Japanese researchers find new classes of electron orbits

October 5, 2016, American Institute of Physics

Phenomena like solar flares and auroras are consequences of magnetic reconnection in the near-Earth space. These "magnetic reconnection" events are akin to magnetic explosions that accelerate particles as they rapidly change the topology of the magnetic field lines. Researchers in Japan have used a new Particle-In-Cell (PIC) simulator to understand how magnetic reconnection works for the tenuous plasma surrounding our Earth and have identified new classes of electron orbits that help scientists understand the characteristics of the fast jets of electrons that stream from the reconnection region. The researchers explain their results this week in Physics of Plasmas.

The ionized gas in space, called "plasma," is so tenuous that the charged particles (ions and electrons) rarely collide with each other, but move in very complex ways due to the electric and magnetic fields. This process is highly nonlinear because as the electrons move, they carry the electric current which in turn changes the . The self-consistent nonlinear motion of the particles and of the electromagnetic field is a complex system that is hard to predict.

"We investigate basic mechanisms of in tenuous space plasma, by using a computer simulation that allows us to solve both the electromagnetic fields and the motions of virtual plasma particles," said Seiji Zenitani, a scientist at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. Although PIC simulations are widely used and can solve the motion of virtual particles, often all the particle trajectories are not checked. The reason is two-fold: on the one hand, because PIC simulation generates very large data sets; on the other, because until now, scientists had thought that all the basic orbits were already discovered in the 1980s. By comprehensively scanning the simulation data, the research team was careful not to overlook anything.

While this approach is straightforward for a small collection of particles, as a result of an extensive survey of PIC simulation with nearly two billion particles, researchers were able to identify several new classes of electron orbits.

"We were surprised to find 'noncrossing electron orbits' that do not cross the midplane, a finding contrary to conventional belief that all the particles cross the midplane (z=0) during magnetic reconnection," Zenitani said. So, while it is a standard strategy to track electron trajectories from the midplane, by definition, this does not work for the noncrossing electrons. Analysis suggests that the noncrossing electrons are the majority, at least in the number density. The particle orbits are fundamental elements for the kinetic physics of magnetic reconnection which could lead to the revision of theoretical models.

"In addition, NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission observes the electron properties in and around near-Earth reconnection sites now," Zenitani said. "Our results provide hints that will help to better interpret MMS data."

Explore further: The magnetosphere has a large intake of solar wind energy

More information: Seiji Zenitani et al. Particle dynamics in the electron current layer in collisionless magnetic reconnection, Physics of Plasmas (2016). DOI: 10.1063/1.4963008

Related Stories

The magnetosphere has a large intake of solar wind energy

July 22, 2016

Solar wind forms the energy source for aurora explosions. How does the Earth's magnetosphere take in the energy of the solar wind? An international team led by Hiroshi Hasegawa and Naritoshi Kitamura (ISAS/JAXA) analyzed ...

Image: NASA's MMS achieves closest-ever flying formation

September 21, 2016

On Sept. 15, 2016, NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, mission achieved a new record: Its four spacecraft are flying only four-and-a-half miles apart, the closest separation ever of any multi-spacecraft formation. The ...

The solar wind breaks through the Earth's magnetic field

June 10, 2014

Space is not empty. A wind of charged particles blows outwards from the Sun, carrying a magnetic field with it. Sometimes this solar wind can break through the Earth's magnetic field. Researchers at the Swedish Institute ...

Recommended for you

How can you tell if a quantum memory is really quantum?

May 23, 2018

Quantum memories are devices that can store quantum information for a later time, which are usually implemented by storing and re-emitting photons with certain quantum states. But often it's difficult to tell whether a memory ...

29 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2016
Hi HansAlfven, cantdrive, Chris-Reeve et al. :)

Before the usual bunfight starts, I ask this: Does the above analysis result, that the majority (ie in 'number density' terms) of electron orbits "do not cross the midplane", in any way give any new insights into how "Double Layers" etc can arise/form/persist?

