'Electric wind' can strip Earth-like planets of oceans, atmospheres

June 20, 2016 by Bill Steigerwald, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
The space environment around a planet plays a key role in determining what molecules exist in the atmosphere -- and whether the planet is habitable for life. New NASA research shows that the electric fields around Venus helped strip its atmosphere of the components needed to make water. Credit: NASA/Conceptual Image Lab.

Venus has an "electric wind" strong enough to remove the components of water from its upper atmosphere, which may have played a significant role in stripping Earth's twin planet of its oceans, according to new results from ESA's (European Space Agency) Venus Express mission by NASA-funded researchers.

"It's amazing, shocking," said Glyn Collinson, a scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We never dreamt an electric wind could be so powerful that it can suck oxygen right out of an atmosphere into space. This is something that has to be on the checklist when we go looking for habitable planets around other stars." Collinson is lead author of a paper about this research published June 20, 2016, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Venus is in many ways the most like Earth in terms of its size and gravity, and there's evidence that it once had oceans worth of water in its distant past. However, with surface temperatures around 860 F (460 C), any oceans would have long since boiled away to steam and Venus is uninhabitable today. Yet Venus' thick atmosphere, about 100 times the pressure of Earth's, has 10,000 to 100,000 times less water than Earth's atmosphere. Something had to remove all that steam, and the current thinking is that much of the early steam dissociated to hydrogen and oxygen: the light hydrogen escaped, while the oxygen oxidized rocks over billions of years. Also the solar wind—a million-mile-per-hour stream of electrically conducting gas blowing from the sun—could have slowly but surely eroded the remainder of an ocean's worth of oxygen and water from Venus' upper atmosphere.

"We found that the electric wind, which people thought was just one small cog in a big machine, is in fact this big monster that's capable of sucking the water from Venus by itself," said Collinson.

The space environment around a planet plays a key role in determining what molecules exist in the atmosphere — and whether the planet is habitable for life. New NASA research shows that the electric fields around Venus helped strip its atmosphere of the components needed to make water. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Genna Duberstein

Just as every planet has a gravity field, it is believed that every planet with an atmosphere is also surrounded by a weak electric field. While the force of gravity is trying to hold the atmosphere on the planet, the electric force (the same force that sticks laundry together in a drier and pushes electricity through wires) can help to push the upper layers of the atmosphere off into space. At Venus, the much faster hydrogen escapes easily, but this electric field is so strong that it can accelerate even the heavier electrically charged component of water—oxygen ions—to speeds fast enough to escape the planet's gravity. When water molecules rise into the upper atmosphere, sunlight breaks the water into hydrogen and oxygen ions, which are then carried away by the electric field.

"If you were unfortunate enough to be an oxygen ion in the upper atmosphere of Venus then you have won a terrible, terrible lottery," said Collinson, "You and all your ion friends will be dragged off kicking and screaming into space by an invisible hand, and nothing can save you."

Venus and Earth are similar sizes and have similar gravity -- but Venus is bone dry and more than 10 times as hot as our home planet. Recent NASA research describes a key process that removes water from the Venusian atmosphere. Credit: NASA/Conceptual Image Lab.

The team discovered Venus' electric field using the electron spectrometer, a component of the ASPERA-4 instrument, aboard the ESA Venus Express. They were monitoring electrons flowing out of the upper atmosphere when it was noticed that these electrons were not escaping at their expected speeds. The team realized that these electrons had been tugged on by Venus' potent electric field. By measuring the change in speed, the team was able to measure the strength of the field, finding it to be much stronger than anyone had expected, and at least five times more powerful than at Earth.

"We don't really know why it is so much stronger at Venus than Earth," said Collinson, "but, we think it might have something to do with Venus being closer to the sun, and the ultraviolet sunlight being twice as bright. It's a challenging thing to measure and even at Earth to date all we have are upper limits on how strong it might be."

New research suggests that the electric field around Venus may be a key factor in shaping what molecules exist in the Venusian atmosphere -- including its lack of the molecules needed to make water. Credit: NASA/Conceptual Image Lab.

Such information also helps us understand other worlds around the solar system.

"We've been studying the electrons flowing away from Titan [a moon of Saturn] and Mars as well as from Venus, and the ions they drag away to space," said Andrew Coates, who leads the electron spectrometer team at University College London in the U.K. "The new result here shows that the electric field powering this escape is surprisingly strong at Venus compared to the other objects. This will help us understand how this universal process works."

Another planet where the electric wind may play an important role is Mars. NASA's MAVEN mission is currently orbiting Mars to determine what caused the Red Planet to lose much of its atmosphere and water. "We are actively hunting for Mars' electric wind with MAVEN's full arsenal of scientific instruments," said Collinson. "MAVEN is a robotic detective on this four-billion-year-old mystery of where the atmosphere and oceans went, and the electric wind has long been a prime suspect."

Taking the electric wind into account will also help astronomers improve estimates of the size and location of habitable zones around other stars. These are areas where the temperature could allow liquid water to exist on the surface of alien worlds, making them places where life might be found. Some stars emit more ultraviolet light than the sun, so if this creates stronger electric winds in any planets orbiting them, the habitable zone around such stars may be farther away and narrower than thought. "Even a weak electric wind could still play a role in water and atmospheric loss at any planet," said Alex Glocer of NASA Goddard, a co-author on the paper. "It could act like a conveyor belt, moving ions higher in the ionosphere where other effects from the solar wind could carry them away."

ESA's Venus Express was launched on Nov. 9, 2005, to study the complex atmosphere of Venus. The electron spectrometer was built by the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, and is led by University College London. The spacecraft orbited Venus between 2006 and December 2014. After a successful mission that far exceeded its planned life, the spacecraft exhausted its fuel supply and burned up upon entry into Venus' dense atmosphere. The research was funded by NASA's MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) mission and NASA's Solar System Workings program.

Explore further: Researchers find planet-sized space weather explosions at Venus

More information: G. Collinson et al. 'The Electric Wind of Venus: A global and persistent 'polar wind' like ambipolar electric field sufficient for the direct escape of heavy ionospheric ions' will be published in Geophysical Research Letters on Monday 20th June 2016, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068327

Related Stories

What are the chances of life on another planet?

May 9, 2016

In an infinite universe, most scientists agree, the odds of life existing on a planet besides Earth are pretty high. It is unlikely, however, that familiar life forms will be found on any planet within our solar system. Life ...

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AGreatWhopper
3.8 / 5 (26) Jun 20, 2016
Very interesting. Please oh please oh please oh please, can we have some real moderation and a decent discussion on this one for once?
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 20, 2016
"We never dreamt an electric wind could be so powerful that it can suck oxygen right out of an atmosphere into space.

There goes that ignorance again...

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Hannes Alfvèn

If they weren't so ignorant, they could have at least "dreamt" it up.
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (16) Jun 20, 2016
We found that the electric wind, which people thought was just one small cog in a big machine, is in fact this big monster...

