Light-powered 3-D printer creates terahertz lens

Light-powered 3-D printer creates terahertz lens
The design of Sun's lens with gradient refractive index.

From visible light to radio waves, most people are familiar with the different sections of the electromagnetic spectrum. But one wavelength is often forgotten, little understood, and, until recently, rarely studied. It's called terahertz, and it has important applications in imaging and communications.

"Terahertz is somewhat of a gap between microwaves and infrared," said Northwestern University's Cheng Sun. "People are trying to fill in this gap because this spectrum carries a lot of information."

Sun and his team have used metamaterials and 3-D printing to develop a novel lens that works with . Not only does it have better imaging capabilities than common lenses, but it opens the door for more advances in the mysterious realm of the terahertz.

Supported by the National Science Foundation, the work was published online on April 22 in the journal Advanced Optical Materials.

"Typical lenses—even fancy ones—have many, many components to counter their intrinsic imperfections," said Sun, associate professor of mechanical engineering at Northwestern's McCormick School of Engineering. "Sometimes modern imaging systems stack several lenses to deliver optimal imaging performance, but this is very expensive and complex."

The focal length of a lens is determined by its curvature and , which shapes the light as it enters. Without components to counter imperfections, resulting images can be fuzzy or blurred. Sun's lens, on the other hand, employs a gradient index, which is a refractive index that changes over space to create flawless images without requiring additional corrective components.

Here, Sun's team prints a stent with the same technology used to print the terahertz lens.

There are two major factors that made this new lens possible. First, it is made from a novel metamaterial that exhibits properties not readily available in nature. "Such properties originate from its tiny structures that are much smaller than the terahertz wavelength," said Fan Zhou, the paper's first author and member of Sun's laboratory. "By assembling these tiny structures, we can create specific refractive index distribution."

Second, the lens was manufactured with a 3-D printing technique called projection micro-stereo-lithography. The technique enables a scalable, rapid, and inexpensive way to produce the tiny features that are needed for the lens to operate at the terahertz frequency band. The printing technology allowed the researchers to fabricate the metamaterial to precisely fit their designs.

"For printing, we use a photo-polymer in liquid form," Sun said. "When we shine a light on the material, it converts it into a solid. The material forms to the shape of the light, allowing us to create a 3-D structure. You cannot accomplish a gradient index with traditional manufacturing processes."

The could make , which is particularly useful for security, cheaper, higher resolution, and more available. While X-rays can detect metal, they cannot detect plastic or chemicals. Terahertz scanners, however, can detect both of items to discover concealed weapons, biological weapons such as anthrax, and plastic explosives. And unlike X-rays, radiation is completely harmless to humans.

"This advance means we can unveil previously inaccessible information of some opaque materials in high resolution," said Wei Cao, Sun's collaborator at Oklahoma State University. "This opens up an entirely new technique for a massive range of potential uses from biomedical research to security."


Explore further

Researchers develop new lens for terahertz radiation

More information: Fan Zhou et al. Additive Manufacturing of a 3D Terahertz Gradient-Refractive Index Lens, Advanced Optical Materials (2016). DOI: 10.1002/adom.201600033
Journal information: Advanced Optical Materials

Citation: Light-powered 3-D printer creates terahertz lens (2016, April 29) retrieved 15 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-light-powered-d-printer-terahertz-lens.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1156 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 30, 2016
Interesting & opens consequent dangers because, as we know microwaves used for cooking (ovens) as is infra red (lasers ie CO2 etc)

So THz spectra, which nature isn't forthcoming regarding comparative intensities affect proteins Eg spinning/local heat/denaturing, such as occurs when a mb ph held close to the brain etc, eek ! :/

Although staggering permutations must be worthwhile pursuing so appropriate intensity limits are determinable, especially so regarding resonances re harmonics with interference reflections under pervasive issue matter absorbs/radiates light including fluorescence thus, huge problem re complex neural protein stability Eg exposure influencing cognition over long periods.

My post grad research re copper/zinc 2010 (& ongoing) suggests imperative line of enquiry copper binding well to neural prions improving shielding effect which guard feeble neural proteins from damage at the synaptic level, suggesting diet is far more important than ever !

May 02, 2016
Interesting & opens consequent dangers because
@Mike
not sure where you are going with this but... THz is harmless to humans
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4153


May 02, 2016
Hey, Mike, . . He "looked it up"!!

But did he read it?

"Collective response of DNA to terahertz electric fields is studied in a simple pair bond model. We confirm, with some caveats, a previous observation of destabilizing DNA breather modes and explore the parameter dependence of these modes. It is shown that breather modes are eliminated under reasonable physical conditions and that thermal effects are significant."

Once again, "thermal effects are significant"

Show me where it says it is safe, Rumpy.

May 02, 2016
Hey, Mike, . . He "looked it up"!!

But did he read it?
He probably did. It is obvious you did not read him. I think you read the abstract and quit when you found something you misunderstand.

Once again, "thermal effects are significant"
Do you even know what they are talking about Skippy?

Show me where it says it is safe
Couyon, you sure are big fun, thanks and here you go,,

The field strength necessary (estimated generously) to generate breather modes is approximately 10^9 V/m,hich is much greater than the dielectric break-down threshold of air (about 10^6 V/m). Thus it appears that
the analysis of Refs [4, 7] is not relevant to physically realisable situations.

Although strong THz radiation is artificial, DNA has
evolved in a noisy electrical and thermal environment,
and it might be expected that the molecule and the pro-
cesses in which it takes part will be stable with respect
to external nonionising radiation.

May 02, 2016
The phrase "it might be expected" is NOT proof!

No wonder you never made it through school.

May 02, 2016
The phrase "it might be expected" is NOT proof!

No wonder you never made it through school.


At least I know how to read the science papers (that you did not bother or know how to read so you stopped with the abstract, eh?) If it is not a new-agey blog or bumper sticker, it is not much use to you Skippy. glam-Skippy, I really think you might the dumbest couyon on the physorg, and you not realizing it is GREAT BIG FUN. So why you don't take your "Hover-Around" for spin around the neighborhood.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Don't forget you aren't supposed to drive that kind of "electric car" in the roads. If something happened to you, I would not have somebody to fool around with on the physorg.

May 03, 2016
Show me where it says it is safe
@Couyon-liar-kam
1- Ira quoted it, and you've already seen this more than once as it was quoted repeatedly to you here in the following thread:
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

2- it's not wiki, it is a validated study that has clear scientific information that specifically refutes your fear-mongering claims and stupidity

3- not going to keep repeating the same scientific information when you've offered absolutely nothing of content or science, nor can you validate your fear-based claims

therefore, per your requests *and* our agreement: reported for trolling, baiting and pseudoscience

May 03, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) asks
.. not sure where you are going ..
Going straight to Physics @ most fundamental

1. Radiative transfer, spectra/quanta/coherence are key
2. Matter (atoms/molecule) absorb/radiate
ie change in e- orbital(s) state -> motion -> Heat
3. THz far more energy/quanta ~6-10 X > microwave, see my 1st post para 1

CS claims
but .. harmless to humans
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4153
No, Pardon ? Abstract isn't proof, you examine full paper or only that simple abstract ?

If
yes, wheres "harmless" re caveats in paper ?
no, abstract clearly states "thermal effects are significant" ie Not harmless, Eg 2 & 3

Paper inappropriate ie

a. Only Electric field
b. Only *one* protein structure DNA, life has millions
c. Only a model, worse only bonds
d. Nil empirical method, nil experiment, nil evidence Eg 1

Referenced wrong paper or misread re; intent, scope, terms. Regardless nil EM Physics :/

Get basics qualified (another paper ?) or need help ?

May 03, 2016
Uncle Ira claims
.. I know how to read the science paper..
Ha, no way jose !

You Definitely don't know how to read this one re terms, scope, format ie can't tell difference between Claim & Evidence

Eg. You read "estimated, approximately, appears, strong, might, will be"

This mean *nothing* to you AT ALL, in any basic Science paradigm re empiricism ??

ie. You're fixated on facile qualitative terms, nothing empirical & only a model to boot :/

Not congruent with *any* experiment design, empirical methodology & nil quanta Physics, nil Provenance or is there *any* connection at all you missed to prior referenced paper, find it ?

If you're compelled to enter/communicate Science then don't mislead !

First check basic Physics, if you can't do basics, butt out !

Prejudice motivated idle barks confirm again minimal understanding with only a facile repertoire of ugly attack :-(

See my last post, stop lying to Captain Stumpy, do you have *any* substance at all ?

May 03, 2016
Mike, you and I are real. otto and Grumpy and Ira are not. They are just anonymous trolls.

They thought they could be SO SMART by looking things up, but turned out to not even being able to find my two cars in the DMV, after paying the money!!

When I sent them to genuine sources, and proved my experiences, it started the flame war. Fragile egos are a terrible thing, Mike. Good thing they hide from the world, and are too scared to come "after" us, like Ira threatens.

If Mrs Skippette finds out how Ira got taken, . ,. again, . . she will take away his computer.

May 03, 2016
Mike-Skippy with his mania shrieks,,,

Uncle Ira claims
.. I know how to read the science paper..
Ha, no way jose ! Blah Blah Blah with some more wild incoherent Blahs,,,,


Cher, I would love to argue with you, but your rambling histrionics don't make any sense to anybody but the person with the mental conditons who is thinking them.

You Definitely don't know how to read this one re terms, scope, format ie can't tell difference between Claim & Evidence
Hey, I did not write the paper, why you don't take it up with the writers? Probably because the writers can't understand you either.

butt out !
Cher you just earned my undivided attentions.

Prejudice motivated idle barks confirm again minimal understanding with only a facile repertoire of ugly attack
I don't know about ugly, but get ready for annoying Skippy.

See my last post, stop lying to Captain Stumpy,
Okay, I see him. It's about as wild and crazy as most of them, so?


May 03, 2016
Mike-Skippy the blathering schizo trying to sound like the scientist blurts,,,,.

