Interstellar technology throws light on spinning black holes

February 13, 2015
A moderately realistic accretion disk, created by Double Negative artists and gravitationally lensed by a black hole. Credit: Classical and Quantum Gravity, 2015. Reproduced with permission of IOP Publishing.

The team responsible for the Oscar-nominated visual effects at the centre of Christopher Nolan's epic, Interstellar, have turned science fiction into science fact by providing new insights into the powerful effects of black holes.

In a paper published today, 13 February, in IOP Publishing's journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, the team describe the innovative computer code that was used to generate the movie's iconic images of the wormhole, black hole and various celestial objects, and explain how the code has led them to new science discoveries.

Using their code, the Interstellar team, comprising London-based company Double Negative and Caltech theoretical physicist Kip Thorne, found that when a camera is close up to a rapidly spinning black hole, peculiar surfaces in space, known as caustics, create more than a dozen images of individual stars and of the thin, bright plane of the galaxy in which the black hole lives. They found that the images are concentrated along one edge of the black hole's shadow.

These multiple images are caused by the black hole dragging space into a whirling motion and stretching the caustics around itself many times. It is the first time that the effects of caustics have been computed for a camera near a black hole, and the resulting images give some idea of what a person would see if they were orbiting around a hole.

The discoveries were made possible by the team's computer code, which, as the paper describes, mapped the paths of millions of lights beams and their evolving cross-sections as they passed through the black hole's warped spacetime. The computer code was used to create images of the movie's wormhole and the black hole, Gargantua, and its glowing accretion disk, with unparalleled smoothness and clarity.

It showed portions of the accretion disk swinging up over the top and down under Gargantua's shadow, and also in front of the shadow's equator, producing an image of a split shadow that has become iconic for the movie.

This weird distortion of the glowing disk was caused by gravitational lensing—a process by which light beams from different parts of the disk, or from distant stars, are bent and distorted by the black hole, before they arrive at the movie's simulated camera.

This lensing happens because the black hole creates an extremely strong gravitational field, literally bending the fabric of spacetime around itself, like a bowling ball lying on a stretched out bed sheet.

Early in their work on the movie, with the black hole encircled within a rich field of distant stars and nebulae instead of an , the team found that the standard approach of using just one light ray for one pixel in a computer code—in this instance, for an IMAX picture, a total of 23 million pixels—resulted in flickering as the stars and nebulae moved across the screen.

Co-author of the study and chief scientist at Double Negative, Oliver James, said: "To get rid of the flickering and produce realistically smooth pictures for the movie, we changed our code in a manner that has never been done before. Instead of tracing the paths of individual light rays using Einstein's equations—one per pixel—we traced the distorted paths and shapes of light beams."

Co-author of the study Kip Thorne said: "This new approach to making images will be of great value to astrophysicists like me. We, too, need smooth images."

Oliver James continued: "Once our code, called DNGR for Double Negative Gravitational Renderer, was mature and creating the images you see in the movie Interstellar, we realised we had a tool that could easily be adapted for scientific research."

In their paper, the team report how they used DNGR to carry out a number of research simulations exploring the influence of caustics—peculiar, creased surfaces in space—on the images of distant star fields as seen by a camera near a fast spinning black hole.

"A light beam emitted from any point on a caustic surface gets focussed by the black hole into a bright cusp of light at a given point," James continued. "All of the caustics, except one, wrap around the sky many times when the camera is close to the black hole. This sky-wrapping is caused by the black hole's spin, dragging space into a whirling motion around itself like the air in a whirling tornado, and stretching the caustics around the black hole many times."

As each caustic passes by a star, it either creates two new images of the star as seen by the camera, or annihilates two old images of the star. As the camera orbits around the black hole, film clips from the DNGR simulations showed that the caustics were constantly creating and annihilating a huge number of stellar images.

The team identified as many as 13 simultaneous images of the same star, and as many as 13 images of the thin, bright plane of the galaxy in which the black hole lives.

These multiple images were only seen when the black hole was spinning rapidly and only near the side of the black hole where the hole's whirling space was moving toward the camera, which they deduced was because the space whirl was 'flinging' the images outward from the hole's shadow edge. On the shadow's opposite side, where space is whirling away from the camera, the team deduced that there were also multiple images of each star, but that the whirl of space compressed them inward, so close to the black hole's shadow that they could not be seen in the simulations.

Explore further: Image: Hubble views the whirling disk of NGC 4526

More information: Gravitational lensing by spinning black holes in astrophysics, and in the movie Interstellar' (James O, von Tunzelmann E, Franklin P and Thorne K S 2015 Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 065001, iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/32/6/065001/article

Related Stories

Image: Hubble views the whirling disk of NGC 4526

October 30, 2014

This neat little galaxy is known as NGC 4526. Its dark lanes of dust and bright diffuse glow make the galaxy appear to hang like a halo in the emptiness of space in this image from the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope.

'Blockbuster' science images

November 21, 2014

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some liberties with ...

Black hole makes 'String of Pearls' clusters

April 1, 2014

(Phys.org) —Huge young star clusters resembling a string of pearls around a black hole in the centre of a galaxy 120 million light-years away have been discovered by researchers at Swinburne University of Technology.

Recommended for you

NASA telescope studies quirky comet 45P

November 22, 2017

When comet 45P zipped past Earth early in 2017, researchers observing from NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility, or IRTF, in Hawai'i gave the long-time trekker a thorough astronomical checkup. The results help fill in crucial ...

Cassini image mosaic: A farewell to Saturn

November 21, 2017

In a fitting farewell to the planet that had been its home for over 13 years, the Cassini spacecraft took one last, lingering look at Saturn and its splendid rings during the final leg of its journey and snapped a series ...

Uncovering the origins of galaxies' halos

November 21, 2017

Using the Subaru Telescope atop Maunakea, researchers have identified 11 dwarf galaxies and two star-containing halos in the outer region of a large spiral galaxy 25 million light-years away from Earth. The findings, published ...

132 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

indio007
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2015
WORMHOLES AND SCIENCE FICTION
http://vixra.org/...73v1.pdf
cantdrive85
Feb 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
reset
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 13, 2015
I knew hollywood had to be behind mainstream theoretical astrophysics. Oh look, a peer reviewed technical paper from one of their think tanks:

http://ironman.wi...s_(film)
mlckeith
3.9 / 5 (13) Feb 13, 2015
Can't drive. If you had an education you would be dangerous. I have wondered why all of the comments trying to denigrate science always seem to come from people who know nothing about science. Please continue with your ranting, in the end, you are just providing us with entertainment.
reset
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 13, 2015
Can't drive. If you had an education you would be dangerous. I have wondered why all of the comments trying to denigrate science always seem to come from people who know nothing about science. Please continue with your ranting, in the end, you are just providing us with entertainment.


You just called hollywood special effects...science. So that would make "the Matrix" transcript what?? The Bible? Are they airing Jaws and sharknado back to back for shark education week next week. Gotta love science.
marcush
4.2 / 5 (14) Feb 13, 2015
Same goes for you reset. You really can't imagine visualisation beeing important in science???
reset
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 13, 2015
Same goes for you reset. You really can't imagine visualisation beeing important in science???


Visualizing a process and "imagining" a process are totally different things. Visualizing is generally done when provided with facts, imagining is what story tellers do.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 13, 2015
We could, at any time, have written up some code to see how black holes actually *look*. We could have written it a long time ago. How does light move around them. And so on and so forth. It just wasn't a big enough problem that any scientist chose to do it.

When a movie is willing to pay you money to make that simulation for the sake of "realism" in their film... well that equation changes. Now you might as well run it and see what happens.

It's not that the movie special effects *are* the science... the movie funded scientific research that may have otherwise sat and waited to be done it then *used* in special effects
Losik
Feb 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Magrathea
3.5 / 5 (15) Feb 13, 2015
Why does this website allow people like "reset" and "cantdrive85" to post their mumbo-jumbo here repeatedly? Did anyone get any response from administrators?
Losik
Feb 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
reset
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 13, 2015
Why does this website allow people like "reset" and "cantdrive85" to post their mumbo-jumbo here repeatedly? Did anyone get any response from administrators?


Because there are actually intelligent administrators who understand when a valid point is made...regardless what the mindless drones who ask stupid questions in threads think I would imagine...yes, you.
philstacy9
3 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2015
The black hole is the womb of space sex.
reset
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2015
We could, at any time, have written up some code to see how black holes actually *look*. We could have written it a long time ago.


We could, at any time, have written up some code to see how God looks. We could have done it a long time ago.

When a movie is willing to pay you money to make that simulation for the sake of "realism" in their film... well that equation changes. Now you might as well run it and see what happens.


The Passion of the Christ?

It's not that the movie special effects *are* the science... the movie funded scientific research that may have otherwise sat and waited to be done it then *used* in special effects


Programming a simulation and programming movie special effects are the same thing. The code makes the pixels display an image which moves in a certain way. How is this a learning experience? It does what it is told to do...
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (9) Feb 13, 2015
This is not science. Good ol computer simulations wasting time.
DeliriousNeuron
2 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2015
Cantdrive is the only one here that actually gets it. The rest of you are blind mainstreamers.
mlckeith
3.4 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2015
Reset, no god, no problem, no schzt.

Neuron, you obviously know nothing about science either.
Gaby_64
3.6 / 5 (12) Feb 13, 2015
your are idiots reset, cantdrive and DeliriousNeuron

programming is engineering, maths, algorithms. the application of science.
the code they have is entirely based on the scientific theory's you dimwits cant wrap your heads around.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (20) Feb 13, 2015
Hey guys, take it easy. Just as satirists and cartoonists are necessary evils for keeping the 'professional' politicians from getting too 'up themselves' and taking us all with them (yuk!), it is salutary for 'professional' science/scientists to have those who can call out "The Emperor has no clothes on!" once in a while...especially when the 'professionals' are actually running around 'naked of real sensible physical explanations' while trying to keep up appearances, pretending there was a "Big Bang' at all!

Better for science/scientists to be embarrassed occasionally, than to delude themselves they are right all the time...especially those in instances when they patently and obviously are not, hey?

That's how science advances MORE quickly, more surely...by valid CHALLENGES instead of UNCRITICAL 'yes man' nodding by the peanut gallery and 'professional' ranks.