At least science is starting to get the BIG picture
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (22) Jun 20, 2016
OMG here we go! There will be a pile of EU nuts misunderstanding what the findings here are and claiming they knew all of this all along and Hans Alfven is a gawd among men, and all manner of "told you so's".

And they will still be wrong, and they will still not understand why they are wrong.

Here's a hint:

"We are actively hunting for Mars' electric wind with MAVEN's full arsenal of scientific instruments," said Collinson. "MAVEN is a robotic detective on this four-billion-year-old mystery of where the atmosphere and oceans went, and the electric wind has long been a prime suspect."


Because REAL astronomers and astrophysicists (well, along with physicists and chemists and essentially every other scientific discipline) already account for the things the EU Acolytes claim they don't.
dnatwork
3 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2016
Weird. Years ago I thought this mechanism must be how Mars lost its water. The professionals are just getting around to thinking about it for any planet? Maybe they've been waiting for data to prove the possibility?
Otto_Szucks
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 20, 2016
Yes, SM scientists never (or hardly ever) commit to a hypothesis without first checking a computerized model before peer reviewing to make it more palatable.
The water of both Mars and Venus all wound up on Earth eventually. Comets are said to carry hydrogen and oxygen atoms. It is highly probable that comets traveling through the clouds of H2O molecules in interplanetary space scooped up those molecules and deposited them into Earth's atmosphere. It was part of the plan to turn Earth into a watery world where life could eventually rise up and be sustained, something that would not have happened on hot and/or dry planets.
Good article.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (21) Jun 20, 2016
I was unaware that electricity could bind anything to anything....
Electricity binds to the socks in your dryer.

Just sayin'.
gculpex
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2016
10 Volts is really a tiny voltage. Not enough to keep Venus from flying away from the Sun.


How many volts are required? I was unaware that electricity could bind anything to anything....

Since Venus has a potential of 10 V it has a charge of 60 million Coulombs.
Which is not to say that electric, magnetic, plasma effects are not important.


So the Earth has less than 12 million Coulombs? Not enough for all the lightning strikes going on around the world...
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 20, 2016
I was unaware that electricity could bind anything to anything....
Electricity binds to the socks in your dryer.

Just sayin'.
- da schnozola
STATIC electricity does, indeed, interacts with the fibers in clothing. Not quite the same thing as binding atoms and molecules together, though. That would take the Force of Electromagnetism to BIND matter with matter.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 20, 2016
Errr, the electric charge on Venus is by definition static.

And I don't see what point you're trying to make talking about binding atoms into molecules; OTOH it's another way that electric charge binds things together, so thanks for that.
AGreatWhopper
3.6 / 5 (23) Jun 21, 2016
You can unmask these EU cranks and get some satisfaction by showing up in Phoenix, last week of June

AGreatWhopper3.4 / 5 (10) 18 hours ago
Very interesting. Please oh please oh please oh please, can we have some real moderation and a decent discussion on this one for once?
cantdrive851.7 /5 (6) 18 hours ago
"We never dreamt an electric wind could be so powerful that it can suck oxygen right out of an atmosphere into space.

There goes that ignorance again...


Yup. There you are. And a big FU from the moderator. Direct request to do their job, the biggest crank spammer in the world immediately after, no action. Well, same to ya, mod!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 21, 2016
That's nothing compared to how EU cranks like BS/benni and cantthink suck the oxygen right out of a discussion.


......and as we continue breathlessly awaiting Schneibo to put up his Partial Differential Equations to explain to the unfaithful, as well as the faithful, his thesis for creating Infinite Gravity Wells inside the finite stellar mass of a black hole. Maybe you know how to do it?

By the way, what is this EU thing you're identifying me with? I have NEVER embarked on any discussion about EU in any post I've ever made. Want to make me out a LIAR? You confuse my challenges to your Funny Farm Pseudo-sciences of a BH's Infinite Gravity Wells & the zany Zwicky acolyte crowd who imagine 80% of the Universe is missing. Of course I'm sure you're one of those who look in a mirror & wishes 80% of you really was missing.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 21, 2016
These guys aren't perceptive. I have debated Cantdrive about EU fundamentals more times than I have rolled around on the floor laughing


@ bshott.....the reason I come here is not to convince BELIEVERS or DISBELIEVERS about anything, it's simply for the entertainment value I get watching the Phys1s & Schneibs go absolutely spastic when they are challenged to put up evidence for things they claim can be found within the most astute theses ever created since Einstein produced SR & GR. It's only to the occasional passive reader who drops by for an brief synopsis on the subject matter to whom I'm addressing my commentary.

We get this plethora of neophytes showing up here who claim to know about "secret science" if only we knew how to read in between the lines as well as they do. Poor dumb Einstein, know wonder even he couldn't solve those Partial DEs that Schneibo claims to have solutions for.

Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2016
It was part of the plan to turn Earth into a watery world where life...yadda...
Otto nails his colors to the mast: "there was a 'plan' all along, folks"...
- FSC
You have no idea, but you will soon enough.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 21, 2016
Since Venus has a potential of 10 V it has a charge of 60 million Coulombs. Its gravitational potential energy due to the sun is 6e33 Joules, so the sun would have to produce a ludicrous voltage at the location of Venus of 1e26 V.
Conclusion: EU is bs

There is nothing in your post that is relevant to the EU, what is BS is you non sequitur comment and your completely erroneous "conclusion". If you (or any of your fellow zealots) want to show the EU to be wrong you should at least get a clue. Your ignorance of the matters at hand are only trumped by your ignorance of Plasma Cosmology and the EU. BTW, your pith ball electrostatics and incorrect geometry are meaningless in describing this electrodynamic plasma. All of your preconceived notions are nothing more than false knowledge. Just as with astrophysicists, you think you know the correct physics, but you are dramatically incorrect.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2016
Here's a simple experiment anyone with a brain can perform to understand how deluded @bschott is:

Obtain a battery (say a 9V), a resistor (say a 1/4W 500 ohm more or less), and a couple wires (you'll want one long one, say a foot or 100 cm or thereabouts).

Get a good compass.

This will give you about an 18 mA current, which shouldn't burn the resistor.

Now wrap the long part of the wire around the compass, connect one end of it to the battery, and connect the other end to one side of the resistor. Next, connect the short wire to the other end of the resistor.

You can now use the other end of the short wire to touch to the unconnected side of the battery. Watch the compass while you connect, then disconnect, then do it a couple more times.

There it is, folks. All currents make a magnetic field. Simple as that. First grade physics.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 21, 2016
You'll need around 20 turns of wire around the compass to see much deflection; 100 turns would be better but it's a bit of a waste of wire unless you have plenty lying around.

