A bar magnet creates chaos in plasma

July 25, 2017
A localized glow region, the complex space charge configuration, near cathode surface with application of ~28G magnetic field. Credit: Shaw et al/AIP Publishing

Placing a magnet on your refrigerator might hold up your calendar, but researchers from India's Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics found that placing one outside a plasma chamber causes a localized, fireball-like structure. This work may help understand plasma dynamics under these north-south, or dipolar, magnetic fields. They present their results this week in the journal Physics of Plasmas.

When subjected to the magnetic dipole field produced by a bar magnet, the researchers found that a localized glow appeared near the cathode surface. According to their paper, this localization is due to enhancement of the degree of ionization because of electron confinement in the near the negatively charged cathode surface. They found that the intensity of the glow region increased as they increased the of the magnetic field.

Traditionally, work in this field is conducted by keeping a permanent magnet inside a chamber—this means there is no way to vary field strength or field line structure. By placing the bar magnet on the outside of the plasma chamber, the authors of this paper could change the position of the magnet and vary the strength of the magnetic field.

"Though bar magnets have been used in , the focus was mainly on the measurement of plasma equilibrium parameters like density, potential and other fluctuation measurements," said lead author Pankaj Kumar Shaw. "In our opinion, this is the first effort to investigate nonlinear dynamical phenomena of the fluctuations under dipolar magnetic field."

In these previous studies, the introduction of a magnetic field to plasma would cause the plasma fluctuation to go from order to chaos. Placing the bar magnet outside the , Shaw and his colleagues found that increasing the magnetic field strength revealed a transition from order to chaos via a process of a period doubling bifurcation.

"Following a particular sequence from order to chaos via [a] period-doubling route was unexpected," said Shaw, who added that while previous experiments had reported the emergence of turbulence and chaos from introducing a magnetic field, that this was the first experiment to report a doubling route to chaos with .

"Changing position of the bar magnet varied the strength of magnetic field over 1-10G," Shaw said. "This observation in such a low range of magnetic was surprising."

In the future, Shaw said his team hopes to design a new plasma experiment that incorporates more bar magnets and investigate their effects on plasma dynamics.

The results of this paper could be important in space plasma research, said Shaw. Specifically, it could help scientists understand effects such as magnetic anomalies on solar wind-lunar surface interactions. It could also prove vital in other areas of plasma applications such as plasma processing of materials where magnetic fields are extensively used.

Knowing the "root cause of plasma instabilities is important for applications of plasma-surface interactions," Shaw said. Furthermore, he thinks this could help educate a future generation of physicists. "This simple experiment can be used to teach various aspects of plasma physics, nonlinear dynamics, and time series analysis to high school students."

Explore further: On the road to creating an electrodeless spacecraft propulsion engine

More information: "A localized cathode glow in the presence of a bar magnet and its associated nonlinear dynamics," Physics of Plasmas (2017). DOI: 10.1063/1.4991404

Related Stories

Table top plasma gets wind of solar turbulence

June 30, 2017

Scientists from India and Portugal recreated solar turbulence on a tabletop using a high intensity ultrashort laser pulse to excite a hot, dense plasma and followed the evolution of the giant magnetic field generated by the ...

From Germany comes a new twist for fusion research

October 27, 2016

This past year saw the commissioning and initial operation of a new large-scale plasma experiment, the Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) in Greifswald, Germany. Designed, constructed, and operated by the Max-Planck Institute for Plasma ...

Recommended for you

Two teams independently test Tomonaga–Luttinger theory

October 20, 2017

(Phys.org)—Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have found ways to test aspects of the Tomonaga–Luttinger theory that describes interacting quantum particles in 1-D ensembles in a Tomonaga–Luttinger ...

Using optical chaos to control the momentum of light

October 19, 2017

Integrated photonic circuits, which rely on light rather than electrons to move information, promise to revolutionize communications, sensing and data processing. But controlling and moving light poses serious challenges. ...

Black butterfly wings offer a model for better solar cells

October 19, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers with California Institute of Technology and the Karlsruh Institute of Technology has improved the efficiency of thin film solar cells by mimicking the architecture of rose butterfly wings. ...

Terahertz spectroscopy goes nano

October 19, 2017

Brown University researchers have demonstrated a way to bring a powerful form of spectroscopy—a technique used to study a wide variety of materials—into the nano-world.

117 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2017
The results of this paper could be important in space plasma research, said Shaw.

Don't say this to an astrophysicist as they study their own type of theoretical plasmas which have the fields "frozen-in" and other such pseudoscientific properties.
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2017
I remember placing magnets in various positions around a CRT. Same effect.
I suppose the emitted electrons could be considered a "plasma"...
Old_C_Code
not rated yet Jul 25, 2017
" have the fields "frozen-in" "

Isn't this what a bar magnet does? There is no external electric power source driving the magnetic field.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2017
@Old_C_Cde.
" have the fields "frozen-in" "

Isn't this what a bar magnet does? There is no external electric power source driving the magnetic field.
The two contexts are different. A plasma in flux across space is unstable and cannot maintain a 'frozen in' magnetic field 'pattern'. Bar magnets etc are rigid bodies. Space plasmas are fluxing bodies. Hence cantdrive's observations: that astrophysicists' use of the 'frozen in' models/explanations miss the point and complexity of the fuller dynamical fluxing instability phenomena involved across even huge reaches of space, within plasma 'clouds' and 'streams' etc and along/across their boundary layers and in surrounding space as well. It's more rich and complicated/hybrid phenomena/effects than astrophysicists have assumed from old (now obsolete) 'empty space' simple/predictable plasma models/interpretations. Cheers. :)
barakn
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 25, 2017
How ironic that cantdrive85 rails against magnetic reconnection when magnetic reconnection is a classic example of non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics, i.e. where fields are not "frozen-in." And how typical of Reality Check to be convinced that astrophysicists are not investigating non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics when in fact that they are. Both of you need to learn how to search and read the literature. It's out there.
Shootist
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
How ironic that cantdrive85 rails against magnetic reconnection when magnetic reconnection is a classic example of non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics, i.e. where fields are not "frozen-in." And how typical of Reality Check to be convinced that astrophysicists are not investigating non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics when in fact that they are. Both of you need to learn how to search and read the literature. It's out there.


The research you're speaking of doesn't support their narrative and for people like these guys, the narrative is everything.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2017
" have the fields "frozen-in" "

Isn't this what a bar magnet does? There is no external electric power source driving the magnetic field.

The magnetic field isn't "frozen-in" to the material, amperian currents create the magnetic field. Nothing is "frozen-in".
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2017
How ironic that cantdrive85 rails against magnetic reconnection when magnetic reconnection is a classic example of non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics

Magnetic reconnection is a classic example pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo with all of the moving, breaking, and reconnecting field lines.
BTW, the processes related to the energetic releases astrophysicists choose to call magnetic reconnection can be explained using circuit theory and particle models. MHD (ideal or not) models are too simplistic and omit the fine details (instabilities, double layers, etc.) that are largely responsible for the explosive events.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2017
@barakn.
...And how typical of Reality Check to be convinced that astrophysicists are not investigating non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics...
Who said they weren't investigating that? I didn't!

What I ACTUALLY wrote was:
It's more rich and complicated/hybrid phenomena/effects than astrophysicists have assumed from old (now obsolete) 'empty space' simple/predictable plasma models/interpretations.
Which is NOT what you are trying to 'strawman' it into, @barakn.

Listen, mate, if you are going to demand respect from others based on your claims to scientific credibility, it would be a great idea if you did NOT make up your own version of what others are saying then attacking your own 'careless' misconstruings. Do better, @barakn. Thanks. :)
24volts
not rated yet Jul 26, 2017
I don't understand why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets. The magnets could still be shaped like bar magnets if they want. They would have a lot more control over the magnetic field they are experimenting with that way.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2017
I don't understand why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets. The magnets could still be shaped like bar magnets if they want. They would have a lot more control over the magnetic field they are experimenting with that way.

Being that there are no bar magnets in space it would make this research much more relevant in tjat aspect as well.
bschott
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
" have the fields "frozen-in" "

Isn't this what a bar magnet does? There is no external electric power source driving the magnetic field.

The magnetic field isn't "frozen-in" to the material, amperian currents create the magnetic field. Nothing is "frozen-in".

So what amperage does your ampmeter tell you is present when you measure the amperian currents in a bar magnet? Perhaps a circuit diagram of the current flow is available to explain the magnetic field geometry? All of this is measurable and testable....show us.

barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2017
@barakn.
...And how typical of Reality Check to be convinced that astrophysicists are not investigating non-ideal magnetohydrodynamics...
Who said they weren't investigating that? I didn't!

