New blackbody force depends on spacetime geometry and topology

May 23, 2017 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature
Illustration of a cylindrical blackbody and a nearby atom. Credit: Muniz et al. ©2017 EPL

(Phys.org)—In 2013, a group of physicists from Austria proposed the existence of a new and unusual force called the "blackbody force." Blackbodies—objects that absorb all incoming light and therefore appear black at room temperature—have long been known to emit blackbody radiation, which repels small nearby objects such as atoms and molecules. But the physicists showed that blackbodies theoretically also exert an attractive force on these objects. They called this force the "blackbody force," and showed that it can be stronger than blackbody radiation, and—for very small particles—even stronger than gravity.

Now in a new study published in EPL, a different team of physicists, C.R. Muniz et al., at Ceará State University and the Federal University of Ceará, Brazil, have theoretically demonstrated that the blackbody depends not only on the geometry of the bodies themselves, but also on both the surrounding geometry and topology. In some cases, accounting for these latter factors significantly increases the strength of the blackbody force. The results have implications for a variety of astrophysics scenarios, such as planet and star formation, and possibly lab-based experiments.

"This work puts the blackbody force discovered in 2013 in a wider context, which involves strong gravitational sources and exotic objects like cosmic strings as well as the more prosaic ones found in condensed matter," Muniz told Phys.org.

As the scientists showed in 2013, the blackbody force arises when the heat absorbed by a blackbody causes the blackbody to emit electromagnetic waves that shift the atomic energy levels of and molecules. These shifts cause the atoms and molecules to be attracted to the blackbodies due to their high radiation intensity, pulling them together.

In the new study, the physicists investigated spherical blackbodies and cylindrical blackbodies, and showed how the topology and the local curvature of the spacetime influences their blackbody forces. They showed that ultradense spherical blackbodies like a neutron star (around which spacetime is highly curved) generate a stronger blackbody force due to the curvature compared to blackbodies in flat spacetime. They explain that this is because gravity modifies both the temperature of the blackbody and the solid angle at which the nearby atoms and molecules "see" the blackbody. On the other hand, a less dense blackbody such as our Sun (where spacetime is less curved) generates a blackbody force that is very similar to that of the flat case.

The researchers then considered the case of a global monopole, a spherical object that modifies the global properties of space, and found a different kind of influence. Whereas for other spherical blackbodies, the spacetime influence is gravitational and decreases with the distance to the blackbody, for the global monopole the influence is of a topological nature, decreasing with the distance but eventually reaching a constant value.

Finally, when investigating the blackbody force of cylindrical blackbodies around which spacetime is locally flat, the scientists found no gravitational correction to the temperature, but, surprisingly, an effect on the angles with nearby objects. And when a cylindrical blackbody becomes infinitely thin, turning into a hypothetical cosmic string, the blackbody force vanishes completely. Overall, the scientists expect that these newly discovered geometrical and topological influences on the blackbody force will help elucidate the role of this unusual force on objects throughout the universe.

"We think that the intensification of the blackbody force due to the ultradense sources can influence in a detectable way the phenomena associated with them, such as the emission of very energetic particles, and the formation of accretion discs around black holes," Muniz said. "That force can also help to detect the Hawking radiation emitted by these latter objects, since we know that such radiation obeys the blackbody spectrum. In the future, we would like to investigate the behavior of that force in other spacetimes, as well as the influence of extra dimensions on it."

Explore further: Blackbody radiation induces attractive force stronger than gravity

More information: C. R. Muniz et al. "Dependence of the black-body force on spacetime geometry and topology." EPL. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/117/60001

Related Stories

About time: New record for atomic clock accuracy

April 21, 2015

In another advance at the far frontiers of timekeeping by National Institute of Standards and Technology researchers, the latest modification of a record-setting strontium atomic clock has achieved precision and stability ...

Recommended for you

Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency

January 19, 2018

Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine's efficiency ...

Team takes a deep look at memristors

January 19, 2018

In the race to build a computer that mimics the massive computational power of the human brain, researchers are increasingly turning to memristors, which can vary their electrical resistance based on the memory of past activity. ...

Artificial agent designs quantum experiments

January 19, 2018

On the way to an intelligent laboratory, physicists from Innsbruck and Vienna present an artificial agent that autonomously designs quantum experiments. In initial experiments, the system has independently (re)discovered ...

137 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) May 23, 2017
They called this force the "blackbody force," and showed that it can be stronger than blackbody radiation, and—for very small particles—even stronger than gravity.

Ooohh! EVEN stronger than the weakest of forces... Whoopie doo!
Now in a new study published...have theoretically demonstrated that the blackbody force depends not only on the geometry of the bodies themselves, but also on both the surrounding spacetime geometry and topology.

LOL, "spacetime" geometry. They're certainly piling the pseudoscience awfully thick.
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2017
So, time to paint my Sentra in Vantablack?
Steelwolf
3 / 5 (4) May 23, 2017
I would think that with magnetic fields first aligning said particles, this blackbody attractive force would help condense the particles further to the point where gravity could further aid the clumping of mass in nodes along the thus-formed filament and be a part of the mechanism in forming things from planetisimals to planets and moons, brown dwarfs and stars of all sizes. It possibly has much to do with how galaxies seem to have a problem with speed of rotation and not flinging all of their stars to the void.
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (15) May 23, 2017
http://coincider....e-09.pdf

"Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too 'complicated and awkward' for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject 'not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.' It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became 'the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong.'

Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today 'are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.'"
Dingbone
May 23, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
3.7 / 5 (12) May 23, 2017
Yeah, gravity doesn't matter and spacetime's geometry doesn't exist. Einstein was a fraud. Sure.

You're an incomparable fool. What kind a loser are you to spend your time polluting a science site? Do you get paid for it?

cantdrive85: [qOoohh!
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (12) May 23, 2017
Re: "Yeah, gravity doesn't matter and spacetime's geometry doesn't exist."

Gravity is fairly described as a localized force which does not appear to dominate at interstellar scales. We can determine as much by (a) constructing a mental framework for understanding the magnitude of the distances between stars; and (b) calculating a typical force between two typically "adjacent" stars.

(a) The Burnham Model of Stellar Distances
https://plus.goog...eGFK52AK

(b) The Weakest Force - Gravity
https://plus.goog...yeVEv7Hc

Prior to the popularization of Relativity, the Electron Theory proposed that gravity is somehow a side-effect of E&M. But, unfortunately, the time was just not right for the idea. Many elements were in the early 1900's missing, in order to decode the situation.
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (11) May 23, 2017
In the early 1900's, theorists widely assumed that space was an empty vacuum -- empty being the key word there. That mistaken premise would act as the theoretical basis for all of our most popular cosmological and astrophysical ideas today.

A Popular Science magazine published shortly after 1958, when we actually finally went to space, noted:

"'Space' was invented on Earth before we knew what was out there"

You can see the quote yourself at the top of page 76, here:

https://books.goo...;f=false

If you read that article, you will observe James Van Allen admit a number of times that space is in fact a plasma. The essence of the interview is that a huge mistake has been made. The importance of this mistake has been widely missed.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2017
There are additional similar quotes from a variety of publications below, all of them supporting the fact that it was widely assumed by theorists in the early 1900's that space is an empty vacuum:

The Empty Vacuum of Space Mistake
https://plus.goog...RTvS6B5b

Many of the facts of modern space science came as a surprise to the theorists of the early 1900's. For instance, when radio waves were first observed coming from space, it was widely assumed to be either a hoax or a mistake:

The Rejection of Radio Waves from Space
https://plus.goog...QdjJBNyr

Today, we know that most cosmic radio waves are in fact synchrotron -- which is what happens when electrons are spiraling through a magnetic field.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2017
Another important surprise -- and very much related to the point of this article -- has been the widespread observation of filamentation in space. The observation was most emphatically made by the Herschel telescope ...

Herschel's Filament Hunt
http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/

That turns out to be an enormously important observation because this is typical behavior observed for plasmas in the plasma laboratory. Not only is star-formation apparently a result of this filamentation, but the filaments also exhibit a fractal-like quality insofar as filaments appear to be made of yet more filaments. This is -- again -- expected behavior for plasmas.

Plasma Scaling
https://en.wikipe..._scaling

Here's a typical (processed) image of stars forming at once along a filament:

http://www.holosc...ents.jpg
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2017
The truthful situation in the space sciences is that the current theories all base upon a mistaken premise of EMPTY space between stars, and they've struggled to explain, out-of-the-box, this filamentation.