That's all I have time for today. Play nice, everyone. Cheers. :)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2016
First it should be said;
"Magnetic Reconnection is pseudoscience" Hannes Alfven

Does the above analysis result, that the majority (ie in 'number density' terms) of electron orbits "do not cross the midplane", in any way give any new insights into how "Double Layers" etc can arise/form/persist?

Well RC, it can be put this way;
Eureka! They have rediscovered double layers! Again, after only 80 some odd years. The "midplane" where the electrostatic field is located is the DL, yet there is no mention of a DL in the paper. It would seem that Alfvén was correct when he claimed that astrophysicists are ignorant of fundamental aspects of laboratory plasma physics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2016
"Magnetic Reconnection is pseudoscience" Hannes Alfven
@cantread
you have historically made claims about astrophysicists ignoring experimental lab evidence BUT now you are the one demonstrating this specific trait:
more than 100,000 experimental tests since 1995 validating magnetic reconnection (aka reconnection) and you can see that here: http://www.pppl.g...nnection

or read the *facts* here: http://www.pppl.g...HEET.pdf

ignoring reality doesn't make it go away, nor does it make your reality stronger
it does, however make your claim another blatantly regurgitated fanatical radical cult rhetoric false claim (AKA- LIE)

go ahead: repeat this lie over and over - you're only succeeding in convincing yourself because everyone else who can actually read can see your delusion
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2016
Hi cantdrive, CS. :)

@Cap Stumpy, @ cantdrive: I can't see what you two are arguing about.

Caps, as the article of your own link says:
Laboratory findings show that the electric current that is embedded — or "frozen into" — merged plasmas suddenly dissipates, enabling reconnection to take place. Further experiments have confirmed that part of the reason for the abrupt dissipation is that the ions and electrons inside the plasmas have different velocities. The electrons thus behave differently from the ions, as measured by a phenomenon called the "Hall effect," and carry away the current to help speed up reconnection.
It clearly states that it is the 'electric' plasma (Ions-Electrons) flows stability/instability in any particular situation that determines Magnetic fields generated/maintained/modified/destroyed ('reconnection' merely a naive label for complex 'processes' involved in changing Magnetic field configurations).

So no actual conflict here, guys. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2016
So no actual conflict here, guys
@non-reality pseudoscience TROLL
1- learn to f*cking read
because
2- i specifically quoted the moron cantread's oft-repeated mantra quote and then stated
you have historically made claims about astrophysicists ignoring experimental lab evidence BUT now you are the one demonstrating this specific trait:
more than 100,000 experimental tests since 1995 validating magnetic reconnection (aka reconnection) and you can see that here: http://www.pppl.g...HEET.pdf
so, if you are not even going to read any of the actual posts before attempting to condemn someone you are going to continue to look like a complete moron

PS - you know, excluding this post, there are only 2 other posts here you didn't make, and you didn't actually read them before commenting

how lazy is that?
I mean, really!
talk about biased! ... you're demonstrating either illiteracy or stupidity above
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2016
@Cap Stumpy, @ cantdrive: I can't see what you two are arguing about.

RC, quite frankly I can't see what we are "arguing" about either. All I can see in Cap'n Stoopid's post is as follows;
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ...

Personally I have no desire to catch a case of the Cap'n's terminal stoopidity and as such have taken steps to protect myself from his special kind of stoopidity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2016
I can't see what we are "arguing" about
@cantread-or-think
1- we aint arguing

2- my posts are so that people who are not familiar with science are shown why you're both cranks/pseudoscience cult members

3- both cd and rc are posting what is technically called "false claims" (as defined here: http://www.auburn...ion.html ) because the evidence directly refutes their claims
however, there are also a lot of untested claims and opinion typically

4- i really don't care if either of you ever read another post of mine as the target audience isn't the overwhelmingly intentionally blind pseudoscience crank who regurgitates the religious rhetoric like yourself... it is the typical reader who isn't familiar with science looking for a method to learn what is legitimate over what is pseudoscience (hence the references and links)