What I ACTUALLY wrote was:
It's more rich and complicated/hybrid phenomena/effects than astrophysicists have assumed from old (now obsolete) 'empty space' simple/predictable plasma models/interpretations.
Which is NOT what you are trying to 'strawman' it into -RealityCheck

I've read and reread your statement, and nowhere do you imply that astrophysicists are no longer using anything other than the "old (now obsolete) 'empty space' simple/predictable plasma models/interpretations." It's not my fault if you are a poor writer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2017
BTW, the processes related to the energetic releases astrophysicists choose to call magnetic reconnection can be explained using circuit theory and particle models
@nazi sympathizing conspiracy theorist idiot pseudoscience eu cult member
so, you can provide your eu theory on this in a peer reviewed published paper that is validated?

because reconnection isn't *just* validated, you know, it's also replicated exactly per theory (more than 100K times @ PPL.gov alone )

and that is repeatedly validated at multiple plasma physics labs all over the world without astrophysicists.... just like the above indian plasma physics lab

as even bschott points out
All of this is measurable and testable
so where are your studies that directly contradict modern plasma physicists?

especially with regard to reconnection because it will have to at the very least demonstrate (repeatedly) why an experiment is wrong all 100K + times

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
I don't understand why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets
@24
maybe this will help
Many papers in literature showed the study on fireball structure and its associated nonlinear dynamics in magnetized as well as unmagnetized plasma.1,5 Also, many experiments have been carried21–24 out in magnetic dipole discharges wherein fireballs, sheath oscillations, current driven turbulence, and relaxation instabilities due to ionization have been investigated. However, not much work has been carried out to investigate the nonlinear dynamical aspects such as routes to chaos, intermittency, etc., by applying a dipolar magnetic field in a plasma discharge..
http://aip.scitat....4991404

contact information is available should you wish to inquire directly and share the reasoning of the authors
Yirmin_Snipe
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2017

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén


I think we've been going down that road for quite a while now. Worst part is that once the critical mass of believers in a particular theory latch on to it, the ability to move past it by proving it wrong becomes more and more difficult no matter what empirical evidence you might have.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2017
@barakn.
I've read and reread your statement, and nowhere do you imply that astrophysicists are no longer using anything other than the "old (now obsolete) 'empty space' simple/predictable plasma models/interpretations." It's not my fault if you are a poor writer.
It's not my fault you haven't kept up with recent mainstream astronomy/cosmology finding humongous quantities of all sorts of ordinary material in interstellar, intergalactic, inter-cluster space. Astronomers/astrophysicists NOW admit that all previous assumptions/interpretations etc based on old 'empty space' scenarios no longer hold; or must be scrutinized/reviewed in light of the newly discovered ubiquitous clouds/streams etc of ionized/neutral gases, molecules, dust, grains etc etc which ACTUALLY DO exist in what was formerly assumed to be effectively 'empty' space.

Plank/Bicep experiments showed clearly what newly confirmed 'plasma/dust' etc can do to old 'empty space' assumptions/interpretations. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
From @24volts: I don't understand why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets
From you to @24volts:
maybe this will help
Many papers in literature showed the study on fireball structure and its associated nonlinear dynamics in magnetized as well as unmagnetized plasma.1,5 Also, many experiments have been carried21–24 out in magnetic dipole discharges wherein fireballs, sheath oscillations, current driven turbulence, and relaxation instabilities due to ionization have been investigated. However, not much work has been carried out to investigate the nonlinear dynamical aspects such as routes to chaos, intermittency, etc., by applying a dipolar magnetic field in a plasma discharge..
http://aip.scitat....4991404

Be aware that a straight length of 'solenoid' electro-magnet creates/involves a DIPOLAR magnetic field; so your reply to 24volts doesn't answer his/her question: "why not an electromagnet?"etc.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
From @24volts: I don't understand why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets
From you to @24volts:
maybe this will help. Many papers in literature showed the study on fireball structure and its associated nonlinear dynamics in magnetized as well as unmagnetized plasma.1,5 .... However, not much work has been carried out to investigate the nonlinear dynamical aspects such as routes to chaos, intermittency, etc., by applying a dipolar magnetic field in a plasma discharge..
http://aip.scitat....4991404
Be aware that a straight length of 'solenoid' electro-magnet creates/involves a DIPOLAR magnetic field; so your reply to 24volts doesn't answer his/her question: "why not an electromagnet?"etc.

A bar magnet is bi polar, too.
What's your point?
For 24. It was easier for the experimental setup...
Less stuff to have to find and hook up...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
Which reminds me...
Anybody remember that the old CRT's had an electromagnet choke around the gun neck? It was to control the where the beam hit on the screen.
IOW - where to position (localize) a "chaotic" glow effect on the screen...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2017
@Whyde.
@Captain Stumpy.
From @24volts: I don't understand why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets
From you to @24volts:
maybe this will help. Many papers in literature showed the study on fireball structure and its associated nonlinear dynamics in magnetized as well as unmagnetized plasma.1,5 .... However, not much work has been carried out to investigate the nonlinear dynamical aspects such as routes to chaos, intermittency, etc., by applying a dipolar magnetic field in a plasma discharge..
http://aip.scitat....4991404
Be aware that a straight length of 'solenoid' electro-magnet creates/involves a DIPOLAR magnetic field; so your reply to 24volts doesn't answer his/her question: "why not an electromagnet?"etc

A bar magnet is bi polar, too.
What's your point?
For 24. It was easier for the experimental setup...
Less stuff to have to find and hook up...
That *was also* MY point to CS, Whyde. Read again. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2017
And that makes me question a few things in the article...
How did they position the bar magnet, relative to the plasma stream? parallel or perpendicular?
Perhaps a magnetic "choke" and raster mechanism (except - toroidally engineered) would solve the problem....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jul 28, 2017
That *was also* MY point to CS, Whyde. Read again. :)

I did, and.... Perhaps you should focus less on trying to "correct" others and more on providing a correct (yours was not) answer to the question posed by 24.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2017
Perhaps you should focus less on trying to "correct" others and more on providing a correct (yours was not) answer to the question posed by 24
@Whyde
did you also notice that he completely missed the point of the post too?
LMFAO

How did they position the bar magnet, relative to the plasma stream?
there is a diagram in the paper
check it out here:
http://aip.scitat....4991404
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2017
@Whyde.
How did they position the bar magnet, relative to the plasma stream? parallel or perpendicular?
Perhaps a magnetic "choke" and raster mechanism (except - toroidally engineered) would solve the problem..
The context of the article is about bar-magnet studies to date using bar-magnets INSIDE the plasma tube etc; and the research team NOW placing bar-magnets OUTSIDE the tube/etc in order to have better CONTROL of the strength/position/alignment etc parameter variables and observe what happens that may be DIFFERENT from the INTERNAL experiments so far. That is the whole point of the exercise, Whyde. Choke etc systems/effects may already be known/being explored in other experiments.
Perhaps you should focus less on trying to "correct" others and more on providing a correct (yours was not) answer to the question posed by 24
I did NOT 'answer' 24volts' question. I made CS aware of what HIS 'answer' LACKED; because CS missed that Electro-magnet can BE DIPOLAR. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
The context of the [article is about bar-magnet studies to date using bar-magnets INSIDE the plasma tube etc; and the research team NOW placing bar-magnets OUTSIDE the tube/etc in order to have better CONTROL of the strength/position/alignment etc parameter variables and observe what happens that may be DIFFERENT from the INTERNAL experiments so far.

Which, has alrady been done with standard CRT's.
That is the whole point of the exercise, Whyde. Choke etc systems/effects may already be known/being explored in other experiments.

Correct,which makes this whole article non-sequitor.
The OUTSIDE effects are already known via the expertise we have already developed in choke systems.
This particular research is only a rehash/re-discovery of already known info...
IOW - a NON discovery.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2017
@Whyde.
...studies to date using bar-magnets INSIDE the plasma tube etc; and the research team NOW placing bar-magnets OUTSIDE the tube/etc in order to have better CONTROL of the strength/position/alignment etc parameter variables and observe what happens that may be DIFFERENT from the INTERNAL experiments so far.
Which, has alrady been done with standard CRT's.
You're still missing it. The bar-magnet/dipolar effects was the SPECIFIC target of their experiment.
That is the whole point of the exercise, Whyde. Choke etc systems/effects may already be known/being explored in other experiments.
Correct,which makes this whole article non-sequitor.
Not so; see next.
The OUTSIDE effects are already known via the expertise we have already developed in choke systems.
You conflate the 'control' aspect. What you mention are for controlling PLASMA STREAM PER SE; whereas in THEIR experiment 'control' is SPECIFICALLY OF BAR-MAGNET strength etc variables. Ok? :)
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
You conflate the 'control' aspect. What you mention are for controlling PLASMA STREAM PER SE; whereas in THEIR experiment 'control' is SPECIFICALLY OF BAR-MAGNET strength etc variables. Ok?