At the same time, there has been a refusal by theorists to acknowledge that electricity can flow through space. This began with the debate between Kristian Birkeland and Sydney Chapman. Chapman proposed an elegant model that positioned the aurora as the result of processes contained by the Earth, whereas Birkeland proposed that the charged particles originated with the Sun. The empty space bias led many theorists to reject Birkeland's correct inference.

And ever since, there has been a tradition in the space sciences of refusing to give credit to Birkeland for his accomplishments ...

https://www.plasm...#History
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2017
Meanwhile, a parallel history is emerging in the space sciences which the astrophysical "experts" are not even aware of:

The History of the Birkeland Current
https://plus.goog...3iHyjnwz

Many people today look at the science journalism of the day, and assume that this is all there is to science. But, what they do not understand is that the emergence of Relativity and quantum mechanics threw science journalism into a state of chaos. Up to that point, science had grown in popularity because of its explanatory appeal. With those new complex, controversial ideas, this was no longer the case, and the science journalists decided to stop covering controversies ...

The Men of Science
https://plus.goog...2XYML8vU

The Science Journalist
https://plus.goog...vZu18D9L
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (11) May 23, 2017
An alternative explanation for gravity is emerging, and it is a continuation of where people left off prior to Relativity.

Electron Theory as Worldview
https://plus.goog...Cc7ERzDJ

It bases considerably upon the observation of an inherent quantization in redshift values of both quasars and galaxies. That quantization is proving to be the crucial link between astrophysical and quantum-scale phenomena.

The Big Bang's Big Redshift Assumption
https://plus.goog...cuZ8yxnE

Halton Arp, the Modern Galileo
https://plus.goog...KHXnrdoH

What we see happening is not a BIG Bang, but rather galaxies ejecting quasars which then subsequently become children galaxies that look remarkably like the parent. Those quasars have an inherent redshift component to them which has nothing to do with velocity.
HannesAlfven
2.2 / 5 (13) May 23, 2017
What has been remarkable and even a bit unexpected is that evidence for this situation produces on a daily basis -- purely as a consequence of attempts to create new evidence for the more popular theories. It's remarkable because many telescopes -- like the one at Mount Palomar -- no longer even permit observations to be made which are designed to undermine the Big Bang.

The emerging support for this alternative worldview is not immediately obvious to most people for the simple reason that they refuse to track the debate.

But, new systems will in fact be constructed to track these debates, and it will become undeniable from those systems that the evidence for this alternative worldview is every day growing.
Drjsa_oba
4.3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
@hannes,
I have a question for you then.
If galaxies birth more galaxies, then over time the universe would fill up. Unless old galaxies sometimes evaporated away.

Is this a never ending production?
Alternatively, does the universe expand to make room for extra galaxies and if so, how does one tell the difference in types of red shift?
Drjsa_oba
4.3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
@hannes,
And if the universe expands to make room for more galaxies then it once had to be smaller.

If it does not expand what stops it from filling up over time?
physman
4.1 / 5 (14) May 24, 2017
came here to discuss the blackbody force, leave because everyone's talking about plasma and the "electric universe"
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
Re: "If galaxies birth more galaxies, then over time the universe would fill up. Unless old galaxies sometimes evaporated away. Is this a never ending production?"

You seem eager to speculate beyond the observations. I suggest developing a comfortability with uncertainty.

Re: "Alternatively, does the universe expand to make room for extra galaxies"

Unlikely. More likely is that galaxies over time lose their structure and contribute to the formation of other galaxies. But, these are guesses.

Re: "and if so, how does one tell the difference in types of red shift?"

It has to be inferred by tracing the galaxy/quasar back to its parent. There is no observational distinction between the two components.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
Re: "came here to discuss the blackbody force, leave because everyone's talking about plasma and the "electric universe""

But, what is it that draws you to this hypothetical force? The article is yet another invitation by mainstream science to play with mathematical equations, whereas electrical cosmology is the application of plasma fundamentals, observed in the laboratory, to astronomical observations. There is a fundamental difference here which you seem to be missing.

The article states ...

"But the physicists showed that blackbodies THEORETICALLY also exert an attractive force on these objects. They called this force the "blackbody force," and showed that it can be stronger than blackbody radiation, and—for very small particles—even stronger than gravity."

In other words, this force has never actually been observed.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2017
physman:
came here


Of the 17 comments (including yours), the commenters are 4:4 discussing blackbody:(anything else). Some of the commenters (well, one: me) not discussing blackbody are posting to shut down non-blackbody (indeed, unscientific) discussion. Just because one commenter, HannesAlfven posted a lot of EU comments don't let that drown out comments based on peer-reviewed science.

So please post. Don't let the cranks win by sheer volume.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
Re: "don't let that drown out comments based on peer-reviewed science"

It's btw not science just because there are equations involved; neither is it science just because a group of peer reviewers decided that it conforms to their preferred sanctioned ideology.

We've already got numerous constructs in the sciences which nobody has ever actually observed -- dark energy, dark matter, black holes, etc. Why would anybody look at this situation and think it is a good idea to add yet another unobserved construct to the pile? What is the point of this fantasy?

The people who are trying to reconstruct our theories based upon unexpected, recent observations are not your enemy. The emerging problem is the wishful-thinking mathematics that lacks any physical root, and which claims to address the many problems which the existing theory apparently cannot. Were it not for that original failure, we'd not be here talking about a hypothetical force, to begin with.
physman
4.6 / 5 (10) May 24, 2017
@HannesAlfven What you are saying may or may not hold some weight. But the problem that I have is that you are stopping relevant discussion on these boards by posting comment after comment after comment about unrelated topics.

Your assertion "I don't believe the evidence is strong enough for X therefore all of science and this article is not to be believed" doesn't hold much weight for me and many others, we just want to discuss this article anyway!!

We get it, you believe the evidence for Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy is insufficent and unnecesary. Great. Firstly, what does that have to do with this article? Secondly, many of us consider this to be a settled topic. The nature of dark energy and dark matter is up for debate, certainly, but the evidence is overwhelming in the scientific literature that something is causing the observable effects.

And believe me, I will trust scientific consensus over some random guy that lives on phys.org that posts damn near every hour.
Hat1208
4.3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2017
@physman

The ignore button is your best friend on this site. Put the troll's on ignore and continue discussion.

Thanks
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2017
Re: "But the problem that I have is that you are stopping relevant discussion on these boards by posting comment after comment after comment about unrelated topics."

What you're asking me to do is to ignore this:

"Yeah, gravity doesn't matter and spacetime's geometry doesn't exist. Einstein was a fraud. Sure. You're an incomparable fool. What kind a loser are you to spend your time polluting a science site? Do you get paid for it?"

Re: "We get it, you believe the evidence for Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy is insufficent and unnecesary. Great. Firstly, what does that have to do with this article?"

The authors are plainly proposing this hypothetical force as a new way to address their problems ...

"The results have implications for a variety of astrophysics scenarios, such as planet and star formation ... exotic objects like cosmic strings ... neutron star (around which spacetime is highly curved)"

It's the same nonsense.
HannesAlfven
2.8 / 5 (6) May 24, 2017
Re: "Secondly, many of us consider this to be a settled topic. The nature of dark energy and dark matter is up for debate, certainly, but the evidence is overwhelming in the scientific literature that something is causing the observable effects."

No, the evidence SEEMS overwhelming because the science journalism you are subject to every day is intent on leaving that impression. In case after case, the observations can fairly be interpreted to support other ideas -- electricity through space, Halton Arp's quasar ejection model, black hole AGN's as plasma focus phenomena, etc.

The very point that the mainstream has failed to identify dark matter after all of this time is a serious omen which you are in a state of denial over. The very fact that so many hypothetical, unobserved constructs in cosmology are considered "settled" science suggests that cosmology is entering a dead-end where it can become stuck in for many decades.
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2017
Your insistence upon wanting to have the fantasy math talk that this article invites people to have helps to normalize the denialism which your entire group is engaged in. You guys are convincing yourselves that since you lack coherent theories for both the space and quantum sciences, that we can no longer trust common sense / rational thoughts.

e.g., the metaphysical properties for quasars and black holes are never viewed as problems for theory; they are presented as reasons to wonder at the mystery of the universe.

The press releases are not teaching people to THINK about the information they are receiving; they're teaching you to think within the box of a professional scientist, where certain questions are closed off. You did not arrive at that "settled science" conclusion after having gone through the various debates yourself; you were brought to this point, through a process of filtering out the arguments and information which might undermine the point.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) May 24, 2017
HannesAlfven
What you're asking


No, the post to which I responded said that a force larger than gravity is unimportant, so gravity must be even more unimportant, and that spacetime geometry is pseudoscience. Without offering any basis for those inflammatory and outrageous assertions. So I called them out for that kind of foolish trollery, and asked the obvious question of whether they're paid to pollute a science site with such obviously unscientific trollery.