Captain Stumpy (CS) asks
.. not sure where you are going ..
Going straight to Physics @ most fundamental


CS claims
but .. harmless to humans
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.4153
No, Pardon ? Abstract isn't proof, you examine full paper or only that simple abstract ?
Cher, it was glam-Skippy that did not go past the abstract, and he even got that part wrong.

yes, wheres "harmless" re caveats in paper ?
no, abstract clearly states "thermal effects are significant" ie Not harmless, Eg 2 & 3
Significant is not the same word as "harmful".

Paper inappropriate ie
Why you don't write a better one? (Good luck getting somebody to publish him except maybe in the mental hospital's patient's therapy newsletter.)

or need help ?
From a person with schizo mental conditions? Non thanks, life is already complicated enough.

May 03, 2016
"Cher you just earned my undivided attentions."
----------------------------

Does that mean you are giving up on me? You can't even find my cars in the DMV database! How are you going to "get" him?

And if he really did write a paper, like mine for NASA, you will just deprecate it, or scream "LIAR!".

Once again, Ira, . .

http://www.thegua...n-google

May 03, 2016
"Cher you just earned my undivided attentions."
----------------------------

Does that mean you are giving up on me? You can't even find my cars in the DMV database!
It is not IN the DMV database. You don't own an electric car. That was a lie. So the best you might have is the "Hover-Around" electric car that the old peoples drive around the neighborhood and mall.

May 03, 2016
Abstract isn't proof, you examine full paper or only that simple abstract
@mike
i read the whole thing, but apparently you did not
try again, and when you answer please take a little time out to construct something a little more comprehensible because you're breaking up sentences and it's hard to follow
yes, wheres "harmless" re caveats in paper
please do not start acting like the idiot liar-kam

1- read what ira posted (his quote is from the conclusions- look for "DNA is heavily screened")
2- read what i posted again
3- read what is posted in the linked thread ( http://phys.org/n...ess.html ) and the conversation with the idiot liar-kam (from everyone)
4- THz is effectively stopped by *water*, hence the atmosphere stops it
(that is a biggie there mike... and relevant in the study as well as IRL)
5- THz exposure is everywhere - literally (so the proof is life itself and around you)

need i continue?

May 03, 2016
Rumpy rides in a Big Red Fire Truck, or so he claims. No proof was offered, like he demands of others.

He must have the internet in that Big Red Truck, since he never seems to be at work, just like "Ira". I think they are little girls in Britain, playing games on the internet.

http://www.thegua...n-google

May 03, 2016
@mike cont'd
Paper inappropriate
then write a refute
Referenced wrong paper or misread re; intent, scope, terms. Regardless nil EM Physics :/

Get basics qualified (another paper ?) or need help ?
try re-reading that again mike

the paper was published 2yrs after a sh*tstorm of misunderstanding WRT a paper about THz being able to unzip DNA - which it could if, and i repeat *if*, it were unprotected (as in direct exposure not in water, etc)

and idiots who don't understand basic biology started panicking (like liar-kam) and spreading misinformation, much like what he does with nuke-anything, military, soldiers, any war or radio and NASA (all examples just from the last 3 months)

DNA etc is protected by a lot of water, cell walls, other things around it, subcutaneous fat, skin, etc... all of those things quite literally protect DNA

this is also paraphrased in the last paragraph of the paper

May 03, 2016
@mike cont'd
wheres "harmless" re caveats in paper
i never said the paper specifically said harmless, i said the paper proved THz was harmless, and stated that in the conclusions

Now, you might be well versed in physics or engineering or whatever, but you're forgetting a lot of basic stuff in biology, mainly that the human body is made of a sh*tload* of water (*highly technical term that means "a lot" /hyperbole/sarc)
this is relevant in the THz argument, therefore must be a factor in talking about THz
https://www.uml.e...7789.pdf

https://www.uml.e...2128.pdf

if that doesn't convince you, then i don't know what will

plus, most importantly, i have to keep reiterating that you're constantly exposed to THz from any 10K plus temp object (basic physics again) so we evolved in a literal THz exposure environment

read up mike
enjoy

or ask AA_P for help

May 03, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. I got your message Cher. It helps to know that it was a soft ending and I will remember him fondly. He brought a lot to the table.

May 03, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. I got your message Cher. It helps to know that it was a soft ending and I will remember him fondly. He brought a lot to the table.
I'll forward that on to the family. thanks Ira

May 03, 2016
Shit. I think I know who you mean, and he will be missed :(

May 03, 2016
Shit. I think I know who you mean, and he will be missed :(
Yep.
feel free to contact me at SciForums or elsewhere if you wish to forward any specific message, or post it here and i will forward it for you, unless you have his e-mail already

Thanks.

May 03, 2016
Pass our regrets and condolences to his folks, let them know he was liked and respected here.
(Gotta admit, I teared up a little, and I'm crap at emotional stuff)

o7

May 05, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) with his panties in a bunch on 3 posts
i read the whole thing, but apparently you did not
I read it ages ago, you DON'T understand scope & intent :/

CS says
.. construct something a little more comprehensible
Sure, appreciate 1000ch limit, keywords the interested can review on radiative transfer (RT)

CS bully
.. do not start acting like the idiot liar-kam
You DON'T understand issue of caveats in a paper !

Items
1- So ? only DNA, *NO* experimental evidence ie Paper inappropriate !
2- Study RT in conjunction with my keywords & re resonance !
3- I did, irrelevant to paper !
4- Keh ? Not stopped otherwise imaging useless, unless low attenuation so coherence essential, that's a biggie as THz can unzip DNA !!
5- So ?, All light (EM) can & does cause damage, see 2

CS facile claim
..proof is life itself and around
So ? you DON'T understand RT ie massively incomplete !

Really study my post or you need key Physics tutelage on RT ?

May 06, 2016
with his panties in a bunch
ya really want to go there mike?
i was being nice and giving you the benefit of the doubt, but if you're just going to start pulling a gkam, then i'm done with you and your gibberish nonsensical regurgitation of random English words in a schizophrenic psychotic post
You DON'T understand issue of caveats in a paper
then prove it is harmful with a validated study! i know you'll fail because there are absolutely none out there
1
evidence is all around you
2
nonsense schizophrenic regurgitation of English
3
no, you didn't, or you don't understand it
4
nonsense schizophrenic regurgitation of English
water stops THz - in the atmosphere and the body. period. full stop
try reading for comprehension or just take the time to contact a biologist and ask instead of regurgitating your dictionary here
5
nonsense schizophrenic regurgitation of English
you've still made absolutely no argument with study evidence

May 06, 2016
@mike last post on this
you've made a claim
now show the evidence

i made a claim and proved it with a study that is far, far more valid than your statement of "you DON'T understand RT ie massively incomplete" which makes absolutely no sense at all

so it's time to put up or shut up mikey, like i did

the study clearly shows that DNA can *potentially* be damaged under the perfect circumstances, but it also states that it is improbable that this is going to happen because "DNA is heavily screened"

this is a major point of the study and it's in plain english at the end
look it up

plus
the fact that everyone is constantly exposed and there isn't massive death/cancer from THz?

that is called evidence

what you are doing is making a claim that is, at best, an "untested" claim

until you can demonstrate the horrific exposure deformations and clinical trials of THz exposure, you're pissing into a fan and telling yourself it's raining

so post a study or STFU

May 06, 2016
Many biological macromolecules (i.e., DNA, proteins, tryptophan, and carbohydrates) contribute to tissue absorption, but most data suggest that water is the chief tissue chromophore at THz frequencies
see: Pal, S.K., J. Peon, and A.H. Zewail, Ultrafast surface hydration dynamics and expression of protein functionality: alpha -Chymotrypsin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2002
Pal, S.K., J. Peon, and A.H. Zewail, Biological water at the protein surface: dynamical solvation probed directly with femtosecond resolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2002
Pal, S.K. and A.H. Zewail, Dynamics of water in biological recognition. Chem Rev, 2004
Pal, S.K., et al., Site- and sequence-selective ultrafast hydration of DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2003
Pal, S.K., L. Zhao, and A.H. Zewail, Water at DNA surfaces: ultrafast dynamics in minor groove recognition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2003


May 06, 2016
Water exhibits properties that show strong interaction with THz radiation. [like the] the ability of water molecules to readily engage in both inter- and intra-molecular hydrogen bonding with neighboring molecules. ...water molecules create hydrogen bond networks that behave collectively.
intermolecular stretching vibrations of this network, which are the origin of macroscopic water dynamics, are quite strong at a frequency of 5.6 THz

See: Ladanyi, B.M. and M.S. Skaf, Computer Simulation of Hydrogen-Bonding Liquids. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 1993
Russo, D., G. Hura, and T. Head-Gordon, Hydration dynamics near a model protein surface. Biophys J, 2004
Yada, H., M. Nagai, and K. Tanaka, Origin of the fast relaxation component of water and heavy water revealed by terahertz time-domain attenuated total reflection spectroscopy. Chemical Physics Letters, 2008

May 06, 2016
energy absorbed by THz-exposed tissue is converted into a temperature rise (thermal) as noted already
Wang, L.V. and H.-i. Wu, Biomedical optics: principles and imaging. 2007
Welch, A.J. and M.J.C.v. Gemert, Optical-thermal response of laser-irradiated tissue. Lasers, photonics, and electro-optics. 1995

"The type and severity of thermal effects depends on many factors: (i) exponentially dependent on temperature; (ii) linearly dependent on the duration of exposure; (iii) organism, tissue, and cell type; (iv) tissue architecture and macroscopic environment (i.e., blood perfusion, hydration levels); and (v) metabolism, physiology, and microenvironment of cellular constituents (i.e. pH, O2, CO2, ATP, glucose, and metabolite levels)"
Urano, M. and E. Douple, Hyperthermia and Oncology: thermal effects on cells and tissues. Hyperthermia and Oncology. Vol. 1. 1988

May 06, 2016
"These factors vary widely in different biological materials, thus, each material exhibits vastly different thermal sensitivities. Clearly, given the large number of variables that contribute to thermosensitivity, it is difficult to determine the exact thermosensitivity of a particular biological material. However, all biological materials exhibit similar response trends that can be used to relate dosimetry with observed effects"
qt ref above re: Wilmink, Grundt, Invited Review Article: Current State of Research on Biological Effects of Terahertz Radiation 2011

Lee, Y.-S., Principles of Terahertz Science and Technology 2009
Wolbarst, A.B. and W.R. Hendee, Evolving and experimental technologies in medical imaging 2006
Williams, B.S., Terahertz quantum-cascade lasers 2007
Lee, M. and M.C. Wanke, Applied physics. Searching for a solid-state terahertz technology 2007

need more mikey?
or does that help you comprehend now?
yeah, i changed my mind about the last post
FOAD

May 06, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
you've made a claim
You started, still addressing Your claim

CS demands
now show the evidence
1. Paper intent wrong, can't prove harmless
2. Does NOT have ANY empirical evidence :/
3. Two disclaimers, key in last conclusion line :/

Please appreciate paper's scope re 1-3

CS said
i made a claim and proved it with a study
No ! You failed to show a mere bond model WITHOUT *any* empirical evidence be construed as proof !

