Scientists observe gravitational anomaly on Earth

July 21, 2017, IBM
Prof. Dr. Karl Landsteiner, a string theorist at the Instituto de Fisica Teorica UAM/CSIC and co-author of the paper made this graphic to explain the gravitational anomaly. Credit: IBM Research

Modern physics has accustomed us to strange and counterintuitive notions of reality—especially quantum physics which is famous for leaving physical objects in strange states of superposition. For example, Schrödinger's cat, who finds itself unable to decide if it is dead or alive. Sometimes however quantum mechanics is more decisive and even destructive.

Symmetries are the holy grail for physicists. Symmetry means that one can transform an object in a certain way that leaves it invariant. For example, a round ball can be rotated by an arbitrary angle, but always looks the same. Physicists say it is symmetric under rotations. Once the symmetry of a physical system is identified it's often possible to predict its dynamics.

Sometimes however the laws of mechanics destroy a symmetry that would happily exist in a world without , i.e classical systems. Even to physicists this looks so strange that they named this phenomenon an "."

For most of their history, these quantum anomalies were confined to the world of elementary particle physics explored in huge accelerator laboratories such as Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland. Now however, a new type of materials, the so-called Weyl semimetals, similar to 3-D graphene, allow us to put the symmetry destructing quantum anomaly to work in everyday phenomena, such as the creation of electric current.

In these exotic materials electrons effectively behave in the very same way as the elementary particles studied in high energy accelerators. These particles have the strange property that they cannot be at rest—they have to move with a constant speed at all times. They also have another property called spin. It is like a tiny magnet attached to the particles and they come in two species. The spin can either point in the direction of motion or in the opposite direction.

An international team of scientists have verified a fundamental effect in a crystal that had been previously only thought to be observable in the deep universe. The experiments have verified a quantum anomaly that had been experimentally elusive before. The results are appearing in the journal Nature. Credit: Robert Strasser, Kees Scherer; collage: Michael Büker

When one speaks of right- and left-handed particles this property is called chirality. Normally the two different species of , identical except for their chirality (handedness), would come with separate symmetries attached to them and their numbers would be separately conserved. However, a quantum anomaly can destroy their peaceful coexistence and changes a left-handed particle into a right-handed one or vice-versa.

Appearing in a paper published today in Nature, an international team of physicists, material scientists and string theoreticians, have observed such a material, an effect of a most exotic quantum anomaly that hitherto was thought to be triggered only by the curvature of space-time as described by Einstein's theory of relativity. But to the surprise of the team, they discovered it also exists on Earth in the properties of , which much of the computing industry is based on, spanning from tiny transistors to cloud data centers.

"For the first time, we have experimentally observed this fundamental quantum anomaly on Earth which is extremely important towards our understanding of the universe," said Dr. Johannes Gooth, an IBM Research scientist and lead author of the paper. "We can now build novel solid-state devices based on this anomaly that have never been considered before to potentially circumvent some of the problems inherent in classical electronic devices, such as transistors."

New calculations, using in part the methods of string theory, showed that this gravitational anomaly is also responsible for producing a current if the material is heated up at the same time a magnetic field is applied.

"This is an incredibly exciting discovery. We can clearly conclude that the same breaking of symmetry can be observed in any physical system, whether it occurred at the beginning of the universe or is happening today, right here on Earth," said Prof. Dr. Karl Landsteiner, a string theorist at the Instituto de Fisica Teorica UAM/CSIC and co-author of the paper.

IBM scientists predict this discovery will open up a rush of new developments around sensors, switches and thermoelectric coolers or energy-harvesting devices, for improved power consumption.

Explore further: New breakthrough discovery—every quantum particle travels backwards

More information: Johannes Gooth et al. Experimental signatures of the mixed axial–gravitational anomaly in the Weyl semimetal NbP, Nature (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nature23005

Related Stories

Weyl fermions exhibit paradoxical behavior

May 23, 2017

Theoretical physicists have found Weyl fermions to exhibit paradoxical behavior in contradiction to a 30-year-old fundamental theory of electromagnetism. The discovery has possible applications in spintronics. The study ...

'Material universe' yields surprising new particle

November 25, 2015

An international team of researchers has predicted the existence of a new type of particle called the type-II Weyl fermion in metallic materials. When subjected to a magnetic field, the materials containing the particle act ...

Recommended for you

Magic number colloidal clusters

December 14, 2018

Complexity in nature often results from self-assembly, and is considered particularly robust. Compact clusters of elemental particles can be shown to be of practical relevance, and are found in atomic nuclei, nanoparticles ...

Tangled magnetic fields power cosmic particle accelerators

December 13, 2018

Magnetic field lines tangled like spaghetti in a bowl might be behind the most powerful particle accelerators in the universe. That's the result of a new computational study by researchers from the Department of Energy's ...

169 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PowerMax
Jul 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PowerMax
Jul 21, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dirk_bruere
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2017
In other words, no gravitational anomaly observed or used.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2017
@PowerMax, @dirk_bruere, @bschott.

From Nature Abstract:
"In addition, an underlying curved space-time provides a distinct contribution to a chiral imbalance, an effect known as the mixed axial–gravitational anomaly, but this anomaly has yet to be confirmed experimentally. However, the presence of a mixed gauge–gravitational anomaly has recently been tied to thermoelectrical transport in a magnetic field, even in flat space-time, suggesting that such types of mixed anomaly could be experimentally probed in condensed matter systems known as Weyl semimetals."
So it *does* involve gravitationally 'curved' energy-space biases/effects.

FYI @Forum...I've LONG pointed out this gravitationally 'curved' energy-space bias/effect as possible explanation for local/global symmetry-breaking (eg, particle-vs-antiparticle 'ratios' etc). Latest instance was September 2016, to Good Elf etc:

https://phys.org/...h_1.html

Cheers all! :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2017
ERRATE to my orevious post:

The link for that reference to my September 2016 post to Good Elf etc should have been:

https://phys.org/...rse.html

Apologies for the typo. :)
nikola_milovic_378
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
Look, I know Weyl semimetals are difficult to explain, but perhaps if you're going to write the article you might do a better job of it. Maybe instead of just waving your hands at the gravitational anomaly you should actually explain it.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2017
Preprint available at: https://arxiv.org...0682.pdf

I'll have a look and see if I can sort this out.
katesisco
1 / 5 (1) Jul 22, 2017
I am going to wait until Miles Mathis paper on this comes out and then maybe I can understand it. It sounds suspiciously like reinventing the wheel and giving it a new name.
Dingbone
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2017
OK, so here's the deal:

When Weyl found the equations in the 1930s that describe Weyl fermions, it was a simplification of the equations for relativistic Dirac fermions. These Weyl fermions have never been seen, even though we've looked at a lot of relativistic Dirac fermions, and it turns out that the reason is because they only occur in very strong gravity fields, so they don't occur in relativistic Dirac fermions on Earth-based accelerators.

One of the predictions of Weyl fermions is that they will show a chiral anomaly in a strong gravity field, and that's the anomaly physicists looked for in accelerator experiments, and never found. What this anomaly means is that the number of right- or left-handed Weyl fermions is not conserved; they can freely interconvert between the sense of their spin, as long as the total number of fermions is conserved.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
[contd]
In the 1970s, some folks discovered based on the Weyl equations that Weyl fermions could exist in certain crystals. And a couple years back (July 2015), this was tested and in fact, the Weyl fermions were detected. Not as actual particles; instead, as quasiparticles which are excitation states of Dirac fermions in those crystals.

But the experiment in which the Weyl fermion quasiparticles were detected didn't test the prediction of the chiral anomaly; instead they searched for a different phenomenon called a "Fermi arc." The big deal here is, this experiment does test for the chiral anomaly, and the chiral anomaly has now also been shown.

Now, the chiral anomaly was originally predicted in the strong gravity regime; and the reason that the Weyl fermions in crystals are only quasiparticles is because gravity on Earth isn't strong enough to make real Weyl fermions. However, the equations making both predictions are the same.
[contd]
Dingbone
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
[contd]
On to gravity. What this means is that we can expect to see *real* Weyl fermions, rather than just quasiparticles, near black holes, forming from populations of relativistic Dirac fermions there. This is because in strongly curved spacetime, the probability for them is predicted to be high enough for the chiral anomaly to occur in empty space. And seeing them in these crystals, since it stems from the same equations, shows that we can predict this confidently, unless either Dirac's or Einstein's equations are incorrect. And Dirac's equations give Quantum Electrodynamics, or QED, which is extremely well tested in accelerators and provides a foundation of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, recently tested by the detection of the Higgs particle it predicts at the LHC, whereas Einstein's equations give General Relativity Theory, which is extremely well tested as well.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
[contd]
The interesting part is that string physics applied to Weyl fermions makes this prediction as well. So now we see a prediction of string theory that actually occurs in real physics: the chiral anomaly in Weyl fermions, a place no one thought we could really look for them because it was originally thought the chiral anomaly would only occur in strong gravity which we don't have. So this means that a prediction of string theory has turned out to be correct, something that a lot of physicists didn't expect to see in our lifetimes.