Are you implying that your serial postings (the soul of something other than wit) embrace the denial of gravity's importance and the existence of spacetime geometry?
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
What you don't understand is that this is not AT ALL in the spirit of the original popularization of science. Science historian, John C Burnham, explains this in the Men of Science critique I posted above ...

"The religion of science consisted of an informal set of beliefs that filled followers with evangelical fervor.  They thereupon attempted to convert both individuals and the public at large.  Their enthusiasm and their approach were taken, as already noted, from Protestant evangelism.  These enthusiasts had their martyrs to superstition -- Copernicus, Galileo, Servetus, and, later on, the victims of antievolutionary churchmen. Moreover, the apostles had visible forces of evil with which to contend: superstition, ignorance, and, now, added in accordance with Anglo-American liberal political traditions, intolerance -- since scientific findings presumably could stand up to any opinion ..."
HannesAlfven
3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2017
What he's saying is that the very reason that science became popular was because it helped to undermine a superstitious tradition in this country.

What you seem to not understand is that these press releases are taking us right back to that superstitious tradition. Burnham correctly identifies the current system of science journalism as the source of this problem, insofar as it is not aimed at teaching the reader to think about the information they are receiving. It's removing all of the context which a person might use to formulate their own opinion. In order to remove mystery in the sciences, the only way forward is to provide a meaningful context for facts and findings. Where you see science journalism that is in service to a single worldview that itself is littered with hypothetical constructs, you have accepted a version of science which radically differs from the tradition which made it popular.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
Re: "I called them out for that kind of foolish trollery, and asked the obvious question of whether they're paid to pollute a science site with such obviously unscientific trollery. Are you implying that your serial postings (the soul of something other than wit) embrace the denial of gravity's importance and the existence of spacetime geometry?"

You guys just can't get your house in order on this. You're flailing about. It makes no sense at all to start walling off cosmology when you have so many outstanding problems. It's the exact wrong approach.

You should by now be humbled by the problems of mainstream science; you should be open to new ideas, in the light of your own issues; you should be concerned about where cosmology is heading, given that you've had the brightest people working on these dark matter problems and essentially infinite funding; you should be wary by now of hypothetical constructs.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
The problem is that you refuse to open yourselves to new ideas, and so have no real sense for how the more controversial ideas are faring against modern observations.

You see the confidence of the press release, and you find some unwarranted comfort in the distraction it offers you, when you should be realizing that there is increasing, serious risk that nearly everything you've learned in this space could be wrong.

The daily immersion in press releases which only presents one single worldview has left you with the impression that this is a normal practice. And you defend it, completely ignoring the fact that the changes which might be required to get science to a better place may in fact relate to the starting point hypotheses, the assumptions, the "settled" science.

What effort have you put into checking on that?

None, really.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) May 24, 2017
HannesAlfven: Please post links to peer-reviewed science journal articles that say gravity is unimportant and that there is no such thing as spacetime geometry. Or else stop posting about your preferred alternative.

I trust scientific peer review. If you can't make an argument on peer-reviewed science, I'm not interested. I do not care if you think that makes me "superstitious". I do not believe in any grand conspiracy theory protecting science from truth. I do however see ample proof, in this very page, that crank pseudoscience that rejects peer review attacks science. I see ample proof of actual conspiracies, from the tobacco industry to the oil/gas industry (and their longtime state sponsors), of crank pseudoscience pushers undermining science. And I see even more proof of lonely lunatics, often incompetent sociopaths and even schizophrenics pushing their fantasy lives on the rest of us because it's so easy to type into a web page form.
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (5) May 24, 2017
Re: "Please post links to peer-reviewed science journal articles that say gravity is unimportant and that there is no such thing as spacetime geometry."

That's rather ironic because Einstein himself went into a rage when he was first reviewed by his peers. You can see his response here:

https://plus.goog...cm=false

You might also consider learning a bit about the history of peer review ...

Like this ...

http://www.nature...-1.19763

"Referees are overworked. The problem of bias is intractable. The referee system has broken down and become an obstacle to scientific progress. Traditional refereeing is an antiquated form that might have been good for science in the past but it's high time to put it out of its misery.

What is this familiar litany? It is a list of grievances aired by scientists a century ago ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"The first referee systems that we would recognize as such were set in place by English scientific societies in the early nineteenth century. But these referees were never intended to play the part of supreme scientific gatekeepers. That notion emerged in around 1900 ... It was exactly then that some began to wonder whether referee systems might be fundamentally flawed. In this sense, peer review has always been broken ...

the referee was gradually reimagined as a sort of universal gatekeeper with a duty to science. As this idea gained ground, many began to worry that the system itself might be intrinsically flawed, a force that impeded creative science and which ought to be abolished ..."
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Re: "I do not believe in any grand conspiracy theory protecting science from truth."

http://crypto.jun...gnation/

"Dear EPFL,
I am writing to state that, after four years of hard but enjoyable PhD work at this school, I am planning to quit my thesis in January, just a few months shy of completion ...

[T]he essential motivation stems from my personal conclusion that I've lost faith in today's academia as being something that brings a positive benefit to the world/societies we live in. Rather, I'm starting to think of it as a big money vacuum that takes in grants and spits out nebulous results, fueled by people whose main concerns are not to advance knowledge and to effect positive change, though they may talk of such things, but to build their CVs and to propel/maintain their careers ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... (4) Academia: Where Originality Will Hurt You

The good, healthy mentality would naturally be to work on research that we believe is important. Unfortunately, most such research is challenging and difficult to publish, and the current publish-or-perish system makes it difficult to put bread on the table while working on problems that require at least ten years of labor before you can report even the most preliminary results. Worse yet, the results may not be understood, which, in some cases, is tantamount to them being rejected by the academic community. I acknowledge that this is difficult, and ultimately cannot criticize the people who choose not to pursue such "risky" problems ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Ideally, the academic system would encourage those people who are already well established and trusted to pursue these challenges, and I'm sure that some already do. However, I cannot help but get the impression that the majority of us are avoiding the real issues and pursuing minor, easy problems that we know can be solved and published. The result is a gigantic literature full of marginal/repetitive contributions. This, however, is not necessarily a bad thing if it's a good CV that you're after ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... (5) Academia: The Black Hole of Bandwagon Research

Indeed, writing lots of papers of questionable value about a given popular topic seems to be a very good way to advance your academic career these days. The advantages are clear: there is no need to convince anyone that the topic is pertinent and you are very likely to be cited more since more people are likely to work on similar things. This will, in turn, raise your impact factor and will help to establish you as a credible researcher, regardless of whether your work is actually good/important or not. It also establishes a sort of stable network, where you pat other (equally opportunistic) researchers on the back while they pat away at yours ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Unfortunately, not only does this lead to quantity over quality, but many researchers, having grown dependent on the bandwagon, then need to find ways to keep it alive even when the field begins to stagnate. The results are usually disastrous. Either the researchers begin to think up of creative but completely absurd extensions of their methods to applications for which they are not appropriate, or they attempt to suppress other researchers who propose more original alternatives (usually, they do both). This, in turn, discourages new researchers from pursuing original alternatives and encourages them to join the bandwagon, which, though founded on a good idea, has now stagnated and is maintained by nothing but the pure will of the community that has become dependent on it. It becomes a giant, money-wasting mess."
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"From my own experiences and those of others, I have observed that doors are opened and offers made to those who are servile and uncritical. A lot of work must be produced, but without any great aspiration towards saying something important. To obtain an academic position, to obtain tenure, to be successful in obtaining research funds, etc. it is necessary to conform."
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2017
From http://www.julesn...6489.htm

MR: "When you first thought of writing this book, you were in graduate school, right?"