On edit: better make that a couple meters (6 feet) of wire on the long side so you can make enough turns. My bad.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2016
If you want official instructions, try these, it's pretty much the same experiment:

http://www.hometr...anometer

Careful, with this one the wire will get hot if you leave it connected- enough to burn you! Mine has a resistor to prevent that. ;)

If you use a 1.5V D cell instead of a 9V battery, you can use a 10 ohm 1/4 W resistor for safety if you like. The more loops around the compass, the stronger the effect.

From this it's obvious that a bunch of plasma moving in a circle will make a magnetic field that points out of the axis of the circle. And it's also obvious bschott hasn't got a clue.
Otto_Szucks
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2016
Really ? What if I told you that electricity binds atoms and molecules together?

I would tell you that you are really stupid for saying that

Only a psycho could say that in good faith.
Are you and Benni in the same institution?
- Pissypants1

There is nothing psychotic about telling the truth that you fuckt up. Actually, both you AND da schmucko fuckt up royally on something that a fifth grader could have explained to either of you.
bschott is entirely correct when he called you out on your big mess-up. You should THANK bschott for calling it to your attention before you make an even bigger fool of yourself with some grade-schooler who knows what YOU didn't know.

:)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2016
There is nothing psychotic about telling the truth
What "truth?" Are you also claiming that atoms aren't held together in molecules by the electric force?

Really?

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 21, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
All currents make a magnetic field. Simple as that. First grade physics.
You inform us of that as if no-one has said it before, many times, including cantdrive and Alfven et al. It's their detractors who have denied that magnetic fields are associated with electric currents. Now that you confirm cantdrive and Alfven et al were correct, have you anything to tell their detractors who have been denying that obvious fact all along as a 'basis' for trolling cantdrive and Alfven et al on that issue?

PS: While you're at it, have you any opinion on why a Black Hole can have CHARGE but a Star cannot, as has been claimed by some when trolling cantdrive and Alfven? Just asking as an impartial observer. Take your time. Thanks mate :)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2016
You inform us of that as if no-one has said it before, many times, including cantdrive and Alfven et al. It's their detractors who have denied that magnetic fields are only associated with electric currents.
An electric current is a flow of electric charge. In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.
Source: https://en.wikipe..._current

As usual you have it exactly bass-ackwards. Yes, magnetic fields are only associated with electric currents. An electric current isn't a flow of electrons, necessarily; any charged particles will do just fine. In fact that quote says it's proper to call a flow of liquid electrolyte containing ions an electric current, never mind a flowing plasma.

Let's see how cantdrive likes that.
Otto_Szucks
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 22, 2016
There is nothing psychotic about telling the truth
What "truth?" Are you also claiming that atoms aren't held together in molecules by the electric force?

Really?
- da schmoe
Read my 'lips' - e-l-e-c-t-r-o-m-a-g-n-e-t-i-c f-i-e-l-d. Stronger than gravity. Get it?
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2016
Yes, that's also correct in colloquial English.

Did you have some point, or are you just exercising your fingers by typing tautologies?
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2016
Yes indeed, electrolytes are extremely important. Even living cells contain electrolytes. 'A substance that dissociates into ions in solution acquires the capacity to conduct electricity.'
Now where are CD and/or hannes_alfven? I am anxious to reveal my realization.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 22, 2016
You don't even know what an electrolyte *is*.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
As usual you have it exactly bass-ackwards. Yes, magnetic fields are only associated with electric currents. An electric current isn't a flow of electrons, necessarily; any charged particles will do just fine. In fact that quote says it's proper to call a flow of liquid electrolyte containing ions an electric current, never mind a flowing plasma.

Let's see how cantdrive likes that.
Again you deliberately 'constrain' the context my comment was made in, so that you could go off on a tangent of strawmanning from your own 'construction'. Of course all know the various 'current' scenario; including 'ionic charge transport' in all sorts of scenarios, physics, chemistry biology etc. The context was the usual types of current encountered in the usual states, including 'partial' astro plasmas. So please stop with unfounded accusations based on your own 'constructions' out of context.

PS: Just curious: Did you know about the 'Caterpillar Drive' involving ions?
Enthusiastic Fool
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2016
'Caterpillar Drive' involving ions


A magnetohydrodynamic drive with no moving parts that would sound like a magma displacement or whales humping? Anything but a submarine...

I<3 Hunt for Red October.
BongThePuffin
Jun 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
BongThePuffin
Jun 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AGreatWhopper
3.5 / 5 (21) Jun 22, 2016
Don't really need the assistance, but thx anyway.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 22, 2016
Appears @RC is out of technobabble word salad arguments and this is evident by the fact that it has turned the conversation to accusations on a personal level. Thanks for acknowledging you don't know what you're talking about as usual, @RC.
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2016
@BongThePuffin (Isn't that illegal?)

"BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT
Ffffffrrrrppppppp
fffrrrrpppp"

You are Don Martin and I claim my 5 pounds.

http://hairygreen...nto.html
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 22, 2016
Hi Da Scneib. :)
Appears @RC is out of technobabble word salad arguments and this is evident by the fact that it has turned the conversation to accusations on a personal level. Thanks for acknowledging you don't know what you're talking about as usual, @RC.
Don't you ever learn from your past faux pas, mate? How many times have you mouthed off and 'accused' etc based on what you think is correct/going on, and then later (eventually) having to eat your arrogant/boasting/accusatory words because you haven't caught up with the status quo known science/understandings?

You employ a PROVEN tactic of suddenly expanding the context to muddy the waters for your strawmen and then claiming you are right and I wrong/lying etc.

If you aren't caught up with your 'reading/understanding' in the field, don't kneejerk to assuming you're 'right' and others, who know more, 'wrong'.

That bad habit undermines all the good work you DO do when you ARE correct, polite. Chill mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@homicidal_maniac.
...you dream of "hunting down you useless tools and dispatching you instead of just laughing at you here."
That looks like a dangerous personality..
Mate, it's this sort of self-serving confirmaion biased 'reading' and twisting that brings 'mainstream defenders' into disrepute and so gives ammunition and justification to your detractors to make the disparaging comments they do. Why do you keep doing this IF you are actually a physicist as you claim?

Noted from the exchanges:

- YOU keep calling HIM insane, homicidal etc etc.

- bschott response with IF he WAS what YOU claim, then he would be hunting you down etc etc.

See BIG IF dependent on YOUR characterization being 'correct'?

Can you see the obvious NON SEQUITUR? He hasn't hunted you down etc; so he ISN't as YOU characterize him, is he?

THAT's what he was pointing out to you/forum. Your 'reading' it as 'proof' of your characterization is NON SEQUITUR.

Calm down. Ok? :)
Otto_Szucks
1.6 / 5 (19) Jun 22, 2016
It is the electric field that binds atoms and molecules.
Magnetic fields do not play a role.
So why the troll spells out electromagnetic is a mystery of wrongly connected neurons.