Chill. Make up your own minds after actually understanding deeply what is presented by all 'sides'. Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (22) Feb 13, 2015
We could, at any time, have written up some code to see how black holes actually *look*
@Shavera
check out http://phys.org/n...een.html
as well as http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3492 AND http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5057

Because there are actually intelligent administrators who understand when a valid point is made
@resetTROLL
actually, it is because you generate clicks and pay the site so they're not wanting to lose the $$$$
Then there is the spread of clicks due to your friends trolling with you, as well as the clicks generated when intelligent educated people contest the information with actual science, which then supports the site... so actually you are only here to give revenue until the MODS get tired of going through all the PSEUDOSCIENCE reportings (for those who report it), which is usually only once a month
according to the Admins, that is
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
@Gaby_64
@mlckeith
@Magrathea
@marcush
I applaud your efforts and hope that you continue to visit and share actual science with the commentors here, as it is appreciated
I would just ignore the TROLLS like Delirious, cantthink, reset, and them... they are acolytes of the electric universe, and just like any other religious set of beliefs that are not born of science, observation, experimentation and repeated validation, they simply believe out of faith, even though we've repeatedly linked http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm so that they could get a FREE education in astrophysics to learn where they are wrong... but they will not see, nor believe, becuase they are dedicated to a faith, not SCIENCE
That is why when you prove them wrong with references, they run away and call you names, like cd did here (with Tim Thompson, JPL physicist): http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

ENJOY
Uncle Ira
2.9 / 5 (19) Feb 13, 2015
@Gaby_64
@mlckeith
@Magrathea
@marcush
I applaud your efforts and hope that you continue to visit and share actual science with the commentors here, as it is appreciated
I would just ignore the TROLLS like Delirious, cantthink, reset, and them... they are acolytes of the electric universe, and just like any other religious set of beliefs that are not born of science, observation, experimentation and repeated validation, they simply believe out of faith, even though we've repeatedly linked http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

ENJOY


@ Captain-Skippy. You forgot to put Really-Skippy on that list, so I'm putting him up here.

Ignore Really-Skippy too. He's a grumpy troll who likes to start arguments with the scientists and humans. If you keep your filter slider on on 2 or 1, I'll take care of him for you, and you won't have to see his silly stuffs. That's the service I do for diligent scientists and humans.
RealityCheck
3.5 / 5 (31) Feb 13, 2015
Hey folks, here are two of the most pressing questions in science/humanity today:

- Why is 'Stumpy the Stupid' still spamming the internet with his self-delusions of being in any position to judge anyone or anything, especially as this poor Stump STILL hasn't apologized for being SO WRONG in accusing me of being a 'troll' when it was obvious (and since confirmed by many mainstream articles) that I was RIGHT all along, and HE and his 'gang mates' the REAL trolls in that instance and more?...and

- Why is 'Uncle Ira' the BOT-VOTING village idiot on a SCIENCE SITE and dumping troll turds (like the one it just dumped on another thread ( http://phys.org/n...big.html ), where he mistook others names for his own, made his usual insensible driveling 'contribution' based on HIS mistake, and then demanded that I apologize?!

Poor sots, they'd be hilarious, if not so incredibly sad and self-deluded that they have anything to offer anyone, let alone science/humanity discourse.
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (28) Feb 13, 2015
@ Captain-Skippy. You forgot to put Really-Skippy on that list, so I'm putting him up here.
@Ira
my sincere apologies... you are correct
Of course, i surmised that given that there was no actual science mentioned, that one would automatically assume that there was no reason to read the comment, but i sometimes get ahead of myself

THANK YOU IRA, for the correction

When you get some time, ask sam-i-am(RC) about this:
https://www.googl...!6m1!1e1

and see if you can get rc to tell us where he will be publishing his great "AGW paper" and which conference he will be submitting to...
http://phys.org/n...fic.html

i wanna GO!
at least i can record it for posterity, right?
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (28) Feb 13, 2015
especially as this poor Stump STILL hasn't apologized for being SO WRONG in accusing me of being a 'troll'
@rc
i will apologize when you can produce a link that proves that you shared, here on Phys.org, the 8 flaws, and 4 fatal flaws that you "saw" in the BICEP comments you made where you denigrated a whole team for doing research...

regardless of the OUTCOME of the BICEP results, you made a CLAIM
you REFUSED to state your claim (because you lied)
you refused to show any PROOF of your claim (because you lied)
and you still refuse to show proof (probably because you: a) lied and b) don't know what you are talking about)

Plus, you actively spam/TROLL threads sharing irrelevant content as well as blatantly false content, all of which you cannot prove, but we CAN prove against you (like being banned at SciForum)

So... show where you historically gave that info and i will personally apologize to you
until then...
you're trolling
OT
reported
Uncle Ira
2.2 / 5 (24) Feb 13, 2015
When you get some time, ask sam-i-am(RC) about this:


What is that place? Looks like a peon's shack like the ones down in Costa Rica. Is that the Really-Skippy's house? No wonder he is grumpy all the time.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
@ Captain-Skippy. We got em on the run now hoooyeei, choot em, choot em quick he's heading for the tall grass.

Four couyons who must be the friends of Really-Skippy all joined up to together a minute a part from each other just so they could lend ol Really-Skippy a hand. I wonder if they got a group discount for sharing a ride, eh?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (24) Feb 13, 2015
Poor poor Stumpy the Stupid, so desperate is he, to appear 'relevant' and 'sane', that he 'converses' with his bot-voting idiot 'friend' Uncle Ira; going so far as to 'thank' it!

What a great show, hey folks? The lying self-deluded stupid, 'thanking' the anti-science ratings-skewing idiot!

Dumb and dumber had nothing on these 'two' examples of what can happen when 'inbreeding' is all the rage where 'they' come from. Sad, and getting sadder with every new and even more ridiculous and smelly useless troll turd they 'dump' on the physorg forum floor.

How long before 'they become one' and dump even more monstrously offensive self-deluding troll turds on the net, hey folks?

Time will tell. Stay tuned for the next installment of........

"The Mad Marriage of Stump and Uncle----Inbred Superheroes, Melded at Last...into one inseparable insensibility of.....SuperIdiocy Personified!

Those poor poor wretches. Sad Internet Duo; and getting sadder. :(
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
@ Captain-Skippy. We got him cornered now for sure, eh? He done called in his other four brothers to help. Eight of them, Really-Skippy got the big family I gar-ron-tee you Cher. Do you suppose he is doing one of those diligent experiments again?
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
@ Don't stop now you couyons. It is Really-Skippy who whines about the votes. I like them, up or down, they both let me know that I'm getting the job done.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (24) Feb 13, 2015
You poor poor moronic Uncle Ira bot-voting sod:
@ Captain-Skippy. We got him cornered now for sure, eh? He done called in his other four brothers to help. Eight of them, Really-Skippy got the big family I gar-ron-tee you Cher. Do you suppose he is doing one of those diligent experiments again?
What don't you understand about my being a scrupulously independent LONE researcher and commenter who eschews gangs or associations of all sorts?

Never mind, idiot gangmembers like you and your Stump the Stupid 'friend' who recruits other trolls into his 'gang' wouldn't understand the concept of LONE and INDEPENDENT, and hence not needing anyone else to help.

You make up non-existent 'brothers' because you are LOSING, you lame lying schmuck. Too obvious to everyone now, you poor sad self-demonstrated inbred. Go on, 'talk' to your 'friend' the Stupid Stump some more! Sad.
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (24) Feb 13, 2015
Poor poor insensible sod Uncle Ira bot:
@ Don't stop now you couyons. It is Really-Skippy who whines about the votes. I like them, up or down, they both let me know that I'm getting the job done.

Pointing out your moronic anti-science skewing of the ratings filter outputs to readers, by your bot-voting without comprehending, on a SCIENCE SITE, is not "whining"; it's just POINTING OUT YOUR demonstrably oft-proven idiocy and self-delusional 'inbreeding tragedy' of a 'condition' as a cautionary case.

You poor poor insensible bot-voting sod. :(
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (24) Feb 13, 2015
tirahobis July 10, 2014 4:36 p.m.
pehawev July 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.
yefeb July 10, 2014 4:38 p.m.
dimerib February 13, 2015 7:38 p.m.
heyeg February 13, 2015 7:39 p.m.
zajohiwa February 13, 2015 7:40 p.m.
muhom February 13, 2015 7:40 p.m.

Well I tell you something true Really-Skippy. It sure makes me feel good that somebody goes to so much work because of me. I like the bot votes, it let's me know I am doing my job real good. The fact that it backfires on you makes it even better. I LIKE down votes, it let's me know I am doing what I am trying to do.
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (23) Feb 13, 2015
@ tirahobis July 10, 2014 4:36 p.m. Only a 2 Cher? To be certain that rated a 1? Maybe you make the mistake because you all are all crowded together in that same little taxi car you showed up together in. Do better diligence, give me the 1 when I earn it.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
tirahobis July 10, 2014 4:36 p.m.
pehawev July 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.
yefeb July 10, 2014 4:38 p.m.
dimerib February 13, 2015 7:38 p.m.
heyeg February 13, 2015 7:39 p.m.
zajohiwa February 13, 2015 7:40 p.m.
muhom February 13, 2015 7:40 p.m.

Well I tell you something true Really-Skippy. It sure makes me feel good that somebody goes to so much work because of me. I like the bot votes, it let's me know I am doing my job real good. The fact that it backfires on you makes it even better. I LIKE down votes, it let's me know I am doing what I am trying to do.


@ retejap July 10, 2015 4:40 p.m. Sorry about the leaving you off of the list, pardon. But I thank you for your vote.
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (24) Feb 13, 2015
Poor poor insensible Uncle Ira bot-voting idiot. He doesn't see that his own argument, "that bot-voters voting HIM down is 'proof' that he is doing HIS 'job real good'", can equally apply to HIS 'bot-voting' OTHERS is proof that THEY are doing THEIR job 'real good'.

Only a truly remarkable specimen of INBRED INSENSIBILITY in tis Uncle Ira moron can produce such patently lame excuses for his trolling and BOT-VOTING ON A SCIENCE SITE.