JS: "Yes, that's right. I got interested in the topic when I was going to professional training myself, getting a PhD in physics at the University of California, Irvine. It seemed like the best of my fellow graduate students were either dropping out or being kicked out. And by 'best,' those were the most concerned about other people and seemed less self-centered, less narrowly-focused, most friendly people ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... they seemed to be handicapped in the competition. They seemed to be at a disadvantage not only because their attention was divided, but because their concerns about big picture issues like justice and the social role of the profession and so on, caused them to stop and think and question, whereas their unquestioning gung-ho classmates just plowed right through with nothing to hold them back. As I mentioned, there's about a 50% drop-out rate for students entering University programs in all fields; and what I found was that this weeding out is not politically neutral. To put it bluntly, the programs favor ass-kissers. I don't know if that's an acceptable term on KFAI, but that's the fact of the matter...."
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives (p82, 2001)

"The scientific ideologies, or 'paradigms,' that scientists internalize during their training guide their thinking in every important area of their work, determining, for example, the particular abstractions or models they use, the procedures they consider valid and even their notion of what constitutes progress and understanding. But how are the paradigms chosen? As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn observed, paradigms are incommensurable -- that is, there is no transcendent scientific framework in which one can compare paradigms and choose the best, and so such choices are made on the basis of values, or social factors ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Since no two paradigms solve the same problems, the choice between them involves deciding which problems it is most important to solve -- clearly a question of values. In any historical era the values of those at the top of the social hierarchy dominate: as a result the paradigms that emerge from the scientific competition have a built-in tilt toward establishment priorities. Through the paradigms, then, social forces direct scientific work even in the rare cases when employers or funding agencies do not ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Because they internalize both the paradigms and their employers' priorities and values, scientists, at least in their own eyes, are completely nonpartisan in their work: They don't 'get political.' They don't think about, let alone challenge, the ideology built into their techniques. Contrary to popular images of scientists as challengers of established beliefs (like Galileo or Einstein), the vast majority of scientists never seek to test their paradigms and do not participate in paradigm disputes. They don't waste their employers' coin by getting caught up in efforts to overthrow existing worldviews or to establish new ones. Instead, they tend to treat the accepted models of reality as reality itself."
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Martín López Corredoira: Cosmologist / Astrophysicist / Philosopher / Published 50 Academic Papers, Often as Lead

The Twilight of the Scientific Age

"Creativity is blocked. It seems that the system gives the message that no ideas are needed. It seems the system, through its higher authorities, is saying that science only needs to work out the details. It is accepted that the basis of what is now known is correct, that present-day theories are more or less correct and only manpower is needed to sort out some parameters of minor importance. A Copernican revolution is totally unthinkable within the current system."
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives (p129, 2001)

"Beginning physics graduate students must devote an entire year or two of their lives to homework. Indeed, the first part of physics graduate school is well described as a boot camp based on homework. One characteristic of any boot camp is that the subject matter the instructors present in their day-to-day work is not really the main thing they are teaching. Teaching the subject matter is certainly one goal, but it is not the main one ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... In military boot camp, for example, drill instructors make recruits spend large amounts of time learning to dress to regulation, march in precise formation, chant ditties, disassemble and reassemble rifles, carry heavy backpacks, and so on, yet the main goal of all this is something much more profound: to create soldiers who will follow orders, even to their deaths. Similarly, the most apparent goal of graduate physics courses is to indoctrinate the students into the dominant paradigms, or theoretical frameworks, of physics. But the primary goal is to train physicists who will maintain tremendous discipline on assigned problems."
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives (p134, 2001)

"At the end of the week the entire physics faculty gathers in a closed meeting to decide the fate of the students. Strange as it may seem, in most physics departments a student's score on the test is only one factor in the faculty's decision as to whether or not that student has passed the test. Students are not usually told their scores: this gives faculty members the option of deciding that a student has failed the test even if that student has outscored someone they are going to pass. In arriving at their personal opinions on whether to pass or fail a student, individual faculty members consider anything and everything carried away from informal discussions with the student and with others around the department ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2017
(cont'd)

"... A faculty member who talks informally with a student in the hallway or at the weekly after-colloquium reception inevitably comes away with a feeling about whether or not that student 'thinks like a physicist.' The student's political outlook can easily make a difference in the faculty member's assessment. For example, in the usual informal discussion of an issue in the news, the student who rails against technical incompetence and confines his thoughts to the search for technical solutions within the given political framework builds a much more credible image as a professional physicist than does the student who emphasizes the need to alter the political framework as part of the solution. Indeed, the latter approach falls outside the work assignments given to professional physicists in industry and academe and so represents thinking unlike a physicist's."
EmceeSquared
4.4 / 5 (7) May 24, 2017
HannesAlfven, you could have saved yourself a lot of typing that I didn't have to read by just replying "No." Or even "no, I have no peer reviewed science to back up my claims".

Even after your pages of relentless verbiage (despite being told every time you post that "brevity is the soul of wit") you didn't even answer whether gravity matters or spacetime geometry exists.

You are nothing but a troll. An astoundingly longwinded troll. You choke these discussions in crankery. You're not convincing anyone of your crankery or your conspiracy theories. Just stop it already, you just make yourself and your fellow cranks look like lunatics.

Find someplace that cares about your alternate reality and post your screeds at them.
Chris_Reeve
May 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (7) May 24, 2017
Chris_Reeve:
And that is the real problem here


I observe that you have so little self control (or awareness) that you have outed your Chris_Reeve and HannesAlfven accounts as sockpuppets.

Not exactly increasing your credibility.

Which doesn't say anything either way about the merits of any of the reports you're posting at such length. It only discredits you. Not that it was necessary, but it does provide objective proof that you're dishonest, and unhinged.
Chris_Reeve
May 24, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2017
Chris_Reeve/HannesAlfven:
Sherlock


What makes you think I care about "stars", except your own persecution complex?

But I already had all I needed when you couldn't produce a single peer reviewed paper to support your evident rejection of gravity's importance as a force in the universe and spacetime geometry's existence. You couldn't even say "no" when asked, but you could type hundreds of sentences that I'm not interested in because they're indistinguishable from every other crank who can't back up their BS with peer reviewed science. Instead of producing reproducible results that no coverup could hide you're obsessed with futile missions convincing random Internet dudes like me with uncontrolled blasts of posts indistinguishable from crankery.

I'm doing quite well navigating the complexity of the real world. It's you and and the rest of you conspiracy (without evidence) cranks who are intimidated by complexity and ambiguity, rejecting simplicity for its own sake.
yep
1.8 / 5 (5) May 25, 2017
I'm quite well navigating the complexity of the real world. It's you and and the rest of you conspiracy (without evidence) cranks who are intimidated by complexity and ambiguity, rejecting simplicity for its own sake.


You have the intellect of a gnat, of course you can navigate with consensus stooges, like cattle on the kill floor following the lead cow, but to stupid to know where you are.

The silliness of curving space time added with more black magic is more theoretical nonsense, amazing how gullible you smart people are believing math is empirical.
Choke on a little of this, you're going to have to read, which is unfortunate as that seems beyond many of you.
https://arxiv.org.../0507007
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
Re: "You couldn't even say "no" when asked, but you could type hundreds of sentences that I'm not interested in because they're indistinguishable from every other crank who can't back up their BS with peer reviewed science."

Let's review what was in those sentences ...

(1) A Nature article reveals that peer review started becoming controversial the instant it was used as a means of filtering out by ideology.

(2) A physics PhD and editor of Physics Today for 19 years reveals that 50% of all physics graduate students are weeded out according to who is most mindful of the implications of their own work. Those who stop to think can't keep up. Think about it; it's not complicated.

(3) Same whistleblower exposes that the physics graduate students are "educated" by forcing them to memorize countless homework problems, over the course of a year -- with an effect upon the students which resembles a bootcamp.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
(4) Same whistleblower explains that students are selected for PhD's according to which students avoid asking paradigm-level questions. They are obviously looking for students who will extend their own work and the existing paradigms.

(5) A successful cosmologist and astrophysicist who has published 50 papers admits that to obtain an academic position, to obtain tenure, to be successful in obtaining research funds, one has to conform to the dominant worldview.

(6) Another academic whistleblower -- this time a graduate student -- submits their resignation just a few weeks shy of getting their PhD because they no longer even WANT it. They note that originality in academia will HURT you, that bandwagon research and publish-or-perish are major problems, and that the groupie academics oftentimes actively undermine the more creative researchers -- IN MANY WAYS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE HAPPENING HERE.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
These revelations are specific, blunt and very serious claims, and you're actually demonstrating the very problem. The problem here is that these press releases refuse to cover these important subjects. And that sets in motion a system of thoughts -- "narratives" -- about what people IMAGINE is happening at universities. You learned these narratives in GRADE SCHOOL ...

Things like:

"If a new theory for gravity was discovered, it would be published in a major journal, lead to a revolution in the sciences, and the theorist who discovered it would become famous ..."

"There is no system better than peer review. It's the best we can do ..."

"Professionally trained physicists routinely question their assumptions ..."