Plasma stream, plasma cloud... bar magnet, electro-magnet... inside the plasma, outside the plasma...
These are all experiments that have been done for a hundred years, at least.
The results have always been the same - magnets influence plasma.
And has been exploited in NUMEROUS commercial products for at least 80 of that 100 years...
So... what was the point of the experiment?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2017
@Whyde.
...what was the point of the experiment?
Didn't you read the article? Previous experiments had dipolar-magnet ('fixed' in position/strength etc) inside the plasma; but new experiment has dipolar-magnet outside and can be 'variable' position/strength etc. Also the external dipolar field caused an 'unexpected fireball like structure' not observed in previous/other experiments. Moreover the new 'external dipolar-mag' allows 'changing strength' etc 'control' which allows observation of the previously unobserved/unexpected "transition from order to chaos via a process of a period DOUBLING BIFURCATION" that had not been possible to study before in previous/other experiments:
"...while previous experiments had reported the emergence of turbulence and chaos from introducing a magnetic field, that this was the first experiment to report a doubling route to chaos with magnetic field strength."
See? The article already answered your question(s) before you asked. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2017
PS @Whyde.

As to 24volts question as to whyy use bar-magnets and fiddle around with 'variable strength/position' etc adjusment/control' etc complexities, Stumpy's response didn't even attempt to address that obvious implication by 24volts when he asked "Why not use Electro-magnets" (to mimic the 'bar-magnet dipolar field', and make the adjustments/control much easier and in 'finer steps' which wouyld enhance the overall study of 'transition' effects).

Anyhow, Whyde, I trust you are now clear on both the aims/aspects of the above experiment and also the point of my initial post to Stumpy making him aware that Electro-magnets can BE dipolar arrangement, thus making his response to 24volt a non-answer.

Cheers, Whyde, 24volts, everyone. :)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2017
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post :)
Stumpy's response didn't even attempt to address
1- yes, it did
you just didn't read it because you're a pseudoscience f*ckwit

i know this is fact because
2- i quoted from the study for others to reference, and then linked it

there is no reason for me to provide a dissertation as they provide their own reasoning, which is evident had you actually read my post and the subsequent reference :)

CTRL+F works in PDF ya idjit! :o

now, it may well not answer it to the point of your own personal satisfaction, but who gives a shit about that?
no one, because you're a chronic liar anyway (proven - repeatedly by separate sources)

also note, if you're not satisfied with their annotations, feel free to ask them for clarification directly, as i also point out in my post

thanks for being a complete idiot and validating your lack of literacy along with your refusal to read reference material!
:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
Stumpy's response didn't even attempt to address
1- yes, it did
So go on, CS, point out where your response to 24volts actualluy answered the question he asked? Why not use electro-magnets of dipolar configuration (which can be easily controlled as to strength etc) instead of fiddling around with bar-magnets? See, CS? Your quoted excerpt merely re-iterated what was already known: that (generic) experiments on fireball structures have been done before. But the above experiment is specifically using bar-magnets as described to 'unexpectedly' reproduce 'fireball structures' as described. Since 24volts read the article, he knew that already, so you were just telling him what he already read for himself. You nowhere actually answered his question asked after he read article, ie:
why they are using bar magnets instead of electromagnets
So, CS, why keep insulting instead of answering 24volt's question? Be more like @Whyde: discuss without malice. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2017
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post and is stupid enough to continue to prove he is a moron :)
So, CS, why keep insulting
because you forgot to read #2
:)
and the post
:D
and the linked reference material
:O
Be more like @Whyde: discuss without malice
with you?
LOL
:)
why?

you completely disregarded the information that was posted to make sh*t up about what was posted, while ignoring the most important parts!

given that you're incapable of actually reading (proven above), let alone checking the linked reference material (also proven above)
then please explain why anyone should attempt to have a rational discussion with you?

it's not like you are capable of coherent discourse, let alone objective science
...especially when you're also proven to be a liar by your own admission ( https://phys.org/...ure.html )

LOL
:)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2017
RC, I am clear on what they did, your responses notwithstanding (you didn't actually explain the reasoning for the choice of bar magnets vs electromagnets, either.)
I am also clear on the immediate reasoning - simplicity of setup.
However, I am a little baffled as to why the author(s) felt this was new research...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2017
However, I am a little baffled as to why the author(s) felt this was new research...
@Whyde
not sure where you're going with this?

so - quick question: where do the authors state this is new research?

they do state this, which may answer your question
However, not much work has been carried out to investigate the nonlinear dynamical aspects such as routes to chaos, intermittency, etc., by applying a dipolar magnetic field in a plasma discharge.

The present work aims to study the dynamics of nonlinear oscillations associated with the localized cathode glow in a glow discharge plasma in the presence of a bar magnet placed outside the device.
i really am not sure where you're coming from or what, exactly, you want to know....???

maybe you can inquire directly to the study authors though
the contacts are listed here: http://aip.scitat....4991404

let me know what they say if you inquire, please
thanks!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2017
The bifurcations are especially important. This is a clear sign of the onset of chaos in many other disciplines.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2017
@Csptain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post...
The insults in your address line reveal your nasty agenda to pre-conclude the discussion points at issue even before the discussion is finalized.:)
So, CS, why keep insulting
because you forgot to read #2
So, CS, please show where you/that answered 24volt's question as to why use bar-magnets if dipolar electromagnets allow more/finer control of magnet strength etc? Thanks. :)
Be more like @Whyde: discuss without malice
with you? why?
With everybody. Because it's right. :)
it's not like you are capable of coherent discourse, let alone objective science
The address lines of my posts do not 'drip' with preemptive gratuitous juvenile insults, lies and personal biases etc; but yours do, CS. Rethink it! :)
...especially when you're also proven to be a liar by your own admission...
No such admission; you're dreaming again, CS. Your incomprehension is no excuse, CS. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2017
@Da Schneib.
The bifurcations are especially important. This is a clear sign of the onset of chaos in many other disciplines.
Yes, mate; but their experiment/observations involved some 'firsts', ie:
"...the first effort to (1):INVESTIGATE NONLINEAR DYNAMICAL PHENOMENA OF THE FLUCTUATIONS UNDER DIPOLAR magnetic field....Placing the (2):BAR MAGNET OUTSIDE the plasma chamber, Shaw and his colleagues found that (3):INCREASING THE MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH REVEALED A TRANSITION FROM ORDER TO CHAOS via a process of a (4):PERIOD DOUBLING bifurcation....(5):FOLLOWING A PARTICULAR SEQUENCE FROM ORDER TO CHAOS VIA PERIOD-DOUBLING ROUTE WAS UNEXPECTED...while previous experiments had reported the emergence of turbulence and chaos from introducing a magnetic field, that (6):THIS WAS THE FIRST EXPERIMENT TO REPORT A DOUBLING ROUTE TO CHAOS WITH MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH."
So you see, DS (and Whyde et al) this was a more subtle/complex exercise involving some "firsts". Kudos. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2017
@Whyde.
I am clear on what they did, your responses notwithstanding
Ok. Good. :)
you didn't actually explain the reasoning for the choice of bar magnets vs electromagnets, either.
Why should I do that? I agree with the implication of 24volt's question, so I would not presume to try to explain why the scientists above did NOT use dipolar ELECTRO-magnet INSTEAD of bar magnet; since former would BE dipolar AND allow greater/finer control of mag-strength etc variables.

See? I did NOT HAVE any reason to make an 'explanation' as to why above scientists did NOT use DIpolar Electro-magnet.

I merely observed CS's response did not answer the point of 24volt's question; nor gave any new info which 24volt didn't already have from article/paper.
I am also clear on the immediate reasoning - simplicity of setup.
Dipolar electro-magnet would be more strength-fluctuation-controllable etc.
I am a little baffled as to why...
Please see my above post to DaS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2017
Gee, @RC, I thought you said you didn't believe in math. What are you doing spouting chaos math after you said that?

You said it right here: Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2017
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post and has validated that he is a complete pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank :)
@Csptain Stumpy.
1- spell check is freely available for everyone - maybe you should look into downloading it
:)
there are even options in most to add your own pseudoscience technobabble bullsh*t since you can't be consistent
:)

2- it's not "insults" if it's factually correct as well as provable
:)
if you had any evidence that it was not factually correct you could take steps (like litigation)
feel free to exercise your right to be proven an idiot in a court, as i would cherish the vacation and laughs

also note: given that you cannot comprehend basic english as noted by me and validated by you above, and that you are incapable of reading or comprehending references (also noted by me and validated by you above), then i am sure you will continue posting your chronic lies and stupidity, even if i don't respond

FOAD

:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Gee, @RC, I thought you said you didn't believe in math. What are you doing spouting chaos math after you said that?