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

http://www.tim-th...sun.html

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2016
Hi CS, cantdrive. :)

@ CS: Mate, I didn't attack you, I just pointed out that the situation is really complex; and that no naive simplistic description/explanation from anyone (especially from those astrophysicists which cantdrive was complaining about, who are not reflecting those lab results in the interpretation/teaching of the cosmological observations which may involve some of those very 'electric flows' plasma effects being discussed in your referenced article) will suffice to really understand it all properly. That was it. OK? And BTW, I am the one who DOES read everything; it's you who boasts: "TL;DR" all the time; so please don't misrepresent me on that as well, thanks. :)

@cantdrive: Mate, I am trying to get everyone to forget past animosities and concentrate anew on the science not the persons.

PS: Both @ CS and @ cantdrive: Please try to keep insults out of your own posts and please DO READ everything; so as to minimize misunderstandings/feuds. Please try. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2016
I didn't attack you
@unreality-TROLL
you also didn't read what i said, moron
I just pointed out that the situation is really complex
so?

you didn't even read the post: you made an ASSumption, based on your need for attention and attempted to interject your *opinion* when it is irrelevant to the topic ( http://www.yourli...artid=65 )
(especially from those astrophysicists which cantdrive was complaining about, who are not reflecting those lab results in the interpretation/teaching of the cosmological observations which may involve some of those very 'electric flows' plasma effects being discussed in your referenced article)
can you prove this with evidence?

.

.

.

[crickets] - i thought not

if you're gonna make a statement about practices, procedures and what is "taught" then you should back it up with evidence like i did

.

also, ya idiot moron, if you read my link you will see that PPPL does "teach"

epic fail for you
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Mate, tone down the animosity/insult. A am trying to get to the nub of the problem without all the past personal baggage getting in the way of actual issue/science involved. Ok? :)

I DO read the posts; which is how I knew of your linked article. Be reasonable.

And I wasn't attacking you or that article's authors. I actually confirmed that they DO know about the electric plasma effects which determine the magnetic field effects/configurations etc (which is why it was obvious to me that your argument with cantdrive was a non-issue as far as I could see from that linked article).

And cantdrive has mentioned many times, that many astrophysicists are not heeding the insights from lab experiments/observations, because they still use MHD modeling; which may not take into account all those subtle/complex 'electric flow' plasma instabilities etc which your link shows exist/determines 'reconfiguration/reconnection' of magnetic fields.

Discuss that point with him. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
the idiot earthling club antagonist moron who is also illiterate
Mate, tone down the animosity/insult
sure: just as soon as you learn how to read
And I wasn't attacking you or that article's authors. I actually confirmed that they DO know about the electric plasma
...sigh...

ok illiterate idiot - lets use small words for you because your reading comprehension is equivalent to a kindergartener

cd said
First it should be said;
"Magnetic Reconnection is pseudoscience" Hannes Alfven
this is what is called a FALSE CLAIM
this is known to kindergarten students like you as a "LIE"
this was proven to be a lie with my links

so when you interrupt and say stupid sh*t like
So no actual conflict here, guys
and then try to justify this argument by attacking me with
I am the one who DOES read everything; it's you who boasts: "TL;DR" all the time; so please don't misrepresent me
this directly is an attack
AND
it is also a false claim (AKA-LIE)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
@the idiot earthling club antagonist moron who is also illiterate cont'd

and then you stupidly argue the point of
that many astrophysicists are not heeding the insights from lab experiments/observations, because they still use MHD modeling
this directly proved that not only are you not reading the reference material i posted, but that you are f*cking stupid and don't know sh*t about science, period

not only do Astro's use MHD, but so do Electrical Engineers and everyone else who actually does plasma physics

what you're not paying attention to is the PPPL link that demonstrated we actually know sh*t about plasma physics and MHD isn't a false model, nor is it wrong to use... in fact, his idiot engineers also used it for astrophysics modeling!