From a practical point of view, this discovery also means that in certain materials, under a constant (not changing!) magnetic field, a temperature difference can cause an electric current to flow because the chiral anomaly under these circumstances causes the Weyl fermions of opposite handedness not to be concerned, resulting in real Dirac fermions being moved by the magnetic field preferentially in the direction of the field.
[contd]
Dingbone
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
[contd]
Finally, this also means that we now see a hint towards a quantum gravity theory, and this emerges because Weyl fermions probe the Standard Model physics of a strong gravity field, thus requiring both GRT and the SM.

So, now when a string physics skeptic trots out the "string theory doesn't make testable predictions" bon mot, the correct response is, "Yes, actually it does, in Weyl fermions in Weyl semimetals it predicts the chiral anomaly."
Dingbone
Jul 22, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
skookumQuatch
5 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2017
See this pectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/materials/black-hole-power-how-string-theory-idea-could-lead-to-new-thermal-energy-harvesting-tech
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2017
@Dingbone.
At the water surface both vortices are of the same size, we can imagine if this vortex pair would pass through viscosity gradient, one of vortex would get larger.
Your [Falaco Soliton vortex-pair] in density gradient context is a very elegant and wide ranging analogy for all the various 'density/energy gradient' contexts involving gravity, temperature, electro-magnetic field effects on 'symmetry' and 'evolutionary trajectory' of many kinds of features/entities/processes across the vastnesses/extremes of universal energy-space infinite/eternal extent/phenomena. Very clear and unambiguous illustrative example that makes your point there, Dingbone. :)

Also, your point, that the effect can be predicted/described WITHOUT String Theory, is fair; since all classical/quantum vacuum theories have energy-space 'gradients' and effects built into their logics (whether overtly acknowledged or not). So co-author claiming a role for String Theory is unwarranted.

Kudos. :)
trevor_white
not rated yet Jul 22, 2017
If you extrapolate this would answer why the big bang is a chaotic state as at high temperature the symmetry breaking would be everywhere. Considering the heat magnetic energy coupling indicated here possibly indicates an instability in the matter, there is an interesting possibility that the energy could be significantly greater than the aforementioned possibility.
Shootist
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2017
enough with these clickbait headlines!!!!! i will show you a gravitational anomaly by kickin you in the butt


The article in Nature is titled, _Experimental signatures of the mixed axial–gravitational anomaly in the Weyl semimetal NbP_. I suggest the authors know better than you netters what is and isn't a mixed axial--gravitational anomaly.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
@RC now wants @dingbat to be his butt buddy.

@dingbat may be willing. This is yet another disgusting maneuver by @RC, who is proven to lie over and over again:

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
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
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2017
Latest thread in which @RC has lied:
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html

So it's no surprise if @dingbat teams up with @RC.

It's not going to be any surprise if two liars team up to try to avoid both being designated as liars. Science, unfortunately for them, is not a democratic process. The votes count, but reality in the form of observations and experiments overrides voting.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
@skookum, good link, once I sorted it out. Here is the real link:
http://spectrum.i...ech.html
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC now wants @dingbat to be his butt buddy.
Your malady is getting worse, DS. Why twist objective actions/acknowledgements/agreements into something ugly like that? It demonstrates the gutter level at which your mind is 'stuck'.

It's unhealthy, DS. Why do you *do* that?

If you were a true scientist, objective discourser, you would *not need* to do these things. Why did you not address the science/logics points made by Dingbone (with which I agreed and complimented him on)?

Is it that you cannot argue with those points, DS? Is that why you again resort to trolling/lying/strawmanning and otherwise ugly 'tactics', DS?

It's not a good look, DS, nor healthy for your psyche, to keep doing the same thing over and over again despite having been shown to be wrong over and over again, DS. Stop digging; and get well soon, DS.

ps: As for your nasty..
butt buddy
...the only "butt buddies" here are you and the rest of that mutual-'5'-goosing bot-voting gang. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2017
@RC, all you do is lie. It doesn't matter any more what you say, it's all lies. There isn't any circumstance under which you have not already been proven to lie. Lies are irrelevant, and are proof that you have nothing else to say. Your lies have caught up to you, and there is nothing else you can say that anyone will ever listen to because every single post you make contains a lie. You have demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt that you will continue lying. There is no further reason to listen to anything you say; it will be a lie. You cannot stop. You are a pathological liar and have no other way to deal with that which you cannot accept. You should seek psychological treatment, and you will not get it here.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2017
@Da Schneib. Enough with your delusions/distractions, DS.

On the science/point, earlier above, I said:
FYI @Forum...I've LONG pointed out this gravitationally 'curved' energy-space bias/effect as possible explanation for local/global symmetry-breaking (eg, particle-vs-antiparticle 'ratios' etc). Latest instance was September 2016, to Good Elf etc: https://phys.org/...rse.html
In linked thread I said to Good Elf, September 19:
The particle-antiparticle asymmetry and baryogenesis etc can all be explained...: just apply Eternal Universe Process and Occams Razor! ASYMMETRIES can be explained by local direction/swirling biases of local GRAVITATIONAL-VACUUM ENERGY-SPACE during energy/particle collision/formation; simply because GRAVITY DIRECTION is NON-symmetrical: ie, it ONLY acts TOWARDS a particle (ie, a persistent/stable localized aggregation/configuration of vacuum energy-space).
Any on-topic comments on that, DS? :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
@RC, accusations of delusions and distractions are irrelevant, and obvious lies given the prior evidence of your pervasive lies. It doesn't matter what you say any more. It's all lies. No one can possibly believe you given that you lie in every post you make. There is nowhere to hide, and no where to run. You lie, over and over and over again, in every post you make.

Evidence you lie:
hread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2017
The two lies (there are so many they don't fit in one post) that didn't fit above:
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 just lie, and lie, and lie, @RC. No one should pay any attention to you any more after your proven lies upon lies upon lies.

If you want to argue the points, @RC, stop lying, and prove you've stopped over a large number of posts. Until then, you are a liar and it's not worth answering any point you make because you'll just lie again. Liars are capable of saying anything, whether it makes sense or not; reality is more limited. That's not a defect in reality, but a flaw in lies.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Meanwhile you are again avoiding the science/point, DS. Why keep making your delusional lies spam posts instead of addressing the science/point I posted/linked for your on topic comments, DS? Stop digging your distraction-holes and get back to the science, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2017
@RC, there is no point you can make that means anything when it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that all points you make are lies. I will not deal with a liar on any other basis but their lies. If you want to deal with reality, then we have some basis to talk; but as long as you keep lying you are irrelevant, other than pointing out you lie every time you lie.

If you want to stop lying, then do so, and keep your commitment longer than two or three posts. Since you have lied for over a decade, I would say it will be over a decade before you can live it down. Sorry but you made your reputation and now have to deal with it.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2017
And BTW, the point isn't whether you can come up with other interpretations that yield the same results. The point is whether string physics can find the correct result, and it can. You lied again, because you don't understand mathematics. It is in fact proof of the correctness of the string physics that it gives the same results as other theories. It's supposed to. That's called "consilience." And it's yet another proof you lie that you would deny it.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, there is no point you can make that means anything when it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that all points you make are lies.
If you had actually been reading you would have seen where I linked my science/comments on the gravitational anomaly aspect. But you have done everything and used every lame excuse/rationalization and lie to AVOID addressing that linked science point I made objectively. Why do you keep evading and accusing me of lying when it's obvious to the Forum that I am not lying, but trying to engage you on that point made to Good Elf last year and now to you/Forum in this thread, DS? Are you afraid of finding out and finally realizing I have been correct all along again while you/gang had no clue on this issue of possible explanations/causes of various symmetry breaking phenomena, DS? Please stop your spam and lies and evasions; just address the fair and cogent science point/observation I made/linked, DS. Else why are you here, DS? :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
BTW, the point isn't whether you can come up with other interpretations that yield the same results. The point is whether string physics can find the correct result, and it can. You lied again, because you don't understand mathematics. It is in fact proof of the correctness of the string physics that it gives the same results as other theories. It's supposed to. That's called "consilience."
If you dropped your compulsion to cry "liar" for a moment, DS, you'd realize that Epicycles 'maths' also 'worked'...BUT the underlying reality-understanding was missing! So 'consilience' is NO guarantee of correctness of underlying understandings. In any case, I said String Theory was 'not needed' to 'predict' such anomalies/symmetry-breaking (due to gravitational and other energy-space 'gradient' conditions affecting energy-to-matter-and-back processes/forms). The other thing was that Dingbone's Falaco Soliton Vortex-Pair analogy/context example was illustrative. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
If I had actually been reading all your crap, @RC, I would have wasted valuable time out of my life that I can never get back. I see no point. I note you're posting, I read the first few sentences, find the first lie, and dump on you about lying again. That way I don't spend much effort or time on a liar.
EmceeSquared
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2017
swordsman:
Gravity is an electromagnetic effect


Post the peer reviewed science that proves gravity and electromagnetism are a single fundamental force, or that gravity is not a fundamental force but rather an effect of the fundamental electromagnetic force.