Hey folks, notice how all of a sudden this nincompoop of a bot-voting twerp is all 'concerned' over bot-voters doing to him what he does to others?

Hey, turd-for-brains, Ira, what happened to your "TAKE YOUR '1' AND SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP" advice to your targets? LOL

You WHINE like a stuck pig NOW you are on he receiving end; and it makes you look even more the insensible moron than ever. You poor 'inbred-for-no-brains' product of a WILDLY 'successful' experiment in achieving your 'no brains' condition. Sad and getting sadder.
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. I am going to play with my radios for awhile so you can have a rest. But I didn't want to leave without thanking you for the effort you put into today's interweb experiment. Maybe you can let us know what the results are if you could take some time off from working on your toes about everything.
RobertKarlStonjek
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2015
The camera near the event horizon would also be time dilated relative to a space based camera and therefore would observe:
1) all distant stars appear to be very blue shifted (hot!!)
2) the speed of the motion of stars and other distant object will appear to be speeded up enormously;
3) the passage of time will appear to have greatly accelerated for all distant objects.

This is merely the opposite of the space-based observer's observation of a glowing infalling object : it becomes dimmer, colder (in appearance), moves slower and if pulsing (like a clock) will appear to slow.

Therefore the opposite is true from the perspective of the infalling observer/camera.
Uncle Ira
2.5 / 5 (21) Feb 13, 2015
Hey folks, notice how all of a sudden this nincompoop of a bot-voting twerp is all 'concerned' over bot-voters doing to him what he does to others?


The only thing I am concerned about it the amount of work and effort you are putting into this experiment. I knew I was good at what I do, but I didn't really think I was that good at it. You got the eight (so far) bot vote things to try to keep track, and makes me happy at the work you put into it. Where I only use the me by my self to vote and it drives you crazy. Yeah, now that I think about, maybe I am that good.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy
RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (23) Feb 13, 2015
From the Stupid Stump in the corner:
@rc
i will apologize when you can produce a link that proves that you shared, here on Phys.org, the 8 flaws, and 4 fatal flaws that you "saw" in the BICEP comments you made...

regardless of the OUTCOME of the BICEP results,...
You self-important, self-deluded irrelevance. I 'denigrated' the obviously flawed 'exercise'. Period. LOL

It was all known science I alluded to. It was all over the net IF you had bothered to actually look and acknowledge all the known facts instead of trolling in ignorance out of your own malice and personal ego. LOL

But NO; "smart peoples" swallowed BICEP2's obviously FLAWED 'study' and 'reports' as 'fact'; in the hurry to 'beat trolls' over the head' with it! LOL

My caution to you all was based on known science; and independent observations that ALL such 'studies' so far using CMB data 'interpretations' are compromised by confirmation bias etc even before they start (since confirmed by mainstreamers). LOL
RealityCheck
3.4 / 5 (22) Feb 13, 2015
Poor poor Bot-voting Uncle Ira nincompoop. Still self-deluded that anyone 'cares' about what he is 'doing' with his 'idiot proofed' radio; so long as he is NOT bot-voting his idiocy all over the place HERE, on a SCIENCE SITE, hey folks? Poor poor sod.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2015
@Captain Stumpy, I don't see the problem that RealityCheck etc have with improving computer programs no matter what the source. To deny improvements that come from the movie industry would be like denying the maths improvement that might arise from a new theory. These people should not forget that it was a 200 year equation (beta function) that really started SST. New discoveries come from a variety of sourses and that's why doctors, scientists subscribe to many journals because they might just find some useful.
However, the movie 'interstellsr',imo, did not use completeness and I would have like to have seen perhaps a N starmagnetar as a BH precursor at some early point in the film. I am aware of the route difference to a magnetar/BH/WormH but I feel it would been have told an audience what prior effects determine possible stable/unstable BH/WormH. Just my humble thoughts.
PhotonX
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2015
Why does this website allow people like "reset" and "cantdrive85" to post their mumbo-jumbo here repeatedly? Did anyone get any response from administrators?

Because there are actually intelligent administrators who understand when a valid point is made...regardless what the mindless drones who ask stupid questions in threads think I would imagine...yes, you.
Valid points like this?
.
.
.
.
Movement / energy is eternal!

Movement / energy cant born from nothingless hokkus pokkus!

Movement / energy is never lost!

All movement / energy can never be in the same place!

There is extremely density and extremely massive concentrations all over the infinity space infinitely!

This extremely density and extremely massive concentrations, whic is outside visible universe, recycling eternal movemdnt / energy all a time "in" space which is nothing!

So, space dint expanding or curving!
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (21) Feb 14, 2015
@RC
i noticed you started your own sock puppet army for voting!
tirahobis July 10, 2014 4:36 p.m.
pehawev July 10, 2014 4:37 p.m.
yefeb July 10, 2014 4:38 p.m.
dimerib February 13, 2015 7:38 p.m.
heyeg February 13, 2015 7:39 p.m.
zajohiwa February 13, 2015 7:40 p.m.
muhom February 13, 2015 7:40 p.m.
nice... proof you are a trolling hypocrite! LMFAO

also... i noticed you still FAILED to post a link proving you know anything about any physics posted in BICEP

proof you are a troll....
No more conversation till you link proof... just
downvoted and reported

I don't see the problem that RealityCheck etc have with improving computer programs no matter what the source
@Mimath224
I didn't mention anything about RC and mathematical models?
what are you referring to, please?
can you quote it specifically so i can be on the same page as you? or did you get me confused with someone else?

RealityCheck
3.1 / 5 (21) Feb 14, 2015
Hi Mimath224. :)
@Captain Stumpy, I don't see the problem that RealityCheck etc have with improving computer programs no matter what the source.
I made no comment re the above article, mate. Me and Stumpy were alluding to last year's BICEP2 'exercise' and its 'results', which were proven flawed, with confirmation bias etc and various other failures of scientific design/method from the start. At the time I cautioned Stumpy, and the rest of the uncritical 'believers' in everything from 'mainstream' sources, not to accept it as 'fact'; and to do their OWN objective due diligence and spot all the flaws in that CMB based 'study' which from the outset was a blatant instance of 'publish or perish' imperatives driving 'bad science' output; as since confirmed by mainstream itself.

Stumpy and other religious-like 'true believers' swallowed those flawed BICEP2 'interpretations' as 'fact', and attacked ME for cautioning them to check it out carefully before accepting it. Crazy, hey?
cantdrive85
3.9 / 5 (16) Feb 14, 2015
Hi Mimath224. :)

Stumpy and other religious-like 'true believers' swallowed those flawed BICEP2 'interpretations' as 'fact', and attacked ME for cautioning them to check it out carefully before accepting it. Crazy, hey?

You can read the interaction here;
http://phys.org/n...nal.html

It's quite humorous, Cap'n Stupid and others will likely not respond to this as they are too busy picking crow feathers out of their teeth.

Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (23) Feb 14, 2015
and attacked ME for cautioning them to check it out carefully
@RCTROLL
No, i attacked you for being a pseudoscience troll who doesn't know what you are talking about because:
1- you made a claim
2- you failed to substantiate your own claim
3- you could not point out ANY fatal flaws, let alone the 4 you CLAIMED to see, nor could you point out the 8 total flaws
4- you then cried about being told that this was in poor taste
5- you cried to the MODS because you were banned from Sciforums.com for baiting/trolling over this exact same thing
6- you continued to make a claim without any proof whatsoever
7- you still have not substantiated your claim, even though the BICEP team, as GOOD SCIENTISTS, update us here on THEIR mistake (none of which you told us about): http://phys.org/n...lts.html

so the failure is yours for being a trolling pseudoscience OT poster
and you are STILL OT
reported

RealityCheck
3.3 / 5 (22) Feb 14, 2015
From the research incompetent lying Stump in the corner:
@RC, i noticed you started your own sock puppet army for voting!
...
... proof you are a trolling hypocrite!
What 'proof', you moronic carbuncle? LOL

That has nothing to do with me, and you know it.

So much for your due diligence. Never let the facts get in the way of your self-serving half-truths 'versions' of reality! LOL

You KNOW I do NOT abuse the ratings system, even under my OWN username; because I am a scrupulously INDEPENDENT LONE researcher/commenter eschewing ALL gangs/associations/tactics like that. Unlike YOU, your "Idiot Uncle" and your 'gang' who perpetrate that crap here on a SCIENCE SITE.

Hypocritical whining much, Stump?

i noticed you still FAILED to post a link proving you know anything about any physics posted in BICEP

proof you are a troll....
I cautioned ALL to do their OWN checking of BICEP2. Period. You didn't listen; so got egg all over your dumb lying troll face. Doh! :)
RealityCheck
3.2 / 5 (23) Feb 14, 2015
Poor lying Stump. I cautioned ALL to check BICEP2 'results' and 'methodology' and 'assumpions' etc etc for YOURSELF. You went 'troppo' like an ignorant 'defender of the faith' just because BICEP2 'published' on and by 'mainstream science source'. Just because you now have egg all over your ugly lying self-serving delusional mug, don't come crying to us. You should apologize to the forum for wasting so much time and bandwidth on your own manic driveling attempts at SELF AGGRANDIZING despite the obviously demonstrable fact (from your posting record) that you are just a miserable little 'mainstream' HANGER-ON and PARROT who doesn't comprehend in any real depth that which he 'links' and 'parrots' and 'defends' (like that BICEP2 'mainstream science' fiasco, for example).

Face it, Stump. You're unfit to judge anyone/anything of importance or complexity, let alone REAL SCIENCE matters. That you STILL pretend to yourself, your 'gang', and across the net that you are, is truly SAD.
Captain Stumpy
2.5 / 5 (23) Feb 14, 2015
I cautioned ALL to do their OWN checking of BICEP2. Period
@rc
you are telling everyone that you did NOT make the following claim?
a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw
-on Mar 17, 2014 (located here: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp )

OUTED AGAIN as a liar and TROLL
LOL

per the evidence above
plus your continued OT posts
ANYONE can only conclude you are a pseudoscience troll and report/downvote you and your voting army of sock puppets!