do you know what will those eu idiots want to replace MHD with?
NOTHING

think on that a spell, jeenyous sam-you-am

then, when you get a free moment, if ya can't learn to read, then try a little anhero and FOAD

thanks
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
@sam-you-am the penguin head

post script
Discuss that point with him
actually, i have. repeatedly. and even in threads where you were stupid enough to comment

that is obvious to anyone who actually knows how to use *any* f*cking search engine on the internet

and guess what everyone else but you learned by reading the links and evidence?

that's right
they learned that the idiot eu cult, and especially the illiterate cantdrive, is not only stupid, but very, very wrong

they learned it because i demonstrated (with links, evidence, references and even school curriculum) that he is repeatedly posting a known lie to get attention (wow! just like you do!)

repeating a lie don't make it more true
defending a liar doesn't make his argument more valid
there is no merit nor reason to defend a known blatantly repeated lie
therefore, you're doing .... what, exactly?

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2016
Hi CS. :)

That was not an 'attack', that was pointing out something in my defense against your claim that I didn't read the posts. I must have read them to see and read and refer to your linked article. And it is your longstanding boast of "TL;DR" that demonstrated you were the one apt to not read posts. I rest my case on both counts, CS. :)

I also pointed out that cantdrive et al have noted that many astrophysicists still do not include those new insights into the explanations/models; but obviously some have recently begun to consider non-MHD aspects and more seriously and in detail in experiments/explanations.

As for what should 'replace MHD modeling" for cosmic plasma phenomena observed, If I recall correctly, HannesAlfven/cantdrive alluded to alternative modeling contruct. How about asking them and discussing it calmly instead of insulting and attacking needlessly.

PS @All: Please do try to separate the science issues from the persons. Insults don't serve science. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
@penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL
that was pointing out something in my defense against your claim that I didn't read the posts
stopped there
you *didn't* read the post

i just proved that one... more than once in this thread alone

so what you're doing now is craving attention, therefore this stops. i will NOT read any more posts by you because you are NOT reading the material provided above to actually learn WTF is going on

AND

you are simply looking for justification for your martyr-victim complex, which you are now really reaching for
http://www.yourli...artid=65

http://outofthefo...mization

there is a reason i detest your pseudoscience
http://phys.org/n...mes.html

oh, and just FYI - reported for trolling/baiting

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
RC,
The real Hannes Alfven had proposed using the particle and circuit models developed by nuclear scientists when the MHD models were shown to be a complete failure some 50 years ago. It's not enough to use the particle approach as the plasma must be treated as part of an electric circuit. Astrophysicists have ignored this for decades now.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2016
Hi cantdrive. :)

Yes, thanks for that reminder and further explanation re alternative modeling of cosmological plasma phenomena/observations.

I trust all will also bear in mind that such phenomena occurs in 'gravitationally conditioned' energy-space contexts as well; to produce spatially/temporally 'evolving' complex 'hybrid grav-inertial-EM/plasmic phenomena' at many scales/distances/regions where strong 'cumulative gravity' oriented 'flows/containment' factors are just as important to the ongoing evolution of the affected complex plasma 'features'. Cheers. :)

PS: See, CS? I, as independent, objective science and humanity researcher, observer, commenter), don't belong to any 'crowd' (be the 'crowd' a mainstream, EU or Other kind), nevertheless polite enquiry and discussion on-science without personal animosity and insults serves the advancement of both science and humanity best. (BTW, CS, my offer of the olive branch still stands, mate). Be well. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
when the MHD models were shown to be a complete failure some 50 years ago
@cantread-or-think
by all means, show the repeated validated studies that show MHD to be "a complete failure"

because you never once have ever demonstrated that MHD is a failure at anything, so to make that particular claim then you must have the studies to back it up