You said it right here: Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
I posted for your benefit, DS. You posted a lame observation about the bleeding obvious that everyone already knew; but you missed all the "firsts" achieved by the above experiment; which latter I patiently pointed out for your benefit. And this response from you is what I get for my trouble? Not a good look, DS. Ingratitude added to all your insults and misconstruings. Not good. You could at least have acknowledged I was correct; and that you missed it all. Never mind; that expectation of objectivity and honesty from you flew out the window long ago. Anyway, take care, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
Yeah, @RC, but see, here's the problem: you lied again, didn't you?

This isn't just simple arithmetic type math; bifurcation theory is about certain types of systems of partial differential equations, among other things. That's some fairly advanced math, and it's math you said elsewhere you think is somehow wrong (though you never quite manage to say exactly how) and you claimed you have something better (though you've never said how that is, either).

So no, you didn't post anything "for my benefit;" you posted it to prove how smart you are, and you screwed up and lied again and got caught again and instead of looking smart, you look stupid again.

What's the matter with you, anyway?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post and has validated that he is a complete pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank
@Csptain Stumpy.
1- spell check is freely available for everyone - maybe you should look into downloading it

there are even options in most to add your own pseudoscience technobabble bullsh*t since you can't be consistent

2- it's not "insults" if it's factually correct as well as provable

if you had any evidence that it was not factually correct you could take steps (like litigation)
feel free to exercise your right to be proven an idiot in a court, as i would cherish the vacation and laughs

also note: given that you cannot comprehend basic english....

FOAD

:)
All that drivel occasioned by a TYPO! All your claims of "proving" when you haven't proven a thing. You even cannot provide evidence for your (false) claim re "criminal record"! Nor did you actually answer 24volt's question! Drivel on, Stumpy.....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Yeah, @RC, but see, here's the problem: you lied again, didn't you?

This isn't just simple arithmetic type math; bifurcation theory is about certain types of systems of partial differential equations, among other things. That's some fairly advanced math, and it's math you said elsewhere you think is somehow wrong (though you never quite manage to say exactly how) and you claimed you have something better (though you've never said how that is, either).
Bifurcation of a physical system happens in reality; the maths is a way to analyze and formalize etc the different contexts/extents of invariant (real, physical, not mathematical) parameters of REAL systems/phenomena. You making it 'all about the maths' is why you missed the REAL "firsts" I pointed out; which "firsts" were THE point and IMPORTANCE of the whole experiment/analysis; the 'maths' used was INCIDENTAL after the fact OF the REAL EFFECTS/OBSERVATIONS were made by the experimenters. Get it now, DS?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
Systems of partial differential equations aren't invariant, @RC. In fact, a single PDE isn't invariant either. You're just making stuff up that sounds good. To make yourself look smart. It's not working; anyone who knows anything about the math, and the real physical phenomena it describes, knows that as soon as you pair up "invariant" with PDEs.

You're lying again.

What's the matter with you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
PS @Da Schneib. Why continue misconstruing our earlier exchange re my observation (again for your benefit) of the mathematical adequacy of current UNREAL-AXIOM based maths for MODELING THE UNIVERSE. I already explained in that exchange how the conventional maths axiomatic/consequential construct is (after a hundred years) STILL unable to model or elucidate the COMPLETE universal phenomena in ONE CONSISTENT manner. That is why partial theory/maths applies to QM/GR modeling....but not both as a whole. Ok, clear on THAT too now, DS?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Systems of partial differential equations aren't invariant, @RC. In fact, a single PDE isn't invariant either. You're just making stuff up that sounds good. To make yourself look smart. It's not working; anyone who knows anything about the math, and the real physical phenomena it describes, knows that as soon as you pair up "invariant" with PDEs.
Really, DS? Wiki:
Bifurcation types

It is useful to divide bifurcations into two principal classes:

Local bifurcations, which can be analysed entirely through changes in the local stability properties of equilibria, periodic orbits or other INVARIANT SETS as parameters cross through critical thresholds; and
Global bifurcations, which often occur when larger INVARIANT SETS of the system 'collide' with each other, or with equilibria of the system. They cannot be detected purely by a stability analysis of the equilibria (fixed points).
DS, if you are going to read-and-spout without comprehending...don't, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
@RC, nobody misconstrued anything. You stated something, and now you're stating something else that directly opposes it. That's lying. There's nothing to misconstrue. So here you are lying yet again.

And again, you lie: https://en.wikipe...n_theory
Bifurcation theory is the mathematical study of changes in the qualitative or topological structure of a given family, such as the integral curves of a family of vector fields, and the solutions of a family of differential equations.
See where it says "family of differential equations?"

What's the matter with you? Can't you stop lying?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
Here's the problem, @RC: you're trying to bamboozle someone who actually knows how this stuff works, in front of a bunch of people who also actually know how this stuff works. Everybody who knows how this stuff works knows you're lying, because you *don't* know how this stuff works. That means you can't make up stuff and say it and have anyone do anything but laugh at you for saying something else stupid, and for telling another obvious lie.

What's the matter with you, anyway? Can't you stop lying?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
nobody misconstrued anything. You stated something, and now you're stating something else that directly opposes it. That's lying. There's nothing to misconstrue. So here you are lying yet again.

And again, you lie...
Bifurcation theory is the mathematical study of changes in the qualitative or topological structure of a given family, such as the integral curves of a family of vector fields, and the solutions of a family of differential equations.
See where it says "family of differential equations?"
Why keep making wild accusations, DS? Just stop and read what you wrote.

You said NO 'invariants'; wiki said YES. So who is the one "lying", DS?

You spoke of 'theory' while I spoke of THE PHYSICAL PROCESS OF 'bifurcation' for/from which bifurcation 'math' theory was developed. So you are the one making it about the 'theory/maths' but FORGOT REAL PROCESS about which above experimenters achieved "firsts". Why keep kneejerking to wild accusations, DS?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
They're not "wild accusations," @RC, and claiming so you've just told another lie.

Sorry you don't understand math, get over it. PDEs are not "invariant." It's abysmally ignorant to claim they are, since the entire point of calculus is to describe how things change.

What's the matter with you? Can't you stop lying?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
They're not "wild accusations," @RC, and claiming so you've just told another lie.

Sorry you don't understand math, get over it.

What's the matter with you? Can't you stop lying?
Why keep doing this, DS? Can't you be polite and admit without trying to misconstrue/accuse instead of actually LEARNING about what you missed?

Go on, read again: you said NO 'invariants', but wiki said YES. Are you lying or just missing it, DS?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
@RC, I keep doing this because you keep lying. If you want me to stop, you can always stop lying.

It's all about you, @RC. And what's the matter with you: you keep lying. Can't you stop lying, @RC?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, I keep doing this because you keep lying. If you want me to stop, you can always stop lying.

It's all about you, @RC. And what's the matter with you: you keep lying. Can't you stop lying, @RC?
It's about you now, mate. I just pointed out that.....

wiki says YES re "invariant sets".....whereas YOU, DS, said NO.

So, DS, are you going to evade that again by persisting with lame and wild accusations and misconstruings of what's actually being said so far?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
@RC, no, you're trying to make it about me because you can't face what it means that you keep lying over and over and over again.

I can't help it if you lawyer and parse and lie about what Wikipedia says, nor will I be sucked into discussing anything you don't put before you start lying. As usual, that's generally in the first sentence of every post you make.

What's the matter with you, anyway, @RC? Why can't you stop lying?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
no, you're trying to make it about me because you can't face what it means that you keep lying over and over and over again.

I can't help it if you lawyer and parse and lie about what Wikipedia says, nor will I be sucked into discussing anything you don't put before you start lying. As usual, that's generally in the first sentence of every post you make.

What's the matter with you, anyway, @RC? Why can't you stop lying?
I posted observations for your benefit, DS. You started (again) insulting and making it about me, instead of acknowledging what I pointed out for your benefit. Then you proceeded to start another hare running, amid cries of "liar"....while also being wrong to claim there were no invariant sets involved. But wiki said there WERE 'invariant sets' involved, and I QUOTED wiki! But you still evade and won't acknowledge/admit I am correct and you (now) wrong (again). Why keep doing this, DS? Ever hear of objectivity/politeness, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
You already told that lie in this thread, @RC. You post solely and only for your own self-aggrandizement. It's obvious in every post you make. No one could possibly miss it. And it's stupid, because all it gets you is a bad reputation.

Why can't you stop lying, @RC?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You already told that lie in this thread, @RC. You post solely and only for your own self-aggrandizement. It's obvious in every post you make. No one could possibly miss it. And it's stupid, because all it gets you is a bad reputation.