No more conversation till i see PROOF
still didn't give any PROOF
Why not, rc?
don't have any?
ROTFLMFAO
Captain Stumpy
2.4 / 5 (22) Feb 14, 2015
Tell you what, @RC

since you are only going to rehash the same thing over and over and complain that you are in some grand conspiracy, rather than the fact that you've been banned from everywhere else BUT here because you PAY for a profile here...

lets just assume that i will not post anything to you at all anymore, except what is already posted above.

when you see me downvote you, assume that i am also reporting you for being a troll and liar, as well as OT

that will save all these floods of cry-baby whining where you claim you were wronged, dispite the evidence against you
(see above)

thanks

goodbye!
https://www.googl...af4331c2
Captain Stumpy
2.7 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2015
For everyone else interested... here is a list of the KNOWN sock puppets of RealityCheck

pehawev,
yefeb,
bikuxem,
retejap,
debokolin,
sosamuca

for further evidence of this, see: https://sciencex....k/?v=act

Thanks for your time

PS- hey MODS! i thought multiple accounts and pseudoscience was frowned upon and not welcome here?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2015
Stumpy, how long are you going to deny reality in order to rewrite history via half-truths; by selectively quoting only small BITS of the relevant posts? The readers can see for themselves the FULL story here:

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

For someone who likes to spam forums with 'links', you suddenly seem suspiciously reluctant to post THAT 'link' showing the FULL exchange, hey?

My posts were to urge you and everyone to CHECK FOR YOURSELVES to find the OBVIOUS flaws in the categories I mentioned.

Anyone with an ounce of OBJECTIVITY, ie, NOT mesmerized to 'believe uncritically' all that issues from 'mainstream sources', should have taken my advice instead of rushing to 'accept' BICEP2 interpretations/conclusions/claims as 'fact' and proceeding to bash 'trolls' over the head with it; as was already happening, hence my parting comment cautioning you ALL to check it out objectively/thoroughly before making further fools of yourselves. Reality. :)
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (19) Feb 14, 2015
Stumpy, how long are you going to deny reality in order to rewrite history via half-truths; by selectively quoting only small BITS of the relevant posts? The readers can see for themselves the FULL story here:

http://phys.org/n...nal.html
I had to point this out because it is TOO FREAKIN FUNNY!

i actually LINKED THAT VERY ARTICLE in my post, or did you not see that?
are you so illiterate that you can't read now?
you are telling everyone that you did NOT make the following claim?


a first read through the pdf, at least 4 fatal flaws jump out. At least 1 systemic flaw, at least 2 assumptive flaws and at least 1 procedural flaw


-on Mar 17, 2014 (located here: http://phys.org/n...nal.html#jCp )
Maybe you can ask one of your sock puppets to read it for you?

pehawev,
yefeb,
bikuxem,
retejap,
debokolin,
sosamuca

AGAIN, you prove you are a liar, and a fraud, an
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2015
From the lying Stump in the corner:
For everyone else interested... here is a list of the KNOWN sock puppets of RealityCheck
pehawev,
yefeb,
bikuxem,
retejap,
debokolin,
sosamuca
for further evidence of this, see: https://sciencex....k/?v=act
...
PS- hey MODS! i thought multiple accounts and pseudoscience was frowned upon and not welcome here?
How desperate and bereft of scientific principles and ethics is the man that would KNOWINGLY perpetrate such a LIE as that against someone who patently does NOT use, and never has used, such DEPLORABLE BOT-VOTING tactics to skew the ratings pages/filters like STUMPY, UNCLE IRA and their 'gang' DO here EVERY DAY?

It's obvious that their bot-voting/trolling has pissed off someone who is now giving THEM some of their OWN medicine. LOL

What do hypocritical, cowardly, bot-voting, trolling Stump and Uncle Ira do? Thats right, folks, they whinge and make up LIES to deny he obvious! Sad. :(
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2015
Update on RealityChecks Sock puppets
pehawev,
yefeb,
bikuxem,
retejap,
debokolin,
gipagajege,
yejen,
godivecu,
sosamuca

all belong to the same person, who is RealityCheck

Goodnight all
have fun with the TROLL
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2015
Stumpy, you SPAM these threads with so many lying posts/links that it's easy to miss.

But you STILL haven't admitted to being WRONG in attacking people who merely CAUTIONED YOU to CHECK FOR YOURSELF before swallowing hook line and sinker all those OBVIOUSLY FLAWED (as confirmed by mainstream later) BICEP2 'results/claims'.

When are you going to stop SPAMMING your in-denial driveling posts and apologize to the forum for carrying on like a maniac and attacking the messenger, Stumpy?

So, Stumpy, here is the objectively proven reality you still seem intent on denying while lying about me:

The latest PLANCK-BICEP2 assessment has proven me right; and all the overzealous 'gullibles' at the time were wrong not to take my advice and check for themselves before proceeding.

Now, are you EVER going to be MAN ENOUGH and SCIENTIST enough to apologize to this forum for all the time you've wasted and all the crap you've generated in your attempt to deny obvious reality?

Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2015
Hey Stumpy:
Update on RealityChecks Sock puppets
pehawev,
yefeb,
bikuxem,
retejap,
debokolin,
gipagajege,
yejen,
godivecu,
sosamuca

all belong to the same person, who is RealityCheck

Goodnight all
have fun with the TROLL


You and everyone know that has nothing to do with me. I'm the one who does NOT play in the ratings page, even under my own username, remember? Unlike YOU and your 'gang', hey?

This sort of thing has happened to you and your 'gang' before, hasn't it? Why whinge whenever whoever it is you've pissed off gives you a taste of your own medicine, Stumpy?

Boy, will your face be red when whoever it is eventually owns up to it!

I wish I could see your face then!

C'mon, Stumpy; admit you are lying. mate; and apologize to the forum about this and the BICEP2 thing. That's the only way you'll ever be able to move on from your past/present mistakes about me and my work. Good luck! :)
Estevan57
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 14, 2015
@Captain Stumpy -
The most effective (only) way to stop the sockpuppet-fest is to send an e-mail to Physorg.
The mods are generally too busy to notice this kind of stuff in the comments section unless it is pointed out. Good luck, Estevan57
Mimath224
5 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2015
@RealityCheck I'm not really interested in your problems with other people and if you read my post properly you would have noted that my comments involved this article and not another. If you have anything constructive to say about my opinion that's fine and I'm willing to listen. I am well aware of the '...BICEP2 thing...' and as a layman I rarely jump to conclusions and in the BICEP2 case there were other reports last year which suggested that dust contamination was involved. Indeed the CMB and the standard model have critics, as does other topics with a 'standard model', so that a layman finds it difficult to decide one way or another. I have posted elsewhere that as tech improves knowledge does too...science is not STATIC, it evolves and any mistakes along the way is all part of the process.
With regard to my earlier post here's another; most people don't like or want war BUT '...is the mother of invention...' is still true and often a source of tech progress...this is reality!
Rohitasch
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2015
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is strong with this section.
Try plotting geodesics manually around a Kerr black hole and you'll get the same results... in 10000 years!
The animation in the movie is not someone's imagination, it is the image that's created by actually integrating path projections of millions of light beams. The result is so good because the computers they used for this are a whole lot more powerful than what researchers get to use.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 15, 2015
@cantdrive85 my apologies as I didn't reply to your post above. You will note that in the article you cite I also posted;
Hi guys, let me say ...about BB but I do appreciate that the majority stance is is for BB. With all the arguments (and data) for it a layman like me can do little else but except it.
But that doesn't mean I have to throw away my principles and when I looked at (and I do mean just that) http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf one thing immediately struck me, the way the paper is written!
All info regarding the procedure ...other possibilities. In other words it's Refutable...but not by me ...But other researchers can analyze the method and conclusions and point out mistakes (if any)...I have to say 'well done'...though, of course coming from me...'
'Well done' applies to their scientific method which is something I like to see. Whatever mistakes they made will serve in future research.
cantdrive85
3.6 / 5 (16) Feb 15, 2015
Can't drive. I have wondered why all of the comments trying to denigrate science always seem to come from people who know nothing about science. Please continue with your ranting, in the end, you are just providing us with entertainment.

The irony is I don't denigrate real science in any way, shape, or form. You too can check out my comment history to see I don't comment negatively on applied sciences, just the theoretical "sciences" which purport that they are dealing with facts. I do however denigrate astrophysicists and their fanciful metaphysical pseudoscience. I will also denigrate those "sciences" which find their basis developed by the theoretical belief systems of astrophysicists.

The main difference between Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology and the standard theory is the former is based upon real experimental/observable and falsifiable science whereas the latter is not falsifiable and based upon "thought experiments" rather than real lab results.
Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2015
@Estevan57
Yeah, already done.
THANKS for reminding me of it again

But that doesn't mean I have to throw away my principles and when I looked at (and I do mean just that) http://bicepkeck....v_v1.pdf
@Mimath224
just letting you know the link doesn't work... try re-posting it in another comment (open the link first, copy the address from the address bar directly, and don't edit your comment, as this will affect what is seen)

Also, did you see my message above? I wasn't sure what you were referring to, especially this part
To deny improvements that come from the movie industry
because i was actually impressed with some of the research that came out of "interstellar" as well as the supercomputer sims regarding BH's ( as in this article with studies: http://phys.org/n...een.html )

Thanks

Captain Stumpy
2.8 / 5 (17) Feb 15, 2015
The irony is I don't denigrate real science in any way, shape, or form.
@cd
Is that so?

would you like me to post some of your better (and more frequent) lies that you like to spread which denigrate astrophysicists?
Where you state plasma physics plugged into a supercomputer is nothing but
this is nothing but pseudoscientific claptrap
http://phys.org/n...een.html
Or where you state Astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics? (TOO many threads to post ALL those links!)
How about a link where you continually denigrate real physics for your make believe eu claptrap
http://phys.org/n...ggs.html
Even when proved to be fatally wrong (as i the above link) you simply state "nuh uh! my eu religious belief is REAL and real physics with empirical data is wrong because some irritating elec. engin. says so, so it MUST be true, despite all the debunking from almost EVERY other physicist!"

epic lie on your part, cd
Losik
Feb 15, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (9) Feb 15, 2015
The most effective (only) way to stop the sockpuppet-fest...
@Estevan

This list is the most inclusive list of the sock puppets and should be included in ANY report that you send off to the Admin:

rhsthjnty, tirahobis, pehawev, yefeb, bikuxem, retejap, xanuxul, debokolin, gipagajege, yejen, godivecu, befa, rovodeh, vudamezire, cuyajuyino, yolepugor, begalifowi, megayugo, juhodo, bibigak, fetem, sosamuca, Losik,

It seems these have been seen in the past as well: http://phys.org/n...nal.html

They were attributed to Zephir, but they are likely a collusion between the EU (like cantdrive) RC and Zephir due to the voting practices...
ALL of the names in the list are former ZEPHIR socks

@RealityCheck
I owe you an apology
you are a crackpot, but the sock puppets belong to ZEPHIR historically, and likely still do. I am sorry.