Or else shut up with the pseudoscience. I expect the latter.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2017
@Da Schneib.
If I had actually been reading all your crap, @RC, I would have wasted valuable time..
And there is the usual cause of your kneejerking-in-ignorance. You boast you do not read, and/or just ignore, points/contexts, then you proceed to make up your own 'version' of what went down (usually me being correct all along, and you incorrect and insulting because you missed info which could have forestalled your incorrectness and insulting-in-ignorance). That's not the modus operandi of a truly genuine, objective scientist/discourser, DS; it puts you in the wrong from the get-go; which is why you spam your lies/delusions instead of actually finding out where/why I have been correct all along, as recently increasingly confirmed by mainstream, on many fronts. I even linked an example of the latter, but you still ignore it. Why?
I read the first few sentences,
Ignorance is no excuse for your errors/insults and dishonestly 'strawman' your own 'reality'. Not good, DS.
EmceeSquared
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 23, 2017
And there is the usual cause of your kneejerking-in-ignorance.


No, you raving lunatic liar. Da Schneib explained that they *do* waste his time reading your posts, but as soon as they get to a lie they just quit reading and post about your lie. Why would any sane person keep reading past your first lie? Especially when your posts are chock full of lies. At least it doesn't take long to get to your first lie, so not much time is wasted.

And here you are lying, of course. It's not "kneejerking", it's charitably reading until your first actual lie. It's not ignorance, its staring in the face of your lie. It's not a strawman - you obviously don't even know what that means. It's not ignorance - it's all too well informed of your lunatic lying in general, and your specific first lie in each post.

You are a pathological liar, even about your lying. You're demented. Shut up already.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
..there is the usual cause of your kneejerking-in-ignorance
No, you raving lunatic liar. Da Schneib explained that they *do* waste his time reading your posts, but as soon as they get to a lie they just quit reading and post about your lie. Why would any sane person keep reading past your first lie? Especially when your posts are chock full of lies. At least it doesn't take long to get to your first lie, so not much time is wasted.

And here you are lying, of course. It's not "kneejerking", it's charitably reading until your first actual lie. It's not ignorance, its staring in the face of your lie..
*Sigh*

Not having regard to all relevant context/info demonstrates reading confirmation bias/kneejerk approach to 'science/discourse', EcS.

Is that the science/discourse "method" you were taught; to ignore, not read, partly read, arrive at biased conclusion: "Liar!"?

Strawmanning is setting up your own 'version' and then attacking it.

Not good,EcS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
PS @EcS.

Meanwhile, mate, I posted/linked a science point/observation confirming me correct all along on the topic issue of asymmetry etc. So far DS has assiduously avoided acknowledging that and admitting me correct as per linked/mainstream comments/articles. Please read it and then make your opinions. And please then explain to the Forum just exactly where my "lie" allegedly subsists, when I merely linked my comments which mainstream are now agreeing with. Can you keep your emotional bias/kneejerking tendencies at bay long enough to do that, EcS? Thanks.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2017
RealityCheck:
And please then explain to the Forum just exactly where my "lie" allegedly subsists, when I merely linked my comments which mainstream are now agreeing with.


As always with you, it's trivially easy to explain your lie. You just posted that Da Schneib doesn't read your posts, in response to their post saying they read your posts. They read until the first lie, then post the truth about your lie. Which proves that they read your posts.

Which also proves that you are a raving lunatic. QED.

You also don't know what "kneejerking" means. It doesn't mean "used simple logic", because that still goes through the brain. "Kneejerking" means it's a reaction with no rational thought. Though I suppose your delusion is at least letting you become aware that people are kicking you in these comments.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2017
"Kneejerking" means it's a reaction with no rational thought
@MC^2
this also describes his entire earthling club page as well as 98% of what he posts here on PO

especially that latter part of no rational thought!
LMFAO

worse still: anyone can check the facts for themselves
for instance - i'm sure that DS has pointed out that rc is a liar, and this can be validated by reading the links and references he posts
or
one can simply read and count all his posts since his fallacious BICEP claims and note that not only has he not posted the fatal flaws, but he also repeatedly lied about having posted them

lied for more than 6,964 posts!

otherwise he could have linked them
but as he finally admits, he can't because it doesn't exist
here: https://phys.org/...ure.html
ayesdi_fdesay
5 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
DA Schneib, thanks so much for that explanation.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
As always with you, it's trivially easy to explain your lie. You just posted that Da Schneib doesn't read your posts, in response to their post saying they read your posts. They read until the first lie,...
EcS, please d yourself and science discourse a favor: read the wiki on "Reading confirmation bias", mate. Anyone who intentionally does NOT read ALL the relevant posts/contexts is, ipso facto, "biased" from the outset; and hence not in any tenable objective position to asset that some [thing is a "lie" or not.

You also don't know what "kneejerking" means. It doesn't mean "used simple logic", because that still goes through the brain. "Kneejerking" means it's a reaction with no rational thought.
How "rational" is NOT reading and then OPINING (kneejerking) based on ipso facto self-imposed bias-from-ignorance, EcS?

Meanwhile, EcS, you still ignore the fact/link I have been correct, while you are still in thrall to false memes about me. Why? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@MC^2
this also describes his entire earthling club page as well as 98% of what he posts here on PO
especially that latter part of no rational thought!
LMFAO
worse still: anyone can check the facts for themselves
for instance - i'm sure that DS has pointed out that rc is a liar, and this can be validated by reading the links and references he posts
or
one can simply read and count all his posts since his fallacious BICEP claims...
CS, haven't you and that gang of malicious ego-driven bot-voting trolling ignoramuses done enough damage to the reputation of science/scientists, with your much vaunted 'method" of NOT READING, IGNORING, LYING and STRAWMANNING?

Your false "method" and "memes" about me have infected otherwise intelligent/honest posters; to the effect that their own biases have been reinforced, to the detriment of any objectivity and fairness they may have started with.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Captain Stumpy. No excuses for you now.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
RealityCheck:
read the wiki on "Reading confirmation bias"


If anyone's wondering why this lunatic liar troll posts endless sequences of gibberish peppered with lies, they've just given away their game: They will insist that unless you read *all* of their gibberish/lies, including linked references usually to even more argle bargle, you haven't read their posts, so you don't have all the information, so they're right and you're wrong and biased. It's posting as Denial of Service attack.

Of course, nobody in their right mind would read past the first lie, especially from a confirmed and committed liar. Great cost for less than zero value: you're liable to get dumber with every stupid word from this Dunning Kruger zombie. But in their world, your avoiding their toxic garbage makes them right by default - so there!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
EcS, please d yourself and science discourse a favor: read the wiki on "Reading confirmation bias", mate. Anyone who intentionally does NOT read ALL the relevant posts/contexts is, ipso facto, "biased" from the outset; and hence not in any tenable objective position to asset that some [thing is a "lie" or not.

There is no wiki on "reading confirmation bias".. Only on confirmation bias.
Excerpt;
"Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. ...
People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position."
Now THAT sounds familiar...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
There is no wiki on "reading confirmation bias".. Only on confirmation bias.
Reading and Scientific Observation, are different contexts wherein biases can arise/apply. I was specifically alluding to the 'biased reading' (or NOT reading) of posts and links etc in order to justify strawman accusations etc made by those who did NOT read all the facts/contexts before crying "liar" etc. The wiki should be updated to make clear the different contexts, Whyde.
Now THAT sounds familiar..
Yes, as I pointed out: Da Schneib, CS etc BOAST about NOT reading etc; instead making up strawman, lies etc in ignorance of the full facts posted/linked which puts the lie to his NOT reading based kneejerks.