Why can't you stop lying, @RC?
Here is that Wiki quote for you again, DS:
Local bifurcations, which can be analysed entirely through changes in the local stability properties of equilibria, periodic orbits or other INVARIANT SETS as parameters cross through critical thresholds; and

Global bifurcations, which often occur when larger INVARIANT SETS of the system 'collide' with each other, or with equilibria of the system. They cannot be detected purely by a stability analysis of the equilibria (fixed points).
Please DO note the INVARIANT SETS involved. You said there were NO such involved, DS. So, who is lying, DS? Not me; as you can read for yourself. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
LOL, you really don't know any better than that, do you?

And all you would have had to do to understand what "invariant" means in this context is to read the very next sentence:
A local bifurcation occurs when a parameter change causes the stability of an equilibrium (or fixed point) to change.
The invariance is only present until the parameter crosses the bifurcation threshold; once it does that the invariant changes.

Without the magnet, there's no effect. Move the magnet closer and closer, and you see bifurcations in the invariant plasma; move it close enough and only a tiny movement makes a huge difference. This is bifurcation behavior.

But see, you're not interested in learning anything; so you'll just keep lying. Why is it that you can't stop lying, @RC?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2017
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post and has validated that he is a complete pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank :)
i am sure you will continue posting your chronic lies and stupidity
NAILED IT!
I posted for your benefit
I patiently pointed out for your benefit
...is what I get for my trouble?
Ingratitude added to all your insults
You could at least have acknowledged
ROTFLMFAO
how magnanimous!
more like: how like a narcissistic pseudoscience nutter with martyr-victim complex
http://twospirith...complex/

You even cannot provide evidence ...re "criminal record"!
1- yes i can, and i said as much

2- i will provide it in (as of this moment) 7,062 posts, but only if your absolutely next post links the PO posts where you demonstrate the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP you claimed to have seen

continuing to refuse this means you put off that evidence until you provide the evidence, so it drags your wait out longer
:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Da Schneib.
And all you would have had to do to understand what "invariant" means in this context is to read the very next sentence:
A local bifurcation occurs when a parameter change causes the stability of an equilibrium (or fixed point) to change.
The invariance is only present until the parameter crosses the bifurcation threshold; once it does that the invariant changes.

Without the magnet, there's no effect. Move the magnet closer and closer, and you see bifurcations in the invariant plasma;...
DS, you've just summarized what I've been trying to get you to realize. The "invariants" of initially stable dynamical physical systems are what is being tested studied by experiment introducing DEstabilizing external forces which CAUSE the 'bifurcation'; and that 'bifurcation' occurred in Period Doubling manner with changes in bar-magnet field strength. Your 'blanket denial' of initial 'invariants' was misleading. Now you have the full picture, DS. Good stuff. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2017
@Captai
@idiot illiterate who missed the whole point of my post and has validated that he is a complete pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank...
...
ROTFLMFAO
how magnanimous!
more like: how like a narcissistic pseudoscience nutter with martyr-victim complex
More drivel from you, CS. Where's the science and proofs for your false claims/lies, such as this:
...re "criminal record"!
1- yes i can, and i said as much
You have provided nothing re your above lie, CS. You are a cowardly, lying malicious disgrace to science and humanity, CS. Have you no shame?
2- i will provide it in (as of this moment) 7,062 posts, but only if your absolutely next post links the PO posts where you demonstrate the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP you claimed to have seen
:)
You keep ignoring what everyone else has by now seen; me posting links/posts showing mainstream confirms me correct on science observations I made. How can you keep ignoring/denying like that, CS; have you no shame?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2017
@RC, you're lying again.

You claim "math is wrong." Right here: Thread where @RC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html

You also claimed that these values were "invariant" without understanding what that meant, quoting Wikipedia out of context. It's right up above there, where you said it. Now you're trying to claim you didn't say what you said.

How many times do you think you can lie without anyone noticing it? Now that you've attracted attention from people who actually know how this works, the correct answer is "none."

Why do you keep lying, @RC?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You claim "math is wrong."
No, you still misunderstand; maths is not "wrong", its just that it is infested with UNREAL/METAPHYSICAL axiomatic concepts which produce UNREAL/UNPHYSICAL 'results' like UNDEFINED 'objects' and DIMENSIONLESS 'points' etc, and hence make current maths construct/treatments/conventions etc INCAPABLE of modeling the REAL, ETERNAL UNIVERSAL PHYSICAL SYSTEM/PROCESS consistent and complete....as the state of INCOMPLETE cosmology theory demonstrates after a CENTURY of trying current maths construct/modeling. I even gave an example of how Algebra CANNOT treat THE ETERNAL INFINITE UNIVERSE as just a number or value (ie, just a '1' or a '0'). You keep missing THAT point, DS; so misconstruing what I ACTUALLY tried to convey to you/ZergSurfer.
You also claimed that these values were "invariant" without understanding what that meant, quoting Wikipedia out of context.
No. I gave the context. Do stop insulting/kneejerking, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2017
@RC, math is a logical structure that has allowed the invention of computers, jet aircraft, refrigerators, telephones, and television. If you claim it's "infested" with something you need to explain how it allowed the invention of these modern marvels. Seems to work fine from over here.

Looks like you're lying again. Just sayin'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
Da Schneib.
@RC, math is a logical structure that has allowed the invention of computers, jet aircraft, refrigerators, telephones, and television.
Yes, so what? Those are applications of maths in applicable 'domain of applicability' contexts bounded by specific physical observables which constrain the development/application of the tailor-made techniques and modeling which do NOT apply across the board to EVERYTHING ELSE. They are NOT THE WHOLE UNIVERSAL CONTEXT. Do you understand? Hence current theory status is A COLLECTION of PARTIAL THEORIES which do not cross the boundaries of applicability unless/until a BRIDGING mathematics CAN cross those boundaries IN REALITY.
If you claim it's "infested" with something you need to explain how it allowed the invention of these modern marvels. Seems to work fine....
That's not in contention. Never was. You miss the point of what I've been trying to make you cognizant of: math's inadequacy re ONLY for ToE modeling. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2017
@RC says
...so what?
These technological miracles were't just created from scratch by artificers. They were *designed* using the exact same math you claim is flawed. If it's flawed, how come refrigerators get cold, jet aircraft fly, computers let you post your drivel on the Internets, and television lets you watch people from long ago and far away?

If you just make shit up that doesn't have anything to do with reality, to make yourself look smart, you're going to get caught. And everyone will know you're lying.

What's the matter with you, @RC? Why do you keep lying and thinking no one will notice?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC says
...so what?
These technological miracles were't just created from scratch by artificers. They were *designed* using the exact same math you claim is flawed. If it's flawed, how come refrigerators get cold, jet aircraft fly, computers let you post your drivel on the Internets, and television lets you watch people from long ago and far away?
DS, why did you CHOP OUT out-of-context two words to quote while ignoring the context overall? Your whole post in reply misses the whole context/point, hence making your response mere "reading bias" FRAMED STRAWMAN instead of honestly and fairly responding to my WHOLE CONTEXT post/points. Your 'tactics' are not conducive to fair objective science discourse/understanding, DS. You keep proving my point about "reading confirmation bias" and "kneejerking to strawman/insults" instead of actually conversing properly. Stop your tactics trying to 'win at all costs', mate. It doesn't become you, DS. OK? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
Sorry you won't stand behind your own words, @RC. Looks like now your back's against the wall you disown your own lies. Not that you'll ever admit it, other than implicitly, but even you can see that you're lying.

Why do you keep lying, @RC? What's the matter with you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Sorry you won't stand behind your own words, @RC. Looks like now your back's against the wall you disown your own lies. Not that you'll ever admit it, other than implicitly, but even you can see that you're lying.

Why do you keep lying, @RC? What's the matter with you?
There you go again, DS; kneejerking, using tactics of ignoring context and points made, strawmen, evasions and the usual insults, instead of fair discourse. How can anyone take you seriously while you keep proving the points I already observed about your 'win at all costs to objectivity and courtesy' ego-tripping disregard for all the science/humanity objectivity/fairness principles, DS?

Make yourself useful to advancing science/humanity, instead of being a drag on it, DS. Stop the tactics and just let your character and intellect out of the 'ego-trap' in which they have been confined since you became a CS-gang 'groupie'. Bad influence, mate. Rethink it all. Good luck, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
No, I'm not the one going somewhere again. It's not about me, @RC, it's about you and your lies. And it's not a kneejerk, because it took about 20 or 30 posts to come to fruition.

You're lying again, @RC.

Why do you always lie, @RC? What's the matter with you? Can't you stop?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It's not about me
Then why haven't you answered these questions to you/CS in gravitational-anomaly/symmetry-breaking thread:
- Why have you *not posted* evidence to support your (false) claim re "criminal record"?
- Why did you *not know* about the gravitational-anomaly aspect in symmetry-breaking?
- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?
- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?
- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?
- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?