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2015
POST SCRIPT regarding ZEPHIR's sock puppets:
TechnoCreed includes the following, which ALSO include already banned FORMER Zephir sock puppets, banned for PSEUDOSCIENCE
otero BANNED ALREADY as ZEPH
Doiea ALSO BANNED as ZEPH
Technico ALSO BANNED as ZEPH
nesac created July 4 6:54pm
tirahobis created July 10 4:36pm
pahawev created July 10 4:37pm
yefeb created July 10 4:38pm
bikuxem created July 10 4:39pm
retejap created July 10 4:40pm
xanuxul created July 10 4:44pm
debokolin created July 10 4:44pm
gipagajege created July 10 4:45pm
yejen created July 10 4:46pm
godivecu created July 10 4:47pm
befa created July 10 4:48pm
rovodeh created July 10 4:49pm
vudamezire created July 10 4:50pm
cuyajuyino created July 10 4:51pm
yolepugor created July 10 5:14
megayuyo created July 10 5:16
begalifowi created July 10 5:16
juhodo created July 10 5:17pm
bibigak created July 10 5:18pm
fetem created July 10 5:19pm
susamuca created July 10 5:20pm

Feel free to report them all
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2015
Woah Ira what is happening there? Did you forget to wish Zeph a happy Valentine's Day? He is quite a lonely guy you know. People have to make the sacrifice to talk to this AWT guy once in a while; not me I put him on the cockroaches list. Hey do not worry, for your karma I am going to help you for a while.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2015
Hey do not worry, for your karma I am going to help you for a while.


Non Cher, thanks for the offer, but I don't really need any help with my karma points. I like to get the good ones if they are from the right peoples, and I really like a lot to get the bad ones if they are from the other right peoples.

And I really, really, really, like the bad votes whenever somebody goes to the trouble to sign in and out using fifteen Skippy names to vote on my comments. At least that way they are so tied up with signing in and out to vote their puppets that they can't do their usual cluttering up the physorg with their foolishment they would be writing if they weren't so busy with me.

Don't you think that is the funny thing? That's why they got the silly looking pointy caps to wear, so you tell them from the normal peoples who wouldn't fall into that: "I'll hurt Ira-Skippy's feelings and down vote him because the down votes bother me they must bother him too" trap.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2015
Don't you think that is the funny thing? That's why they got the silly looking pointy caps to wear, so you tell them from the normal peoples who wouldn't fall into that: "I'll hurt Ira-Skippy's feelings and down vote him because the down votes bother me they must bother him too" trap.
Must tell you one thing vieux Ira; somebody who gets mad at you really have a bad sense of humor. Any pun here is really unintended ;-D
malapropism
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2015
@reset
We could, at any time, have written up some code to see how God looks. We could have done it a long time ago.

Do please go right ahead, I'd love to see the results. Please, please, please. I'll even review your code for you, just, you know, to get all those pesky syntax errors and also to make sure you don't just embed some image like the Sistine chapel's ceiling.

@Captain & @Ira up-voted for supplying a few much-needed laughs on a Monday! Thanks dudes.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2015
@Captain Stumpy, actually I meant to edit the link out but forgot...cantdrive's link that I refer to does work. What I'm saying is very simple; it doesn't matter where the progress (tech, knowl etc.) comes from and if the movie industry makes inroads to science that's great. The other point about that industry is that it has a large audience and that's good too.
I didn't like the movie 'Interstellar' very much because it looked liked a remake of several other past movies; for example M.Damon reminded me of Dr. Smith in Space family Robinson...probably just my warped mind, Ha!
I understand that another movie is about to go on the big screen, 'Journey to Space', but this is about the real problems we face...narrated by Patrick Stewart of Star Trek. I think it is an experiement to see if this type of presentation is well received or not.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2015
@Stumpy.
...They were attributed to Zephir, but they are likely a collusion between the EU (like cantdrive)....RC....and Zephir...
Will you PLEASE get it through your self-serving prejudices that I, RC/RealityCheck, am scrupulously objective independent LONE RESEARCHER observer/commentator etc, and ON PRINCIPLE, am NOT 'associated' in ANY way with ANY 'gang' or 'group' for ANY 'purpose' or 'conspiracy'. Ok? Thankyou!

@RealityCheck
I owe you an apology....the sock puppets belong to ZEPHIR historically.... I am sorry.
Apology accepted, Cap. But PLEASE do STOP making things up about me. It is unseemly for grownups; and makes your claims to being any sort of "impartial observer" or "investigator" sound so hollow. Ok?

PS: As objective/impartial observer, I also see you and Maggnus etc owe an apology to cd & Hans Alfven on at least ONE of their EU 'issues'...

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

Try to stay calm and objective. Ok? :)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2015
From Cap'n Stupid
They were attributed to Zephir, but they are likely a collusion between the EU (like cantdrive) RC and Zephir due to the voting practices...


Conspiracy!
malapropism
3 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2015
I'll even review your code for you, just, you know, to get all those pesky syntax errors...

Thinking more about this, I suspect that NULL pointer exceptions will be *much* more likely.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2015
What I'm saying is very simple; it doesn't matter where the progress (tech, knowl etc.) comes from and if the movie industry makes inroads to science that's great. The other point about that industry is that it has a large audience and that's good too.
@Mimath
Yep, pretty much how i see it too
I didn't like the movie 'Interstellar' very much because it looked liked a remake of several other past movies
i haven't seen it
i don't watch movies very often at all

mostly because there isn't much original stuff out there IMHO
i read a lot though

my wife gets mad at me when i tell her what is going to happen in a movie and neither of us has seen it before
i am usually right on the money

@RC
NO ONE is impartial.

I said i follow the evidence
and i don't CARE how trolls like you "perceive" me to be

reset
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2015
@reset
We could, at any time, have written up some code to see how God looks. We could have done it a long time ago.

Do please go right ahead, I'd love to see the results. Please, please, please.


Turns out the same people looking after the mainstream science these days already beat me to the punch. This must be why they got the job doing the Black hole thing above.

https://www.youtu...vKJAv5Ik

At 1:27 in the image appears. Fortunately there doesn't appear to be any bugs you need to work out... Other than the ones in that whole "gravity dominates the universe" as long as the math is in a continuous state of tweaking thing you guys have going on.

You know moons coalescing around a planet into spheres that the planet then tries to tear apart with tidal forces type thing.

On the up side I see alot more accuracy in the ratings value of a couple of the idiots above. Well done forum.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2015
I see alot more accuracy in the ratings
@reset
i see that the pseudoscience crowd cannot actually support their position with actual science and that they've decided to skew any results by fallaciously creating a sock-puppet army in order to add some credibility to their claims because they cannot get actual scientists to look at them due to the nature of the pseudoscience.

typical of the pseudoscience crowd
just like your continual denial of actual science, especially the science which proves the religious like beliefs you hold in eu

as long as there are people who cannot comprehend the physics and support pseudoscience, there will be failure and our species will not be able to move ahead as it should

this is no different than the climate change stupidity
the science supports it, but the moneyed try to undermine it

$$$$
in this case, why would anyone support pseudoscience?
$$$$
because they have a vested interest in it
$$$$
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2015
@one of the idiots

I see that the true worth of your mindless blathering offends you.
Boohoo.

Got anything sciency to say or are you still just looping on imagined protocols? Speaking of comprehending physics, I presented a contradiction in two presently accepted mainstream theories about how gravity works (the moon thing in case you are as confused as usual))...maybe you could enthrawl the readers with your science knowledge about how it isn't one...but I suspect some unoriginal dodge is forthcoming instead.

Also, as usual, I made no statement of support for the EU... but where would your meager argument be without setting up a strawman of some kind right?

Same place as it usually is....(sound of toilet flushing...ahhhhh)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
@Captain Stumpy.
@RC...NO ONE is impartial.
Speak for yourself (and your 'gang'), mate. I scrupulously apply Scientific Method & Objective Independence when it comes to science, reality. Why haven't you been doing likewise?
I said i follow the evidence
And then you ignore half of it (the 'inconvenient' half) in order to 'link/interpret' your self-serving half-truth 'versions'...as you have done too many times to count now about me (and my work).
and i don't CARE how trolls like you "perceive" me to be
You STILL call ME 'troll'? After YOU had to apologize above for lying about me and my work?

PS: You claim to "follow the evidence" but seem all too ready to ignore 'inconvenient' facts against your personal rants/trolling. Eg, you, your 'gang' still owe cd, Hans Alfven AT LEAST acknowledgement they were right on at least ONE of their UE 'issues'...

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

The evidence is all there for you, Cap. Bye. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm good, thanks for asking.

Yeah, I see what you mean there with that. That's what I've been trying to explain to you for so long. That independent science and reality stuffs.

Your independent reality makes people think you got a mental condition because your reality doesn't match up with everybody elses reality. That is the mental condition part. And your independent science doesn't match up anybody elses science. That is the crankpot part.

If you would do some diligence and get more in line with the scientists and humans maybe peoples wouldn't give you such a ruff time of it.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2015
You STILL call ME 'troll'? After YOU had to apologize above for lying about me and my work?
@RC
yes, because you are baiting and trolling

1- what "work"? you can't argue about "work" that isn't produced... which is the point of my post: you have still not produced EVIDENCE of your claims
2- your comments are baiting and TROLLING
3- you still haven't linked that evidence, and an irrelevant link above does not specify ANY of the fatal flaws you brought up

reported

any further posts that are OT, about your "work" without linking proof of those fatal flaws, or irrelevant and about your MODS/TROLL gangs, voting, biased, whatever posts, will simply be reported and downvoted as baiting/trolling

consider my 1-star and reporting of your post as an answer

P.S. you can always go cry to Zephir and get him to get his sock army out again
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
@Stumpy. Are you really this removed from reality? When I made my parting caution to you last year regarding BICEP2 'claims', it was not ME making the 'claims', it was that BICEP2 'team'. Those claims were obviously confirmation-bias based and flawed in so many ways, even according to KNOWN science! I tried to warn you not to 'just believe' it.