And while you're at it, Whyde, how about reading that (last year) post of mine to Good Elf in the thread I linked above; and then realizing that this mainstream researchers/article confirms my longstanding observation is correct, valid and scientific.

Enjoy reality, Whyde. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
There is no wiki on "reading confirmation bias".. Only on "confirmation bias".

Which, coincidentally enough, proves the point of you lying...
You stepped in some deep Bantha poodoo there, Skywalker...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
If anyone's wondering why this lunatic liar troll posts endless sequences of gibberish peppered with lies, they've just given away their game: They will insist that unless you read *all* of their gibberish/lies, including linked references usually to even more argle bargle, you haven't read their posts, so you don't have all the information, so they're right and you're wrong and biased. It's posting as Denial of Service attack.
So reading up on your own flaws is too much trouble for you, mate? Why then ask for links in support if you do not intend to follow them up and check out the facts which you demand, EcS? That is a description for your own version of 'denial of service' (and your hypocrisy), EcS.

I gave ONE link to a PO thread; where I posted to Good Elf my longstanding scientific observations re above article TOPIC of gravitational-anomaly/symmetry-breaking.

Are you afraid I am correct, EcS; so insult/distract 'in denial' instead?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
Reading and Scientific Observation, are different contexts wherein biases can arise/apply. I was specifically alluding to the 'biased reading' The wiki should be updated to make clear the different contexts, Whyde.

Looked on Wiki for that one, too. guess where it led me back to? Confirmation bias.
Strike 2...
Excerpt;
Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. They differ from what is sometimes called the behavioral confirmation effect, commonly known as self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person's expectations influence their own behavior, bringing about the expected result.[4]
Some psychologists restrict the term confirmation bias to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Others apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one's existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[5][Note 2]
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
There is no wiki on "reading confirmation bias".. Only on "confirmation bias".

Which, coincidentally enough, proves the point of you lying...
You stepped in some deep Bantha poodoo there, Skywalker...
You're getting desperate there, Whyde. Ignoring the thrust of the point and seizing on semantics. Don't be like DS, CS, EcS etc, mate; they are bad role models. Beware.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
Reading and Scientific Observation, are different contexts wherein biases can arise/apply. I was specifically alluding to the 'biased reading' The wiki should be updated to make clear the different contexts, Whyde.

Looked on Wiki for that one, too. guess where it led me back to? Confirmation bias.
Strike 2...
Just because you are led by the nose without thinking for yourself, it's no reason to evade the thrust of the original point and of the subsequent point re different contexts for said bias which I was specifically alluding to for DS/EcS info. Meanwhile you, Whyde, are going down fast to the level/standard set by those who do not read and resort to irrelevant strawmen/semantics in order to evade the point. Not good, Whyde. Rethinkit. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
There is no wiki on "reading confirmation bias".. Only on "confirmation bias".

Which, coincidentally enough, proves the point of you lying...
You stepped in some deep Bantha poodoo there, Skywalker...
You're getting desperate there, Whyde. Ignoring the thrust of the point and seizing on semantics. Don't be like DS, CS, EcS etc, mate; they are bad role models. Beware.

Nope. Just means you lied about a Wiki reference....
(TWICE now).
However, I won't call you a liar - just a guy living in a fantasy. You truly believe your own "Bantha Poodoo"...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
Just because you are led by the nose without thinking for yourself, it's no reason to evade the thrust of the original point and of the subsequent point re different contexts for said bias which I was specifically alluding to for DS/EcS info. Meanwhile you, Whyde, are going down fast to the level/standard set by those who do not read and resort to irrelevant strawmen/semantics in order to evade the point. Not good, Whyde. Rethinkit. :)

Well, let's see...
I read your post, followed your reference and discovered there is no such reference...
Guess I need to rethink reading your posts....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
@Whyde.
There is no wiki on "reading confirmation bias".. Only on "confirmation bias".

Which, coincidentally enough, proves the point of you lying...
You stepped in some deep Bantha poodoo there, Skywalker...
You're getting desperate there, Whyde. Ignoring the thrust of the point and seizing on semantics. Don't be like DS, CS, EcS etc, mate; they are bad role models. Beware.

Nope. Just means you lied about a Wiki reference....
(TWICE now).
However, I won't call you a liar - just a guy living in a fantasy. You truly believe your own "Bantha Poodoo"...
I alluded to the relevant subject "reading confirmation bias", not any wiki topic heading/link, Whyde. So you are demonstrating the same tendencies/flaws which afflict DS, EcS, CS and now you. How easily you have been corrupted by those who boast about not reading, misreading, falsely calling me "liar" due to your own biased 'version' of what happened. Not good, Whyde. Rethinkit.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde. Enough distractions, mate. In case you missed it:

On the science/point, earlier above, I said:
FYI @Forum...I've LONG pointed out this gravitationally 'curved' energy-space bias/effect as possible explanation for local/global symmetry-breaking (eg, particle-vs-antiparticle 'ratios' etc). Latest instance was September 2016, to Good Elf etc: https://phys.org/...rse.html
In linked thread I said to Good Elf, September 19:
The particle-antiparticle asymmetry and baryogenesis etc can all be explained...: just apply Eternal Universe Process and Occams Razor! ASYMMETRIES can be explained by local direction/swirling biases of local GRAVITATIONAL-VACUUM ENERGY-SPACE during energy/particle collision/formation; simply because GRAVITY DIRECTION is NON-symmetrical: ie, it ONLY acts TOWARDS a particle (ie, a persistent/stable localized aggregation/configuration of vacuum energy-space).


Any on-topic comments on that, Whyde? :)
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Having another ruff time on the physorg? I am fine and dandy, non complaints from me, thanks for asking.

Can I ask you the on-the-topic question about science stuffs and something you wrote right up there? It would help ol Ira-Skippy out if you could explain it to me.

What in the heck is,,,
just apply Eternal Universe Process
, what is that all about Cher? I would like to take your advisement and apply him, but Google-Skippy seems to think there is no such of a thing as the Eternal Universe Process. Was that a typo and I should try something else. I won't be able to apply him until I can find him.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2017
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

After you explain what the Eternal Universe Process is, and if you have time, could you also tell about another thing that Google-Skippy is having trouble with?

Is this something you made up on your for your toes about everything? Or is he something that real scientists have been working on,,,
(ie, a persistent/stable localized aggregation/configuration of vacuum energy-space)
Google-Skippy does okay if I put in one word at a time. But if I string them together like you did he thinks I am putting in gobbledygook even after I explain I got it from you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Having another ruff time on the physorg?
I'm fine, Ira; and being increasingly confirmed correct all along, on many fronts, by PO articles of mainstream discovery/reviews.

So it's not "ruff" for me at all, Ira.

But it *is* getting quite "ruff" for those being increasingly demonstrated to have been incorrect all along while insulting/attacking me without due cause in science or humanity.

But thanks anyway for asking,Ira. :)
What in the heck is
just apply Eternal Universe Process
what is that all about Cher? I would like to take your advisement and apply him, but Google-Skippy seems to think there is no such of a thing as the Eternal Universe Process.
Eternal, Infinite universe is the default hypothesis professional mainstream cosmologists started with; then (increasingly falsified) Big Bang was mooted. So you missed something when googling, Ira.

FYI, Ira, my (increasingly confirmed correct) view is Eternal, Infinite Recycling Universal Process.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

After you explain what the Eternal Universe Process is, and if you have time, could you also tell about another thing that Google-Skippy is having trouble with?

Is this something you made up on your for your toes about everything? Or is he something that real scientists have been working on,,,
(ie, a persistent/stable localized aggregation/configuration of vacuum energy-space)
Google-Skippy does okay if I put in one word at a time. But if I string them together like you did he thinks I am putting in gobbledygook even after I explain I got it from you.
That is a reality-based, energy-space context, description of what a persistent/stable particle/feature can be understood as. The same sort of description is made in other maths/abstractions based theory/model contexts/terms (eg, space-time and quantum mechanics), but mine above is reality-based, couched in energy-space terms which convey more effective meaning. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
I alluded to the relevant subject "reading confirmation bias", not any wiki topic heading/link, Whyde.


... EcS, please d yourself and science discourse a favor: read the wiki on "Reading confirmation bias", mate.

See the part where it says "read the wiki on "Reading Confirmation Bias"?
Pretty much counts as "reference" link in my book...
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2017
Okay, I tried him again using those words. It still does not help. One word here, another word there, and some other word some other place.