- Pissypants1

You describe your own wrongly connected neurons with their missing axons quite well.
Electric fields, electric currents alone are NOT what binds matter with matter. That's what comes of your book larnin' in the Standard Model...you are now a bitter-clinger.

It is the Force of ElectroMagnetism that brings atoms and molecules of matter together and helps them remain in that state - tightly bound. The egg yolk material that are your eyes would not bind together on just an electric current alone. LOL
The Magnetic Force allows the material to bind, in the form of EM. Electricity alone doesn't bind anything to anything else. Perhaps your wig is on too tight.
LMAO
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2016
You don't even know what an electrolyte *is*.
- da schnooperpooper

You have made a false claim. As CapnSlurpy would say, - "and your substantiation/evidence for that is....?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
He has thoughts of physically disposing of the people that speak against him.
Posting such tendencies is a threat. Period.
That was IN CONTEXT of explaining to YOU/forum WHY your characterization was wrong. It was for the SAKE OF ARGUMENT highlighting the non-sequitur in your characterizations/accusations etc. PLease don't be stubborn and emotionally attached to unreasonable personal attacks/miscontruings at all costs to scientific demeanor and fairness in discussion. What's the point in perpetuating such exchanges? Drop this vein of feeding into such antagonisms and distractions which make all claims to being 'scientific' and 'objective' just so much lip service to the scientific method principles which you and all us scientists follow IF we are genuine such. Chill, mate. Forget and forgive; and concentrate on the interesting and exciting New Year of discovery and reconciliation which is 'happening' even as we speak! Cheers, Phys1, everyone. :)
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2016
Pissypants1 sez:
@RC
He has thoughts of physically disposing of the people that speak against him.
Posting such tendencies is a threat. Period.
- Pissypants1

Wrong again. YOU speak against him ALL the time and he has never done anything or threatened to end your miserable career as a dumbed down scientist-pretending parasite. I would kick your ass if I could just for having the nerve to call yourself a "scientist", which we all know is only in your imagination or wishful thinking.

Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2016
Otto_Szucks 1 /5 (1) 3 hours ago

Read my 'lips' - e-l-e-c-t-r-o-m-a-g-n-e-t-i-c f-i-e-l-d. Stronger than gravity. Get it?


Read my lips.

BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT
Ffffffrrrrppppppp
fffrrrrpppp
ffrrpp
ffffrrrrrrrpppppp
PFFT!
PHHhhhh...
SPLPLPLLLP!
WHOooooffff!

Now THAT'S an electric wind.
- PuffinDong

That's a lot of characters out of 1000 just to explain that you farted. Have you had a GI series done to see if you have stomach cancer? Perhaps a colostomy to see if you have rectal cancer? Do you bend over a lot with your panties down for your friends to plink your anus with their worm-sized appendages? That would be quite an ugly sight to behold.

LMAO
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 22, 2016
@homicidal_maniac
So not only you see everybody else as "idiot" but also you invent crimes your opponents are supposed to be guilty of. And then you dream of "hunting down you useless tools and dispatching you instead of just laughing at you here."
That looks like a dangerous personality disorder to me.
Report to the nearest mental institution before you really snap and accidents happen.
- Phys1 aka Pissypants1

You have been caught in a grievous error wrt to the Four Forces and you appear to have decided to turn the table on your accuser by using your old standby tricks to cast aspersions on an innocent man. As bschott never mentioned anything untoward that would indicate what you falsely accuse him of, the only possibility is that it is YOU who has a mental disorder and need psychiatric help. You, and those who are like you, don't belong in Phys.org threads. You are an abomination and you crap out so easily when you are proven wrong. Did you fail high school science?
AlbertPierrepointOBE
3.9 / 5 (22) Jun 23, 2016
What is it about illogical idiots that they think that if they laugh they've proven you wrong?
Why do the delusional always think everyone else's thoughts are delusions and their mental illness is revelation?

I think with BS it's a close run affair between home schooled and no schooled. Her contempt of "textbook education" is certainly consistent.
AlbertPierrepointOBE
3.9 / 5 (22) Jun 23, 2016
General rebuttal to all the anti-education, "it only teaches you stupid biases" types on here.

Yeah, not all education is great. Some things you are taught turn out to be wrong. But you're still wrong, and here's why.

My grandfather was a bass player in a number of "big bands" in the '30s and after he retired from the scene one of his former band mates got a position teaching piano at Julliard. Grandad was visiting NY and his friend invited him to watch a lesson. The guy played some really far out improv jazz he had written. After the lesson my Grandad asked him how he knew if the guy was worth listening to or if he was just banging away. The instructor said, "Oh, that's a second year student". "In the first year, I restrict them to the classics and they only get here if they're competent with that".

This is the nub of it. You don't get to spin alternative theories until you master the standard narrative. It's called education.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2016
Why do the delusional always think everyone else's thoughts are delusions and their mental illness is revelation?
It's another symptom. And it's why delusions are so hard to get rid of.
BurnsTrollsAlive
Jun 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 23, 2016
This is the nub of it. You don't get to spin alternative theories until you master the standard narrative. It's called education.
........does this cover claiming solutions to Partial Differential Equations in General Relativity?

Why do the delusional always think everyone else's thoughts are delusions and their mental illness is revelation?
It's another symptom. And it's why delusions are so hard to get rid of.


You betcha Schneibo, you should know, after all you're claiming to have solutions to Partial DEs in Einstein's General Relativity whereby you claim contain the calculations for Infinite Gravity Wells inside the finite masses of Black Holes. Are you still reading in between the lines, or does that delusion still remain so hard to get at? I'm not deluded about the existence of such DEs, so why are you?

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 23, 2016
You betcha Schneibo, you should know, after all you're claiming to have solutions to Partial DEs in Einstein's General Relativity
Posted here: http://phys.org/n...ity.html

Refresher:

-m'' + m'n' - m'² - 2m'/r = 0
m'' + m'² - m'n' - 2m'/r = 0
e⁻²ⁿ (1 + m'r - n'r) - 1 = 0
R₂₂ sin² ϕ = 0

Source: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf
Sheik_Yerbuti
Jun 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sheik_Yerbuti
Jun 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Jun 23, 2016
You betcha Schneibo, you should know, after all you're claiming to have solutions to Partial DEs in Einstein's General Relativity
Posted here: http://phys.org/n...ity.html

Hey there Crank, try something else & don't forget this time to point out the calculation for INFINITE GRAVITY, something these funny farm pseudo-science calculations keep forgetting.

Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 23, 2016
try something else
Why? You wanted PDEs from GRT for the Schwartzchild solution, you got 'em. Right there. No questions, no doubts, full derivation and justification for setting them equal to zero. Link: http://www.etsu.e...esis.pdf

Squirm and twist however you like, you got what you said you wanted and now you claim there's something wrong with it that you can't specify. Like I said on the other thread, be careful what you ask for, you may get it. Now choke on it.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

To dispel any ambiguity between us on this:
@RC
Do you at least agree that he is totally out of line making such a statement?
In that context, I read his response to your/others "insane, psychopath etc" characterizations of him. His point was that IF he was as you/others assert, he would be doing what he describes an insane, pscyho etc would do. Implication? He was not doing so; ergo he was not as you/others characterized him.
Or does your urge to be friends with even the greatest lunatics dominate?
I am scrupulous LONER and independent objective impartial. In Science and Humanity discourse, I treat all as friends unless/until they prove otherwise.
..posts indicate a troubled personality.
That could be said of too many posters here (including 'mainstream defender' Trolls. In some cases it's even indicated in the name; eg: BurnsTrollsAlive).

Ok? :)

PS: This NEW YEAR I asked everyone to cool it. No avail. Blame enough all round. Good luck, mate.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (17) Jun 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
This assumes that as long as he is no out trying to "dispatch" me he is not a psycho. Non sequitur.
That was obviously his hypothetical rebuttal based on 'present indications' against your/others characterizations of him. No-one can claim to 'know' what anyone (including you/me/others) may indicate/do in future.
Implication? He was not doing so;
How do _you_ know?
How do I know you/others are not doing such? It's a matter of probabilities on indications/reasoning etc 'read' in the conversation.
ergo he was not as you/others characterized him
I did not characterise him thus. A psycho is someone who has lost contact with reality, which is obviously his case. When you call people "homicidal maniac" you don't mean to imply they are insane and/or psycho?

Mate, obviously such conversations must be read in context; with give-and-take re figures of speech and 'illustrative devices' like exaggeration/hypothetical to stress the point. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 24, 2016
Reformat/Edit:

Hi Phys1. :)
This assumes that as long as he is no out trying to "dispatch" me he is not a psycho
That was obviously his hypothetical rebuttal based on 'present indications' against your/others characterizations of him. No-one can claim to 'know' what anyone (including you/me/others) may indicate/do in future/elsewhere.
Implication? He was not doing so;
How do _you_ know?
How do I know you/others are not doing such? It's a matter of probabilities on indications/reasoning etc 'read' in the conversation
ergo he was not as you/others characterized him
I did not characterise him thus. A psycho is someone who has lost contact with reality, which is obviously his case.
When you say "homicidal maniac" you don't mean to imply they are insane and/or psycho?

Mate, obviously such conversations must be read in context; with give-and-take re figures of speech and 'illustrative devices' like exaggeration/hypothetical to stress the point. OK? :)
AGreatWhopper
3.9 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2016
It's interesting how the #1 thing people whine about is what they do on here. That one whined incessantly about "threats" and now we know why. It was jealous.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 24, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
When you call people "homicidal maniac" you don't mean to imply they are insane and/or psycho?

I called him such _after_ he suggested to "dispatch" me.

Mate, obviously such conversations must be read in context ... Ok?

Not OK at all. Totally out of line to say the least.
Anyway I am done with your mediation. The man is a psycho. Live with it.
Were you not in that group of attackers who characterized him as such for some time now, which finally culminated in his response which started this latest episode in that continuing personal/character 'group attack' on him rather than the science posted by him?

If you weren't part of that 'group attack', and/or you never called him "insane" etc before that point, then I stand corrected, mate!

Good luck and good thinking, Phys1, everyone; both on-science and on-humanity discourse! :)
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 24, 2016
No evidence implies no respect.
Absolutely, @Phys1. I think if I could point to something that irritates me on a science forum, it's people who make claims and when pressed for evidence can't come up with anything and won't admit it. From there the tactics used by such individuals generally degenerate either into politicking or philosophy, I've observed. The first implies that people get to vote on reality; the second that a bunch of navel-gazing bullsh*t is more important than reality. Both are obviously idiotic.
KaFaraqGatri
Jun 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
KaFaraqGatri
Jun 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ChiefFartingDog
Jun 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ChiefFartingDog
Jun 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 25, 2016
You can unmask these EU cranks and get some satisfaction by showing up in Phoenix, last week of June

AGreatWhopper3.4 / 5 (10) 18 hours ago
Very interesting. Please oh please oh please oh please, can we have some real moderation and a decent discussion on this one for once?
cantdrive851.7 /5 (6) 18 hours ago
"We never dreamt an electric wind could be so powerful that it can suck oxygen right out of an atmosphere into space.

There goes that ignorance again...


Yup. There you are. And a big FU from the moderator. Direct request to do their job, the biggest crank spammer in the world immediately after, no action. Well, same to ya, mod!

LOL. That's rich coming from AGreatWanker, who has over a dozen sock-puppets so that he can up vote and talk to himself.
If that's not psychotic then it surely is retarded.
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 25, 2016
Otto_Szucks 1.4 /5 (10) Jun 22, 2016

That's a lot of characters out of 1000 just to explain that you farted



You write far more to explain far less interesting/relevant points. Show of hands, please. How many would rather listen to farts than OS' spew?
- KaFaraqGatri

YOU are REALLY ONE FREAKING WEIRDO.
Congratulations! You have just become a member of the Physorg Asshole Club - along with your gang who never talk about the science topic. Jolly good show, old man. Perhaps you are one of Caliban's many sock puppets?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 25, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
He causes general resentment and disrespect, but that is his own doing.
What you just said is the by now well recognized 'blame the victim' philosophy/excuse used by apologists for perpetrators, bullies etc to 'justify' their contributing/initiating words, actions which create/perpetuate such nasty (sometimes tragic) situations. No more of that, please, mate.
rather than the science posted by him?
You obviously don't have a clue what science is.
I am not personally, egotistically etc biased (like many here), so absence of reading confirmation bias has allowed me to note/consider fairly occasional science ideas/content from him (which are inevitably immediately attacked by trolls pretending to be 'mainstream defenders' etc as 'cover' for their bias/ignorance, disinclination to consider on merits instead of person/source).
Hint: it is not psycho ranting.
Nor is it biased, cheap shots oror pretending that disagreements justify insults. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2016
Hi Da Schneib (and Phys1 whom Da Schneib quoted).
No evidence implies no respect.
Absolutely, @Phys1. I think if I could point to something that irritates me on a science forum, it's people who make claims and when pressed for evidence can't come up with anything and won't admit it. From there the tactics used by such individuals generally degenerate either into politicking or philosophy, I've observed. The first implies that people get to vote on reality; the second that a bunch of navel-gazing bullsh*t is more important than reality. Both are obviously idiotic.
On the other hand, there has also been the disappointing tendency on the part of some here who 'pretend' to be 'defending mainstream' etc while ignoring factual KNOWN science when it is explained to them. These 'some' start in kneejerking from ignorance and/or prejudice, and follow up with "liar" etc etc insults while being in error themselves, until (eventually) they (may) realize their error. :)
Otto_Szucks
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 25, 2016
What is it about illogical idiots that they think that if they laugh they've proven you wrong?