Each one of these statements is a grade-school narrative which the academic whistleblowers are telling us are just completely false. The lack of reporting from the science journalists forces you to fall back on these false narratives.
Hat1208
3.9 / 5 (7) May 25, 2017
@PhysOrg

What the hell does it take to ban some asshole like HannesAlfven and his sock puppets.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
The picture of academic research which we are left with is this:

Students are selected to be physicists, in part, according to whether or not they will continue to support the existing theories.

A "professional" -- be it physicist, or whatever -- is just a person WHO ADOPTS THE WORLDVIEW OF THEIR BOSS.

The system of academic research today discourages -- through funding, PEER REVIEW, tenure, whatever -- lines of research which lack any actual originality. Questioning assumptions or publishing inconvenient results WILL negatively affect your career as a researcher.

Now, if what you're saying is that none of those things really matter, then YOU are part of the problem. The people who made those claims sacrificed their careers so that YOU could know those things.

If this is truly not clicking for you, then you are in way over your head. You need to either get up to speed on the true complexity of the situation, or try something simpler -- like SPORTS.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
Re: "What the hell does it take to ban some asshole like HannesAlfven and his sock puppets."

Yes, we must eliminate all critique of textbook theory online. What could go wrong?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2017
@PhysOrg

What the hell does it take to ban some asshole like HannesAlfven and his sock puppets.


So why do you falsely imagine your foul mouthed profanity is an improvement? You have sock puppets too, just look at those who come here routinely using your foul mouthed proclivities as if you think such proclivities are an improvement. Yeah, talk about "sock puppets".
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
Person A points to systemic, deep-seated problems in how scientific research is done with sourced quotes from academic insiders. Person B then demands that person A be banned, and points out that he has two accounts.

Makes sense to me!
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
The fundamental issue here is what is a person subject to?

And what, for that person, is an object which they can reason about?

This is a crucially relevant concept from psychology known as the subject-object relation.

When a person is exposed every day to a single worldview -- the same base of ideas and conjecture -- as though there is no other worth knowing, they become subject TO that worldview. And the daily immersion within that worldview is effectively conditioning them against any chance of paradigm change. Such changes never stand a chance of occurring until the person can look AT their own worldview as an object.

In each scientific press release you read, the conclusions always take you back to the original textbook worldview. Kuhn considered this a process of extending the "exemplars" (prior prototypical solutions) such that new observations are now included in the "normal" science.

This of course works fine when the science is uncontested.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
But, when there are two opposing worldviews to choose from, and the journalism makes no effort to be inclusive of the alternative, there is nothing normal about this at all. That's called imposing an ideology. The task of the journalist is -- in theory, at least -- to inform their audience. But, in this case, the repeated exposure to the single worldview is CONDITIONING their readers to be SUBJECT to it.

REAL journalism EMPOWERS the reader to make their own choices.

Modern science journalism -- for historical reasons -- does not do this. The answers are instead decided by "professionals", and those professionals would have never become professionals to begin with had they not committed themselves to the established ideology.

This is the dystopian situation we find ourselves in in the sciences. The real test of our character is WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

The weak ones will try to invent reasons to save their narratives. They will be forgotten.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
A very select few will study the problem. They will read the books written by the whistleblowers, because they will recognize that this is not a system which can cope with controversial science. In the cases where the textbook theory becomes challenged by an alternative worldview, a situation can emerge where real science effectively stops happening. And what replaces it is groupthink.

A select few will recognize that this is by far the most important problem to solve in ALL of the sciences, because the implication is that unreported controversies are piling up throughout the disciplines. And it must be having a significant impact upon the rate of innovation in the sciences.

Whoever solves this problem will boost the quality of life for the entire world. But, to get there -- and this is the hard part -- we have to understand ourselves well enough to look at our own worldviews as objects. Very few people ever make it to this point in the course of their lifetimes (<1%).
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) May 25, 2017
yep:
You have


My ability to navigate life's complexities allowed me to ignore your baseless insults and read your offered paper. And to spend 5 seconds finding an easy debunking that rigorously supported my quick take on its critical flaws invalidating it:
https://www.quora...d-Kahana

Which also brought, unsurprisingly, some background showing the paper's author is also a well established crank. Like the rest of you, angry cranks incapable of doing science or overcoming the confirmation bias you're projecting onto real science and real scientists.

Your every effort to push this crankery collapses in seconds under the merest critical scrutiny. You're sad, lonely cranks immune to fact and logic.

And who think insulting people with open minds is persuasive. None of it is working. Use a crank site instead.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
When people refuse to listen to academic whistleblowers, what is really happening here is that they are demonstrating a cultural eagerness to cut off any meaningful oversight or feedback to keep this complex system producing meaningful results. You want us to imagine your narratives with you, but you don't provide any actual reason to believe them.

You think that all you have to do is say "peer review", and everybody just suddenly agrees at how amazing its IMPLEMENTATION is. But, really, you've taken an ideal of how peer review is supposed to happen -- IN THEORY -- and which is the exact OPPOSITE of what is happening here, and you want us to believe that the peer reviewers are somehow less petty and idealistic than yourself.

If you were actually trying to be convincing, you'd emulate the ideal.

But, notice you don't even do that. Why are we supposed to believe that the peer reviewers are less idealistic than yourself when THEY HAVE MORE SKIN IN THE GAME?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2017
Your every effort to push this crankery collapses in seconds under the merest critical scrutiny. You're sad, lonely cranks immune to fact and logic.

And who think insulting people with open minds is persuasive. None of it is working. Use a crank site instead.


Hey, square guy, this place is infested with "cranks". You just demonstrated your "crankery" by going off on a crank binge of your own, the thing about you is that you imagine the name calling invectives you aim at others somehow corrects the record, but it doesn't, it just adds to the problem you claim to be in opposition to.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2017
Benni:
Hey


No, cranks are people pushing science that's not vetted by peer review. I have done no such thing of course. I have instead called cranks cranks, offering them the chance to cite peer reviewed science that they failed to use.

There is a difference between a mere insult to someone you're trying to persuade and an earned label of low quality. You clearly can't tell the difference. You're in with the cranks, their FUD fallacies and kindergarten playground projection illogic. And with their crankery in your other posts I've seen where you personally push fallacious pseudoscience or attack peer reviewed science with fallacies. IOW you're a crank pushing nothing but fallacies. You're a troll, and only another crank could appreciate your posts on this science site.
barakn
5 / 5 (3) May 25, 2017
Person A points to systemic, deep-seated problems in how scientific research is done with sourced quotes from academic insiders. Person B then demands that person A be banned, and points out that he has two accounts.

Makes sense to me! -HannesAlfven/Chris_Reeve

You have 3 accounts. Plasmasrevenge is also you. It is a puerile name, however, so I can see why you abandoned it.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2017
Chris_Reeve:
To demonstrate


The issue is that even if the points you're presenting are valid, conclusions produced by truly scientific procedures, they are indistinguishable from crankery because they are not vetted by peer review. Peer review has problems, but it's the best we've got for distinguishing science from non-science. If you don't produce a single peer-reviewed article (even that isn't sufficient for confidence, since results must be reproduced to be reliable, but it's a minimum requirement) then your point can't be treated any different than crankery.

When you respond instead with post after post (after post) railing against peer review, that doesn't distinguish you from cranks either. It makes you look like a nut - a crank nut. Multiple accounts just further confirms the crank nut status. Along with many other aspects of what you post, including your escalating conflicts, prioritizing persecution, etc.

Walk, talk like a duck: get treated like a duck.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2017
Chris_Reeve:
You seem unaware


Sure, if the funders of the Institute for Venture Science want to fund work that is not supported by peer reviewed science, nor submit its work for peer review, that is of course their prerogative. I wouldn't even be surprised if its work comes up with conclusions and insights that are accurate science, if it practices the scientific method. Nor would I rule out some of its results challenging on merit other knowledge produced entirely within the peer review system.

But how to distinguish between those results and those of, say, a Tobacco Institute for Venture Science also operating outside of peer review, its work made of lies designed (or collected) to challenge the peer reviewed science establishing that tobacco causes cancer? Or of those of, say, a Religious Billionaires Proving We Were Created By a Snail Institute? Or more importantly, those of thousands of local clubs each running some bad "experiment" with fallacious conclusions?
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
4.2 / 5 (5) May 25, 2017
Chris_Reeve:
(cont'd)


All of that might (or might not) be perfectly true and important, problems with the peer review system. But none of it tells anyone how to distinguish between valid and invalid work that is all published without peer review.