Does this thing have an official science name? Like if I looked up Big Bang or Evolution or Stringy Theory? What is the thing called in the science world so that Google-Skippy will know what I am asking for?
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2017
That is a reality-based, energy-space context, description of what a persistent/stable particle/feature can be understood as. The same sort of description is made in other maths/abstractions based theory/model contexts/terms (eg, space-time and quantum mechanics), but mine above is reality-based, couched in energy-space terms which convey more effective meaning. :)


Ha, ha, ha. You got me good on that one Cher. I sure fell for that one. It was just your regular goofy gobbledygook. It will be awhile before I fall for that again.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
I alluded to the relevant subject "reading confirmation bias", not any wiki topic heading/link, Whyde.


... EcS, please d yourself and science discourse a favor: read the wiki on "Reading confirmation bias", mate.

See the part where it says "read the wiki on "Reading Confirmation Bias"?
Pretty much counts as "reference" link in my book...
Whyde, are you claiming that wiki articles make no mention anywhere of "reading confirmation bias"? And are you determined not to look at the linked post which confirms my longstanding observation about the gravitational-anomaly/symmetry-breaking connection as now being acknowledged by the above mainstream article/topic, Whyde?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
On the science/point, earlier above, I said:
FYI @Forum...I've LONG pointed out .., to Good Elf etc: https://phys.org/...rse.html
In linked thread I said to Good Elf, September 19: The particle-antiparticle asymmetry and baryogenesis etc can all be explained...: just apply Eternal Universe Process
Which is what, exactly?Do you even understand what baryogenesis is?
ASYMMETRIES can be explained by local direction/swirling biases of local GRAVITATIONAL-VACUUM ENERGY-SPACE during energy/particle collision/formation;

Sorry, gravity is not the driver at that scale. Strong, weak and EM are...
simply because GRAVITY DIRECTION is NON-symmetrical: ie, it ONLY acts TOWARDS a particle (ie, a persistent/stable localized aggregation/configuration of vacuum energy-space).

Gravity is a MASS property, not of vacuum energy-space.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Okay, I tried him again using those words. It still does not help. One word here, another word there, and some other word some other place.
Whenever novel ideas/terminologies come along you must be prepared to connect the dots, Ira. That has been a requirement for new science comprehension since Darwin, Newton, Einstein etc had to coin new terms for what was previously not being described by previous models/theories. :)
What is the thing called in the science world so that Google-Skippy will know what I am asking for?
I have already given you research indicators. The rest is up to you, Ira.
Ha, ha, ha. You got me good on that one Cher. I sure fell for that one. It was just your regular goofy gobbledygook. It will be awhile before I fall for that again.
That "gobbledygook" gambit has been tried for years now, by the very same trolls who are NOW finding it "ruff" that my so-called "gobbledygook" is being confirmed correct by mainstream. Tuff. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Jul 24, 2017
Whyde, are you claiming that wiki articles make no mention anywhere of "reading confirmation bias"?

Not when I type it in as a "subject" in and of itself. However, I would imagine it's a lot like "confirmation bias"
And are you determined not to look at the linked post which confirms my longstanding observation about the gravitational-anomaly/symmetry-breaking connection as now being acknowledged by the above mainstream article/topic, Whyde?

Why should I? You already copied it to one of your posts below...
And this article describes Weyl semimetal properties(VERY local), not cosmological scale properties.
You're over-reaching in your "metaphor", Fantasy man...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
Which is what, exactly?Do you even understand what baryogenesis is?
Do you, Whyde? In any case the point is the imbalance/asymmetry between particle-antiparticle observed. You missed the point by trying to be a smart aleck, Whyde.
Sorry, gravity is not the driver at that scale. Strong, weak and EM are..
That was not the point/issue. You can be as "sorry" as you like, Whyde; but you still miss the whole point of the gravitational-anomaly effect on the formation process; which leads to particles-antiparticles imbalance/asymmetry, as per above article.
Gravity is a MASS property, not of vacuum energy-space.
Your long exposure to the influence of that not-reading/misreading etc gang is sending you doolally, Whyde. Please check with your mates; they at least know that the whole basis of Einstein's greatest achievement (re GR) was to hypothesize that the 'curvature of space-time' vacuum (due to the presence of mass) *is* Gravity.

Rethinkit, mate.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2017
@Whyde.
you claiming that wiki articles make no mention anywhere of "reading confirmation bias"?
Not when I type it in as a "subject" in and of itself.
Why pedantically/unnecessarily delimit what a genuine researcher/interlocutor will look for to read up on "reading confirmation bias", Whyde? Is your own bias so bad that you will intentionally ignore the wider/substantive perspective/point?
And are you determined not to look at the linked post which confirms my longstanding observation about the gravitational-anomaly/symmetry-breaking connection as now being acknowledged by the above mainstream article/topic, Whyde?
Why should I? You already copied it to one of your posts below...
You miss the point: I was correct; not "lying". You agree now?
And this article describes Weyl semimetal properties(VERY local), not cosmological scale properties.
Oops, your "reading confirmation bias" is showing, Whyde. It's a QM scale thing, whether local/global. Ok?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2017
RealityCheck:
So reading up on your own flaws is too much trouble for you, mate?


I dunno about reading up on my own flaws - if it were from a reliable source I'd be interested.

Reading past even one more of your lies - that's nothing to do with my flaws. Of course it has to do with your "flaws": your broken brain, foundering in the froth of your lies, clutching at mirror images of your own twisted antilogic... the projections of your own shadows that define you.

You're a sick, tiny person with just a few dull tricks. You're a textbook pathological liar: can't notice you're lying - it's your diseased brain barfing on itself.

Why then ask for links in support if you do not intend to follow them up and check out the facts which you demand, EcS? That is a description for your own version of 'denial of service' (and your hypocrisy), EcS.


I ask because I know you won't post them: they don't exist. Your links are links to drivel. I deny only your service to lies.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
So reading up on your own flaws is too much trouble for you, mate?
I dunno about reading up on my own flaws - if it were from a reliable source I'd be interested.
By "reliable" you mean PO articles/links, I trust. I provided the link to my longstanding objective scientific observations re the topic of the above article; which above article effectively confirms my longstanding observation as correct re gravitational-anomaly/assymmetry being connected as I explained. Why do you resist looking at PO links provided, EcS? Are you biased and afraid to find out I have been correct all along?
Why then ask for links in support if you do not intend to follow them up and check out the facts which you demand, EcS?
I ask because I know you won't post them: they don't exist. Your links are links to drivel.
You "know" without looking? That's you being positively 'psychic', mate! And I DID LINK to a PO/MAINSTREAM article. Evidently in denial, EcS.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2017
RealityCheck:
Oops, your "reading confirmation bias" is showing


What's that showing, now? That "reading confirmation bias" isn't even a thing anywhere on the Internet, let alone in a Wikipedia article:
https://www.googl...on+bias"

Yet you insist on invoking it as if it bothers anyone to be accused of something that's not anything.

Much as you insist on posting your masturbatory pseudoscience on this blog. Why do you do it? It only gets you bogged down in these threads where people attack you. It's not having any effect on science, it's not educating anyone - this is an inconsequential discussion blog for people who like science.

You're just a masochistic mad pseudoscientist. You must like the abuse you earn here, because you invest a lot of time provoking it. Why don't you just post on a pseudoscience blog instead already? It'll be better for everyone.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Oops, your "reading confirmation bias" is showing
What's that showing, now? That "reading confirmation bias" isn't even a thing anywhere on the Internet, let alone in a Wikipedia article
Mate, you are being pedantic and missing the point. When you google "reading confirmation bias" the results page begins with the "reading confirmation bias" as the search term which may be further investigated via the listed-below "scholarly article" links. The "reading confirmation bias" aspect is a known sub-set of the overarching GENERIC "confirmation bias" subject. The term "reading confirmation bias" has had common usage for many years now (even here at PO, by some posters who point out to 'cranks' how they are misreading their own linked material due to the 'cranks' reading confirmation bias problem).

EcS,, really, try to lose pedantic/bias attitude/tactic; just read/listen to whole point/context being discussed/presented. That is the only way in science. :)
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll rc sam fodera
The term "reading confirmation bias" has had common usage for many years now
Ah, so then you can provide links to it's continued use among the PO articles as well as a clear, concise definition that explains it!

so go ahead and link them!

or is this another claim like your bullsh*t 4 fatal flaw claims where you will now go 6,983 posts (accurate as of July 25, 2017, 12:35 am) complaining but still never being able to actually produce a single piece of evidence supporting your claim?

you do realise that every one of your posts (including those deleted by the site) is archived, right?

it's not like people can't search and find the data
it's easily accessible by everyone

finny thing is: in all that data, guess what is missing?
yup
your 4 fatal flaws (and any evidence that you've linked it from or to anywhere in the past)

reported for being a liar, pseudoscience crank & criminal
just like you are at home
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
@Captain Stumpy. You wasted enough time being malicious/wrong; enough of your irrelevant cluttering.

