichever you choose. However, you will need to put a little more thought into your evaluation of their effectiveness, for example the light from a cepheid variable, is it constant, fading, increasing over time? Is there a self-correcting correlation between period and brightness/spectrum from the Doppler effect? Please think a little before hitting the keyboard.
And stop responding to personal attack beyond banter, you are letting things get TOO personal!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
Instead of trying to harrass the editor of Physics Essays, hounorable people who like hugging puppies will read the manuscript that has been allowed by Physics Essays

Well, good thing I tried to and found egregious errors in it, Johan. You keep forgetting that.
and if they find (in their opinion) that the published physics is wrong, they will submit a manuscript to Physics Essays giving the proof that my manuscript is wrong

Haha, yes, that seems practical. Go through the grueling process of getting published just to show that one paper, which nobody pays attention to, is wrong. That makes a lot of sense.
This is how physics is supposed to be done.

No, physics is supposed to be done by having a whole bunch of people experiment and argue over hypotheses until a consensus emerges. You are doing it wrong.

thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
Not in the way you are doing it. What you do is to give derivations based on absurd assumptions

Haha, yes, like assuming that if I place a detector at rest with me at a specific point, and that detector detects B at time t WRT my IRF, then B is actually there at t WRT my IRF. Yes, that's extremely absurd.
like claiming that simultaneous does not mean the same time

At WHOSE same time, Johan? God's? You are positing an absolute march of time. The whole point of SR is that this absolute march of time is NOT ASSUMED, which is not the same thing as assuming there is no absolute march of time. Rather, we start from the assumption that there is no difference between measuring time using a light clock, and measuring time using any other clock. And when we do that, we get time dilation, and since we measure time that way, we must age that way, otherwise, we would be able to tell that our measurement of time is wrong.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
Now if you are really so stupid to believe that you have proved me wrong,

Not a matter of belief, Johan.
send in your manuscript to be peer reviewed like mine was

No. How about you take my criticism like an adult, and ask yourself how you can communicate your radical ideas more effectively so that others can't raise the objections that I raised. Here is a list of helpful suggestions for the aspiring crackpot: http://blogs.disc...bTvnF-So

Just, stop whining. You have a radical idea. People are going to find fault with it. Find a way to explain it to them by anticipating their objections. You have had plenty of experience with people rejecting your ideas. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Adapt.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
If you do not want to do the latter then stop parading around as if you are an expert on relativity; while you are, so obviously, actually an uneducated imbecile.

I don't need to be an expert in relativity to see the flaws in your ideas.

One does not need to be a mathematician to recognize that 2+2 is not equal to 5, or a historian to recognize that they didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima during the Vietnam war. As I keep saying, the errors you make are basic.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
There are several means of calculting the distance of a galaxy, I won't spoil your entertainment by pre-empting your investigation, but simply say that you may pick whichever you choose

In other words, you aren't going to derive your own damn equation and you expect me to do the work, so that you can then turn around and dismiss it. No, Reg, I think I'll be over here, learning about 1-forms and the Ricci curvature tensor. I get less mouth foam in my eyes that way.
Your strategy for convincing people is the worst strategy I've ever seen. "Guys! I have this radical idea! What? I have to demonstrate it to you? No! You guys demonstrate it to me! Why are you laughing?"
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
However, you will need to put a little more thought into your evaluation of their effectiveness, for example the light from a cepheid variable, is it constant, fading, increasing over time?

Is Reg Mundy a lazy crackpot who can't answer these questions for himself?
Is there a self-correcting correlation between period and brightness/spectrum from the Doppler effect?

Would Reg Mundy communicate his ideas more effectively by reciting all the lines from Terminator 2 in a cockney accent while wearing a cow suit? These are questions, which occupied the greatest minds of the 20th century. Heisenberg spent many sleepless nights preoccupied with whether Reg Mundy would ever make a point instead of feigning intellectual superiority without actually arguing anything of substance.
Reg Mundy
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2014
@furbrain
So, its ok for you to set out utterly pointless questions and demand answers to prove our competence to argue with you, but as soon as I ask you to do a little logical equation, relevant to the subject, you run scared, and come up with these pathetic excuses. What a weasel you are! That's three timess you have ducked out of answering my straightforward relevant questions, either with these evasions or simply failing to reply. Your credibility on this site is a bit like your escape velocity, rapidly moving asymptotically to a zero value.
I am sure this exchange has more than adequately demonstrated your character and competence for all to see.
Bye.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2014
@furbrain
These are questions, which occupied the greatest minds of the 20th century. Heisenberg spent many sleepless nights preoccupied with whether Reg Mundy would ever make a point instead of feigning intellectual superiority without actually arguing anything of substance.

Heisenberg proposed his uncertainty principle as the way things actually are. Do you know of anybody besides me who has actually proposed a reason as to WHY they are so? What the underlying fundamental reason for uncertainty actually is?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
@ the furlong,

You are an arrogant little arsehole to state that you do not need to know relativity in order to see that I am wrong in what I have published after peer review. So ONLY you in the whole world understand relativity: Not I, nor my the peers who reviewed my work, nor my colleagues who all have PhD's: ONLY YOU know and understand relativity, even though you have had no formal training in physics to any advanced level ever!! These are the characteristics of THE CRACKPOT of CRACKPOTS. LOL!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
You are an arrogant little arsehole to state that you do not need to know relativity in order to see that I am wrong in what I have published after peer review.