CS says
"you DON'T understand RT ie massively incomplete" which makes absolutely no sense at all
Only to untrained :/

4. You MUST appreciate CONJUNCTION of; Coherence, Spectra, Intensity, Harmonics & Resonance

CS says
.. improbable that this is going to happen because "DNA is heavily screened"
A probable idea without experiment is NEVER ever EVER proof !!

Light wide spectra all-over & Diffuse ie NOT Coherent, so can't prove safety (eg aging), see 4

Can you learn RT step by step via easy example ?

May 06, 2016
Mike-Skippy missing his meds again (or trying to enhance his intelligence and learning by taking drugs),,,,

Blah, Blah, Blah, gobbledygook, gibberish, and writing 100 times as bad as anything Ira-Skippy ever wrote, Blah, Blah, Blah.


Skippy, you can not debate the science until you learn how to get your mind straightened out. If it is gibberish to everybody else, and wonderfully intelligent and rational only to you, it's your fault nobody takes you serious and makes the fun with you.

You write like a person who spent to much time all alone in a rubber room with nobody to talk to but a dozen or so peoples who shared his head. You have some really serious issues you need to let go of.

But that is okay, it's the maniacal ego of yours that makes you so, so, well makes you so "interesting". That's what you were aiming for, eh? Interesting? (That's why I like to tell peoples "Careful what you wish for.") You got it, now I am interested.


May 06, 2016
Mike Massen is a real and accomplished person. I have talked to him. You two are just anonymous trolls using phony names.

That is one reason he has credibility you will never have.

May 06, 2016
Mike Massen is a real and accomplished person. I have talked to him.
My condolences Cher.

That is one reason he has credibility you will never have.
Cher, you (both of you) have a very simple problem, that any half-wit should have been able to figure out by now but can't because of mental conditions controlling your emotions. Here, I will try to help you with it, not that it will do any good because you are "real" stupid.

It can be reduced to four simple facts of life, and each exacerbates the others.
1) You take your self too serious.
2) You take what I say too serious.
3) You over estimate your wisdom, intelligence and insight.
4) You underestimate everybody you run into.

You came here to be noticed, plain and simple. The very first sentence you wrote at the physorg was,
I am a former Senior Engineer for PG&E.
,,,, that's all it's been since, with a lot of very elementary mistakes. 11,080 plus postums worth so far but the day is young.

May 06, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) attempt at incomparable basis for logic re my comment "you DON'T understand RT ie massively incomplete" then CS said
.. makes absolutely no sense at all
Correct !

Yep NO sense at all to try & connect a scientific paper (that 'explores' with claim of a 'study' when there's; NO empirical study, NO experimental methodology & NO test data) with my observation of your inability to understand radiative transfer (RT) at several key levels.

Its example of a type "mismatch logic" based argument, cant ever succeed.

ie One is a paper inappropriate to a claim of "harmless" while other is an observation/opinion of physics ignorance ie Incomparable.

But !
Please clarify inference, you claim that because THz, Infra Red & Visible are everywhere & we are still here without cancers is somehow to be construed as proof its harmless ?

Do I have it correct ?

I ask just in case you "might" want to correct/amend your wording from what you've just learned ?

May 06, 2016
"any half-wit should have been able to figure out by now but can't because of mental conditions controlling your emotions. Here, I will try to help you with it, not that it will do any good because you are "real" stupid."
------------------------------------

Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you here for snarky adolescent games?

If you cannot discuss the topics, stay away.

May 06, 2016
@mike
see how easy it is to use multiple posts and not regurgitate schizophrenic broken english in random orders to clearly convey a message? much better, but still not enough
Paper intent wrong
no, it isn't
can't prove harmless
yes, it does- in fact, it shows that it is potentially only thermally dangerous (as noted by the above links supporting my conclusions) when under high energy application, which we will *not* be using unless militiarized or under specific conditions (hospitals etc) as noted in the *references*
Does NOT have ANY empirical evidence
then you didn't read a single reference in the paper
you do know references are part of a paper right? hello? it's built on their knowledge

plus, this is validated in the list of more links above (and i have about 109 more that i can link if that aint enough)

fearmongering like liar-kam because of lack of knowledge aint something that is cool, mikey
and THAT is why i posted that link in the first place

May 06, 2016
@mm cont'd
Please clarify inference, you claim that because THz, Infra Red & Visible are everywhere & we are still here without cancers is somehow to be construed as proof its harmless
lets see... even in the paper it states we evolved from the noisy background radiation (right?) so yeah, this is supporting evidence especially when taken into consideration with the volume of other empirical evidence listed above stating and demonstrating the minor effects of THz unless under high energy

THz is mostly dangerous when:
1- thermal effects under high energy (or massive exposure- again, under likely high energies as we're exposed to this regularly all the time, hence my above statement also reiterated in the study)

2- under direct assault of DNA, which is so improbable etc because of the shielding of tissues, cell walls, water in the body, fluids, and more

now, if you still want to argue the point, then post a refute to the studies above
all of them

thanks

May 06, 2016
I ask just in case you "might" want to correct/amend your wording from what you've just learned
and i will say this, in case "you "might" want to correct/amend your wording"...

just because you want to suck up to obama_socks or gkam doesn't mean you are correct

before you spout off on your fearmongering about a subject, you should consider taking a little time to actually read up on it, and not from a single source or a limited area (like strictly from THz laser applications in physics or engineering)

So if you want to keep this up, i will state this one last time:
if you can't substantiate your own claims with evidence (you know, reputable peer reviewed studies) like i have been giving, then you should consider taking some time off to research or just go play with gkam and O_S and talk about how "real" you all are versus all that evidence that demonstrates your critical mistakes here

epic fail mikey

May 06, 2016
Grumpy still thinks he is "smart" with wiki. He is like Reagan, who never really understood just how mentally weak he really was. He thought we all invented our reality and made it true, apparently.

He likes to cast aspersions on the rest of us, but has to hide, himself, out of some kind of fear. This forum can do better.

May 06, 2016
wiki
@couyon-liar-kam
1- those are studie, not wiki

2- you're not adding any content to the thread except to b*tch because you can't actually validate your claims with evidence

3- the above studies actually validate my claims

4- unless you can refute the studies with evidence, then what are you giving to the thread except ad hominem opinion from a broken overunity-supporting wanna-be geriatric who doesn't understand the topic at all?

so it is not aspersions i am casting, but evidence

you have YET to provide a single refute to the topic, or validate a single false claim you've posted about THz, let alone most everything else

how is that being "real"?
why can't you link evidence if you're real or "in the field"?
Why can't you substantiate your claims at all?

reported per our agreement and your own request here: http://phys.org/n...uto.html

(like it will do any good as PO is troll heaven now)

May 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy,
Don't diverge, nil patience for o_s, leave ALL nicks out.

Sadly you've still negligible basis appreciating radiative transfer (RT), thus can't conceive why you misread the scope, intent & relevance of references !

NB Just because papers have refs doesn't always mean they're directly; indicative, connected or relevant to you

Appreciate process of review mostly entertains main points of papers application affecting publication. AS well as this no paper is any sort of complete lecture series, its a refinement upon the discipline where *trained* graduates understand that refinement, thus unsuitable by untrained interpretation for dialectic

Paper urges rigorous experimental study, thus dismisses all referenced papers as "incomplete" re confirmation, ie Shouldn't ever be used as proof !

On RT, Please learn; coherence, diffusion, attenuation, intensity, resonance. As ref to so called Screening

Please consider paper's intent/motivation (Eg smoking) !

May 06, 2016
o_s
@mike
http://phys.org/n...ica.html

it was not a personal attack re: gkam, it was a scientific fact also noted above and proven with *multiple* studies

that isn't personal - & you seem to be helping liar-kam propagate fear-mongering false claims WRT THz and similar science

therefore it is very relevant to the conversation, especially as you are cross-posting this in multiple threads *not* just here
you've still negligible basis
so what you're saying is:
1- you didn't read the above OR the studies/ref's
2- you have NO evidence to actually refute other than opinion
3- you can't provide studies that refute the above
4- you are simply going to regurgitate the same liar-kam argument of "you're right because only you can understand"????

really?

patience gone
please learn this:
http://www.auburn...ion.html

and this:
https://en.wikipe...evidence

May 07, 2016
@Captain Stumpy,
Microbiology in Food Science 2010, re THz, safety/sterilizing incl Many papers !