On the science/point, I said:
FYI @Forum...I've LONG pointed out this gravitationally 'curved' energy-space bias/effect as possible explanation for local/global symmetry-breaking (eg, particle-vs-antiparticle 'ratios' etc). Latest instance was September 2016, to Good Elf etc: https://phys.org/...rse.html
In linked thread I said:
The particle-antiparticle asymmetry and baryogenesis etc can all be explained...: just apply Eternal Universe Process and Occams Razor! ASYMMETRIES can be explained by local direction/swirling biases of local GRAVITATIONAL-VACUUM ENERGY-SPACE during energy/particle collision/formation; simply because GRAVITY DIRECTION is NON-symmetrical: ie, it ONLY acts TOWARDS a particle (ie, a persistent/stable localized aggregation/configuration of vacuum energy-space).


Any on-topic comments on that, CS? :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
RealityCheck:
When you google "reading confirmation bias" the results page begins with the "reading confirmation bias" as the search term which may be further investigated via the listed-below "scholarly article" links.


No it does not. There is not a single appearance of either "reading confirmation bias" or a scholarly article about it:
https://www.google.com/search?q="reading+confirmation+bias"

There are only pages that incidentally say "reading", usually followed by a comma, before "confirmation bias", nothing about this thing you made up.

It's perfectly predictable that you, a denial projector troll, a pathological liar, suffer from this "reading confirmation bias" you made up and project onto others.

read/listen to whole point/context being discussed/presented. That is the only way in science


That's why scientists read/listen only to peer reviewed science, and why peer review is such a pain: weeding out mad pseudoscientists like you.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
RealityCheck:
@You wasted enough time being malicious/wrong; enough of your irrelevant cluttering.


Ridding this science site of mad pseudoscientists like you and other trolls is a priority, or else it's not really a science site. It is you who does nothing but waste everyone's time, including your own, posting your pseudoscience. Every time you do you get nothing but annoyed slapbacks from people interested in actual science, not your loony science fiction. With the occasional exception from some other mad pseudoscientist or troll - probably some of which are sockpuppets.

Why do you bother? You're pollution. Take it somewhere else it might be appreciated.

If your typing actually constitutes innovative science, publish it in a peer reviewed journal and actually change science. Or at least post it in some other blog where people don't insist on the peer review that defines science.

Or else admit you're a masochist and suck up the inevitable abuse.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
Why do you bother?
@MC^2
because he wants attention
http://twospirith...complex/

.

.

@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll rc sam fodera
On the science/point, I said
illiterate idiot
that is not what i quoted

try re-reading that post...

if you can't comprehend what it says then this speaks volumes about your own confusing regurgitation of nonsensical pseudoscience stupidity

except in this case it is a blatantly false claim about the use of a term that you claim has "had common usage for many years now"

so *yet again* you have proven that you can't even validate your comments about something that, in your own words, has "had common usage for many years now"

LMFAO

thanks for demonstrating that you're a lying troll with absolutely no comprehension of basic english, let alone the scientific principle you claim to be a fanatical devotee to
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
When you google "reading confirmation bias" the results page begins with the "reading confirmation bias" as the search term which may be further investigated via the listed-below "scholarly article" links.


No it does not. There is not a single appearance of either "reading confirmation bias" or a scholarly article about it:
https://www.googl...on+bias"

There are only pages that incidentally say "reading", usually followed by a comma, before "confirmation bias",..
Calm down; go to this link:

http://www.google...T_n4uoCQ

I already said that specific context was "reading confirmation bias"; as a sub-set of overarching generic subject "confirmation bias" context. Relax. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
PS @EmceeSquared.
read/listen to whole point/context being discussed/presented. That is the only way in science
That's why scientists read/listen only to peer reviewed science, and why peer review is such a pain: weeding out mad pseudoscientists like you.
You mean all the pseudoscientists who for decades corrupted the cosmology literature and peer review process with now increasingly falsified Big Bang and Inflation etc crap which Penrose and Steinhardt recently admitted WAS pseudoscience all along? You mean like that, EcS?

You can't have it both ways. Either you take note of relevant info/new ideas WHEREVER arisen/discussed; OR remain in an "Ivory Tower" self-delusional inbred circle jerk of paper-writers and peer-reviewers who 'pass' each others' CRAP because it's the OFFICIALLY 'allowed' crap.

EcS, the INTERNET has given us the chance to break the circle-jerk 'model' of peerreview/paperwriting that has led to so much crap now admitted as such. Rethinkit. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Ridding this science site of mad pseudoscientists like you and other trolls is a priority, or else it's not really a science site. It is you who does nothing but waste everyone's time, including your own, posting your pseudoscience. Every time you do you get nothing but annoyed slapbacks from people interested in actual science, not your loony science fiction. With the occasional exception from some other mad pseudoscientist or troll - probably some of which are sockpuppets.
Ahem, mate, you forget that it is ME who is being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by mainstream; NOT YOU or Captain Stumpy; or the rest of you bot-voting ignoramus elitist twits trying to CENSOR fair, open SCIENCE discourse; because of your twisted-ego agendas, pretending you want 'science' but are are doing everything to BETRAY OBJECTIVE SCIENCE and FAIR DISCOURSE.

EcS, can't you see you've crossed over to being anti-science/discourse? Are you so biased by CS? Beware!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll rc sam fodera
On the science/point, I said
illiterate idiot
that is not what i quoted
except in this case it is a blatantly false claim about the use of a term that you claim has "had common usage for many years now"

so *yet again* you have proven that you can't even validate your comments about something that, in your own words, has "had common usage for many years now"

LMFAO
Are YOU claiming NO-ONE has EVER used that phrase, CS?

And your LMFAO while cluttering threads with your semantical and other irrelevant distractions 'burying' the SCIENCE point/discussion are obvious, CS. As is your now-infamous NOT-READING before opening your gob to insult and sabotage proper science discourse. How such a malignant bot-voting ignoramus can influence/corrupt otherwise intelligent posters is a study waiting to happen! Laughing, cluttering, NOT-reading then insulting, is no substitute for science method, CS.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

I should address this:
With the occasional exception from some other mad pseudoscientist or troll - probably some of which are sockpuppets.
Why do you do this, EcS? You KNOW by now I do NOT have sockpuppets OR even engage in ratings games in the feedback pages. If I had sockpuppets my ratings would NOT be '1.7', would it, EcS? If you had any objectivity and fairness left in your mind/character after your exposure to the malignant influences of the NOT-READ-THEN-INSULT troll, Captain Stumpy, you would have realized I was genuine and without sockpuppets or malice; only objectivity, independent observations for your/everyone's benefit who is actually interested in advancing science/fairness ethics, knowledge of the reality; NOT the 'beliefs' which have come to infest even the official literature/peer-review system. You KNOW this is all true, EcS; because you must have some spark of decency/objectivity left deep down DESPITE CS's malignant influence on you.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2017
@RC, there is no point in reading the posts of a liar past the first lie. If you want responses to anything other than the first lie (and those rarely), stop lying. It's really just that simple.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
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
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2017
And since we have now found lies @RC tells that will not fit in a single post, here's the latest one:
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html

A liar can say anything at all, @RC. There is no possible response but "you lied again." You yourself create the conditions you whine about. When you stop doing it, and everyone is convinced you have done so permanently (and that's going to take a lot of convincing) perhaps you can expect something more. Until then you get what you deserve.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@Forum. Pitiable, isn't it; that a promising intellect can so easily be corrupted and deluded to the point it prefers to spam his lies, misattributions, strawmen and gratuitous accusations etc; instead of actually looking at the evidence and keeping to objective science arguments, fair discourse ethics. Meanwhile the fact is dawning on some of my detractors that I am the one being increasingly confirmed correct all along on the science, on many fronts, by recent/ongoing mainstream discovery/reviews. While still others of my detractors are being left behind with their ego-tripping malice and nonsense in lieu of objective science discourse and fair understanding. What a pity; what a waste. Sad, isn't it, folks?
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
RealityCheck:
go to this link:

http://www.google...T_n4uoCQ

I already said that specific context was "reading confirmation bias"; as a sub-set of overarching generic subject "confirmation bias" context. Relax. :)


Why would that search link calm me down? I'm totally hopped up on your stunning stupidity. Without quotes on the phrase, you're just searching for any page that contains all three words (and not necessarily even that, since Google pulls in related pages according to its secret formula). So NOT ONE OF THOSE PAGES SAYS "reading confirmation bias". You preposterous sack of hammers.