That is an excellent description of CapnStrumpy and her LMFAO (Laughing My Fat Ass Off), as though everyone needed to read a reference to her ass.


Why do the delusional always think everyone else's thoughts are delusions and their mental illness is revelation?


That describes Phys1 (aka Pissypants1) perfectly. Any attempt by anyone whose opinion runs counter to Pissy's own biased opinions, will face a barrage of LIES, insults and aspersions of a personal and physical nature. This is completely abnormal behavior, and Phys1 and her sock puppets display that abnormally on a daily basis. Phys1 is female, IMO.

I think with BS it's a close run affair between home schooled and no schooled. Her contempt of "textbook education" is certainly consistent.
- AlbertPierrepointOBE aka CapnStrumpy

Home schooled kids are taught all subjects & attend University,
Otto_Szucks
1.9 / 5 (11) Jun 25, 2016
No evidence implies no respect.
Absolutely, @Phys1. I think if I could point to something that irritates me on a science forum, it's people who make claims and when pressed for evidence can't come up with anything and won't admit it. From there the tactics used by such individuals generally degenerate either into politicking or philosophy, I've observed. The first implies that people get to vote on reality; the second that a bunch of navel-gazing bullsh*t is more important than reality. Both are obviously idiotic.
- da schniper

Without any kind of understanding or recognition, YOU have used the method of Philosophy to express your feelings, opinions and thoughts. And you have listened well to others whose biased and prejudicial hatred of Philosophy has deeply moved you into denying that which you have been using since you learned how to talk, express and think. Philosophy IS reality, and is why Reason and Logic are sought after to instill in a Civilized Society.
TrollCondensate
Jun 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TrollCondensate
Jun 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CockyChocachubra
Jun 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2016
It would be wonderful to remove the ad hominem argument from antisciencegorilla's brain. We'd never heard another word out of it.

Two more suck-puppets from AGreatWanker, must be off the meds again and of course only fooling itself.
LOL.
BongThePuffin
Jun 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2016
You are mentally ill AGreatWanker, please take the advice of your health care professional.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Jun 26, 2016
AGreatWanker, as expected, your condition precludes you from realizing that you are exacerbating it by using your suck-puppets to up vote your other suck-puppets. Your atrocious attempts to ridicule others just confirms that you the fool is only fooling yourself. You have my concern and pity.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2016
IMPORTANT NOTICE::---------WARNING* *WARNING* *WARNING

The site...

https://www.physforum.com/

...is a DANGER to your privacy!

If you attempt to 'log in' by entering your username/password, it will go to UN-CRYPTED page; to be read-off in PLAIN ENGLISH by owner/administrator of that now DEFUNCT site.

* So BEWARE and DON'T ENTER any details or attempt to log in AT ALL on that page! *

That site was OLD "phys.Org" until couple years ago it SOLD its DOMAIN NAME to OUR phys.org NEWS site.

The OLD site, RENAMED "physforum.com", was eventually RELENTLESSLY SABOTAGED by an old MOD-TROLL GANG eventually 'headed/protected by' the complicit/eventual SOLE 'moderator' (rpenner) ably assisted by his 'protected', totally insane, PROFESSIONAL SPAMMER whose system could/did generate HUNDREDS of SOCKPUPPETS for insulting/trolling (as well as spamming).

That recently-made-homeless sock-puppeteer/spammer is NOW ACTIVE HERE...creating sockpuppets at will.

BE AWARE, all! :)
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Okayeei Skippy, enough is enough. Knock it off. You starting to be like Mikey-Skippy chasing the Captain-Skippy all over the place with his Ugly P's and C's.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. Okayeei Skippy, enough is enough. Knock it off. You starting to be like Mikey-Skippy chasing the Captain-Skippy all over the place with his Ugly P's and C's.
Mate, one day, when you feel like making some semblance of sense, you might be relevant to anything approaching important to science and/or humanity discourse on the net. Until then, don't be so openly 'plonked' and/or 'huff-n-puffed' when you post on here. Get off and get sober/lucid, then come back and try again. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2016
IMPORTANT NOTICE::---------WARNING* *WARNING* *WARNING

The site...

https://www.physforum.com/

...is a DANGER to your privacy!

If you attempt to 'log in' by entering your username/password, it will go to UN-CRYPTED page; to be read-off in PLAIN ENGLISH by owner/administrator of that now DEFUNCT site.

* So BEWARE and DON'T ENTER any details or attempt to log in AT ALL on that page! *

That site was OLD "Phys.Org" until couple years ago it SOLD its DOMAIN NAME to OUR phys.org NEWS site.

The OLD site, RENAMED "physforum.com", was eventually RELENTLESSLY SABOTAGED by an old MOD-TROLL GANG eventually 'headed/protected' by the complicit/eventual SOLE 'moderator' (rpenner) ably assisted by his 'protected', totally insane, PROFESSIONAL SPAMMER whose system could/did generate HUNDREDS of SOCKPUPPETS for insulting/trolling (as well as spamming).

That recently-made-homeless sock-puppeteer/spammer is NOW ACTIVE HERE...creating sockpuppets at will.

BE AWARE, all! :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy. Okayeei Skippy, enough is enough. Knock it off. You starting to be like Mikey-Skippy chasing the Captain-Skippy all over the place with his Ugly P's and C's.
Mate, one day, when you feel like making some semblance of sense, you might be relevant to anything approaching important to science and/or humanity discourse on the net. Until then, don't be so openly 'plonked' and/or 'huff-n-puffed' when you post on here. Get off and get sober/lucid, then come back and try again. :)


Cher, I don't think I like your tone. I do not drink, I do not do drugs and do not plonk what ever that is. Now why you don't quit littering up the place with your mafia/bot/mod/gang/troll foolishment. And go you sit in the corner until you think you can start respecting the humans and the scientists.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Mate, look at my ratings page and tell us what you see. Usernames registered specifically to troll/insult/downvote, ie, VICTIMIZE. Note the 'join date' of:

- antiantigoracle (not antigoracle)
- ElectricBoobVerses
- TrollCondensate
- CockyChocachubra

Get it now? :)

You/other naive genuine members been PLAYED for SOME TIME NOW by such long line of SOCKPUPPET names pretending to be 'mainstream defenders'; attacking VICTIMS with unfair tactics/characterizations; inciting bad-blood feuds which got out of hand some time ago; and still going, using YOU as 'cover' because you buy-into such bad blood due to your being EMOTIONALLY INVESTED in discussion when you should be IMPARTIAL and ignore personality/source 'politics' which such sociopaths WANT you to keep doing against its VICTIMS.