"The perfect is the enemy of the merely good." "It's flawed but better than nothing." These familiar sayings apply to peer review as well as to any other system. Until you have something to push that is clearly better (from actual widely seen results) than peer review, not just "something else unproven instead of the known imperfect peer review", something that can distinguish invalid results and work from valid without introducing worse problems, peer review must be the standard.

And failing or ignoring peer review must disqualify work from wasting time of people interested only in science.

Posting many, many posts without meeting that essential requirement just makes you look like a crank. It's counterproductive.
Hat1208
3.9 / 5 (7) May 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared

You are doing yeomans duty and a fine job of it. Keep up the good work. And thanks!
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2017
Benni:
Hey

No, cranks are people pushing science that's not vetted by peer review. I have done no such thing of course. I have instead called cranks cranks


......and there you go yet again on another name calling binge. I'll put my 6 years of engineering school education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering plus continuing education credits up against anything you feel you can impress me with. I put up quotes directly from Einstein's GR & you label that "crank science".

Your biggest credibility problem is yourself & your self righteous proclivity for embarking on name calling binges when your own pseudo-science is called into question. For example, you can't come up with the Laws of Physics whereby you can prove Infinite Gravity Wells & Infinite Density can exist inside the confines of a BH Finite Stellar Mass in violation of the Inverse Square Law, yet you believe it not comprehending how such absolutely silly pseudo-science cannot be real.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
May 25, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (6) May 25, 2017
Benni: [q......and there

I never said anything about infinite gravity wells or the other strawman fallacies you just posted. I did imply that I agree that gravity is an important force in the universe. I don't care what you think about that, because your ongoing proof that you're nothing but a troll makes what you think about that irrelevant.

You can't even tell the difference between calling someone a *meaningless* name as an insult and calling someone a *meaningful* name that indicates they're of low quality. Of course I don't care what you think.

But I do care, a little, that you're filling up these discussions with troll babbling. Enough to exercise my hobby of telling people just what's wrong with them, after they slop it all over a webpage. If only you could find a legitimate place elsewhere to exercise your little hobby, as I have, we could all really enjoy ourselves.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2017
If only you could find a legitimate place elsewhere to exercise your little hobby, as I have, we could all really enjoy ourselves.


So science is your "hobby", well it's not mine.......it's my profession.

It's hobbyists such as yourself who demean the concepts of science just because the Laws of Physics are so far over your head that you can't even comprehend the Inverse Square Law as applied to the gravitational attraction of stellar bodies of mass.

Of course you believe infinite gravity wells & infinite density exists inside the confines of a BH, if you didn't you wouldn't be here on your routine name calling binges against those who demand you cite for us the Laws of Physics proving infinite gravity & density can exist inside the confines of a finite mass you label a BH, a total violation of General Relativity.

But of course, what would you know about General Relativity, after all you're just a "hobbyist" at this kind of science.

EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) May 25, 2017
Hat1208:
@EmceeSquared


Thanks. It's fun and educational.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 25, 2017
Benni:
So science


I didn't say science is my hobby. I said " my hobby of telling people just what's wrong with them". If you're not just lying like a troll, you're a terrible scientist. Of course you also claimed science cred from 6 years of "Nuclear/Electrical Engineering" school, which isn't science training, it's engineering - if you're not just lying like a troll about that.

Oh, I also didn't say anything about infinite gravity wells or anything else.

You're really a colossal fool. A terrible troll, and probably not even an engineer. Indeed, your demonstrated reading skills indicate you probably spent 6 years at a 2 year refrigeration training institute, failing to graduate so you lie about the rest while posting gibberish that pollutes these forums.

I look forward to your next proof of infinite incompetence wells.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2017
I am totally stealing infinite incompetence wells. Well done, heh.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
@Chris_Reeve
Here's the problem: By turning peer review into a filter where a small group of specialists decide for everybody else what is and isn't true,...


This is based on a misunderstanding of how *real* science works. Reviewers can not stop a paper from being published just because they *think* the paper is wrong. They can only do so if the can *demonstrate* that it is wrong. Generally, if there is still doubt after the refereeing process is complete, the paper will be published with appropriate reference to the issue in order to let the community decide (a good example being the recent BICEP2 incident).
Dingbone
May 26, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) May 26, 2017
This is based on a misunderstanding of how *real* science works. Reviewers can not stop a paper from being published

Exactly. The one who finally decides whether the paper gets published is the editor. In journals that try have high quality (which is why they have peer review in the first place) the editor will try to get all issues between author and reviewers resoved before publishing. If there is only one reviewer that has an issue with a paper then that's not a knock-out criterium.

As RNP points out: A reviewer cannot just say "this paper is bad". They actually have to point out the issues so that they can be adressed (reviewers are not interested in preventing papers from being published. They are interested in giving fellow scientists feedback so that they can publish the best possible paper)
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
infinite incompetence wells.
........better known as the person of Schwarzschild who came up with such incompetent pseudo-physics of gravity in the first place.

Still can't get you BH Enthusiasts to prove how gravity at the center of a stellar mass can exceed the gravity at the surface of the same stellar mass, so what you come up with is this:

I said " my hobby of telling people just what's wrong with them". If you're not just lying like a troll, you're a terrible scientist
and this:
You're really a colossal fool. A terrible troll
.....yep, the usual name calling binge from a novice such as yourself when challenged to prove your competence in comprehending the Laws of Physics.

Oh, by the way, I did repair my own refrigerator a few weeks ago when it at first appeared that the compressor was failing. I traced the problem to a defective component on the circuit board that controlled the ON/OFF operating functions of the compressor.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
EmceeSquared (RNP, Da Schneib et al if reading this).

Re your response to HannesAlven; ie:
Please post links to peer-reviewed science journal articles that say gravity is unimportant and that there is no such thing as spacetime geometry. Or else stop posting about your preferred alternative. I trust scientific peer review. If you can't make an argument on peer-reviewed science, I'm not interested.
Anyone who 'trusts' uncritically (like you seem to advocate) is heading for a 'fall', mate! How long did YOU 'trust' all those DECADES, to a BROKEN, INCESTUOUS, HERD-MENTALITY 'peer review' system, which 'passed' BB/Inflation 'myths'?

Penrose/Steinhardt have NOW SELF-CORRECTED; renouncing those 'peer review passed' myths!

Don't be 'uncritically trusting' of ANY source/claim; no matter how 'authoritative' or 'peer reviewed'! THINK/KNOW for yourself (instead of 'just believing' like many here did re Bicep2).

PS: EmceeSquared, did you post here before under another name? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
PPS @EmceeSquared. I only ask because you accused Chris_Reeve and HannesAlfven of being 'sockpuppets'. You opened that 'personal can-of-worms', mate, so you must also suffer similar accusations and answer to similar challenge, unless you retract yours or present proof for yours. Fair enough? Thanks. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
PPPS @EmceeSquared. If you want proof of how easy it is for 'peer review system' to be CORRUTED/SKEWED by those who seek to benefit by corruption/skewing, then look no further than PO's Posters Ratings Pages 'system'. Bot-voting ignoramuses/zombies GANGS corrupt/game the 'system'; just '5'ing their 'mates' and '1'ing those who would question same by posting valid scientific/logical challenges (and in my case, correct science reminders/insights etc). As further proof, just read the many PO articles which effectively show recent mainstream astro/cosmo/QM discoveries/reviews confirming ME correct (on many fronts and all along), while that GANG of bot-voting ignoramuses keep skewing MY ratings page to suit their anti-science agenda: trying to 'hide' my posts with their '1's; while highlighting their mates' posts with '5's! See how EASY it is to CENSOR/EXCLUDE from readers' gaze any valid challenges to that gang's preferred crap? Beware easily corruptible/gameable 'systems', EcS!
Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 26, 2017
If only you could find a legitimate place elsewhere to exercise your little hobby, as I have, we could all really enjoy ourselves.


.... A slip of the tongue can tell many tales square guy? In your novice attempt to demean my career in science as a "hobby", you unwittingly equated it with your own background in science, a "hobby".

RNP made that slip of the tongue some time back when he admitted to being a freelance journalist. It only figures the two of you would inevitably stumble across each other.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
Benni:
.... A slip


No, as I'm now posting for the third time for your illiteracy, it's "my hobby of telling people just what's wrong with them".

When I wrote "If only you could find a legitimate place elsewhere to exercise your little hobby, as I have, we could all really enjoy ourselves," a competent reader would understand I have found a legitimate place to exercise my hobby and wish you would find a legitimate place to exercise yours.