Many indices you approach as personal
1. Your words 'sucking up', are those of uneducated 15yr olds shifting ground to distract
2. Prejudicially munting nicks drags us all down, reducing Your ability to focus :/
3. Your satire "only you can understand" not implied, the trained understand
4. Your Exaggeration "fear mongering", no. From Physics, EM risk can't be proven zero

I urged Don't Diverge nicks OUT ! Be mature focus on Physics headon to learn KEY issues

Pt 1
This tech dialectic relies heavily on radiative transfer (RT) education & with careful use of terminology learned deeply at least 2 yrs uni study in Eg Engineering common yrs before specialization. Important terminology employs combinatorial associative factors upon ~100yr logic progress applying language to papers, thus weeds out facile claims & logic fails re terminology misuse via decades+ of review.

tbc

May 07, 2016
@Captain Stumpy,
I was about to go out but, occurs to address your last post as a Very good example of terminology misuse, bear in mind, as much as word "theory" has special meaning in Science, so does "study" & "proof", rarely encountered with any depth by the untrained who haven't done the hard yards of uni study including 4 decades of reading ~1000 papers !

Eg Conflating descriptions is direct example of confirmational bias drift:-

First you say paper 'proves' THz harmless (despite its only untested model)
Then
Paper, as you call it a 'study', validated (by reference to earlier papers)
Then
In last post you say "proven with multiple studies"

Thats untrained misapplied extrapolation, can't you see one paper on untested model has become "proven with multiple studies"

Many examples of that type of linguistic logic drift failures come down to confirmational bias at its root well known !

"Validated" has specific Science meaning but, you misuse it :/

Pt 2 tbc

May 07, 2016
Microbiology in Food Science 2010, re THz, safety/sterilizing incl Many papers
@mike
and?
did you not read above re: Thermal POT on bio mat.?
1
and you literally sucking up to socks or gkam because you're wrong is demonstrative of uneducated 15yr olds shifting ground to distract
2
i am focused, you aren't - re-read those studies i link/quote/ref before commenting further
3
WTF?
4
i never said risk was zero, i said the "fog" was essentially harmless because, as noted, energy levels 2 lw. 4 therm. bio. destr. b/c cell & H2O protection (re: "smog")

2Bcont'd

May 07, 2016
@mike cont'd
so, you're promoting a cautious tactic and supporting g because of the potential of hazard, right?
even though you're not actually talking "smog" or communication level THz, right?

this means, by definition, that you are deliberately choosing to communicate an irrational fear of a known studied topic because of high energy or even specific utilisation tactic under different circumstances to influence the opinion of the layman for the sake of ... what?

we're not talking THz lasers, nor are we talking sterilization... we're talking THz "fog" and the threat of THz communication... which part of that didn't you understand, mike?

read this: http://www.thefre...ongering

now go back and re-read what i just posted, and tell me... what power level will the communication devices have to be at to destroy biological material...

THINK mike... don't just post stupidity

May 07, 2016
Your words 'sucking up', are those of uneducated 15yr olds
Says the Skippy who writes in the next sentence,,,
Prejudicially munting nicks drags us all down,
Double standard much Cher?

Your satire "only you can understand" not implied, the trained understand
Who has the training to understand you Skippy? The psychiatrists?

Your Exaggeration "fear mongering", no. From Physics, EM risk can't be proven zero
What?

This tech dialectic relies heavily
,, on being able to write more than three words that belong together. Skippy you ain't the right person to instruct peoples on dialectic.

tbc
Me too.

May 07, 2016
Where I was? Oh yeah, here we go Mikey-Skippy

Blah, Blah, Blah with careful use of terminology learned deeply at least 2 yrs uni study in Eg Engineering common yrs before specialization.
Skippy, this is the comment board on the physorg. It ain't the "International Conference Of Schizophrenic Geniuses Who Need A Place To Display Their Brilliance", You can't write your Blah, Blah, Blah Mikey-Skippy special language Blahs on a real forum, so you got to take the good with the bad here Skippy.

Important terminology employs combinatorial associative factors upon ~100yr logic progress applying language to papers,
Double triple standard much Skippy? You really are not the person who should be advising anybody on anything about language.

thus weeds out facile claims & logic fails re terminology misuse via decades+ of review.
Ain't slowed you down so why are you complaining?
]

May 07, 2016
I was about to go out Blah, Blah, Blah good example of terminology misuse Blah bear in mind,Blah, but LET ME INSERT HERE SOME DOUBLE STANDARD BLAH, with any depth by the untrained who haven't done the hard yards of uni study including 4 decades of reading ~1000 papers !
Cher, you might have done the reading, but you EPIC FAILED with your writing. All we get is BLAH's.

Conflating stuffs is what I am good at but it is easier for me to notice when other peoples do it.
Can't argue with one Cher.

Many examples of that type of linguistic logic drift failures can be found in every one of my postums
If you only added a Blah, you would have gotten an A for that one.

Pt 2 tbc
We sure are glad you got confused on that and changed your mind.

Lecturing peoples on language, linguistics and logic, hooyeei Cher, you at least got the sense of humor. Laissez les bons temps rouler (That's coonass for: "How you like me now Cher?")

May 08, 2016
i'm gonna put this here since mikey wants to take this to another thread to fight

in mike speech

RE: the above studies
which one was wrong mikey?
1 was specific ref to bio-haz destr. tiss. & therm. cell senesc. re:THz
others spec. ref. bio.haz. to cell tiss. & therm. prop. as well...

.

*again*
... we're talking THz "fog" and the threat of THz communication... which part of that didn't you understand, mike?

do i need to link the dictionary again?

now go back and re-read what i posted, and tell me
... what power level will the communication devices have to be at to destroy biological material?

.

why can't you answer this here mikey?
because you don't want people to know you screwed the pooch on your argument?
or is it because you don't have actual evidence?
still sure i don't understand?

you've not demonstrated your point NOR shown where you know enough biology to comprehend WTF is going on above

did your request for troll help get you anywhere?

May 08, 2016
did your request for troll help get you anywhere?
Non, not a bit. But the well reasoned, logically formulated, and linguistically perfected emails of complaint to the nice peoples at the physorg were well received with joie and laughs. They might have worked too, but they was sandwiched in-between the foolishment emails about how the physorg was legally libel for letting peoples like me on the interweb and the lawyers and High Sheriff was "on the case".

May 08, 2016
@Ira
the things that are irritating:
1- he is playing the "argument from authority" game that liar-kam plays, as though it is relevant to the evidence
2- either he doesn't understand that we're constantly exposed to THz OR he is intentionally ignoring this point
3- just because something can be made dangerous doesn't mean it is always dangerous
visible light is a perfect example of this - we can make LASER's out of light, but that doesn't mean constant exposure to light is going to kill everyone off!
4- this is part of 3 in a way, but different: he is "One who needlessly alarms others" - just like liar-kam...

i don't know if this is a sympathetic response or he is trying to appeal to the known idiots to build an army of anti-science trolls

but so long as he is willing to attack without evidence, links or references.... well, you get the picture, right?

gotta run. Mothers day.
Tell the Mrs I said Happy Mothers Day, Ira

May 08, 2016
@Ira
the things that are irritating:
1- he is playing


Non Cher. It is simpler than all that. I try to help glam-Skippy with the same problem he has.

1) He takes him self way to serious. (And thinks one more maniacal postum is going to be the one causes peoples to take him as serious as he takes him self.)
2) He takes me (and everybody else) way to serious. (And thinks one more maniacal postum is going to be the one slays the dragon.)
3) He way over-estimates his self. (And one more maniacal postum is going to be the one that PROVES he is right in his over-estimation.)
4) He way under-estimates everybody he runs across. (And one more maniacal postum is going to be the one that finally PROVES he is right about his under-estimations.)

Peoples like him come here for attention, and get really nonplussed when they get it. They never seem to get it that THEY ARE EARNING THE ATTENTION THEY GET. You can not tell peoples how to see you, you can only change what they see.

May 08, 2016
Is that what you want, Ira? Attention?

You have no education or experience in science, yet you are here critiquing others in their own field.

Heck, I could sell you a huge machine that makes electricity with "electromagnetic induction energy", which uses no fuel!. You already said: "It's used on marine power systems, stationary power plants, desalination plants and all sorts of things that people "not in the business" might have missed happening during the last half century."

I guess we all missed it.

Please go back to the river.

May 08, 2016
Is that what you want, Ira? Attention?
Skippy, I tell you yesterday why I was here. For the 20 or 19 time. You on your own trying to figure it out now because I am not going to write him all down again.

You have no education or experience in science,
You have no idea about that Cher. That's why you are so much fun. (And easy fun too that don't require much effort.)

yet you are here critiquing others in their own field.
Choot, I had no idea that Mikey-Skippy also has the mental conditions training too. I suspected that he has the "experiences" in that, in the way of treatments but he is also special with that field too like everything else?

Please go back to the river.
Day after tomorrow Cher. But what difference will that make to you? You already know we have the Net-Zero on the Lower Mississippi because you complain that I don't work hard enough.

May 08, 2016
gonna leave this here as well since mike want's to fish for troll support and cross-post this

mike/liar-kam want to argue about the safety of THz while ignoring the fact that they're constantly exposed to it 24/7/365 period. full stop.

This is like promoting a fear of the dangers of visible light because we can turn it into a LASER

it is the exact same argument, b/c we can also use LASER's to communicate, point, or create shows... none of which are a massive threat to the public because of the thermal destructive potential of coherent light

they're not advocating for the removal of LASER pointers, light communication or household lighting because of those hazards, even though we know that they can do the exact same damage to the body as THz when utilised & designed for that purpose

this is the reason their anti-THz argument is stupid and fear mongering
AND why my links/ref's are relevant and explain everything

incld. 1st stdy mk.Mssn THz lnk. abv. see ref/lnk

Jun 07, 2016
THz radiation can be useful & effective sterilizing tool for meat products as penetration depth deeper than infra red depending upon emitters efficiency. Eg Issue of "shot noise" in conjunction with "radiant cascade" can be applicable to denature spores in fresh meat cuts

ie Foods that aren't churned forcing bacterial species/spores deep into product

Papers abound in respect of issues of; intensity, coherence, spectra etc but, they're a difficult read even for those with high microbiology qualifications but, can be augmented by education in ElectroMagnetic (EM) Physics across wide utility spectra

This paper, its Intent & Scope of Work re a math model with qualitative opinion but, urges experiment ie cannot ever be manipulated to prove THz harmless !
http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

Please Beware & Challenge uneducated all-encompassing facile claims THz radiation regardless of caveats is harmless as so many ignorant claimants just don't know EM Physics :/

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
.. ignoring the fact that they're constantly exposed to it 24/7/365 period. full stop
Not ignoring. Tell us intensity level & re constructive interference ?