I know this because if alfven made the claim then there MUST be valid verifiable studies that demonstrate this

more to the point

making a claim about today because someone said something 50 years ago is like saying:

we should all be prejudiced, segregated and refusing medical treatment because in 1900 prejudice and segregation was common and medical practices weren't capable of heart transplants
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2016
See, CS? I, as independent, objective science and humanity researcher
@penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL
1- you are none of the mentioned

2- when the idiot illiterate cd said
Astrophysicists have ignored this for decades now
this is not only demonstrably false per the link to PPPL but it is also blatantly repeated, yet again, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary
(AKA- blatant LIE)

repeating a lie don't make it more true
defending a liar doesn't make his argument more valid
there is no merit nor reason to defend a known blatantly repeated lie
my offer of the olive branch still stands
and i will again remind you:
unless you adhere to the scientific method and present verifiable evidence from reputable sources (and validated studies for scientific truths) then you're presenting pseudoscience and i will not kow-tow to your religious bullsh*t

links/references or STFU and FOAD
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Mate, calm down or you'll have a coronary. Please eschew the personal and the insults and just concentrate on the actual science point. :)

Anyhow, cantdrives' point was that UNTIL RECENTLY most astrophysicists ignored the very things which articles like this and some others have since discovered via new and reviewed observations/experiments. Obviously RECENT articles/experiments are beginning to actually consider more seriously the effects of plasma instabilities and self-sorting behavior leading to DLs and other 'electric' rather than just 'magnetic' phenomena/features which have more effect on the plasma features/processes observed by astronomers/astrophysicists.

See? That was cantdrive's very point: UNTIL RECENTLY, explanations/interpretations were naive/simplistic using MHD modeling which failed to take into account all these now-increasingly-recognized-more-significant-than previously-realized plasma/electric instabilities/effects etc. Ok? :)

Relax, CS. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2016
Anyhow, cantdrives' point was that UNTIL RECENTLY most astrophysicists ignored the very things
@penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ

and i say again, try opening the links above and reading them: they're not only references to validate the claim that he is full of crap, and therefore your argument is also full of crap
BUT
it actually provides links/references that prove the quote i just now took from your own post is absolute CRAP and proven false

and all that because you are too f*cking stupid to open a link or even take a few moments to read some posts (or basic science text - but that is another story)

repeating a lie don't make it more true
defending a liar doesn't make his argument more valid
there is no merit nor reason to defend a known blatantly repeated lie

so, again... stuff your olive tree up your own backside and at least learn some basics of the scientific method before spouting your pseudoscience crap

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Please tone down the victimization/martyr 'complex' rhetoric unless you can make factual determinations of the particular persons' situation. Eg, sexually abused children/women all over the globe have recently been given a voice/hearing which proved their victimhood was REAL after all; so don't cheapen victim's suffering by repeating indiscriminate insensitive dismissive rhetoric without actually considering/ascertaining ALL the REAL facts in each case, thanks.

Re links, have you yourself read them; understood the many and various subtle points involved? If so, can you explain where/how OLDER literature handled the NOW newly-recognized importance of plasma instabilities/self-sorting behavior etc? I can only see RECENT experimenters SERIOUSLY reconsidering all that stuff.

Cheers. :)

PS: As for what I bring, recall that it was me who informed Da Schneib et al about plasmoids in sun, non-Keplerian regimes, and observational limitations invalidating OLD assumptions.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 21, 2016
Hi CS. :)

As another one of the many known/novel science observations/insights I have brought, please also refer to the following (link below) very recent mainstream review/rethink about the sort of things I have been pointing out re limitations in cosmic/CMB etc observations systems and analytical methodologies which did not capture the real picture before all those OLD, ERRONEOUS and/or MISLEADING assumptions/conclusions were made and which still pervade the current 'accepted theory' at the cost of much wasted time and effort for at least the last fifty years.