Haha. No Johan. I am saying that I do not need to be AN EXPERT in relativity to spot your basic error.
So ONLY you in the whole world understand relativity

That is not implied by my argument.
Are you an expert in Islam? Probably not. If I told you that Muslims worship Zeus would you then have to read all of Islam to tell that I was wrong? No. Stop being ridiculous.
even though you have had no formal training in physics to any advanced level ever

On the contrary, I have enough formal training physics to tell when a crackpot is full of crap, and the amount of this training is increasing every day.
I have a suggestion if you don't want people criticizing your ideas. Stop writing about them. You wouldn't have to face rejection anymore. I wouldn't have to read your nonsense. Everybody wins!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
So, its ok for you to set out utterly pointless questions and demand answers to prove our competence to argue with you

Oh Clever Hans. Still stinging from being forced to face your own incompetence, huh?
Well, yes, it is ok for me, because I gave you plenty of chances before hand to talk with me in a rational manner, and all you did was demonstrate that you don't understand the concept of limits or differential equations. In fact, I even went through the trouble of deriving the solution to the 2 body equation for gravity step by step, and you couldn't even acknowledge it. Once you flippantly dismissed my argument as "meaningless equations" I suspected I was dealing with an intellectual lightweight. This is why I asked you to solve the continuous growth problem with a linear term, to see if you actually knew enough math to understand my derivation. And oh boy was the answer you gave precious!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
but as soon as I ask you to do a little logical equation, relevant to the subject, you run scared, and come up with these pathetic excuses. What a weasel you are!

You can keep telling yourself that if you want. Personal fantasy can be quite comforting when you have no ideas of any worth.
and come up with these pathetic excuses.

No, Clever Hans, it's called saving myself the trouble. What I don't understand is why you can't just derive your own damn equation, especially when you have indicated several times, that it should be very easy. Just do it. But I am guessing you won't.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
@ Shitlong,
On the contrary, I have enough formal training physics to tell when a crackpot is full of crap, and the amount of this training is increasing every day.


Well what you claim is wrong in what I have posted, has been passed by peer reviewers and published. It is also on ResearchGate and has ONLY got positive reviews. You and Stumped-eeeh, kept on challenging me on that. Now if you are so clever that a MORONIC shithead like you can see obvious mistakes in my physics, why do you not submit a manuscript to Physics Essays, or post on ResearchGate, and prove that you are right? Put your money where your stinking halitoses eminates into the world!

I do not think that any amount of training can ever replace the shit in your head with any brains! Good luck arsehole!!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
has been passed by peer reviewers and published.

It was published in Physics Essays, which has lax standards. And even if it didn't, peer review is an ongoing process. Just because your paper has been reviewed by peers doesn't mean it's been thoroughly vetted. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had the fiasco with the BICEP 2 results, or the Bogdanov affair.
It is also on ResearchGate and has ONLY got positive reviews. You and Stumped-eeeh, kept on challenging me on that.

No, I keep challenging you on the fact that you make rookie mistakes.
Now if you are so clever that a MORONIC shithead like you can see obvious mistakes in my physics

Wait...I am so clever that a moron (who is, by definition, not clever) like me can see obvious mistakes (which does not take being clever)? Makes sense.
why do you not submit a manuscript to Physics Essays,

No
or post on ResearchGate

So, you can know my personal info? Hell, no.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
@johanfprins
Here is a screenshot of the email I sent to them. I doubt they'll reply, but we'll see what happens.
http://s25.postim...3529.jpg
@Furlong
actually, you can say 1st year students too! LOL
goto http://saposjoint.net/Forum and say HI... i would like to ask you some things! PM me

also, there are other e-mails being sent to them as well asking for the same information

I just had to get the REAL story about johannie boy and his acerbic lack of knowledge
Off topic and offensive. You have been reported
Reported by me as well
even someone of YOUR age should have enough manners to leave the dead be, johan
i guess they are right: even an education cannot give someone class

How the FUCK would I know when your father died
@joha**holeFpricks
because he posted it here, moron

or are you now illiterate too?
guess Alzheimer's really moves fast in your family

thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2014
@Furlong
actually, you can say 1st year students too! LOL
goto http://saposjoint.net/Forum and say HI... i would like to ask you some things! PM me

What's your use name there?
johanfprins
Oct 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
I have not made a single rookie mistake when it comes to the interpretationof relativity.