CS says
. fear of the dangers of visible light because we can turn it into a LASER
No but, do you claim visible light is also "harmless" ?

CS says
none of which are a massive threat to the public because of the thermal destructive potential of coherent light
Beg Pardon, coherence not limited to Lasers, where did you learn EM Physics ?

CS says
.not advocating for the removal of LASER pointers, light communication or household lighting because of those hazards
What intensity level & pulse rate ?

CS says
.. we know that they can do the exact same damage to the body as THz
Sure, hence long term experiment to assess Intensity !

CS says
.. their anti-THz argument is stupid
Only the uneducated facile emotionally claim this :/

You *Need* to learn EM Physics !

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
but so long as he is willing to attack without evidence
No. Education in EM Physics teaches permutations re forms of radiations, even in specific bands, are immense !

According to CS' belief:-
"Since we grew up & evolved in presence of background radioactive decay then it must be harmless"

Which is of course is most stoopid uneducated & same as your unsupportable claim re THz ie you're completely ignorant of the many facets of EM Physics, very important; Intensity, secondarily coherence & even these two there's little to show long term natural sources are always below a minimal level :/

Walked through a mineralised valley & observed constructive interference ?

CS says
.. links or references.... well, you get the picture
Don't need to, references old & absorbed into EM Physics text books but, assumes you bother to get any education

ie
Ignorance of EM Physics Eg Permutations. Making claims "harmless" = very Bad Science !!!

Jun 07, 2016
Frumpy thinks that if he reads something about it, it is better than the experience of actually working with it professionally.

That's what made him so smart.

Jun 07, 2016
According to CS' belief:-
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true the next time you say it... that's religion @mikey/bschott/benni/uba/liar-kam

you obviously have a severe read. & comp. issue as noted by your comment
Beg Pardon, coherence not limited to Lasers
intentionally misinterpreting a simple relevant analogy for the sake of self-aggrandizement demonstrates your inability to comprehend basic English

perhaps they taught you that in your "experience based physics" courses?

if ya can't read the study, why do you continue to repeat the same BS ad nauseum?

you still can't answer basic questions requiring only your ability to count or copy/paste!
but you want to misquote and blatantly LIE about the above here?

thanks for demonstrating your actual intent @bschott/benni/uba/liar-kam - or whoever you are

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy claims
repeating a lie doesn't
No, its basic EM Physics & re permutations re Experimental Methods, which paper & Author proves your claim please ?

CS claims
simple relevant analogy for
NOT a "relevant" analogy as its excluded from your all encompassing (false) claim "THz radiation is harmless", basic logic !

CS says
why do you continue to repeat the same BS
You still refuse & have Never linked to a paper that covers the Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence to support your claim "THz radiation is harmless" ?

CS says
requiring only your ability to count or copy/paste!
I ask you again WHAT does it achieve to repeat simple mechanical actions ?

CS asks
..whoever you are
Student no 7602128, Curtin University, EE, Ba Sci, Post grad Food Science *included* study of THz re meat sterilization ie EM Physics !

Where is the link to the paper (& Author) which proves your all encompassing claim ?

Direct link please ?

Jun 07, 2016
which paper & Author proves your claim
you said you have already read it!
i linked it here: http://phys.org/n...ens.html

the question now is: if you already know this due to your extensive education and experience, why is it that my granddaughter can find the link but you can't?

my granddaughter also found experiments in the link that validate my points... but you can't??

so it stands to reason that you are lying about something, and i can't determine why you would continue to spread the lie... is it your ego?
https://www.psych...ttle-ego

or are you afraid to admit to limited literacy issues?
it's not a crime... it is a learning disorder and it can be fixed
http://www.readingbear.org/

don't be embarrassed... just use the link

PS - misrepresenting my points isn't going to help you "win" the internet @bschott/benni/uba/liar-kam/mike

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy claims
you said you have already read it!
No. You are false again !

I wrote I have read all the papers relevant to the Scope of Work (which includes those you linked earlier) BUT,

1. not ONE has the Scope of work which covers the Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence to support your claim that "THz radiation is harmless" !

CS says
don't be embarrassed... just use the link
Are you ill or drunk, please read 1.

Linking to a thread isnt direct to the paper, be efficient which one covers 1. please ?

Why do you claim the paper is on the thread when there is NO paper on that that thread that covers the "Scope of Work" re 1. ?

Why do you STILL refuse to link directly to the paper ?

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) playing games & wasting time
.. due to your extensive education and experience, why is it that my granddaughter can find the link but you can't?
So your grand daughter knows EM Physics at university level re Scope of Work re Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence specifically in reference to your all encompassing claim ?

CS claims
my granddaughter also found experiments in the link that validate my points... but you can't??
Exactly, despite being led up a garden path by your eccentricity not linking directly, I cant locate any link direct or otherwise to a paper you claim is relevant to the "Scope of Work" re Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence re your all encompassing claim that "THz radiation is harmless" ?

I've asked many times you be efficient, direct link to that specific paper & author please ?

Jun 07, 2016
No. You are false again
no, i am not... you even validated my claim by adding
I wrote I have read all the papers relevant to the Scope of Work (which includes those you linked earlier) BUT,
no but @mikey/liar-kam/uba/benni/bschott
if you read all the relevant material and i ref'd it, and you make the claim none have experimental evidence then you are a blatant liar or you are illiterate

which is it? Both? or is there another issue? Are you ill or drunk? head injury?
Linking to a thread isnt direct...
SO?
you said you read all the papers!

and i know for a fact that the paper in question has 200+ references (almost 200 listed) including spectroscopy of biological tissues and [THz] radiation effect on ... proteins

that constitutes empirical evidence as well as experiments in the science world
... oops for you, troll girl!

or are you living by a new set of rules and regs? here are some of mine
https://en.wikipe...evidence

Jun 07, 2016
I cant locate any link direct or otherwise to a paper you claim is relevant
Ah! i see... so you can't comprehend basic english!

now we are getting somewhere!
this would have been easier if you would have just accepted my proposal to copy/paste my references!

so, lets do a little more clarification please... bear with me @mikey/liar-kam/uba/benni/bschott

what are references?

if you can answer that you should be able to see where the problem is and why you missed and ignored a whole lot of information...

and why i refuse to keep pointing out the problem to you

this is all about communication after all, and again, it would have been fixed faster if you would have complied

i can go on, but i will wait

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy claims
and i know for a fact that the paper in question has 200+ references (almost 200 listed) including spectroscopy of biological tissues and [THz] radiation effect on ... proteins
Really ? I havent read that specific one if indeed it is the one you are absolutely sure has the relevant Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence which covers your all encompassing claim that "THz radiation is harmless" ?

Great, then please link me directly to it so as to be efficient & name the Author please ?

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy CS claims
.. would have been easier if you would have just accepted my proposal to copy/paste my references!
I've already seen the list, what does copy/paste achieve as I've read them - none have the "Scope of Work" to cover your all encompassing claim ?

So you're claiming a paper does yet when I read them none does. so then its appropriate to converge on that specific paper you claim covers your point

Please link me directly to that paper so as to be efficient & save time & Author is ?

CS claims
..ignored a whole lot of information
No. I've not ignored relevant information, there's so far been nothing re your all encompassing claim. If as you claim there is, then please link me directly to that paper so as to be efficient & save time & Author is ?

CS claims
. it would have been fixed faster if you would have complied
No. Far quicker to link to it at the very start instead of even thinking of counting papers !

Link is ?

Jun 07, 2016
@mikey/liar-kam/uba/benni/bschott
Really ? I havent read that specific one
wait... what?
Are you intentionally trying to be funny?
you specifically said you read all the references i listed on the thread... right?

so what is the truth?

this is important mike... because you are stating two diametrically opposed claims here that can't be reconciled... and you can't have it both ways

so there has to be some clarity here for the sake of clear concise communication.

This is important - Please answer the following questions with as much detail as you like, including (but not limited to) links/references if you wish:

did you or did you not read all of my references?

which references did you NOT read, if you didn't read one in particular?

do you know what the definition of "reference" is?

Jun 07, 2016
the truth comes out...
Really ? I havent read that specific one
I've already seen the list...
No. I've not ignored relevant information, there's so far been nothing...
IOW - you lied

ya caint have it both ways

if you read my list you would have the answer... especially as it specifically lists experiments as well as results in it

more on that point
Far quicker to link to it at the very start instead of even thinking of counting papers
and if you would have counted the papers and read them you would know there is a reference to the paper, ya blind illiterate immature crank!

do you know what that means?

this, more than anything else is why i wanted you to take your time and copy/paste the references... so you would see the specific ref and realise the content

but no... ya gotta play idiotboy and go all super-stupid

thanks for demonstrating, yet again, ya caint read and you're here only to troll

you keep trolling
i'm going out to eat!
LMFAO

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy says
you specifically said you read all the references i listed on the thread... right?
I have but, there isn't one matching Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence re the Scope of Work re your all encompassing claim that "THz radiation is harmless" !

CS asks
.. read all of my references?
I did but, did you as some were paywalled - did you get all of them for free or pay ?

CS asks
which references did you NOT read
All those you claimed within "Scope of Work" relevant re the Intent to offer method of proof plus others too

CS asks
do you know what the definition of "reference" is?
Yes, do you know what "Scope of Work" means in respect of Intent for a Scientific Paper ?

This confirms my point, there's huge discontinuity re expectations of breadth re value of the abstract that doesnt mean its perfect to assess relevance, therefore

That's WHY when you pin one down be efficient & link to it directly please & the Author ?