I TRIED to point them out for your benefit, CS-gang; so:

- Why keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of?

- Why keep BOT-VOTING, calling ME "liar", when YOU DON'T KNOW sh!t?
So who is "lying" (and kneejerking, insulting etc), DS?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
I'm sorry, @RC, but I have no idea what you're talking about with this "criminal record" stuff.

You're lying again, @RC.

Why do you lie over and over again, @RC? Can't you stop?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
...I have no idea what you're talking about with this "criminal record" stuff.
If that's true, and you really "don't know", then it indicates to the @Forum that:

- @DS has stopped reading @Captain Stumpy's spam posts of lies/false accusations he cannot support with evidence;

- @DS still too lazy to check out context/facts;

- @DS still in kneejerking/insulting-in-ignorance 'mode', instead of actually conversing/comprehending fairly.

My, won't @CS be 'pleased' to hear that @Da Schnieb has stopped reading his posts too!
You're lying again, @RC.
Why do you lie over and over again, @RC? Can't you stop?
Well, the @Forum has its evidence about YOU/your 'modus operandi' by now, @Da Schneib. You remain (by 'tactical' intention) ignorant of the context/facts involved, and keep defaulting to cries of "liar" etc at the drop of a hat!

Not a good look, @DS. No. Not at all.

Read @Captain Stumpy's and my posts, @DS; and stop evading the above questions. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2017
@RC, you'll have to deal with @CS on your own. Your transparent attempt to play both ends against the middle will not work. There isn't any "context;" you'll have to try another way.

None of that changes the fact you lied and lied again.

Why do you lie over and over, @RC? Can't you stop?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you'll have to deal with @CS on your own. Your transparent attempt to play both ends against the middle will not work. There isn't any "context" you'll have to try another way.
But but, @DS, you just acknowledged there *was* context; which you *pretended* to "have no idea" of! Else you wouldn't have just said to deal with @CS re his "criminal record" lie; a lie which you *must* have been aware of unless you DON'T READ @Captain Stumpy's posts either!
None of that changes the fact you lied and lied again. Why do you lie over and over, @RC? Can't you stop?
Mate, it's becoming ever more apparent to #Forum that you have just lied; and have been lying, evading and pretending; all as part of your 'tactics' to distract from the reality which you must eventually face like a real brave objective scientist: the reality being what has been going on for too long; as indicated/highlighted by the post containing my questions to you/CS-gang. Why evade, DS? :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
@RC, I did not acknowledge anything. You can't turn a negative into a positive, unless...

Wait for it...

You're lying. Again.

Why do you always lie, @RC? What's the matter with you, can't you stop?
RealityCheck
Aug 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
@RC, you don't have a quote where I acknowledged anything to do with any "criminal record." Period.

You're therefore lying. Period.

Why do you keep lying, @RC? Can't you stop yourself?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
you don't have a quote where I acknowledged anything to do with any "criminal record." Period.
It's like the "dog that didn't bark in the night", DS. You SHOULD HAVE KNOWN; yet KEPT SILENT; while YOUR MATE @Captain Stumpy LIED and falsely claimed/accused me of having a "police record". You ALSO should have seen where I requested @Captain Stumpy to post the evidence for that (false) accusation/claim; and should have seen where @Captain Stumpy's response was NOT to produce that evidence, but instead totally destroyed his credibility/claim by saying: "Sue me in court".

How's that for your denial of @CS's total disregard for the principles of fair and objective discourse/claims, DS? Not a good look.

No wonder you *pretend* to having not seen it all unfold (can @Forum believe you did not read Stumpy's posts; have you told @CS you are NOW IGNORING HIM as well, DS)?

Anyhow, @DS, stop LYING TO YOURSELF and @Forum; face/answer the rest of those questions. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
@RC, you claimed I said something about "criminal records." I didn't. You can't produce a quote. Period.

You lied. Period. You're still lying. Period.

Why do you always lie, @RC? What's the matter with you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
you claimed I said something about "criminal records." I didn't. You can't produce a quote. Period.
Your strawmanning again, DS. It was YOU that raised that, not me. I merely ask the CS-gang (includes you, CS) why no evidence has been forthcoming about CS's false claim/accusation that I had a "criminal record". Again the @Forum can see your total dishonesty and denial tactics is attempts to evade ALL the actual questions posed to CS-gang (includes you and etc).
You lied. Period. You're still lying. Period. Why do you always lie, @RC? What's the matter with you?
There you go again, DS; dishonestly crying "liar" at the drop of a hat whenever you want to distract from your own dishonesty, ignorance. Your tactic and evasions only delay the inevitable moment when you have to face bravely and honestly those questions of you/CS-gang, DS. The @Forum will by now see WHY it is you are trying to avoid the inevitable, DS. Stop lying to yourself and @Forum, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
@RC, noting you lied is not "strawmanning[sic]." You're lying again. You always lie.

Why do you always lie, @RC? Can't you stop?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, noting you lied is not "strawmanning[sic]." You're lying again. You always lie.

Why do you always lie, @RC? Can't you stop?
Your "strawmanning" subsists in the fact you are lying about me lying about what you said that I never said you said but only asked questions which you have yet to address while crying "liar" as distraction from your own denial/ignorance/evasion tactics. How long can you keep evading the questions posed of you/CS-gang, DS? The longer you refuse to face/answer those questions honestly, the more dishonest and and lying you will be branded by the @Forum. Answer the questions, DS; that's the only way you'll get better, after the cathartic process of being honest about being wrong all along and me correct all along while you cried "liar" all along. Go to it, DS. It will be good for your psyche to finally face the reality as it is instead of "strawmanning" your own 'version of reality'. Good luck, DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
@RC, first, that's not a straw man argument, and second, you have not presented any evidence I'm lying. In fact, you have conflated my posts with other posters, and now you're trying to lie your way out of it. So once again we have two lies in the same sentence.

Why do you keep lying, @RC, when everyone can see it and everyone knows it? What's the matter with you?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, first, that's not a straw man argument, and second, you have not presented any evidence I'm lying. In fact, you have conflated my posts with other posters, and now you're trying to lie your way out of it. So once again we have two lies in the same sentence.

Why do you keep lying, @RC, when everyone can see it and everyone knows it? What's the matter with you?
The "conflation" is warranted insofar as you belong to that CS-gang who lies, insults then calls me liar while you all AVOID answering those questions put to you ALL that go to who's lying (you, CS-gang) and who's been correct (me) all along.

Your lame attempts to distract from you avoiding those questions which you CAN answer, tells @Forum all they need to know re who has been lying/insulting all along while wrong; and who has been tolerant and polite despite such provocation; because @Forum will see who has been correct all along.

Why don't you address the OTHER questions, DS? Afraid, mate?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2017
PS @Da Schneib. In case you are 'in denial' or ' conveniently ignoring' those OTHER questions, here they are again:
- Why did you *not know* about the gravitational-anomaly aspect in symmetry-breaking?
- Why did you *not know* about Plasmoids/Flux Tubes in Sun processes?
- Why did you *not know* about non-Keplerian GR orbitals/Ordinary Matter regimes/distributions in spiral galaxies?
- Why did you *not know* about surface/edge etc Plasmonic Energy effects in Two-slit (and slit-groove and other variants) experiments/results?
- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?

I TRIED to point these/more out for your benefit, CS-gang; so:

- Why keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of?

- Why keep BOT-VOTING, calling ME "liar", when YOU DON'T KNOW sh!t?
When are you going to be man enough to face/answer THOSE questions for the @Forum, DS? Are you SO afraid that the (honest) answers will burst your/CS-gang tactics 'bubble'?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2017
Boring, not to mention paranoid. The only thing that links this imaginary "gang" your delusions cause you to keep lying about is despising you for lying all the time, among other despicable behavior.

About one more post, then I'm officially bored with pointing out you lied in another post over and over.

Can't you stop lying, @RC? What do you think you're actually accomplishing here? Is this the only attention you can get, anywhere? What a sorry excuse for a human being you are.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Boring, not to mention paranoid. The only thing that links this imaginary "gang" your delusions cause you to keep lying about is despising you for lying all the time, among other despicable behavior.

About one more post, then I'm officially bored with pointing out you lied in another post over and over.

Can't you stop lying, @RC? What do you think you're actually accomplishing here? Is this the only attention you can get, anywhere? What a sorry excuse for a human being you are.
Yeah, yeah, DS, whatever you want to tell yourself, mate; but meanwhile, you still haven't addressed those OTHER questions posted to you just above your own post.