Your incompetence doesn't constitute my error. But I don't know why you're obsessed with the idea that science is my hobby. Whatever hobby you're practicing in these pages isn't science, and it's barely even trollery.

But then, you just effectively admitted you compose your posts with your tongue. I don't, so don't project that on me either.

You should have quit with (probably lying) about exercising your degree in refrigeration technology. I was perfectly willing to let you have that without even highlighting it.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
RealityCheck:
EmceeSquared (RNP, Da Schneib et al if reading this).


I didn't say I "trust uncritically". You said that. Strawman.

Phys.org is not a peer-reviewed journal. Its moderation system reflects not one iota on peer review. That you can't tell the difference between the two totally disqualifies you from criticizing either.

Oh, and no, I've never posted on Phys.org using a different account than this one. You really excel at guessing wrong. What a desperately lonely person you must be.

You've got nothing but fallacies. Why do you insist on braying like a mule in public, proving nothing with every post but that you're pathologically stupid? What kind of masochist are you? Do you like the abuse of being easily shown bumblingly wrong, so you do most of the work yourself?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
I didn't say I "trust uncritically". You said that. Strawman.
Inference drawn from your comment/sentiment to HannesAlfven; to wit:
I trust scientific peer review. If you can't make an argument on peer-reviewed science, I'm not interested.
Ok, EcS? :)

Anyhow, to this now:
Phys.org is not a peer-reviewed journal. Its moderation system reflects not one iota on peer review. That you can't tell the difference between the two totally disqualifies you from criticizing either.
It was an EXAMPLE of how easy it is to corrupt/game ANY 'system' vulnerable to such easy manipulation (whether covertly o'equating' to me. Now that WAS a Strawman....yours :)
Oh, and no, I've never posted on Phys.org using a different account than this one. You really excel at guessing wrong.
I only asked because YOU accused OTHERS; hence you left yourself open to similar challenge etc. Fair is fair, hey? :)

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 26, 2017
cont...@EcS.
You've got nothing but fallacies.
You must have missed the recent mainstream discoveries/reviews which confirm that I have been correct all along on many fronts FOR YEARS now, mate. So you are too ill informed to offer pertinent, let alone valid, opinions about me and/or my posts content/correctness to date. Please stop asserting/opining based on your own WRONG impressions, gained mostly from 'believing' that bot-voting troll-gangs' lies and half-truths about me/my posts to date, hey? Else you just add to the obvious corruption/skewing problem. Think/Know for yourself instead of 'just believing' and 'going uncritically along' with their corruption/gaming/lies, mate. :)
Do you like the abuse of being easily shown bumblingly wrong, so you do most of the work yourself?
Read my name: "RealityCheck". It upsets bot-voting ignoramus gangs because I am confirmed correct and they wrong/trolls who retaliate by corrupting/skewing ratings. What a hoot! :)
Benni
1 / 5 (1) May 26, 2017
Your incompetence doesn't constitute my error.


No, square guy, it was your "slip of the tongue" that your now trying to walk back when you equated your hobby to my adult career as a science professional. Then in followup, you attempted to demean the science background credentials of anyone with a degree in Engineering with this cutesy little quip:
Of course you also claimed science cred from 6 years of "Nuclear/Electrical Engineering" school, which isn't science training, it's engineering


I've already demonstrated to you that I know more about Einsteins GR than you do, this causing you to cycle into another of your foul mouthed name calling binges because you're unable to come up with a single cogent rebuttal of the Laws of Physics versus your BH Math Fantasy.

But try not to be too overwhelmed by the Real Science I present here, I don't hate you for your fantasies, you're just so much great fodder for me to banter with......I love it.

EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
RealityCheck:
@EmceeSquared.


Yours is not an inference, it is make-up selfserving BS. You added "uncritically" because you're a filthy liar.

Look, I'm not going to waste any more time breaking down your tangled BS. You're a crazy person I've had fun helping show is a lunatic. Replying to you so you post some more crazy BS is overkill.

You're also displaying grandiosity. You're sick. Maybe I should feel bad for helping a sick person play the fool in public, but I don't. I don't claim to be a saint. Of course now you'll tell me I claim to be a saint and that you'll pull some argument against that out of your derangement.

Goodbye.
EmceeSquared
4.3 / 5 (6) May 26, 2017
Benni:
No, square


Actually, I've decided to let you believe I equated my hobby of telling you what's wrong with you to your hobby of being a "science professional" (with a partially completed refrigeration degree). Why should I spoil your being wrong about everything? It leaves you more of a mockery, and that's your only value. Your masochism is distasteful, but it's still fun kicking you while you're down and begging for it.

I'm no more interested discussing General Relativity with you than I am in discussing refrigerator repair with Einstein. Of course you think I've engaged in that kind of discussion with you, but you're living in a fantasy world where you think calling out your personality disorders is "banter".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
WARNING

SO NOT OPEN ANY LINKS FROM REEVE/HANNES, CD or the eu cult!!

.

the following links from reeve/hannes et al above have been reported for being malicious:
coincider.com

plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken
the following quote comes from online web-proxy, and McAfee, Avast and Symantec
This web page at proxy9747.my-addr.org has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked...

Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.

Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
WARNING

SO NOT OPEN ANY LINKS FROM ANY OF THE EU CULT MEMBERS
like HannesAlfven or Chris_Reeve

- here is a screencap of the proxy site warning, which is also the same warning that i received from the antivirus software on three separate computers (Avast, McAfee and Norton)

http://s1027.phot...&o=0

above they used the Gish Gallop to flood the site with blatantly false claims hoping to gain credibility for their non-peer reviewed fanatical beliefs

non-peer reviewed is also called pseudoscience

OPEN LINKS FROM SPAMMERS and TROLLS at your own risk!

you have been warned

for those who prefer real science, please take time to report any links that contain the following:
coincider.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/edgescience-09.pdf

plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken
for those who don't - please open the links shared by chris/hannes
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 27, 2017
@PhysOrg

What the hell does it take to ban some asshole like HannesAlfven and his sock puppets.
@HAT1208
start here:
1- report all posts that are pseudoscience

2- also use the contact button and report them as site problems while noting that the site also states "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted"
link that comment every time you report it

3- using the contact button, post a comment to suggestions and ask why they haven't implemented the free moderation plan that also includes moderation of the MODS submitted to them repeatedly over the past several years

4- repeat 1, 2 and 3 any time you see pseudoscience bullsh*t posts

if all that fails:

5- leave and go to another site -or create a site that will moderate it's posts to compete with and replace this one - and take others with you so that the site loses revenue for their lack of moderation

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Yours is not an inference, it is make-up selfserving BS. You added "uncritically" because you're a filthy liar.
Mate, what else can one 'take away' from your own comment/sentiment that you are not interested in any argument unless it is based on 'peer reviewed' matter?

And did you even READ what I pointed out about 'peer review'? Re recent Penrose/Steinhardt admission, that all those 'peer reviewed' (for DECADES) myths were 'passed into the scientific literature' which YOU just insisted is the ONLY way you are 'interested' in listening to arguments?

How can you claim to be open minded if you haven't even acknowledged that Penrose/Steinhardt ADMITTED 'peer review' system WAS BROKEN for so long?
I'm not going to waste any more time breaking down your tangled BS.
You ALREADY obviously didn't 'waste time' READING what was posted. You go straight to kneejerk/insult in ignorance/bias.
...grandiosity.
Being confirmed correct is "grandiose" now? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Benni:
No, square


Actually, I've decided to let you believe I equated my hobby of telling you what's wrong with you to your hobby of being a "science professional" (with a partially completed refrigeration degree). Why should I spoil your being wrong about everything? It leaves you more of a mockery, and that's your only value. Your masochism is distasteful, but it's still fun kicking you while you're down and begging for it.

I'm no more interested discussing General Relativity with you than I am in discussing refrigerator repair with Einstein
Did you know Einstein and another guy invented (I don't recall if they patented) a REFRIGERATION method? IIRC it involved sound waves reverberating in a tube or some such.

Anyhow, it seemed quite 'topical' to mention it to you and Benni now; since you said to Benni that you didn't want to "discuss refrigerator...with Einstein".

Funny how things are 'connected', hey, Benni, EcS? Anyhow, play nice, hear? :)
yep
1.6 / 5 (5) May 27, 2017
WARNING

Sometimes Capitain Stumpy is on point, but sometimes as above he is delusional.