Jun 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy claims
]IOW - you lied
No. As I said within the "Scope of Work", you don't understand what that means & WHY the abstract is an efficient means to assess papers initially as there are SO many, it doesn't mean the process is perfect, none are, its a step.

Since you've identified a specific paper you claim covers Experimental Methodology/Empirical Evidence re your wide claim, then direct link please ?

CS says
if you read my list you would have the answer
I did but, no Scope of Work matched !

CS claims
..if you would have counted the papers and read them you would know there is a reference to the paper, ya blind illiterate immature crank!
No, counting papers is mere numerical exercise not issue of relevance re "Scope of Work" !

CS claims
why i wanted you to take your time and copy/paste the references
copy/paste a mere list doesn't connect "Scope of Work"

CS says
the specific ref
What is the direct link please & author ?

Jun 08, 2016
@Captain Stumpy (CS), correction my apologies I munted quote context re my 2nd last post it should read
CS asks
which references did you NOT read
I read all those you claimed within "Scope of Work" relevant re the Intent to offer method of proof plus others too

NB
Overwhelming issue to avoid re any "confirmational bias" creep is attaching significance to any single word outside "Scope of Work" of a paper & this is a great example how badly the inexperienced get easily misled
Eg Rigorous within http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

Its WHY Intent/Scope of Work, often well represented in paper's abstract in the well crafted are a fulcrum pursue a line of logic.

Re all refs CS claims, despite his grand-daughter, there are NO papers in that list or anywhere covering extent of Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence re his all encompassing claim :/

To save great to & fro time waste & if he really truly found it,

then smarter to link directly to it please ?

Jun 08, 2016
from your continued attempts to spam other threads NOT about THz despite me asking you to take it here-the other thread
You haven't referenced a study you linked to a thread - big difference
i linked a thread where i referenced the study
if you can't read then the problem doesn't like with me or anyone else

and since you are going in circles
there isn't one matching Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence
1- yes there is
2- there is no "re"
3- there is one with experiments & empirical evidence which makes the same claim i did just in biological techno-jargon

paraphrasing it to colloquial terms isn't wrong like you try to claim

it's like when you try to dumb things down here on PO -is that wrong or is that your own "Scientific Misconduct"?

continuing to repeat the same thing expecting different results?
crazy

2Bcont'd

Jun 08, 2016
@mike cont'd
I also note that pointing out your lie has made you angry: why is that?

you stated you read all my ref's (i quoted you)
yet i linked proof of my claim (see above ref's)

if you had read the ref's then you would see the exact point i made (just in Biological jargon)

therefore it is empirical evidence of your lie

the onus of proving me wrong is upon you
so far you've made "claims" that i am wrong, but you haven't demonstrated this in any way except to state "i've read blah blah blah" (argument from authority) or quote your education, training etc (more argument from authority)

again: you are circling the argument making nonsensical statements and posting blame
if that makes you feel better... fine. i have big shoulders
it still doesn't remove the *fact* that you haven't read the studies, otherwise you would see my point in the study

you were correct about one thing: i got the LASER analogy from the author of the study, not the study

that's my mistake

Jun 08, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

WHY not link directly to the paper, ie be smart & efficient, show me where I'm wrong ?

Claiming a paper somewhere on a thread isnt helping you one, thats evasion !

If you don't think its evasion especially re a claim about a grand-daughter then explain why ?

Tell the audience please how you go from this paper (P1) http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
to your all encompassing claim "THz is harmless" ?

Obviously you only skimmed it, found the word "Rigorous" but, didn't understand it & tried to use it for emotional claim :/

Can anyone at all indicate how P1 is "Rigorous" to support your claim, why can't you state it ?

We are left with a very simple situation, you make a wide all encompassing unsupportable claim, not to discover a truth or learn about ElectroMagnetics in Physics, your emotional urge to push mere prejudice relying upon simplistic reading is:-
https://en.wikipe...sconduct

Direct link to your paper please ?

Jun 09, 2016
WHY not link directly to the paper
why not learn to read?
thats evasion
no... you claimed to have read it so there shouldn't be any reason to keep repeating the same thing - and i did reference the paper

so essentially you are claiming my references are not valid
that takes the burden of proof and puts it squarely on your own shoulders
a claim about a grand-daughter
the point was: she found it rather quickly. took less than half hour - why can't you find it?

it is a very simple situation: you have intentionally misinterpreted biological jargon for the sake of hysteria and promotion of a belief of your own (and certain other idiots) which is not found to be supported by facts as demonstrated by my references

You have also claimed said references to be invalid or non-factual

this is called: https://en.wikipe...sconduct

last post until you learn to read

i'll let you pseudoscience-troll away since you love it so

Jun 09, 2016
Captain Stumpy CS says
why not learn to read?
I have, mature scientists interested in convergence don't bark & obfuscate location of key papers to waste time, they're efficient & far smarter & move on !

I've already stated there's NO paper on ANY of the threads you claim covering:-
1. The Experimental Methodology AND Empirical Evidence to address your all encompassing claim that "THz radiation is harmless" !

Prove me wrong, link directly to paper, why 'hand wave' when appropriate to be direct ?

CS says
no... you claimed to have read it so there shouldn't be any reason to keep repeating the same thing - and i did reference the paper
None u claim relevant to 1.
Where is that specific paper ?

CS says
..so essentially you are claiming my references are not valid
Correct, nil references in any of the threads appropriate to 1.

Its a simple variant of the case You misread "Rigorous" in http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

ie facile & useless :/

Jun 09, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
.. said references to be invalid or non-factual
this is called: https://en.wikipe...sconduct
No. Re-read link which originated from me addressing your False characterization (P1) http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
is a proof to arrive at (C1) "THz radiation is harmless"

Your misconduct (within Danish definition). ie Claiming a paper P1 as a "proof" when its plainly NOT & Worse when advised of errors continuing to spout falsity C1 !

Whereas I'm reporting ALL papers you listed FAIL to address your C1

a. Intelligently link directly to top paper covering Scope of Work re your C1 ?

CS says
last post until you learn to read
learned to read Scientific Papers (SPs) since my early uni years, start 1976, how about you ?

b. Concise logic line; P1 to C1 ?

You've demeaned this a "fight" :/

So here are TWO great chances to 'win' & prove me completely wrong, are you "Rigorous" ?

Link (a) & Logic (b) please ?

Jun 09, 2016
Mike, the "person" you are arguing with is a troll, hiding here behind a phony name. There are few of us here who are real.

Jun 10, 2016
gkam says
.. the "person" you are arguing with is a troll, hiding here behind a phony name
At some point George really best to break the pattern you've been pushed into by the Gang; Captain Stumpy, Uncle Ira, & TheGhostofOtto1923.

They're mere bullies, demeaning & dragging your psyche down, not a post legacy you want to leave in remaining years when you can lift up

Besides, facile to call anyone names not well defined & even if clear what does it achieve ?

Eg Captain Stumpy calls me a "troll" because I continue to address his all encompassing extraordinary & facile claim that "THz radiation is harmless", his feeble attempt to demean reflects on him - as especially he's Nil appreciation of permutations re EM Physics etc...

Only way to address idiot Gangs who litter forums with redneck uneducated barbs going nowhere is focus on core Physics.

I realise you're well retired & may not be your focus but, reconsider provoking, take a breath & strategise well...

Jun 10, 2016
the "person" you are arguing with is a troll, hiding here behind a phony name
At some point George really best to break the pattern

You should try that thing Skippy, because when I see,,,,,

Uncle Ira,
,,,, it attracts my attention.

It also makes me think you are the hypocrite, actually it makes me think you are a lot things but mostly hypocrite because,,,,,
Besides, facile to call anyone names not well defined & even if clear what does it achieve ?
,,,,,,,shares the same space as,,,,,
mere bullies
and
redneck
and
idiot
What it achieves is attracting my attention, is that what you wanted?

Captain Stumpy calls me a "troll" because I continue to
,,,,you cross postum shrill hysterical maniacal rantings over and over and repeating some more overs. And he it right, you are.

Now why you don't take your meds and try to lay down and take the nap, eh?(Or quit taking the "meds" that make you act the way you do.)

Jun 10, 2016
Uncle Ira asks
What it achieves is attracting my attention, is that what you wanted?
Correct, since I'm absolutely sure you keenly track my posts & on hair trigger :P

For someone who's seriously claimed they *know* how to read a Scientific Paper (re Physics) but, without any; Physics education, training, experience or even critique's before; Professors, Post docs & Masters graduates please inform Audience the line of logic Captain Stumpy relied upon:-

To go from a mere model (P1) http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
to extraordinary all encompassing claim (C1) "THz radiation is harmless" ?

ie. As Captain Stumpy has overwhelmingly failed to offer *any* logic whatsoever & instead barks facile complaint I even asked the question. Can you with your unknown simple non-technical; education, training & experience articulate key steps:-

I'll help you, First step interpret; "Intent" followed by "Scope of Work"

ie Logic; P1 to C1, clear & concise over to you ?

Jun 10, 2016
Mike, the guy was just reacting emotionally. He has a fixation, and it puts him out-of-control for a while.

Jun 10, 2016
gkam says
Mike, the guy was just reacting emotionally. He has a fixation, and it puts him out-of-control for a while
George, do you think I am a mere teen who can't tell the simple patterns the Gang operate - which might be easily coded over time.

They have nil intellectual or psychological equipment to address anything even a little complex as they all share the sad & sorry aspect of nil education then of course they will fall into the mire of emotional attack, thats all they know, feel sorry for them :/

Each of the 3 members of the Gang has those very same attributes, thats WHY its important to focus on Physics, ie Make your posts worthwhile in THAT regard without facile pattern of tit for tat & take note of my advice (at least for the time being, halt the mechanistic retorts) ie Provoking just makes things Worse for you !

ie
"I realise you're well retired & may not be your focus but, reconsider provoking, take a breath & strategise well..." for a change

Jun 10, 2016
"strategize"?

Thanks, but I do not need to best any anonymous troll here, I just want to correct their character assassination, .. and provide perhaps some proper punitive response, . . .