So, Phys1, and all genuine discoursers in science and humanity, don't be MANIPULATED by such anti-science and anti-humanity SCUMBAG 'puppeteers' who USE YOU in BULLYING others. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. Did you take an extra weird pill today? One a day is about your limit. Last time you got this weird you was riding in the Really-Skippy-Climatic-Cavalry.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Cher, I don't think I like your tone. I do not drink, I do not do drugs and do not plonk what ever that is. Now why you don't quit littering up the place with your mafia/bot/mod/gang/troll foolishment. And go you sit in the corner until you think you can start respecting the humans and the scientists.
Nor did/do I like your tone, mate. Hence my 'tone' in response. Lose your 'tone' and get straight, or be prepared to get 'tone' in return. And if you were stone cold sober when you drivel-posted after an important FYI to readers/members about that Skimming site and its dangers, then you are even MORE of a TWIT than you pretend in your 'Cajun Schtick'. If you can't take it then don't dish it out, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You/other naive genuine members been PLAYED for SOME TIME NOW
Diversion.

I respond to nasty, extremely stupid and sometimes threatening crap, defended by you.
Naive. :)

Are you really this naive, Phys1? What does that list of that 'psycho puppeteer' socks specifically VICTIMIZING posters here tell you? Does it even occur to you that while Zeph has been forced to re-register as a sock in order to post, these other psycho's socks which manipulate YOUR ego/emotions are here specifically to downvote, troll, insult and generally VICTIMIZE others...in which BULLYING tactics you are being dragged into without even realizing it since your own ego/prejudices/emotions are so naively manipulated (obviously, since you still in denial of what has been happening to YOU as well as the VICTIMS...including Zeph in earlier episodes of such specifically targeted/incited VICTIMIZATION).

PS: Re that other issue: I corrected Da Schneib with KNOWN science often. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2016
And if you were stone cold sober when you drivel-posted after an important FYI to readers/members about that Skimming site and its dangers, then you are even MORE of a TWIT than you pretend in your 'Cajun Schtick'.


@ Skippy, let me tell you one thing here. You write so much weird foolishment how is anybody supposed to know if you are saying something important or some more of you weird foolishment? I mean we are talking about the guy from the Earthman Play House here.

If you want to be that way about it how about I just go back to making the fun with everything you write like I used to do? And all the mafia/bot/troll/mod/gang stuffs was GREAT BIG FUN to have fun with.

You sound like Will Robenson "Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger" Ooooh, Cher, what we going to do? Ooh, I know we should call the Really-Skippy-Cavalry.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy (That's coonass for: "How you like that Cajun Stick? Want another whack?")
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
@Skippy, let me tell you one thing here. You write so much weird foolishment how is anybody supposed to know if you are saying something important or some more of you weird foolishment? I mean we are talking about the guy from the Earthman Play House here.

If you want to be that way about it how about I just go back to making the fun with everything you write like I used to do? And all the mafia/bot/troll/mod/gang stuffs was GREAT BIG FUN to have fun with.

You sound like Will Robenson "Warning, Warning, Danger, Danger" Ooooh, Cher, what we going to do? Ooh, I know we should call the Really-Skippy-Cavalry.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy (That's coonass for: "How you like that Cajun Stick? Want another whack?")
Are you really this 'thick', mate; or is it just more of your 'Cajun Schtick' dumbo act? Of what possible worth is YOUR bot-voter 'insensibility' in assessing what is "foolishment" or not?

The danger/warning was REAL, you idiot. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2016
Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy (That's coonass for: "How you like that Cajun Stick? Want another whack?")
Are you really this 'thick', mate; or is it just more of your 'Cajun Schtick' dumbo act? Of what possible worth is YOUR bot-voter 'insensibility' in assessing what is "foolishment" or not?

The danger/warning was REAL, you idiot. :)


It do not take a genius to figure out you write mostly foolishment here. You should have thought ahead when you was writing it, because we all got used to seeing foolishment and weird stuffs from you. That bot/mod/troll/gang/mafia stuffs is what I am talking about. So you spend the last five years writing about that weird stuffs, and ride in with the Really-Skippy-Cavalry and expect everybody to all of sudden pay attention?

Why you don't give it a rest Cher. Because you know I never get tired of whacking you with my Cajun Stick. You always get more madder while I get more funs.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
/me is watching to see if behavior modification therapy works on @RC.

Nothing is stopping you but your foolish pride.

Given your track record, though, I'd say you'll never figure that out.

Back to watching your whuppin' with the Cajun Stick.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Are you really this 'thick', mate; or is it just more of your 'Cajun Schtick' dumbo act? Of what possible worth is YOUR bot-voter 'insensibility' in assessing what is "foolishment" or not? The danger/warning was REAL, you idiot. :)
It do not take a genius to figure out you write mostly foolishment here. You should have thought ahead when you was writing it, because we all got used to seeing foolishment and weird stuffs from you. That bot/mod/troll/gang/mafia stuffs is what I am talking about. So you spend the last five years writing about that weird stuffs, and ride in with the Really-Skippy-Cavalry and expect everybody to all of sudden pay attention?
...
Yep, you're no genius, that's clear. Only an idiot-bot-voter like you "figures" that a genuine warning for the readers/members benefit, based on genuine proven fact, as "foolishment". Careful when talking "madder" while so amply exhibiting your "mad, madder, maddest" twat-ness here, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
/me is watching to see if behavior modification therapy works on @RC. Nothing is stopping you but your foolish pride. Given your track record, though, I'd say you'll never figure that out. Back to watching your whuppin' with the Cajun Stick.
Don't you ever learn, mate? How many times have I had to correct you, based on KNOWN science? Too many. Even a dullard like your 'hero twat' learns faster than you. How sad is that for your intellect which promised so much but now is wasted on upvoting/enabling that twat to troll this site. Have you no shame at what you are doing, at all? You kneejerk to liar etc even when you SHOULD KNOW that you were wrong and I correct all along. Now you take another 'on denial' cheap shot at one who has corrected YOU, not the other way round, on KNOWN science! Your convenient memory lapses and ignored/unread posts from others undoes all the good work you did do at times. You remind one of bicep2 in-denialist gang. Not good. :((
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2016
Yep, you're no genius, that's clear.
I never did say I was, choot, if you asked me I would have told you it is clear I am not. Are you a genius?

Only an idiot-bot-voter like you "figures" that a genuine warning for the readers/members benefit, based on genuine proven fact, as "foolishment".


Yeah Cher, that's what I was trying to explain to you. Your "genuine proven facts" are the ones nobody else ever sees as being facts. They always see them as foolishments. So if you write up something about "proven" and "interweb experiments showed" and "proven by me the troll/gang, everybody just Skippy skips over it because they think it is just more of the other foolishments you are so well known for.

Get it NOW? Good. If you try do better and if you work on it, maybe someday you will be able to write something that somebody pays attention to like they do with me.