Emcee of course Robitaille is considered a crank as is anyone who presents data that falsifies the non falsifiable priori of the Big Bang cosmology. This pseudoscience religion fronted as real science has kept us in the gas light era believing in black magic nonsense with its herd mentality as is evident by your unwavering faith and blatent hypocrisy.
Dingbone
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
May 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 27, 2017
Funny how things are 'connected', hey, Benni, EcS? Anyhow, play nice, hear? :)


Yeah, RC, it was a few months ago I fixed my own refrigerator compressor problem after figuring out why my very expensive refrigerator was cooling intermittently, I paid $3k for this thing 5 years ago & I wasn't about to junk it. I traced the problem to a failed triac on the circuit board that triggers the ON/OFF cycle of the compressor. I seriously doubt if the Square Guy even knows what a TRIAC is, much less have the capability of figuring out how to fix HIS refrigerator if he had the same problem.

A couple of weeks ago a person in our Astronomy Club came down with the same problem with a similar model refrigerator. The local refrigeration repair shop charged her $500 to fix the problem, she paid $2.5k for the refrigerator. I paid $3k for my refrigerator & fixed it for $5.

SlartiBartfast
3.5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
Stumpy, neither of those links are problematic (other than just containing BS info). One of them is just a PDF, and the other is Google Plus for crying out loud. Occasionally good sites can be compromised and be added to a warning list (I've seen this happen on well known sites with high traffic), but if the problem is resolved, they'll be removed.

I'm not sure what you experienced, but it really doesn't seem related to these links -- certainly not anymore.

ChrisReeve is a pseudoscience troll, but leave it at that.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
I look forward to your next proof of infinite incompetence wells.


OK Square Guy, I would continue copying highlights of your posts, but visitors to this site for serious science dialogue would get bored with the name calling binges that you, Stumpo, Schneibo, etc, consider serious scientific dialogue.

Just curious square guy, could you fix a refrigerator with a compressor problem?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
I'm not sure what you experienced, but it really doesn't seem related to these links -- certainly not anymore
@Slarti
read for yourself http://s1027.phot...&o=0

the attempted connection was to the PDF link in the above warning, which was repeated when i ment to the google plus site (which is chris reeve's personal pseudoscience cult site)

the same warning came from three separate anti-virus companies, the AV itself and a separate independent proxy service
ChrisReeve is a pseudoscience troll, but leave it at that
true, but the warning wasn't for his idiot pseudoscience

the warning was because those sites are compromised and a threat to anyone who opens the links

and one can't rule out intentional malicious links from reeve/hannes due to the known problems with so many other eu cult sites, also listed as threats by the AV's
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
Sometimes Capitain Stumpy is on point, but sometimes as above he is delusional
@yep the eu cult idiot spamming troll

1- because i knew you and your sock puppets would make the claim that i was delusional, i screencapped the event: http://s1027.phot...&o=0

2- delusional would be issuing a warning based upon my belief - there is no warning issued because of belief. it is substantiated by the link

unfortunately for you and your cult beliefs, that is how science works - it aint just about making a claim. it's about the evidence

had the eu cult or your offshoot delusional crank bullsh*t fractions produced any evidence based arguments capable of refuting known proven science substantiating your claims?

nope

that is why you post here and you're not publishing peer reviewed journals
unmoderated sites is all you idiots have
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (1) May 27, 2017
the attempted connection was to the PDF link in the above warning, which was repeated when i ment to the google plus site (which is chris reeve's personal pseudoscience cult site)


One doesn't have enough control over a G+ page to insert anything malicious like that. The first of the two links was just some guy's personal website (who seems to specialize in psychobabble woo), and otherwise seems completely unrelated to the second.

That you got the same warning from an attempted redirect to both is more indicative of a problem on your end somewhere. In any case, as much as he's a pseudoscience troll, it's really an unjustified leap to accuse him of malicious activity with these links.

There's plenty of real ammo to use. Just drop this one. It's not strong enough on its own to be significant.
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
Okay, so I looked into it a bit more. The "my-addr.org" bit seems to be some sort of browsing proxy service. Perhaps CR was using this and it got included into the URL he pasted. Do you have the original PO article that the comment was from?

Chrome warns me when I try to browse via the service. However, they don't really include any more details. It might be a fairly general warning due to the potential for this kind of link to be abused. And I can't find any more details about it anywhere.

In any case, the ultimate target links to his G+ page, and the psychowoo guy's page are definitely safe. The only questionable bit is trying to access them via the proxy. And currently, it's questionable. I don't think any of us can definitely say whether it's safe or unsafe.

So if you want to follow a URL that's given via the "my-addr.org" proxy, just remove it and access the target site normally.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2017
I don't think any of us can definitely say whether it's safe or unsafe
@Slarti
yes and no

were this a one time thing (like the first time i visited one of their "reference" links) then i would say the exact same thing

however, this is a trend from eu links

one time is a fluke
a second time is a warning
three times is a pattern

this makes far, far, far more than three times, with different computers, running different AV, using different proxies, with different browsers, all with the same warning

normally i just report the issue to the site, but since they continually ignore the problem i posted

and yes, likely this is a general warning, however i have already dealt with many malicious attacks from various eu sites in the past (like thunderbutts), so i felt the warning justified

also note, there are a LOT of references to thunderidiot sites from the G+ woo site
Do you have the original PO article that the comment was from?
this one - 4th post

EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) May 27, 2017
Captain Stumpy:
yes and no


I expect that people who accept crank science (especially the kind that aggressively flies in the face of peer reviewed science) are easier than average targets for phishing and other attacks. Social engineering would prefer worse critical thinkers (especially self destructive ones) as targets for takeover.

So I'm not at all surprised that a crank science movement (which the EU movement is, even though the underlying investigations of phenomena aren't as bad as the EU proselytizing culture that embraces it) would also show up with worse security risks to its messaging recipients than the average.

There are plenty of players intertwined with literal gangsters who are preying on the less rigorous thinkers among Internet consumers, especially people already disaffected with global institutions, including science. Some are simple crooks, some are criminal industries, some are the president of the United States and his foreign sponsors.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) May 28, 2017
I expect that people who accept crank science ... are easier than average targets for phishing and other attacks
@EmceeSquared
you are absolutely correct

this is why there should be moderation from this site to at least adhere to their own posted "guidelines" and delete the pseudoscience

the eu idiots will state this is censorship
but they have equal and unrestricted access to journals just like everyone else, which means the problem isn't censorship but rather the failure of their leadership to actually do any science

pseudoscience and the idiot conspiracy theorists that cling to said BS typically don't comprehend their stupidity (this is like the eu religious fanaticism shown here by CD or certain others)

worst still, the spreading of such inane drivel is not victimless:
https://phys.org/...mes.html

example: cd's stupidity which threatens it's offspring and anyone living nearby
details upon request
SlartiBartfast
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2017
I don't think any of us can definitely say whether it's safe or unsafe
@Slarti
yes and no

were this a one time thing (like the first time i visited one of their "reference" links) then i would say the exact same thing


The link to the PDF in CR's comment in this article does not include the my-addr.org proxy prefix. Clicking on it doesn't do anything other than take you to that psychowoo guy's site which has said PDF on it. If you're getting redirected there, it has to be something on your own end. It might be on your computer, or on another computer/piece of network equipment that's sitting between you and here.

Whatever AV software you're using is irrelevant, as the warning you're getting is from Firefox (Chrome issues a very similar sort of warning, too).

Without seeing your computer or setup, I can't say what's causing the issue, but the link CR posted is completely benign (except for being stupid).
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2017
The link to the PDF in CR's comment in this article does not include the my-addr.org proxy prefix
@Slarti
yeah, i know it doesn't
i never, ever, EVER visit one of their sites or click any of their links without taking precautions
Whatever AV software you're using is irrelevant, as the warning you're getting is from Firefox
not just firefox
the screencap is the firefox warning
the other messages come in pop-ups from my AV and Firewall

i just didn't screencap the pop-ups, which is where i think the confusion about my post lies

like i said, considering the historical problems i've dealt with from their sites i never use their links (or sites) without taking precautions
Without seeing your computer or setup, I can't say what's causing the issue
i know what the issue is
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) May 29, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

Mate, you have been lying and trolling to beat the band for years now. It's got so bad that even your 'mates' are getting jack of your unconscionable personal malice and lies 'campaign' which demeans you and all associated with you. Please get some help to cure yourself of whatever it is that drives you to such extreme anti-science and anti-humanity behavior on the net, CS. Seriously.

Now please, CS, stick to the science/logics topic; and leave out your interminable tactics of irrelevance clutter, malicious lies and personal hate feuds. Ok? Thanks. :)

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.