I withdrew from detailed discussion of MY own work because I would be publishing it all complete soon enough. How many times have you been told this?

So much for you being any sort of fair dealing person, let alone scientist, Cap. You post 'half-truths' and outright LIES about me and my work. You had to apologize for that; but you still call me a troll...and complain?

What lying hypocritical whining dunces you and your 'friend' Ira are. You dish out anti-science BOT-voting and personality cult tactics while ignoring the evidence and now you and Ira complain that some (whoever) doing the same to you? LOL

Precious little trolls! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
PS @ Stumpy. Why don't you just apologize for getting it wrong and move on? I am always ready to forgive and forget; life's too short, and science too important, for personal crap. Try to be more fair and objective in science and humanity discourse in future, Cap. It will be more rewarding and contribute more positively to science and humanity discourse than what you and your bot-voting 'friends' have been doing so far. Good luck and good thinking, Cap! Bye for now. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
Ira complain that


@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher. I am fine again too, thanks. That is part of your independent reality kicking in again. I never complain about anything as silly as that. You are the one who complains about that.

Maybe your mental conditions is causing you to not read too good so I will try to explain it again. All the trouble someone took on my account makes me happy. It makes me feel like I am really good at what I do.

So do better with your diligence while you are reading so that maybe one day the scientists and humans won't make the fun with you.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Trying to apologize to the Captain-Skippy is probably not going to work because he saw when you apologized to me and then took him right back.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2015
Oh the humanity! That poor poor deadheaded bot-voting Uncle Ira twerp. That poor thing. :(
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2015
It would appear that the dodge, nothing sciency to say, and looping on protocol are all you've got stump. That's pretty weak considering how much time you spend here. You can't even use the necessary level of understanding about physics required to address simple questions when they are presented yet you walk around here like you are the peacock with prettiest tail...til someone poses an actual scientific problem that you can do nothing with, which just ends up showing anybody reading how fake your tail is.

Even me being the ass I am, have apologized (to posters I dislike)when shown without a doubt to be in error. Your child like mind won't even permit you to do that.

Good luck with your goal of coming to this site to learn, when all you do is posture, preach, rant and dodge.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2015
Your child like mind won't even permit you to do that.
@reset
WTF are you on about now?
i apologized to rc for what i DID get wrong... his involvement with the sock-army
there is nothing else in my comments that is wrong regarding him, nor you

Good luck with your goal of coming to this site to learn, when all you do is posture, preach, rant and dodge.
I DO come to learn
but i despise all those pseudoscience posters like you who post a faith based belief with no scientific evidence

Like a couple other posters, i consider it important to point out the pseudoscience when it comes along

and i don't care about peacocks and pretty tails either

i care about science
REAL SCIENCE

not that stuff you keep pushing
that is pseudoscience and supposed to be moderated

luckily for people like you, rc, zephir, cd and others, the mods only show up once a month or quarter depending
and it seems they only delete the stuff from people who dont pay the site $$$$
reset
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2015
but i despise all those pseudoscience posters like you who post a faith based belief with no scientific evidence


Black hole, dark matter, dark energy...nice evidence of the validity of the pseudoscience you support

Like a couple other posters, i consider it important to point out the pseudoscience when it comes along


Same reason I am here, except I point out when it is the article that is the pseudoscience.

i care about science
REAL SCIENCE


You don't even know what real science is, but it is nice for you to care about things you'll never understand

not that stuff you keep pushing
that is pseudoscience and supposed to be moderated


I don't push anything,except the buttons of wannabe's like you. I do this by condemning theories and articles which state conjecture as fact, and by pointing out that math equations aren't evidence unless reality agrees with them. This would be why the math which supports the standard model always CHANGES.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2015
From Stumpy to reset:
i apologized to rc for what i DID get wrong... his involvement with the sock-army
there is nothing else...
...I DO come to learn...
...i care about science...REAL SCIENCE...
...luckily for people like you, rc, zephir, cd and others, the mods only show up once a month...
Face it, Stumpy. I have been right on the science and on fairness; you have not. I have been truthful; you have not. I have maintained scrupulous objectivity; you have not. I am not a troll; and you've been nothing but, with your recruited 'gang', 'bot-voting' and personal tactics ON A SCIENCE SITE.

There's a lot more for you to apologize than just your latest lies and trolls about me and my work, Stumpy; Eg, to cd at: http://phys.org/n...lds.html

If you keep denying when you are wrong, avoiding evidences, bleating hypocritically to mods, pretending you're not the troll here, then you're NOT "here to learn", are you?

Do better, Caps. Bye. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2015
I don't push anything,except the buttons of wannabe's like you
@reset
and electric universe BS pseudoscience ...
you've pushed ans supported a LOT of that crap
why is that?

because your engineer friends are astrophysical experts?
or because of alfven quotes so far out of date and debunked that they somehow make sense to someone seeking reasons for their fallacious pseudoscience and why it is being rejected by mainstream reputable peer reviewed publications?

and you don't know what i support
- but there is far more evidence for BH's and dark matter than there is for the bulk of eu pseudoscience

From Stumpy to reset
@RC
TL;DR
OT
Baiting/Trolling
reported
Eg, to cd at: http://phys.org/n...lds.html
not one post by me in that thread, moron
OT
Baiting/Trolling
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2015
I don't push anything,except the buttons of wannabe's like you. I do this by condemning theories and articles which state conjecture as fact,
@reset
you mean like debunking gravity with your EM pseudoscience here?
http://phys.org/n...ars.html

because everyone knows gravity aint real and the only reason the satellites stay up in orbit is the plasma discharge, or are you going to give some z-pinch birkeland current hypothesis?
maybe it is because there is en electric sun?
whoops, that one is out too. sorry
http://www.tim-th...sun.html

so why aren't you here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
demonstrating your EM prowess and defending your EU pseudoscience?

plasma got your tongue?
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2015
At the risk of being attacked by the various gangs, I'll take my chances.

I was among the sceptics of the BICEP2 results. Perhaps I only made notes in my diary and did not post my reasons. I am certainly not going to look back and check.

In any case the publication of the results was an unethical, anti science lie that should never have been given the time of day. Those of you that continue to find some intended goodness in the BICEP2 researchers are scum of the same mould, bringing real research into disrepute.

I remember at the time commenting ... Pons and Flieshman would be astonished that such a paper could be taken seriously, given their experience.

Publish or Perish has become so ensconced into the practice of science that facts and logic are discarded for assured financial remuneration.

Don't mention empirical evidence in the same breath as BICEP2 else you qualify for that silly pointed hat that gets passed around.

bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2015
Oh, that's right. Easy to forget. I just watched Interstellar the movie this afternoon. A quite good TS torrent. However, it's fantasy. Completely devoid of any science. It's also a long drawn out shallow waste of three hours. Fortunately, I had some Wild Turkey and spicy spring rolls to ease the pain. Better than mowing the grass on a wet Saturday arvo in Sydney. I knew there was a reason for reading this.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy.
not one post by me in that thread, moron
What's with your memory, Cap? Is it 'blanket denial' kicking in again so you can post another rant irrespective of the issue at hand?

Your posting history shows reams and reams of INDISCRIMINATE 'blanket insults' against ALL EU points raised by cd etc, irrespective.

One of their issues was to get mainstream astrophysicists to recognize and apply lab-informed plasma (not 'hot gas') etc physics to their cosmic observations/interpretations of phenomena.

Well, mainstream finally did what cd etc recommended... http://phys.org/n...lds.html

...and voila', they confirmed at least ONE point on which cd etc were correct!

Which makes your 'blanket denials' and 'blanket insults' against ALL EU stuff not tenable.

I treat each EU claim on its independent merits according to science and reality. You don't.

So you & Maggnus owe cd etc an apology on that ONE point at least. Go on, be nice.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2015
What's with your memory, Cap? Is it 'blanket denial' kicking in again so you can post another rant irrespective of the issue at hand?
@RC
ROTFLMFAO
ok, big guy with all the answers
since you brought up this "issue"

you gave THIS link: http://phys.org/n...lds.html
when you said
There's a lot more for you to apologize than just your latest lies and trolls about me and my work, Stumpy; Eg, to cd at: http://phys.org/n...lds.html
Now, since you are the uber genius and are obviously so smart... why can't you QUOTE a single post of mine from the thread you linked????

ROTFLMFAO
maybe because, like i already said
THERE ARE NONE?

yeah rc, you are OT
trolling/baiting
reported

and i will continue to downvote and report all your OT posts
even if i answer them
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy. Puhlease! Your whole history of posts has been an affront to fair dealing and objective science discussion when it comes to cd et al's points presented.

It is your PREJUDICE-IN-BULK spam against whatever point they raised that you have to apologize for. It is that prejudice-in-bulk which has come a cropper as latest articles confirm some of cd's points/issues were valid and correct to raise.

Your whole bulk-dismissal, based on your wholesale rants and personal tactics, insults all FORUM and science discourse ideals, and not only cd et al.

Get it? You owe cd etc and apology for everything you've done that is against fairness and science when it came to YOUR 'personal' maligning and misrepresenting and unfounded dismissals based on your own uncomprehending prejudice and lies and NOT the real facts in evidence.

You've trolled more than enough, don't you think?

PS: You still haven't apologized to ME for your outrageous lies, attacks re BICEP2. Be a man. Do it.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2015
PS: You still haven't apologized to ME for your outrageous lies, attacks re BICEP2. Be a man. Do it.
as soon as you link the evidence showing the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws you "found" in BICEP that prove you know what you were talking about.

when you do that, i will apologize
link another site or physicist that is posted after the original post you made and i will continue to point out that you are a liar and baiting/spamming/troll

i didn't bother reading the rest because i know it is OT and irrelevant

provide the evidence FIRST
then you can be vindicated

until then, you are a TROLL
baiting etc
also... you've been given this ultimatum already and there should NOT be a reason to keep repeating it

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy. Why keep evading your responsibility to apologize for your personally motivated attacks and lies?