You don't even read the summaries of the pages you say support the thing you made up. Because YOUR CONFIRMATION BIAS IS PATHOLOGICAL.

You couldn't be more of a mockery. You're the most masochistic troll on this site. I mean, even your screen name "RealityCheck" is exactly backwards. HAHAHAHA!
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2017
RealityCheck:
@Forum. Pitiable, isn't it; that a promising intellect can so easily be corrupted and deluded to the point it prefers to spam his lies, misattributions, strawmen and gratuitous accusations etc; instead of actually looking at the evidence and keeping to objective science arguments, fair discourse ethics. Meanwhile the fact is dawning on some of my detractors that I am the one being increasingly confirmed correct all along on the science, on many fronts, by recent/ongoing mainstream discovery/reviews. While still others of my detractors are being left behind with their ego-tripping malice and nonsense in lieu of objective science discourse and fair understanding. What a pity; what a waste. Sad, isn't it, folks?


You're rubbing yourself while you type that passive aggressive fantasy, aren't you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
@Forum. Pitiable, isn't it; that a promising intellect can so easily be corrupted and deluded to the point it prefers to spam his lies, misattributions, strawmen and gratuitous accusations etc; instead of actually looking at the evidence and keeping to objective science arguments, fair discourse ethics. Meanwhile the fact is dawning on some of my detractors that I am the one being increasingly confirmed correct all along on the science, on many fronts, by recent/ongoing mainstream discovery/reviews. While still others of my detractors are being left behind with their ego-tripping malice and nonsense in lieu of objective science discourse and fair understanding. What a pity; what a waste. Sad, isn't it, folks?


You're rubbing yourself while you type that passive aggressive fantasy, aren't you.
You're not only in denial, mate; you also are getting as foulmouthed and dirtyminded as those who have corrupted your mind and character. Bad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck:
go to this link:

http://www.google...T_n4uoCQ

I already said that specific context was "reading confirmation bias"; as a sub-set of overarching generic subject "confirmation bias" context. Relax. :)
I'm totally hopped up on your stunning stupidity. Without quotes on the phrase, you're just searching for any page that contains all three words (and not necessarily even that, since Google pulls in related pages according to its secret formula). So NOT ONE OF THOSE PAGES SAYS "reading confirmation bias".
"hopped up", oh, 'emotional'. You're not only still in denial, mate; you are also still hiding behind semantical nitpicking in order to avoid seeing the linked post/thread which confirms me correct and not lying re the gravitational-anomaly related symmetry-breaking. You remember, that SCIENCE thing....not your emotional/semantical whinings thing. Badder.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2017
"hopped up", oh, 'emotional'. You're not only still in denial, mate; you are also still hiding behind semantical nitpicking


No, I fully embrace my emotional thrills from bashing pathetic losers like you who won't just shut up. There's absolutely no "denial" involved in my shoving your childish lies about "reading confirmation bias" down your thoat.

You're the annoying little sister following the grownups around in your nightgown, clutching your ragged teddy bear while we ignore you. "DENIAL!" you whine because we're trying to pretend you're not still around.

As for cold, hard facts: NOT ONE OF THOSE PAGES SAYS "reading confirmation bias". That's not "semantical nitpicking", it's *your delusion". Dismissing your delusions, and you with them isn't "emotional denial", it's *sanity*.

Sanity is a stranger to you. Take your nightgown and your pathological yammerings somewhere else.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience dipsh*t
Are YOU claiming NO-ONE has EVER used that phrase, CS?
1- the phrase in quotes in my post and yours is not in regular use. it does not have a specific definition in any science lexicon or any other etymological source i've found

2- not in regular use does not mean "NO-ONE has EVER used that phrase"[sic] - learn to f*cking read before commenting

that's two separate things, moron

3- your idiotic choice to include qualifiers to confirmation bias, in quotes, and then state it's in regular use is relevant as this designates a specific term that must be wholly represented

confirmation bias is a well known and used term

your term, however, is not

4- https://www.googl...kdCg1hW0

that link proves you're an idiot
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
I fully embrace my emotional thrills from bashing pathetic losers
Mate, @antialias_physorg already found to his cost that putting "emotional thrills" (from 'bashing cranks') before dispassionate scientific objectivity/scrutiny is a NO-NO in SCIENCE:

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

@anti has hopefully learned that HARD SCIENCE LESSON by now. You have to learn it the hard way too, it seems (so much for allegedly intelligent humans supposedly being capable of learning from observing others' mistakes)! You are an 'emotionally invested' kneejerking disappointment to both science and humanity.
There's absolutely no "denial" involved...
Except yours, EcS. Now you are in denial about BEING in denial! Not good.
You're the annoying little sister
Did your little sister also catch you out being silly and "emotional", EcS?
"reading"
..was the SPECIFIC CONTEXT in which YOUR "confirmation bias" arose. Stop evading. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2017
RealityCheck:
putting "emotional thrills" (from 'bashing cranks') before dispassionate scientific objectivity/scrutiny is a NO-NO in SCIENCE:


No, stupid, I don't put the thrill before the objectivity. First I objectively determine that you're a slavering fool, from your relentless lying and posting mad pseudoscience at an audience that mocks your stupidity. Then, science firmly complete, I joyously stamp all over your stupidity, your insanity.

You've got a lot of nerve constantly lecturing anyone on science, when all you have is mad pseudoscience. You're built backwards, "mate". You're the little sister, and when we can't ignore your barefoot wanderings we can only laugh in your face about them.

Isn't all your pathological spinning in these threads keeping you from reanimating the dead or proving everything scientists know is wrong or something? Why do you bother?

It's because pretending you're not a liar is about as fun for you as spouting pseudoscience, isn't it?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
No, stupid, I don't put the thrill before the objectivity.
Oh dear, now you are in denial about being in denial about being in denial, EcS? The pattern of regression into self-delusion is becoming tragically self-evident with every post now while you try to evade the point made about your reading confirmation bias and your emotionality that compounds its detrimental effect on both your science objectivity and your character integrity, EcS. Not good.
First I objectively determine that you're a slavering fool, from your relentless lying and posting mad pseudoscience at an audience that mocks your stupidity. Then, science firmly complete, I joyously stamp all over your stupidity, your insanity.
Your claim to "objectivity" rings hollow whilst ever you remain in denial about the point made; and fact that it is ME being confirmed correct all along, on many fronts, by recent/new mainstream discovery/reviews. While YOU and "CS gang" ignore/troll. Not good.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience dipsh*t
Are YOU claiming NO-ONE has EVER used that phrase, CS?
1- the phrase in quotes in my post and yours is not in regular use. it does not have a specific definition in any science lexicon or any other etymological source i've found
2- not in regular use does not mean "NO-ONE has EVER used that phrase"[sic] - learn to f*cking read before commenting
that's two separate things, moron
3- your idiotic choice to include qualifiers to confirmation bias, in quotes, and then state it's in regular use is relevant as this designates a specific term that must be wholly represented
The "reading confirmation bias" was the CONTEXT. You know, confirmation bias involved whilst READING. So your nitpicking while evading the point OF "reading confirmation bias" evident in EcS's (and your own now infamously corrupting "TL;DR method" of ignoring the context/point written down), is just distractions from trolls being trolls. Not good
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2017
Why do you bother?

At this point there's only two reasons left
a) He's a masochist
b) He's a lonely old git and this is the only place left in the world where people will talk at him (not *to* him...no one cares that much)

He's posted thousands upon thousands of comments, and in all that time there's never been a single person who agrees with him.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
At this point there's only two reasons left
@antialias_physorg
absolutely true, but it's actually a combination of the two due to the following: https://en.wikipe..._complex

http://twospirith...complex/

http://outofthefo...mization

read those links and you will be truly astounded by how accurately it describes him
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
He's posted thousands upon thousands of comments, and in all that time there's never been a single person who agrees with him.
You're ijn denial, @antialias. Mainstream discovery/reviews are confirming ME correct and YOU/others INcorrect; so your claim is self-serving delusion, @anti. :)

It was futile after all, @anti, expecting you to have learned your hard science lesson from your abject failure in that Bicep2 fiasco where you enjoyed bashing cranks whilst ignoring all objective science method principles of objectivity and fairness; which led you to 'bash cranks' while YOU were being the 'crank' believing patently flawed Biep2 crap.

So, @antialias, it seems you and the rest of that "CS gang" of bot-voting ignoramuses pretending to 'want/defend science' still haven't clue one that YOU are \doing the exact opposite, then and now.

In denial at central to CS-gang's "TL;DR method".