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

This shows that the important lessons of bicep2 are slowly being learned by the old guard; and being heeded by the newer researchers. That is good. Cheers. :)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 21, 2016
@penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
Please tone down the victimization/martyr 'complex' rhetoric unless you can make factual determinations of the particular persons' situation
it aint rhetoric - you just proved it with your own words

also note, you're not a "sexually abused children/women", you're an illiterate idiot

the rest of your post is crap and you STILL HAVE NOT POSTED ANY EVIDENCE

more to the point, you have never once validated your claim about BICEP2 and your 4 fatal flaws... and considering the thrashing it has had in the mainstream media by other real scientists, AND your more than 5000 posts since that date

then this means you blatantly lied and you didn't see squat, therefore you can't prove sh*t, which is why you don't post it

reported for pseudoscience, baiting , trolling and being a f*cking moron
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Doesn't matter what abuse one is a victim of, the point is that they are a victim of abuse.

And did you read the other article I linked to?

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

Note that it is practically identical to what I have been cautioning about/foreshadowing for years now about interpretations based on faulty/naive CMB/BB etc models and analysis costructs; for your/others' benefit, so that you could be better prepared for the upcoming paradigm changes which my novel insights have been working towards in the background on many fronts about many old and erroneous beliefs/theories built on flawed assumptions/science which has been built into the literature/methodology/expectations for many decades. I trust you are not going to deny that it agrees with what I have said all along, mate; that would be taking your denials to a whole different level than even the previous denials about my posted objective and correct cautions/insights on record. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2016
@pathetic penguin head idiot pseudoscience TROLL who apparently STILL CANNOT READ
the point is that they are a victim of abuse
and my point is that you aint a victim
you are intentionally being stupid for attention, which is a different story altogether
Note that it is practically identical to what I have been cautioning about/foreshadowing for years now
no, it isn't - you always complain or talk about how negative modern MS science is, and the article doesn't support you, moron

1- science is always on the frontiers of knowledge

2- if it aint validated, it aint a "scientific truth"

3- science is always checking itself for better info (hence GR/Newtonian physics), so it aint new, it simply is new information or potentially better information
period

4- it's an article, which is, by definition, someone else opinion on a subject

reported for being a pseudoscience trolling illiterate idiot
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2016
Hi CS. :)

Now now, mate, stop embarrassing yourself even more than before by your denials of the reality on record anyone can read for themselves.

As for that article supporting what I have been saying all along, go over there; actually read it; then ask IMP-9 et al how long I have been trying to get them to understand all that the article is now confirming me correct about re the longstanding flawed/faulty MS 'science' assumptions/methodologies/conclusions etc I have been pointing to all along for years now.

Go read it:

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

Then post in that thread your in-denial assertion that it doesn't support me. :)

And ask IMP-9 et al how many times I tried to point out all those very problems now being acknowledged by Prof Sarkar.

He has just got around to 'checking' what I already 'RealityCheck(ed)' long ago. And he found the same flaws.

PS: That Prof is Mainstream Scientist, so don't call him a 'troll' or 'liar' etc, CS! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2016
H
stopped there
no evidence
no science
you're whining

TL:DR
reported

i'll let you get in the last word... but just FYI, it will be a lie, with no evidence

like everything you've posted above

and if it is, i'll just report it and downrate it because i'm tired of your pseudoscience and crap
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 22, 2016
Hi CS. :)

So, it's your personal version of scientific method:
"TL:DR"


No wonder you can just deny everything to yourself. You have your own 'reality' built from NOT READING facts 'inconvenient' to your own version of 'reality'. Not good, mate.

I tried to tell you that those who troll and ignore me usually come a cropper and end up with egg on their faces. Your face must be 'well egged' by now, mate. But its your own fault. Being nasty to people and refusing to read the facts they post is no way to garner respect for whatever credibility you think you may have once had. Too bad. I tried to offer the olive branch and let bygones be bygones; but you would insist on continuing your own versions of reality against all good science and humanity ethics and the objective reality itself that I have been trying to acquaint you with all this time...to no avail, it seems. Oh well, have it your own way. Good luck with that. Nevertheless, still no hard feelings this end. :)

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.