Do Better now Matey.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2016
@RC playgrounds again, proving you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Uncle Ira. :)
Yep, you're no genius, that's clear.
I never did say I was, choot, if you asked me I would have told you it is clear I am not. Are you a genius?
Only an idiot-bot-voter like you "figures" that a genuine warning for the readers/members benefit, based on genuine proven fact, as "foolishment".
Yeah Cher, that's what I was trying to explain to you. Your "genuine proven facts" are the ones nobody else ever sees as being facts. They always see them as foolishments. So if you write up something about "proven" and "interweb experiments showed" and "proven by me the troll/gang, everybody just Skippy skips over it because they think it is just more of the other foolishments you are so well known for.
You confess to industrial strength stupidity. That should tell observers how much 'stupid' is inherently contained in the "figures" and "opinions" you drivel all over our forum floor. What's most "funs" is some here '5' Ira's sad twat-ness. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
@RC playgrounds again, proving you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
You are "projecting" again, mate. That plus "denial" and "kneejerking" etc etc is not what an objective, impartial scrupulously comprehending scientist does...Oh, that's right, you admitted to not being one of those...so you think you are 'excused' from being scrupulously objective impartial and polite...and can indulge in enabling insult trolls and bot-voting idiots to ruin this site as much as they did the old site. There is a special place in posterity's ignominy awaiting all those who pretend to be defending mainstream science while carrying on like you have been, mate. Wake up to yourself before the damage to your personal/professional integrity becomes irretrievable. Do Better, Da Schneib. :)
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2016
Noting obvious adolescent behavior by a grown man is not "projecting," @RC.

You're lying again.

Here is your New Clue™: If you're an azzhole no one cares if you're "right."
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Da Schneib. :)
Noting obvious adolescent behavior by a grown man is not "projecting," @RC.

You're lying again.

Here is your New Clue™: If you're an azzhole no one cares if you're "right."
So, my correcting you based on known science is now "adolescent behavior", is it? And you defaulting to denial/ignoring and demonstrably unfounded accusations etc is you being 'not juvenile'? And since when is SCIENCE METHOD and ideas/discussion/merits and validity/acceptance/comprehension dependent on the person's 'like' quotient? Oh that's right, you are a Social Media poser, and an admitted NON-scientist who is not bound by scientific method/standards of scrutiny/discourse re objectivity and impartiality....so you follow the social media 'standards' of bullying, lying and denying when corrected based on the know science. No wonder you are more 'at home' with Uncle Ira and downvoting trolls than with proper/polite/fair science discourse. Too bad. Do Better, Da Schneib. :((
Enthusiastic Fool
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 26, 2016
RC comes on here attention seeking, calling people names, and howling profane trash. Can you believe a guy like that complains about people not treating him politely?

@RC
That TOE isn't going to finish itself. Stop trolling forums and get to writing! Who cares about vote-bots and internet points? If you want to put us in our place you'll publish something of substance rather than alluding to your work in progress as if we should respect your authority. I'm sure our children and children's children will appreciate that you got off the net and finished a Grand Unified Theory. Perhaps it will be that we could have had one but the internet points were too important and RC could never pry himself off the net to finish...or you're full of it.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2016
Hi Enthusiastic Fool. :)

So, this NEW YEAR I made genuine entreaties for everyone to drop all the animosity, trolling and downvoting feuds and tactics and start afresh in a spirit of discovery and reconciliation. I tried that for a few weeks/months on and off. Guess what happened. The usual suspects (and some new sockpuppets for downvoting/trolling/insulting) just kept to business as usual and you see what transpires? That I defend against such is not the problem (the victim is allowed self-defense in your ethical construct I trust, mate?).

Don't worry about me and my work. I have been taking a self-imposed rest and recreation break of a couple weeks now, to recharge my batteries before I get stuck into my (more than one) projects. The Reality-Maths is coming along a treat, and is proving quite apt for the Reality-Physics based ToE results/explanations/models etc.

PS: If you've been reading latest astro-cosmo news, they have been confirming my ToE results. Nice! Cheers. :)
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2016
! Who cares about vote-bots and internet points?

But, but, but...that's part of the TOE. Don't you see?

Seriously: how much respect does someone who says "one of these days I'm gonna do something great" command? None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
It's weird that he thinks otherwise.

(Well, in this day and age such a statement might land him on an FBI watchlist...but that's about it)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2016
Hi antialias_physorg. :)
! Who cares about vote-bots and internet points?

But, but, but...that's part of the TOE. Don't you see?
That you make light of trolls skewing the metrics on a science site is telling of your own lack of science principles and practice. No wonder you fell hook line and sinker for that Bicep2 'discovery' and started
bashing cranks' with it until I cautioned you not to because it was flawed. Doofus, wise up thyself. :)

Seriously: how much respect does someone who says "one of these days I'm gonna do something great" command? None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
It's weird that he thinks otherwise.
It's weird that you think something is not great or being done, just because it's foreshadowed work already in train, already being confirmed by astronomical-cosmological observations. :)

(Well, in this day and age such a statement might land him on an FBI watchlist...) Such 'characterization tactics' is desperate 'face saving' troll-babble. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You defend deranged nonsense as "science".
I bet your ToE is as ludicrous as the bs crackpottery.
You completely lost it, RC.
I observe the discourse/science impartially and objectively without bias or personal/source preference; as demanded by the Scientific Method. What I defend is not persons per se, but their right under the scientific method to have their ideas heard and considered on idea merits not personal/source prejudices (recall that you/others doing the latter led to uncritical belief in Bicep2 'discovery' used to 'bash cranks' with until I, me, objective impartial observer cautioned you it was seriously flawed science-wise). Let the objective discussion determine what is 'crackpottery', not the prejudice and personal ego. How many times now have I had to correct 'preferred' posters who were ignorant/in denial of known science? Too many. :(

...added RC to my list...
Another 'list in lieu of science'. A 'bot' can replace you, Phys1. :)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jun 27, 2016
A 'bot' can replace you, Phys1. :)

You misspelled "butt".
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2016
Reformat:

Hi antialias. :)
Who cares about vote-bots and internet points?
But, but, but...that's part of the TOE. Don't you see?
That you make light of trolls skewing the metrics on a science site is telling of your own lack of science principles and practice. No wonder you fell hook line and sinker for that Bicep2 'discovery' and started 'bashing cranks' with it until I cautioned you it was flawed. Doofus, wise up thyself. :)

Seriously: how much respect does someone who says "one of these days I'm gonna do something great" command? None. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
It's weird that he thinks otherwise.
It's weird that you think something is not great or being done, just because it's foreshadowed work already in train, already being confirmed by astronomical-cosmological observations. :)

(Well, in this day and age such a statement might land him on an FBI watchlist...)
Such 'characterization tactics' is desperate 'face saving' troll-babble. :)
DonCarloFantasia
Jul 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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

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