Well, you are welcome to believe that. I don't know what you want from me. You want me to just agree with your ideas? If you want a yes man, you'll just have to be all right with Reg Mundy. I am sure he'll oblige.
It is you who are making mistakes that not even a rookie will make, and who are too scared to have your claptrap reviewed

Yes, Johan. I am scared to have my interpretation, which is the standard interpretation of SR reviewed. Yes, that's how it works.
And who are a criminal hiding behind anonymity

So evil! By my spittle flecks, this treachery will not stand!
Reg Mundy
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
@furbrain
Weaseled out again, eh?
For anybody who might be interested, the problem furbrain asked me to solve was along the lines "a population increases at 2% per annum, if it is now 1000 how many will it be in a thousand years". These are not the parameters, I can't remember what they were, but this was the gist of it. Naturally, I solved it immediately as being similar to compound interest and used the formula tried and tested by accountants for millennia. Furbrain scoffed at this, and came up with reams of equations producing a completely wrong answer, which I pointed out. Furbrain tried again, got it wrong again, never did come up with the right answer but diverted the thread off into cloud cuckoo land (which is the only thing he is good at...) You can easily check who is telling the truth.
Furbrain is a charlatan, a liar, with the ethics of a rat, and any unbiased observer can read our exchanges and verify this.
Lets see you weasel out of this, furbrain.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2014
@Reg Mundy
Try again. Here are my exact words copied from http://phys.org/n...ong.html :
Solve the following word problem:
The growth rate of a certain population is equal to the sum of (0.3 seconds^-1)*(the current population size) and (0.03 people / second^2)*(the current time). Assuming that the population starts with 4 people, how many people will there be in 10 years?


This is very different from
"a population increases at 2% per annum, if it is now 1000 how many will it be in a thousand years

Of course, if you don't understand differential equations, or hell, even difference equations, and resort to looking up solutions desperately when somebody actually challenges your competence, it's understandable that you would think this was a compound interest problem.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
@ Shitlong

Well, you are welcome to believe that. I don't know what you want from me. You want me to just agree with your ideas?
Nope. I expect you to act like a rational being and that is to argue real physics and to prove that, what I have published after peer review, is wrong if you think that it is wrong; without insulting the editor and the peer reviewer who allowed publication. And since you always duck and dive and lie, I would prefer a qualified person in relativity to act as a referee. That is why I am asking you to submit your insane meanderings to a peer reviewed journal. Not that I think that this is the ultimate way to get to the truth, but to force you to put your money where your stinking breath is.

It is amazing that you can accuse Reg Mundy of being a yes-man, while it is YOU who are trying in the most absurd manner to protect mainstream dogma at all costs. Not Reg. You are the yes-man! This argument shows you again what an infantile moron you are!
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2014
Nope. I expect you to act like a rational being

But Johan, you can't just say that. You actually have to demonstrate it. Losing patience and insulting people who debate you is not indicative of rationality.
without insulting the editor and the peer reviewer who allowed publication.

Yes, Johan, based on your behavior here, I have absolutely no justification in believing you didn't insult the reviewer several times over the course of your exchange.
And since you always duck and dive and lie

I didn't know it was opposite day.
I would prefer a qualified person in relativity to act as a referee

Like Strassler? Every time somebody uses the words of an expert in the field, you dismiss him as a incompetent. So, again, what do you want? We could try to conjure Zombie Einstein, but my supplications to X'tapth the Devourer are a little rusty.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2014
That is why I am asking you to submit your insane meanderings to a peer reviewed journal.

No. I have to have my priorities straight. You are a commentator on physorg, not some influential researcher. It takes up to 10 minutes to respond to your drivel. It takes at least a few months, if not more to be published in a journal. What a silly suggestion! Why I'd say that anybody who would propose such an impractical undertaking was a deeply irrational per--oh! Oh...hmmm...
It is amazing that you can accuse Reg Mundy of being a yes-man, while it is YOU who are trying in the most absurd manner to protect mainstream dogma at all costs

Correcting rookie mistakes is not "protecting mainstream dogma at all costs," but you are free to believe that if you want, Captain Rationality. Now, as before, I'm going to stop talking to you. Feel free to foam at the mouth some more. Goodbye, Johan.
johanfprins
Oct 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2014
@Furlong
actually, you can say 1st year students too! LOL
goto http://saposjoint.net/Forum and say HI... i would like to ask you some things! PM me

What's your use name there?
sorry for the long time between answers... been driving a lot
sorry

same as here with a Truck in front of it
TRUCK CAPTAIN STUMPY
this is what I've been known as professionally/personally and otherwise for more than 30 years! LOL

Nope. I expect you to act like a rational being
@oh, johannie boy
this is a croc
look at your own posts above and you can tell you are NOT here for any rational discussion about ANYTHING
Shitfur
Shitlong
your insane meanderings
a criminal hiding behind anonymity
enjoy yourself shithead!
any amount of training can ever replace the shit in your head with any brains!
Good luck arsehole!!
arrogant little arsehole
YOU obviously do not know who your mother and father are
You are... bastard son of a whore
you and reg are Trolls
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Nov 05, 2014
Who is Strassler? Never heard of him.


Matt Strassler. Get with the program Johnny Boy.

Maybe he knows his physics: But he NEVER came to my attention. At least name somebody who is at the same level that I am!


A nobody? Sure, we can ask Marcel who directs people where to park at our local mall. That should do.

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

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