The flaws were categorized for you when I warned you to look for them FOR YOURSELVES before proceeding to 'just believe' BICEP2 claims. You didn't listen. So have egg all over your face. Now apologize for your atrocious behaviour; like a fair dealing man and objectively dealing scientist WOULD DO BY NOW.

And how many times does it need to be told you that I would NOT explain in detail the flaws I saw immediately, simply because I had WITHDRAWN from DETAILED discussions which may impact on my pending complete publication of it all?

Really, Stumpy, you've run out of evasions/diversions excuses/tactics. Just apologize and start afresh with everyone here. In future keeping your ego and prejudices out of the equation/discussion. That's the only way you will accrue any credibility in science and humanity discourse forums. Good luck.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2015
And how many times does it need to be told you that I would NOT explain in detail the flaws I saw immediately, simply because I had WITHDRAWN from DETAILED discussions which may impact on my pending complete publication of it all?
@rc
and since then you've had plenty of time to post more than 1000 times (counted)
you're average post has been between 800-900 characters
in the months that followed you've also had time to research AGW, read and continue to spread trolling comments
Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

but there is no room, time etc to post evidence of your gaffe because you "had WITHDRAWN from DETAILED discussions"

nice try
OT
BAITING/TROLLING
reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2015
@Stumpy.
@rc
and since then you've had plenty of time to post more than 1000 times (counted)
you're average post has been between 800-900 characters
in the months that followed you've also had time to research AGW, read and continue to spread trolling comments
Hang in there, guys! In both cases. The Reality-cavalry is coming to the rescue, whether you like it or not, or believe it or not
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

but there is no room, time etc to post evidence of your gaffe because you "had WITHDRAWN from DETAILED discussions"

nice try
What is the matter with you? I explained at the time of BICEP2, withdrawal due to impact of "risk of being plagiarized".

What's it like 'in your mind', Stumpy? Confused by your own lies, ego and prejudices? Selective 'forgetting' and 'omitting' is getting to be 'second nature', if your continuing 'in denial' evasions are any guide. Apologize and move on.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2015
Confused by your own lies, ego and prejudices?
@rc
this applies to you
case in point
I explained at the time of BICEP2, withdrawal due to impact of "risk of being plagiarized"
perhaps you need a lesson in literacy?
pla•gia•rize (plāˈjə-rīzˌ)
v. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own
v. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another)
v. To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another [Wordnik]

how is it a risk of plagiarization if you are pointing out specific flaws in someone else's STUDY?
that is pointing out the physics, or even pointing out a mistake, not plagiarizing

the biggest problem with trolls, they don't know WTF they are talking about
you keep pointing that out, too!
THANKS

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2015
@Stumpy. Give it up, mate. All you got left is childish "Yes you are but what am I" retorts and hair-splitting semantics.

Doesn't it occur to you that any detailed explanations re the BICEP2 flaws would have involved much backgrounding from novel complete ToE? And any such attempted detailed explanations would have inevitably divulged directly/indirectly some of he most novel aspects which others might have deduced, from implicit allusions, if not stolen outright from any explicit details presented?

Stumpy, the history of science teaches us that plagiarism, and arguments over 'priority', have mired and wasted much time, money and energy of the individuals involved in protracted acrimonious etc claims and counter claims over decades. I don't have time or energy for such things, so I prudently minimize the likelihood of getting involved in such stressful and counter-productive situations in the first place....by limiting what I divulge of my Complete ToE before publishing. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
@Sam-i-amTROLL
semantics
n. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.
n. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics. [wordnik]

my argument is not semantics
nor is it even related to it

You saw, written in a published study, a series of "fatal flaws" and pronounced this publicly, for which i have requested you point out said "fatal flaws" published in said study (BICEP2)

Thus, it is a matter of you simply reproducing said "fatal flaws"

you could have simply said "do your due diligence" or "be wary", but you did not
you made a specific claim & attached a number, thus the claim should be represented with equivalent (to your number) representations which can be reviewed and proven "fatal"

that is not plagiarism, semantics nor anything other than science and substantiating or validating your claim, which you STILL have not done

over 1500 posts wi/ no proof
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
@Stumpy. When will you apologize and move on from your shrill hysterical, emotional personal attacks/lies about BICEP2, based on your self-serving 'denial' of the record/reality?

I merely cautioned you to LOOK for YOURSELF for the flaws I saw for MYSELF (not 'read' anywhere).

Some of the flaws were obvious according to KNOWN science already (many mainstreamers helpfully outlined all those for YOU afterwards in the articles/news etc). So I didn't NEED to explain anything about those flaws, since they were obvious to KNOWN science. YOU didn't bother doing checking for yourself, so you have yourself to blame on the known science aspects you missed.

Those FURTHER flaws were not mentioned/covered by mainstreamers at all (even NOW), simply because they and heir explanation was NOT 'known science'. THESE FURTHER flaws I would not elaborate/explanation in detail, for reasons given. Why keep 'missing' and misrepresenting the situation explained at the time? Apologize & move on.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
self-serving 'denial' of the record/reality?
you mean like this? http://www.scifor...page=246
or this one, where after giving you a second chance (as undefined) you were banned for baiting and trolling ON THIS EXACT SUBJECT with these EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS? http://www.scifor...?page=67]http://www.scifor...?page=67[/url]

so you, try to push your lies as a sock like zeph, but when caught, cry foul: http://www.scifor...?page=67]http://www.scifor...?page=67[/url]
http://www.scifor...?page=68
your "experiment" shows that a heavily moderated site that does NOT allow people to break the rules and continue to come back as socks makes for a more scientific, less chaotic, more interesting and sincere approach to actual science discussion

It also proves that people who lie and break the rules don't get THIRD chances

you're a proven troll
caught in yet another lie
reported
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
for those having problems with the links in my post: PO is not letting me fix them

there seems to be a problem with multiple links in a post
Will trouble shoot my end in 5

you can also simply change the page number in the copy/paste operation in the HTML address bar if you get ONE link to work, then to change the page:

you can go from banlist/?page=68 directly to
banlist/?page=246

simply by editing the final part of the address from the working link

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
@Stumpy. Give it up. Experiments proved mod-troll gang's abuses of power/position by colluding in bait-and-ban tactics to ban me. You link to the 'ban list', but it does NOT represent the full story, does it? You claim to "follow the evidence", but conveniently 'omit' fuller evidence 'inconvenient' to the lying/half-truth 'versions' you STILL try to con readers with. Sad.

Why keep doing that, when your tactics have already been exposed, proven fraudulent, driven by mod-troll gangmember malice towards me (who exposed/proved the abuses). Futile.

Face it, Stumpy, you joined a mod-troll gang which had me on a 'hit list' because I exposed their anti-science abuses. You were misled; then became COMPLICIT in misleading others for your 'gang recruiting' motives.

Surely you now realize your MISTAKE in joining that 'gang'; and that I'm not 'just another troll/crank'; because I've been objective and in the right; and you've been 'personal' and in the wrong.

Apologize, move on, Cap.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
PS @Stumpy. Did you find the thread where I taught Da Schneib about he plasmoid processes occurring in he sun's subsurface which may explain mass ejection processes when solar physics scientists still could not do so?

So, Stumpy, follow THAT evidence, of where you were mindlessly cheerleading Da Schneib in his insults and denials (based in his own ignorance)....until he had to admit I was correct on the science and in original thinking. You went quiet; but now 'forget' to recognize and admit that evidence too, while still making up your lying/half-truth 'versions' to 'support' your continuing untenable personal attacks. Apologize, move on, Stumpy.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2015
again i noticed you still have no evidence
you do know that people who go look at those links can actually read and see that you are lying, right?
Did you find the thread where I taught Da Schneib
it is impossible to find something that does not exist

perhaps you should have me find something else? https://www.googl...af4331c2

OT
BAITING
TROLLING
reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy.
@rc, you can't find something that does not exist
You really are full of it. Your 'convenient' denials, lies, 'omission' when "following the evidence" tactic is there for all to see beyond shadow of doubt: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Note Da Schneib (post dated Oct 10, 2014) admitting:
However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.
That admission came after much insults and other mistakes (including re BICEP2 fiasco) from Da Schneib (and others) about me and my scientific knowledge/work. He and they were so "certain" they were right; and kept insulting me even though they were patently wrong.

I also explained that PINCH of plasmoids produce the necessary high-strength mag-field/compression for fusion.

I even had to educate him re various sources of positrons from Earth's Magnetic Field/charged particles collisions/interactions.

Stumpy, you lied to the forum again.

Apologize, move on.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
@RealtyChallaneged

You've so far posted word for word your last comment on three threads.

See my response:http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
Hi Vietvet.
@RealtyChallaneged

You've so far posted word for word your last comment on three threads.

See my response:http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
That's because Stumpy repeated the same lies and personal tactics on three threads. My response was the same in each case. Duh. Don't you even read the context before kneejerking, and making a mistaken judgement/conclusion thereby? Do better, Viet.

PS: See my response to your response in the other thread you linked to above. Thanks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
You've so far posted word for word your last comment on three threads
@Vietvet
HEY!
contact me at Sapo's joint or Sciforums and i will tell you how you can link the conversations and posts directly to the admin/mods of PO

Maybe we can get them to finally get rid of the troll?