So, now you're blaming 'boredom' for your dishonest evasions of the reality highlighted by those other questions to you, DS? You betray not only your character and intelligence, DS, you also insult this @Forum's intelligence and disappoint all genuine readers' expectations of proper science discourse on PO. Too bad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
CS-gang who lies, insults then calls me liar
1- i didn't call you a liar, i proved you were a liar with not only evidence, but your own admission you had no evidence of the BICEP claims even after 7,082posts https://phys.org/...ure.html

2- there still isn't a gang

3- if you could prove i was a liar you would have chosen to either litigate or you could (or could have) provide(d) the evidence for the 4 fatal flaws in the above thread
but you admitted you could not link the evidence - your claims, not mine

so Yeah, yeah, rc, whatever you want to tell yourself, mate; but meanwhile, you still haven't addressed those OTHER fatal flaws
and thats visible to everyone

why are you so afraid of the truth?
it's already proven you're a liar

you're still lying

repeating your lies doesn't make them more true
reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
Not only are you still insulting, you also still have not provided evidence to support your (false) claim re "criminal record", CS. Why is that? :)
CS-gang who lies, insults then calls me liar
i didn't call you a liar, i proved you were a liar with not only evidence, but your own admission you had no evidence of the BICEP claims
No such "admission", CS; you're dreaming! You're in denial, lying, CS. You missed/ignored it all. That's what comes from your ridiculous "TL;DR, Followed by Insults and Lies" METHOD of 'doing research', CS. Bad. :)
there still isn't a gang
A quick look at the BOT-VOTING "CS-gang-buddies" playing in my feedback page says different, CS. You're in denial of your CS-bot-gang-buddies status, CS. :)
...litigate...
Instead of posting proof for your (false) claim/accusation for the @Forum, you say "litigate!". Have none, CS? Very bad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
you also still have not provided evidence to support your... claim re "criminal record"
yes, i do- it's not false

and i will present it exactly 7,083 posts after you present your 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws from BICEP

this number is subject to increase every time you refuse to present evidence

the only remedy you have is, as noted elsewhere repeatedly, using small monosyllabic words so that even you can understand it, is:
1- present the 4 fatal and 4 other flaws (the 4 fatal flaws are required at a minimum)
OR
2- present the links to the threads where you present the 4 fatal flaws so that it can be verified
(difficult considering you already admitted you didn't have that evidence... https://phys.org/...ure.html )

reported for chronic lying
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
you also still have not provided evidence to support your... claim re "criminal record"
yes, i do- it's not false and i will present it exactly 7,083 posts after you..
So your duty to post (alleged but obviously non-existent) 'proof' is *conditional* upon ME re-posting what every OBJECTIVE PO reader has ALREADY seen? Why would I waste my time/energy to satisfy YOUR hypocritical demands/conditions, Stumpy? Your longstanding "TL;DR, Insults and False Claims METHOD" is YOUR problem, mate, not mine. Imagine if professional scientists, asked to produce supporting evidence for THEIR claims, put their own *conditions* on doing that; silly, as well as hypocritical of you, Stumpy. :)
reported for chronic lying
Have you no self-awareness at all, Stumpy? Your stream of spurious/vexacious "reports" (at the drop of a hat) are an object of amusement/pity to PO mods now. Sad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
has ALREADY seen?
1- now it's 7,085 posts

2- if the objective reader has seen it then why hasn't anyone ever been able to find it and link it?
you can't even find it and link it

3- your continued lie about it's existence = russels teapot: https://en.wikipe...s_teapot

"reports" (at the drop of a hat)
you've posted 41 times in this thread with no evidence except your unfounded claims

you've posted 7,085 times after making a statement you saw 4 fatal flaws while not once being able to produce said fatal flaws

it's not spurious, you idiot!
if you knew how to count you would know that one!
LOL

BTW - you will continue to post, even though i know you will not have evidence of the 4 fatal flaws
for each post i see without the link to that evidence, or the evidence stated clearly, i will report your post :)

FOAD and anhero
:)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank
You could be describing yourself there, Stumpy! At least DS realized it would be better for his psyche/credibility if he stopped crying "liar" etc at the drop of a hat; but YOU Stumpy, haven't even that much self-awareness. Even the poisonous 'paddoboy' troll recently gone from Sciforums finally got the message; but YOU STUMPY, apparently beyond getting ANY message.
criminal record
The @Forum sees the cowardly liar you are, Stumpy; you made a serious (false) accusation but CANNOT SUPPORT IT. Liar, Libeler, Stumpy.
has ALREADY seen
...if the objective reader has seen it then why hasn't anyone ever been able to find it and link it?
Been there; done that; long since, CS; but YOU/CS-gang BOASTED about NOT READING while insulting in ignorance. I even linked/posted/alluded to some flaws in conversations with other posters in various threads. "TL;DR" not working out, CS? Shame. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 05, 2017
you will continue to post, even though i know you will not have evidence of the 4 fatal flaws
well, i sure called that one right on the nose!

funniest thing ever is the idiot troll whinging on because i don't post the evidence as soon as he demanded it!
LMFAO

oh, the irony of it!

anyone want to bet he doesn't get it?
LOLOL

.

.

@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
Liar, Libeler
prove it!
there is a way: post the 4 fatal flaws along with the links to the conversation where you posted it here on PO

then you might just have a leg to stand on (until the cops throw you back into jail)!
ROTFLMFAO
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
the irony of it!....anyone want to bet he doesn't get it?
The irony is lost on you, Stumpy. The earlier questions I posed (for you/CS-gang) highlighted that I have been the one correct all along, while you/CS-gang kneejerked out of personal malice/bias, and insulted from self-imposed ignorance while you employed your now-infamous "TL;DR METHOD" of NOT READING yet cluttering/trolling in ignorance. Now you have been left in the dark by your years long campaign of poisonous stupidity ('paddoboy' learned his lesson; but you're STILL poisonously stupid, Stumpy). Your problem, of your own making, Stumpy. Poisonous.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
Liar, Libeler, Stumpy.
prove it!
Still the lying, malicious, Stumpy! It's obvious you made up that lie of "criminal record" as a 'tactic', Stumpy. Now you're evading calls to explain the basis for said lie. The @Forum has 'found you out', Stumpy. Real ugly!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2017
Yep
he completely missed it and didn't get it! ROTFLMFAO

.

@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
highlighted that I have been the one correct
you can call yourself whatever you want
it doesn't matter unless you can prove your argument, which brings us to this: so long as you don't actually provide evidence of your 4 fatal flaws as requested, you're not proving yourself correct. you're proving yourself to be a chronic lying POS pseudoscience troll with a criminal record
It's obvious you made up that lie
then you should be able to prove it's a lie
you never have, and you can't now

i can, however, prove my point with evidence, and i will in 7,088 posts per your own requirement standard set by your avoidance

if you can prove you posted those 4 fatal flaws earlier in those 7,088 posts, i will adjust the numbers

PS - it's not libel if i can prove it in court
feel free to litigate as i would enjoy taking your money
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2017
@Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
Still the poisonous lying Stump. Sad.
highlighted that I have been the one correct
you can call yourself whatever you want
It's the facts as highlighted by those questions that shows I have been correct all along; unlike your continuing ignorance and malice based denial of the recorded facts behind those questions which you still ignore/evade because it is too painful for you/CS-gang to admit being wrong about me.
It's obvious you made up that lie
then you should be able to prove it's a lie How does one prove one doesn't have a "criminal record", Stumpy? Anyway, your lie is the one requiring YOU to defend and prove to the @Forum to which you have been lying. Nasty.
it's not libel if i can prove it in court...feel free to litigate as i would enjoy taking your money
"IF"? We have a "court" right here in PO, Stumpy; so post your 'proof' or admit you lied.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2017
@Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
Still the poisonous lying Stump.
highlighted that I have been the one correct
you can call yourself whatever you want
It's the facts as highlighted by those questions that shows I have been correct all along; unlike your continuing ignorance and malice based denial of the recorded facts behind those questions which you still ignore/evade because it is too painful for you/CS-gang to admit being wrong about me.
It's obvious you made up that lie
then you should be able to prove it's a lie
How does one prove one doesn't have a "criminal record", Stumpy? Anyway, your lie is the one requiring YOU to defend and prove to the @Forum to which you have been lying. Nasty.
it's not libel if i can prove it in court...feel free to litigate as i would enjoy taking your money
"IF"? We have a "court" right here in PO, Stumpy; so post your 'proof' or admit you lied.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
so post your 'proof' or admit you lied
oh, the irony !!
ROTFLMFAO

.

this is EXACTLY what i've been telling you for 7,090 posts!

.

.
It's the facts as highlighted by those posts that shows I have been correct all along;

unlike your continuing ignorance and malice based denial of the recorded facts behind those posts which you still ignore/evade because it is too painful for you to admit being wrong about BICEP2 (and me)

so!!