I contacted a lawyer, and am waiting for some action.

Jun 10, 2016
For someone who's seriously claimed they *know* how to read a Scientific Paper (re Physics) but, without any; Physics education, training, experience or even critique's before; Professors, Post docs & Masters graduates please inform Audience the line of logic Captain Stumpy relied upon:-
What the heck does that mean Skippy?

I'll help you, First step interpret; "Intent" followed by "Scope of Work"
That was not much help Cher.

ie Logic; P1 to C1, clear & concise over to you ?
Z6 & L9 & over to you too.

Jun 10, 2016
@gkam
Please note my urging:-

"They're mere bullies, demeaning & dragging your psyche down, not a post legacy you want to leave in remaining years when you can lift up."

AND

"I realise you're well retired & may not be your focus but, reconsider provoking, take a breath & strategise well"

Not about "besting", its about breaking your pattern, its dragging you down as remaining time reduces. By interleaving your barbs with my posts you make yourself the same as them, thats a far worse situation further down - like toddlers upon each other in a sand pit :/

Laywers take your money, fake nicks aplenty like hydra, if one goes, more pop up & you lose more, far better to strategise re your patterns to achieve a positive outcome & instead make $, there are literally dozens of other forums to branch out, some pay for experience & are moderated. It doesn't stop you posting here, it just means you become wiser re the focus/content & become resistant to being provoked :-)

Jun 10, 2016
Uncle Ira bit
What the heck does that mean Skippy?
Simple, it shows you were false claiming you know how to read a Scientific Paper & shows you are unaware of the processes necessary to gain an understanding of such re the complexities involved.

Uncle Ira says
That was not much help Cher
Intent is simple & self-explanatory isn't it ?
Scope of work is in relation to what breadth of work it is intended to cover.

Uncle Ira pretending to be less intelligent says
Z6 & L9 & over to you too
The Scientific Paper is labelled P1, ie simple label to make it easier for you to keep track.

Claim by Captain Stumpy is likewise labelled ie C1 also to help you keep track.

Just as when you progress from one place to another. P1 was Captain Stumpy's starting point then he tried some thinking about wanting to show up gkam but, arrived at C1 as end point, is this difficult for you to understand ?

What is the reasoning he or you to go from P1 to C1 ie the steps ?

Jun 10, 2016
Uncle Ira bit
What the heck does that mean Skippy?
Simple, it shows you were false claiming you know how to read a Scientific Paper & shows you are unaware of the processes necessary to gain an understanding of such re the complexities involved.


It looked more like simple gobbledygook to me. Too many unconnected words and missing words to show much of anything. (Anything more than a person with mental conditions I mean.)

What makes you so sure I don't know the processes or how to read a paper? Because I talk with the funny accent? Lot peoples make that mistake.

Jun 10, 2016
Uncle Ira says
That was not much help Cher
Intent is simple & self-explanatory isn't it ?
Scope of work is in relation to what breadth of work it is intended to cover.
What does that have to do with you being the hypocrite on the adivisement with the name calling?

Uncle Ira pretending to be less intelligent says
Z6 & L9 & over to you too
The Scientific Paper is labelled P1, ie simple label to make it easier for you to keep track.


How I am supposed to know what your weird shorthand means?

Just as when you progress from one place to another. P1 was Captain Stumpy's starting point then he tried some thinking about wanting to show up gkam but, arrived at C1 as end point, is this difficult for you to understand ?

What is the reasoning he or you to go from P1 to C1 ie the steps ?


That still makes me wonder about T4 to R1. You will have to ask the Captain-Skippy about his steps, he is the one who took them.

Jun 10, 2016
How I am supposed to know what your weird shorthand means?
perzactly!
You will have to ask the Captain-Skippy about his steps, he is the one who took them
funny thing, @Ira... i tried to walk him thru it but he was far more concerned with his ego than the logic

this was why i asked for certain simple things - those steps i tried to put the pachinko-brain through would have walked him right through the logic as well as demonstrated the point i made... the reason he won't do it is because he doesn't want public verification of his failure

(which would also have sent him running scared because it would have pointed to a study that he obviously is lying about having read)

meh...

let him troll and bully folk here like he claims others do...

and i can prove myself and points in a court, so let gkam bring his lawyers too

LMFAO

Jun 10, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. As long as you know what he was talking about. All that P's and C's business with the things I don't have and the things I didn't ever say all mixed up together without any order or punctuations has me just as clueless as he is. Maybe that is what he was chooting for, eh?

All I was trying to point out is that it was pretty goofy for him to advisement to glam-Skippy not to call names while in the same postum he called "bully" and "idiot" and "redneck".

Anyhoo, we're having the really nice vacation and still have lots more to do.

Jun 10, 2016
we're having the really nice vacation
GLAD to hear that Ira... send a couple good pics when ya can and enjoy the rest of it!
if ya get a chance to head up north, see the redwoods and sequoia trees ... they're beautiful
it was pretty goofy for him to advisement to glam-Skippy not to call names while in the same postum he called "bully" and "idiot" and "redneck"
have you noticed that liar-kam does the exact same thing too?
goes on about name calling etc while name calling everyone who proved him an idiot!
wow, right?
As long as you know what he was talking about. All that P's and C's business with the things I don't have and the things I didn't ever say all mixed up together without any order or punctuations has me just as clueless as he is
i know what he meant to say

... but that is because i have dealt with special needs kids for years helping them learn to read and write, etc


Jun 11, 2016
Hi mikey
George, do you think I am a mere teen who can't tell the simple patterns the Gang operate - which might be easily coded over time
Yeah we're like ninja turtles. We're familiar with the smell of bullshit because we live in a sewer.

If you had more respect for facts and less for support from your troll menagerie, you'd be on our side. Maybe like that huge rat in the movie.

Ie you'd be a good guy. But you're not.

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira said
It looked more like simple gobbledygook to me
Sure, the simple can't understand labels, much simpler then yah think :-)

Eg What label best for this:- http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf[/url]]http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf[/url]

What label best for Captain Stumpy's (CS) facile claim "THz radiation is harmless" - FC1 ?

Uncle Ira
Too many unconnected words and missing words to show much of anything
Such as ? or technical terms in association with the paper you claim to know how to read ?

Uncle Ira says
What makes you so sure I don't know the processes or how to read a paper?
You claimed you understood the paper & tacitly supported CS' claim derived from the paper http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf[/url]]http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf[/url] that "THz radiation is harmless".

If as you claim, you know how to read a Scientific Paper, then (as Captain Stumpy can't), please explain his line of logic from
http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf]http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf[/url]]http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf[/url] to get "THz radiation is harmless" ?

Maybe your logic Very different to CS ?

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira claims
How I am supposed to know what your weird shorthand means?
See my last post, hasn't it occurred to you that labels are essential when dozens even hundreds of papers can be involved in discussion to arrive at substantive issues which are either; settled, need clarification or have pointers to Experimental Methodology to arrive at means to collect Empirical Evidence ?

Uncle Ira says
That still makes me wonder about T4 to R1
Are you pretending to be uneducated, even school children understand labels basic algebra such as term you can substitute or manipulate in an equation to arrive at solutions eg 'x', Capisce' ?

ie I defined P1 as the paper Captain Stumpy relied upon ie http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

& labelled C1 his extraordinary claim "THz radiation is harmless"

You haven't ever defined "T4 to R1" ?

Uncle Ira
You will have to ask the Captain-Skippy about his steps
He fails again :/

Can you show any logic, P1 to get C1 ?

Jun 14, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) claims
funny thing, @Ira... i tried to walk him thru it but he was far more concerned with his ego than the logic
Where have you ever outlined the concise steps to go from this paper (label it as P1):- http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

to arrive at your extraordinary claim (label it as C1):- "THz radiation is harmless" ?

CS claims
this was why i asked for certain simple things - those steps
You still fail to explain how repeating what you already did ie Counting & copy/paste achieves anything ?

CS claims
.. reason he won't do it is because he doesn't want public verification of his failure
No problem, I am quite happy to be proven wrong, ie I can't see any scientific logic that goes from P1 to C1

AND

You still fail to link directly to any secondary paper re Scope of Work on Empirical Evidence re C1

CS claims
..running scared because it would have pointed to a study..
Ok then scare me, direct link to paper please ?

Jun 14, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) claims
..i know what he meant to say
... but that is because i have dealt with special needs kids for years helping them learn to read and write..
Ah good, then tell us about your specific understanding which you got from those special needs kids of the value of efficiency labeling papers & claims etc

We have P1 which is the paper:- http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf
& your extraordinary claim C1 which is:- "THz radiation is harmless"
adding your secondary claim C2 "the paper proved THz was harmless,"

C2 more interesting re "proof" as P1 hasn't experiment, how can anyone go from P1 to C2 ?

On this thread others referenced can you label them, some:-

dx.doi.org/10.1002/adom.201600033
https://www.uml.e...7789.pdf
https://www.uml.e...2128.pdf

But, none on this thread have Scope of Work covering C1 or C2 :/

Direct link to that paper please ?

Jun 14, 2016
Like anything else, it depends on the amplitude, the amount, the application. Too much of anything is dangerous, by logic itself.

Montaigne was right.

Jun 14, 2016
@ Mikey-Skippy. I can't argue with very good right now. I am on my way home from vacation. And I am not sure what you want argue about with me non.

Don't ask me what the Captain-Skippy is thinking or saying, ask him. If he won't give you the answer you want, you will just have to do with the answer you get. I can't make him say what you want to hear any better than you can.

About your papers and C's and P's. I give an my opinion on what the current understandings of the subject is. Non more and non less either. You keep howling about proofs and such like. There are not proofs in this sort of thing. Only trending and preponderance of evidence.

As far as I can tell me, the preponderance of the evidence seems to indicate there is non good reason to think that infrared (THz radiations) is not particularly harmful. ANYTHING can be harmful if it is concentrated in the right way.

I am the engineer, not the scientist so I am not the medical expert, it's okay if I am wrong.