Especially as you can show how his cry-baby cross posted arguments are the same arguments that got him banned from at least TWO different sites (baiting/trolling spam and socks)

and they can verify that with the moderators

I already gave a couple of them the heads up and told them i was giving PO admin/mods their e-mail and contact info to verify it
as well as linked the threads that have copies of his diatribe (re: BICEP2) which got him banned from the sites so they can verify (and establish with secondary and tertiary sources) the validity of the claims to give him the perma-ban

Lets hope they do everyone a favor and ban him
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy, have sense to know when to stop digging. Your desperate 'cheerleading' of others even when wrong is getting too silly. When Vietvet re-reads that thread properly he'll find his above 'conclusion' hasty and incorrect in light of the facts therein, and you'll again look an even bigger 'me too!' goose. You and all genuine readers/members here know I was right re BICEP2 (mainstreamers proved this for you afterwards). You and they also know that I showed Da Schneib where some of his knowledge/attitude was found wanting (I pointed out and explained it to him in that other thread). You know you have got me all wrong, just because you trusted a (proven) mod-troll-gang's lies and their 'hit list' and then became complicit to their mindless personal lies and 'hits'. This latest instance of you lying to the forum (that such a thread "didn't exist") should be enough to sober you. Just apologize for your self-serving trolls and lies about me and my work; so we can all move on.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2015
Note Da Schneib (post dated Oct 10, 2014) admitting:

However, you are correct; I was wrong, there may be plasmoids.


All that means is the Schneib-Skippy is a well rounded healthy guy. Like everybody he makes a mistake or two from time to time and don't mind admitting.

Maybe you should try it sometime and let Schneib-Skippy school you on your mental conditions that cause you to not ever make any mistake on any subject at any time any where or any place ever. That's how we know you have the really serious mental condition, you ain't never been wrong about anything and you think saying that your toes about everything will fool us into not noticing the mental conditions.

For someone who wants to play pretend to be the genius, you sure are stupid and don't mind showing it off.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Are you really going to give speeches at conferences for scientists? Can you tell when and where. Or is that a secret like your toes about everything?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
All that means is the Schneib-Skippy is a well rounded healthy guy. Like everybody he makes a mistake or two from time to time and don't mind admitting.
@Ira
absolutely true, Ira

problem is... that post was to cantdrive and during a discussion with him
it is not a discussion with rc at all, nor is it likely influenced by rc at all

not even going to get into the "may be"part of the statement

ANYWAY: You should contact me at Sapo's joint or Sciforums too and get my e-mail for what i told Vietvet above

maybe we can finally get rid of the troll floods and pseudoscience?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy. You must be really desperate to ask your 'friend', the bot-voting idiot Ira, to come to what you no doubt think is your 'rescue'. The facts as per that thread are:

- DaSchneib kept denying, accusing me of "lying, making things up" etc;

- I tried to explain to him where and how he was wrong, both in attitude and in science;

- he eventually had to admit he was wrong, didn't know everything he was so "certain" that he 'knew' about the matter;

- I had to explain to him pinch effects of 'plasma focus process' form 'plasmoids' which 'locally' produced the requisite fields/compression for fusion in many subsurface solar locations/times;

- I also corrected his 'certainties' re 'positron' sources' when he maintained it could only be from DM (Axions) annihilation; and

- his admission of error came in an exchange with cd as part of cross-discussion.

The point is you lied to forum, Stumpy, about that thread "not existing". Now you deny the facts. Just apologize.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
Just apologize.
you first
like i said before
as soon as you supply everyone with the 4 fatal flaws and 8 total flaws of the BICEP2 study that you specifically saw in the publication

when you provide the 8 points (make sure you label the 4 "fatal" flaws)

now:
you will cry about plagiarism (not a factor if you are simply repeating someone else's flaws and you site their paper)

you will cry about "removing yourself from detailed conversation" (regardless of the 1500 plus posts that are also about removing yourself blah blah blah... IOW- you got nothing and you don't want anyone else to know. except that everyone else already knows because you still haven't produced anything) http://www.scifor...?page=67

shouldn't you be getting ready for some Climate Change conference? http://phys.org/n...fic.html

all your arguments are already here on PO and here: http://www.scifor...?page=68

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy. Why keep doing this further damage to your reputation (such as it is), Cap? You know you have been egregiously wrong and biased against me and he facts presented for all to see for themselves. Your insisting that I (instead of you) should apologize for YOUR now-proven unfounded lies and personal attacks, makes you look and sound childishly desperate and in-denial to the extreme. Do what Da Schneib did. Be a MAN, and admit to your errors/lies etc against me. And just apologize to the forum for just lying to them. Then you and everyone can forgive, forget and move on from your debacle. Go on, be a man like Da Schneib. You know I was always right and you were wrong. Just apologize and move on, Caps.

PS: Caps, how many times has it got to be told you to get it through your expedient 'filters'? The withdrawal was from detailed discussion that involved my novel complete ToE elements, not from 'general' stuff in 'known science'. Sheesh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
Duplicate post deleted.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2015
The withdrawal was from detailed discussion
ROTFLMFAO
called it on the nose!
see my last post!
ROTFLMFAO
https://www.googl...af4331c2

i gotta go do serious work now rc
you keep posting
i will come back later and downvote and report everything
then link it all to Sciforums so the mods can see that you aren't even being original in your cry-baby posts

with any luck, we can get people together and get you banned from the site for posting pseudoscience, trolling, baiting, spamming and lies

thanks for making it so easy
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
@Stumpy.
The withdrawal was from detailed discussion
ROTFLMFAO
called it on the nose!
see my last post!
ROTFLMFAO
https://www.googl...af4331c2
i gotta go do serious work now rc
you keep posting
i will come back later and downvote and report everything
then link it all to Sciforums so the mods can see that you aren't even being original in your cry-baby posts
with any luck, we can get people together and get you banned from the site for posting pseudoscience, trolling, baiting, spamming and lies
Withdrawal from detailed discussion involving my ToE novel aspects, not general known science. Still recruiting gang members? Your ego 'shackles' you to childish, personal, self-serving delusional troll-gang crap. Unshackle yourself via admission/apology, Stumpy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2015
Withdrawal from detailed discussion involving my ToE novel aspects, not general known science
WOW
so you FINALLY ADMIT that you have no evidence whatsoever with regard to the BICEP2 flaws!

I knew eventually you would spill your guts about it... this only proves it!

you have time to TROLL (more than 1500 posts)
but you don't have time to point out anything in real physics or science...
especially anything you "claimed" to see
you do know that pointing out the flaws you "claimed" to see is nothing more than "general known science", right?
ROTFLMFAO
epic fail

THANKS
i am using that one when i forward your stupidity!

oh, yeah
OT
BAITING/TROLLING
reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
@Stumpy.
WOW
so you FINALLY ADMIT that you have no evidence whatsoever with regard to the BICEP2 flaws!
I knew eventually you would spill your guts about it... this only proves it!
you have time to TROLL (more than 1500 posts)
but you don't have time to point out anything in real physics or science...
especially anything you "claimed" to see
you do know that pointing out the flaws you "claimed" to see is nothing more than "general known science", right?
ROTFLMFAO
epic fail
THANKS
i am using that one when i forward your stupidity!
oh, yeah
OT
BAITING/TROLLING
reported
You're delusional, Stumpy. Stop it. You keep avoiding the point:

1) I was proven right, and all you confirmation-biased "smart peoples" wrong, re BICEP2.

2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts.

Go on, Stumpy. Grow up. Be a man and apologize to the forum for your lies, denials, half-truths and personal trolling attacks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2015
You're delusional
@sam
Really?
i said all along that you didn't have any evidence, which is why you don't just come out and point to the BICEP2 results and say "these parts are flawed, and these are fatally flawed"

instead you argued
I explained at the time of BICEP2, withdrawal due to impact of "risk of being plagiarized"
but when i point out that you still had plenty of time to make over 1500 posts, you claim
Withdrawal from detailed discussion involving my ToE novel aspects, not general known science
Considering that there was no brand new physics being unveiled in the BICEP2 results
and you are still refusing to point out specifics
that can only mean a finite few things

1- you are a liar seeking attention
2- you don't understand the physics
3- you've plagiarized someone's work

there are no other possibilities that make any sense, except from a delusional POV

all right there above us in black-&-white
spamming
baiting
trolling
reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
@Stumpy. You're still delusional, Stumpy. Stop it. You keep avoiding the point:

1) I was proven right, and all you confirmation-biased "smart peoples" wrong, re BICEP2.

2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts.

Go on, Stumpy. Grow up. Be a man and apologize to the forum for your lies, denials, half-truths and personal trolling attacks.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2015
You keep avoiding the point
No i dont
the point is and has always been your actions towards the team, your denigration, and your failure to provide any evidence supporting your assertions of fatal or other flaws
I was proven right... re BICEP2
no, you weren't
because you've never once provided the evidence of your "8 flaws" or "4 fatal flaws"
you still haven't pointed that out, thus you are still lying and baiting with re:BICEP2

read my post here: http://phys.org/n...rse.html

you've never once been able to support your claims regarding being perma-banned from sciforums, sapo's joint or any other place

http://www.scifor...page=246

http://www.scifor...?page=67 (banned as undefined & all your socks)

http://www.scifor...?page=68

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
@Stumpy. Why keep trying the same evasions over and over like a demented liar caught in the act? I explained all that before, many times. Denying the reality won't help you any more, Stumpy. You have lost credibility because of your lies and half-truths about me and my work. Only an apology to the forum will do you any good now.

Face it, Stumpy, you have been the troll in all this, not me. Why keep denying, when you've just been caught out again? If you're still in denial of that reality, here is the reminder:
You're delusional, Stumpy. Stop it. You keep avoiding the point:

1) I was proven right, and all you confirmation-biased "smart peoples" wrong, re BICEP2.

2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts.

Go on, Stumpy. Grow up. Be a man and apologize to the forum for your lies, denials, half-truths and personal trolling attacks.
Just get back in touch with honesty and reality; just apologize.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2015
@Stumpy
@penguin head SAM
TL;DR

since all you are doing is repeating the same whine over and over
i've given you my reply here: http://phys.org/n...rse.html

you can continue to argue
i don't care

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2015
@Stumpy. Of you and me, the only one who has been proven a liar is you; so I don't have to do anything more to prove my innocence, because it is you who has already been proven the guilty one. Latest instance reminder:
... 2) More lately, you lied to the forum by claiming that other thread "does not exist"; then denied/twisted the facts. Go on, Stumpy. Grow up. Be a man and apologize to the forum...
Stumpy, just apologize and stop repeatedly SPAM 'spraying' your self-serving in-denial 'versions' about all this in the forum. Just apologize and we can all move on from your personal nightmare. Ok? Go on. Be a man, Stumpy. Just do it and be done with it.

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.