We have a "court" right here in PO, sammieTROLL; post your 'proof' or admit you lied!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 06, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
so post your 'proof' or admit you lied
oh, the irony !!
ROTFLMFAO
Hey, laughing-boy, the irony is still lost on you. Your address line shows personal bias and also makes false accusations which YOU cannot justify at all. That is not 'science' but 'personal lies'; YOUR internet stalking/hacking has led you to mistaken-identity based ERRORS which are YOUR responsibility, not mine, Stumpy.
this is EXACTLY what i've been telling you for 7,090 posts!
I HAVE posted the science info in various threads/discussions; but YOU STUMPY did NOT READ on purpose!...and kept cluttering/trolling your ignorance on said SCIENCE matters.

Hence the DIFFERENCE between you and me, Stumpy: I DO READ while YOU DID NOT, Stumpy.

The rest of your post is lame, Stumpy.

Justify YOUR PERSONAL LIE of "criminal record" to @Forum, Stumpy; it is a PERSONAL LIE, not a 'science' matter. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
shows personal bias
a factual label is not a personal bias, idiot :)
makes false accusations
prove it
litigate or STFU :)
did NOT READ on purpose!...I DO READ while YOU DID NOT
funny thing about that: it's impossible to pick out a specific quote and not read it unless you're blind, so i guess that point was entirely missed by you *every single time* :)
one more demonstration that you're an illiterate idiot
ROTFLMFAO
Justify YOUR PERSONAL LIE of "criminal record" to @Forum
i have already stated that i will... in 7,092 posts from now

that is assuming that your very next post produces the evidence of your 4 fatal flaws and link where you posted it on PO in the past

every additional post without the evidence that has been repeatedly requested for years adds to that count:)

i see by your post that you're getting pissed off too - it's easily solved
links or STFU
:)
RealityCheck
Aug 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2017
PS @Captain Stumpy. Stop digging/hanging yourself, mate. Take some time off to collect/correct your character/faculties and start afresh with honesty/tolerance instead of dishonesty/malice. Ok? Good luck and good thinking to you in future, Stumpy. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
@Captain Stumpy
You're a proven liar and libeler
no: a proven liar is someone who makes 7,097 posts without evidence while not being able to prove to anyone that she posted 4 fatal flaws, like you
and if you could prove libel, you would have chosen to litigate
you can prove neither - hence you're lying again
:)
and i notice you still can't comprehend what constitutes evidence either as you are still making claims without evidence
LMFAO
:)
in colloquial terms that means you hung yourself yet again, ya wankin' bugger

.

PS @sammie girl. Stop digging/hanging yourself, mate. Take some time off to collect/correct your character/faculties and start afresh with honesty/tolerance instead of dishonesty/malice. Ok? Good luck and i hope you start taking your meds soon, and you stay on them in future, sammie. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
You just described yourself again, Stumpy. lol
@Captain Stumpy
You're a proven liar and libeler
no:
Yes, Stumpy. You again failed to defend your personal lie re "criminal record".

The @Forum sees you failure now; so your denials ring hollow, reflecting your now-oft-proven character: liar, libeler and coward by your own deliberate 'tactics'.
a proven liar is someone who makes 7,097 posts without evidence while...
The @Forum now knows you intentionally DID NOT READ any of it when it WAS posted, Stumpy; you even BOASTED that you didn't read; while you cluttered and trolled me/threads with your poisonous ignorance-in-malice-aforethought; as per your peculiarly stupid "TL;DR" method of ruining discussions (the poisonous 'paddoboy' rexently gone from Sciforums at least knew when he had gone too far; but you, Stumpy, are insensible to the max). Pitiable.
Captain Stumpy
Aug 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
That describes you to a tee, Stumpy. How many times will you be calling yourself names before you post your 'proof' for your personal lie re "criminal record", Stumpy? lol
you have failed again to defend your argument of 4 fatal flaws
still
not one person on this site, has ever been able to find your 4 fatal flaws argument
no one
ever
Your claim is already falsified by my allusions to the flaws in discussions with others here, Stumpy. But since you BOASTED that you DID NOT READ my posts, then the IGNORANCE and the FAILURE is all on YOU and your "TL:DR" method of not reading then insulting/denying ad nauseam. Your problem, Stumpy, nobody else's.

In case you still haven't got it, Stumpy:

- I already posted re the Bicep2 flaws but YOU missed/deny it all, Stumpy.

- you, Stumpy, have yet to explain to @Forum why you lied re "criminal record".

Explain, Stumpy. :)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
@sam fedora the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record :)
- I already posted ...
and if that were true you would have been able to post a link proving this in any of the myriad threads where it's been requested, like above, or:
https://phys.org/...ure.html

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

https://phys.org/...rgy.html

there are more than 50 in the past year alone

to date, not one person, ever, has been able to find where you explained what the 4 fatal flaws were

it is the reason you were banned (yet again) from SciForums, because when you started that sh*t with the mods you couldn't provide the evidence to prove the 4 fatal flaws, let alone all 8 flaws

lying about having proven it while not being able to link it demonstrates your delusional fanaticism
i'll post evidence in 7,102 posts
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@Forum.

Starkly self-demonstrated again: @Captain Stumpy's idea of what 'science discourse' is about...
@sam fedora the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record
The pitiable Captain Stumpy still uses his now-infamous "TL;DR" methodology and 'tactics' of personal lies and insults; instead of actually reading and comprehending fairly. But what does he keep defaulting to in his self-induced ignorance and malice? That's right, he has boasted he stalked/hacked across the Internet; and now keeps demonstrating why people are reticent about posting their names on the forums in case some nutter(s) lose control altogether of their character and faculties. And speaking of 'nutters on the internet', someone recently stated the danger rather sarcastically:
q]Yeah, because trolls like you never, ever, ever pursue people who reveal their identities on line and then get harassed by trolls like you.
It's like he knew what Stumpy is/does! lol
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

That person I quoted in my above post to @Forum perfectly encapsulated the dangers of being involved with your 'type' over the net. You keep demonstrating that his fears are justified about revealing one's identity. Moreover he would be appalled that you keep posting other poster's real names while you make up PERSONAL LIES about them.

Speaking of personal lies, Stumpy: please explain to the @Forum why you lied about "criminal record". No more evasions, Stumpy. This isn't a 'science' matter; nor does it involve any 'scientific' discourse 'quid pro quo'; it's strictly a matter of personal responsibility for your personal actions on the net, Stumpy.

Go on, Stumpy: WHY do you lie about "criminal record", Stumpy. The @Forum has a right to know. Explain yourself, Stumpy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
@forum

Starkly self-demonstrated again: @@sam fedora the idiot illiterate pseudoscience crackpot delusional crank with a criminal record has clearly demonstrated that he cannot provide evidence for his claims

this isn't new, either, as this is the primary reason he was perma-banned from sciforums and other sites: very specifically, he was perma-banned after being given a second chance at sciforums because of his continued refusal to provide the fatal flaws from his libelous statement regarding his BICEP claims.

also note: not one person, ever, in the history of PO, has been able to corroborate his 4 fatal flaws evidence or show where the flaws were explained or annotated in any post on PO, sciforums, sapo's joint or any other site on the internet

not one
ever
period
full stop

the forum should stand united against this behaviour
especially as his chronic lies have been repeatedly proven, more often than not by the troll herself
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
you make up PERSONAL LIES about them
and if you could prove this you would have already

all it would take is to link the specific historical posts on PO where you explain what the 4 fatal flaws are and how i ignored them

easy as pie
you lied about "criminal record"
not a lie
I will provide the evidence in exactly 7,106 posts

again, that is assuming that the very next post you make presents the evidence for your libelous and fraudulent BICEP2 claims

the question is: why are you still not able to link it?
it's easily answered: it doesn't exist, and you can't repeat the "information" by re-reading the BICEP papers

attempts to provide evidence by re-reading BICEP would prove you're a liar because a word search would prove you a liar (again) and that you didn't make those claims historically

so why should anyone capitulate to your demands for evidence when you refuse to provide evidence for anyone else?
especially after 7,000 requests
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
@Forum.

See there, folks? Two more driveling posts from the Caps.

In one post: Captain Stumpy employs the juvenile "Yes I know you are but what am I" retort!

In other post: Captain Stumpy employs the dishonest "Victim, justify yourself to Perpetrator" defense!

Poor Caps. He is patently on a downward trajectory of mind and character; on a 'slippery slide of malice and ignorance' of his own years long making, no less.

Poor Caps. Caught out making a personal lie re "criminal record", and all he can do is squirm and evade and post juvenile nastiness and drivel instead of explaining to @Forum WHY he made up that PERSONAL lie?

Only on the Internet could such a nasty 'thing' have a twisted 'life' like this Caps, hey folks? Pity him.
Dingbone
Aug 16, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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

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