Jun 14, 2016
It must be "okay" a lot.

Jun 14, 2016
It must be "okay" a lot.


Less often than you by orders of magnitude Skippy. Just can't resist your trolling urging, eh? Okayeei with me Cher, all you had to do was ask and I am so glad to oblige you.

Jun 14, 2016
Here is another thing we have too much of, . . .

"Gun Industry Describes Mass Shootings Like Orlando As a 'Big Opportunity"

https://theinterc...un-sales

Too much means too much. It is the same for everything. Even terahertz radiation.

Jun 14, 2016
Here is another thing we have too much of, . . .

"Gun Industry Describes Mass Shootings Like Orlando As a 'Big Opportunity"

https://theinterc...un-sales

Too much means too much. It is the same for everything. Even terahertz radiation.


Now ain't that just cute, glam-Skippy made a new friend. Skippy you are truly as dumb as a cypress stump.

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira asks
.. argue about with me non
Pretense you don't know labels for a start, you say "I am the engineer", they can but, not you ?

Uncle Ira says
.. the answer you want
NOT looking for an answer "I want" I'm addressing CS understanding/approach & thus illustrating logic issues as to why he should NOT mislead the public with extraordinary all encompassing claims & which might even put some at risk !

Uncle Ira claims
You keep howling about proofs
No. Captain Stumpy made a claim the paper is a proof for a claim or that the paper proves something it just plainly cannot !

Uncle Ira almost there
There are not proofs in this sort of thing
Indeed, please remind CS he's completely wrong & to stop misleading, to man up & apologise

Uncle Ira
ANYTHING can be harmful if it is concentrated ..
Sure & re THz even "natural" re issues of DNA hydrolysis equilibria Eg via minerals & "constructive interference", ie CS needs to learn EM Physics.

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira asks

.. argue about with me non

Pretense you don't know labels for a start, you say "I am the engineer", they can but, not you ?


Skippy, you got the serious mental conditions. There are non pretenses about it. You write so weird that it is hard for anybody, including engineers and scientists, to be sure just what you are getting at. Has nothing to do with engineering or science training, it has to do with the way you torture the English language.

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira says

.. the answer you want

NOT looking for an answer "I want" I'm addressing CS understanding/approach & thus illustrating logic issues as to why he should NOT mislead the public with extraordinary all encompassing claims & which might even put some at risk !


Non Cher, that is a lie. You are not addressing CS anything. You are using me to address the "audience" about the the CS-Skippy. You got a problem with him about the P's and C's. I am not much caring about the P's and C's. I can not answer your questions about why the Captain-Skippy thinks this or that. Only he can do that.

And I can not make him do it for you non.

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira claims

You keep howling about proofs

No. Captain Stumpy made a claim the paper is a proof for a claim or that the paper proves something it just plainly cannot !


Skippy, you are one really disturbed individual. If you want to argue with the Captain-Skippy about the P's and C's, fine. I don't. Why you think I do?

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira almost there
I ain't never going to get all the way there as long you keep begging my attentions. Mrs-Ira-Skippette is a good driver her. But she is a slow driver too.

There are not proofs in this sort of thing

Indeed, please remind CS he's completely wrong & to stop misleading, to man up & apologise


Skippy man yourself up. You do your own reminding. It is not my place to be "reminding" anybody of anything. Why you think that is my thing to do, eh?

Jun 14, 2016
" It is not my place to be "reminding" anybody of anything."
-------------------------------

Yes, . . . thank you.

Go read Montaigne. You'll like him. Good stuff.

Jun 14, 2016
Uncle Ira

ANYTHING can be harmful if it is concentrated ..

Sure & re THz even "natural" re issues of DNA hydrolysis equilibria Eg via minerals & "constructive interference", ie CS needs to learn EM Physics.


Well I am not sure what CS-Skippy needs. But you sure need some help with your mental conditions. You suffer like this from being borned this way? Or did you bump your head along the way?

Now is there anything I wrote today that even has the slightest hint in him that I might be even just a little bit interested in CS-Skippy and Mikey-Skippy and the great mystery of the P's and the C's?

Jun 14, 2016
" It is not my place to be "reminding" anybody of anything."
-------------------------------

Yes, . . . thank you.
You are most welcome Cher.

Go read Montaigne.
If I run completely out of interesting stuffs I maybe will.

You'll like him.
I bet I won't. And I can even read him in his native language.

Good stuff.
If you say so. Maybe you and Nounemon-Skippy should get together sometime.

Jun 15, 2016
you still haven't addressed my requests, and you still haven't learned to read, but this was too funny not to reply to, because it is in black and white, so it makes you look stupid @pachinko-Mike
Where have you ever outlined the concise steps to go from this paper
1- i tried to get you to copy/paste all the references, which would lead you to

2- the walk thru in logical steps because

3- you can't f*cking read, as proven above and the other thread due to

4- your ego ( https://www.psych...ttle-ego ) and

5- because U dnt understand basic physics and biology, esp. wrt yr txt shrthnd tchno-b-bbl posting

why not learn to read?

Also, see Ira's comment
it has to do with the way you torture the English language
LMFAO

100 stars to Ira for that one!
you, sir, have won the internets today, vacation or not!
LMFAO


Jun 15, 2016
LSMFT

Yessirree, them letters are really hurtful. Yup, they sting much more than thought-out sentences.

Yup, you sure told that guy, . . .

Jun 15, 2016
LSMFT
LSMFT = Low Self esteem Means Friction and Trouble

at least you are finally able to admit your issues to everyone, liar-kam!

you know, there are ways to actually research things on the internet? no kidding! really!
even YOU can find the information, it's that easy!

take the above that you posted: LSMFT
type that into google and it will actually give you links to explain what it means so that even a geriatric doddering incompetent lying idiot like yourself can find answers to simple questions!

no joke!

try it... i will post one for you to look up:

FOAD!

enjoy
:-)

Jun 26, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
Still no mature retraction of your claim ?

Reminding you again your huge error re P1 to get C1/C2
ie Making false claims when you've NO knowledge of the subject for which P1 covers

You come across as a supremely unintelligent bully & Coward of the worst kind ignoring the Audience leaving dumb unsupportable claims that's not just Scientific Misconduct but public Negligence !

You Refuse to admit you've misled readers & forgetting posts are locked & can only be deleted by admins :/

You show NO respect for those that read later, any may be harmed by your huge failures of logic stemming from lack of; education, training & experience on the subject !

Unlike you, I studied THz radiation as part of qualifications in Food Science/Microbiology re alternative sterilizing methods @ Curtin !

I've read the papers you claim are relevant but, not one has necessary "Scope of Work" !

Please man up apologise for ugly misleading Gaffs ie P1 -> C1/C2 & others

Jun 26, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) claims
..you still haven't learned to read
See my posts, I studied THz radiation you've NOT !

CS says
..too funny...
What's smart about that re a Scientific Paper as part of a dumb false claim ?

CS claims ..copy/paste all the references, which would lead you No. There isn't any connect from mechanical copy/paste to any tutored methodology in logic - stupid !

CS says
..walk thru in logical steps
Walk through great, have done for students decades ago but, you need to find first:-

a. Experienced Teacher
b. Someone trained in ElectroMagnetic (EM) Physics
c. And trained in Microbiology

Who's educated in a to c ?

Is it me (@Curtin Uni) or did you get any education from maybe an ipod driving 600+ hrs in your truck ?

CS claims
can't f*cking read, as proven above
False, You've NIL training reading Scientific papers ie Learn "Scope of Work" re advice in my posts ?

CS says
LMFAO
Ugly, your gaffs are serious errors !

Jun 28, 2016
f*cking stupid pachinko mike the illiterate claims
Still no mature retraction of your claim ?
unlike you, i can actually read

if you want to play stupid, by all means, go ahead and play stupid

nou is doing the same thing here: http://phys.org/n...pse.html

maybe you two can get together and talk about being illiterate twins?

-Making false claims when you've NO knowledge of the subject

-You come across as a supremely unintelligent bully & Coward of the worst kind ignoring reality & leaving dumb unsupportable claims that's not just Scientific Misconduct but public Negligence and f*cking stupid of you

You Refuse to admit you've misled readers & forgetting posts are locked & can only be deleted by admins

You show NO respect for those that read later, any may be harmed by your huge failures of logic stemming from lack of; education, training & experience on the subject

not gonna keep this up if you can't learn to read

Jun 28, 2016
@f*cking illiterate mike
-I studied the references and THz radiation studies above, you've NOT

-I've read the papers and know they're relevant but you can't seem to find a single reference or it's "Scope of Work" in the above
CTRL broke?
or just you?
it can't be both... because CTRL works fine for everyone else except the illiterate

i'm so tired of this continuing argument i will let you have the last word after this post because until you actually READ THE F*CKING REFERENCES then we can't have a logical methodical conversation, and i know you haven't read them because you keep going on about sh*t you should know for a fact is above in the references

if you want to be or play stupid like benji/kam... that is fine by me

but don't expect me to keep playing this game with you while you continue to act like reg mundy or o-sz

-Please man up apologise for ugly misleading Gaffs ie lst 2psts

bye mike, until you read the references

Jun 28, 2016
@Captain_Stumpy
Your post here May 2, 2016 made the extraordinary claim (label C1)
"THz is harmless to humans"
linking paper (label P1) http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf

A Most Massive Gaff !

You don't understand "Scope of Work" but, also irrational as Nil evidence because you say "..used experimentation" how is that even possible ?

You repeated P1 four TIMES here
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

Its clear your motivation was *only* to bully gkam, & not educate {audience}, you couldn't have understood it as there's NO evidence yet you claim "experimentation", how so ?

I've asked how you got from P1 to C1 but, you can't answer !

It tells us you've NO Science route, you've misread P1, especially so context of "rigorous" at end failing to appreciate its breadth ?

We're left with 2 posts today making more (ugly) claims but, still no link to another paper ?

You urge use ctrl-f but, WHAT search string please ?

Integrity ?

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