Admit your flaws, @anti; stop being in denial; LEARN not TROLL. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2017
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience dipsh*t
The "reading confirmation bias" was the CONTEXT. You know, confirmation bias involved whilst READING
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

it is not context when you add the word "reading" into the quotes
your whole quoted phrase means something entirely different, which is what was stated to you by MC^2 and myself, you idiot

no one is ignoring your "context", it was a point of clear, concise communication that attempted to correct your notoriously atrocious grammar, abuse of quotes and other punctuation and unclear communication stye of and/or hash mark overuse

IOW - you're an illiterate twit with the reading and comprehension level of a 4th grade english student screwing up what you say while adding to the confusion of the topic by refusing to add any verifiable or valid references

FOAD and STFU

PS - i don't have a gang, you moron
learn to read http://www.readingbear.org/
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@antialias_physorg
absolutely true, but it's actually a combination of the two due to the following: https://en.wikipe..._complex
read those links and you will be truly astounded by how accurately it describes him
More of your cluttering irrelevancies, CS. No wonder you run a gang of bot-voting ignoramus trolls in denial of the science points while attacking those who have been correct all along. The Bicep2 fiasco belies all your gang's claims to objectivity etc. You are just an internet gang of ego-tripping twits pretending to 'want/defend science' whilst doing the exact opposite, as your posts dripping with malice and bot-voting insulting stupidities demonstrate for objective readers. The insensibility of your CS-gang is astounding; not to see your own internet appearance as a gang of mutually-'5'-goosing bot-voting twerps who believe they are anything but a daisy-chain-of-twerps. Pitiable and poisonous CS-gang of trolling ignoramuses.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 26, 2017
RealityCheck, who are you posting to? The only responses you get here are (earned) abuse. Why do you do it? Isn't your masochism alone proof that you're here for science? What could you possibly get from everyone else telling you you're a humiliated fool every time you post?

I await your "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience dipsh*t
A clear demonstration that you are poisonous and emotional. That's where EcS and others have 'caught' that disease from. Shame on you for corrupting their science objectivity and their character integrity. Your legacy will be there for all to loath even after you are but a bad smell, CS.
FOAD and STFU
Yet more clear demonstration of your poisonous emotional approach to science and humanity discourse. What a totally insensible twerp you have become, CS; almost as bad a the 'paddoboy' troll recently gone from Sciforums. But at least he had the sense to know when he was gone beyond the pale, because his 'friends' told him he was being so poisonous as to ruin prqctically every otherwise interesting/objective discussion. But not YOU, CS; yours is 'industrial strength' insensibility writ large. Not good.
i don't have a gang, you moron
Your mutual-'5'-goosing circle-jerk in feedback pages says different, CS. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
RealityCheck, who are you posting to? The only responses you get here are (earned) abuse. Why do you do it? Isn't your masochism alone proof that you're here for science? What could you possibly get from everyone else telling you you're a humiliated fool every time you post?

I await your "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.
Responding to lies and attacks from trolls and bot-voting ignoramuses is the duty of any objective poster who is being confirmed correct all along by mainstream. That YOU would deny ME that right, while YOU claim the right to post for "emotional thrills" bashing cranks (while being wrong and suffering from reading confirmation bias), is a bit hypocritical of you, don't you see? It is that sort of double-standards which makes all your/CS-gang's claims to legitimacy or objectivity etc, a hollow joke.

And besides, posting FOR THE RECORD is a great way to counter the lies and trolling/bot-voting campaign from you/CS-gang. Stop whining. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@idiot illiterate lying trolling pseudoscience dipsh*t
The Bicep2 fiasco
7,011 posts and you still can't prove anything you claim, but you think people will listen to you because... why?
LMFAO
A clear demonstration that you are poisonous and emotional
nope
it's a definitive label that is factually accurate and supported by evidence
if you had the ability to refute this you would have, but you can't, and you proved that one

also note, if it weren't true you could litigate
given that you can't sue, that is demonstrative of the factual nature of the label

feel free to continue your denigration - it opens doors to your psyche and mental illnesses which make things easier for those studying liars, trolls, delusional cultists and other people just like you

at least i can prove my points with your own posts
you can't even do that much! ( https://phys.org/...ure.html )
see ?
LMFAO
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 26, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate lying trolling pseudoscience dipsh*t
The Bicep2 fiasco
7,011 posts and you still can't prove anything you claim, but you think people will listen to you because... why? LMFAO
All that crap; just to pretend you, antialias, rest of 'CS-gang' of bot-voting ignoramus trolls, did NOT fall hook-line-and-sinker for that Bicep2 crap?

You're in denial still, CS/gang. You must really hate me for exposing your gullibility/malice. You troll/attack; pretending you're not total losses when it comes to ORIGINAL objective/fair science/humanity discourse/advancement. If you were anything at all like TRUE scientists or HONEST human beings, you all would have admitted error and moved on in a better, more honest manner. But you've been doing the CS-gang 'poisonous' thing for years now; egging each other on via a 'gang' dynamics which has turned you into a pathetically obvious 'mutual-5'-goosing circle-jerk so evident in the feedback pages. QED.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2017
RealityCheck:
Your mutual-'5'-goosing circle-jerk in feedback pages says different, CS. :)

Did you just say "circle-jerk"? Let me quote you:

RealityCheck:
You're not only in denial, mate; you also are getting as foulmouthed and dirtyminded as those who have corrupted your mind and character. Bad.

https://phys.org/..._1495734

Your denial projection of your own depraved indifference to reality has come full circle. Indeed, you're a one-poster circle-jerk.

You really do make abusing you fun. You're a bottomless pit of heinous miscarriages!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
absolutely true, but it's actually a combination of the two due to the following: https://en.wikipe..._complex

read those links and you will be truly astounded by how accurately it describes him

Spot on.

(You know what would be fun...if we all started to pretend to agree with everything he says for a while..that'd drive him bananas)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@EmceeSquared

@EcS:
RealityCheck:
Your mutual-'5'-goosing circle-jerk in feedback pages says different, CS. :)

Did you just say "circle-jerk"? Let me quote you:

RealityCheck:
You're not only in denial, mate; you also are getting as foulmouthed and dirtyminded as those who have corrupted your mind and character. Bad.

https://phys.org/..._1495734

Your denial projection of your own depraved indifference to reality has come full circle. Indeed, you're a one-poster circle-jerk.

You really do make abusing you fun. You're a bottomless pit of heinous miscarriages!
How silly can you be, EcS! Yu posit an unreal "one-poster circle jerk" while ignoring the real C-gang (you included) circle-jerk of mutually-5'-goosing bot-voters who are insulting while ignoring/denying their own stupidity/ignorance/malice. Not good!

Meanwhile, read: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Get real, EcS. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@antialias_physorg.
absolutely true, but it's actually a combination of the two due to the following: https://en.wikipe..._complex

read those links and you will be truly astounded by how accurately it describes him

Spot on.

(You know what would be fun...if we all started to pretend to agree with everything he says for a while..that'd drive him bananas)
How silly are you, anti? Or is your ego still hurting from your Bicep2 fiasco? Or both, if the gullibility and malice (and silliness) you exhibited during that fiasco is any guide to your continuing DENIAL of your silliness and malice. Your 'method' of 'objectivity' and 'science' has so far been that of ignoring, denying, insulting and being WRONG on science and behavior. The CS-gang would be proud of you, anti, as you just 'agree' and 'cheerlead' other silly posters just because they cater to your own silliness and bias.

Meanwhile, read:

https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Get real, anti. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, you're lying again. There wasn't any BICEP2 "fiasco." Researchers reported some high sigma, but not certain results, just like they're supposed to. It turned out that an unexpected systematic effect was larger than they had allowed for, and this meant that they had to recast their results in light of the Planck results. It's how science is supposed to work. You've been whining about it for years now, and been told the truth over and over again, but still you keep lying about it.

This isn't about science, @RC. It's about you, and it's about your lies. Nothing more important than that. Just a fly buzzing around the room, or the ants getting into the sugar. Eventually the flyswatter or the Giant Hot Sponge of Death comes for you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
you're lying again. There wasn't any BICEP2 "fiasco." Researchers reported some high sigma, but not certain results, just like they're supposed to. It turned out that an unexpected systematic effect was larger than they had allowed for, and this meant that they had to recast their results in light of the Planck results. It's how science is supposed to work. You've been whining about it for years now, and been told the truth over and over again, but still you keep lying about it.
You're being stupid/dishonest, DS. The @antialias_physorg fiasco subsisted in HIS uncritical 'belief' in INITIAL Bicep2 (obviously flawed!) claims; WITH which obviously flawed claims @antialias immediately began 'bashing cranks' in 'belief' HE was 'correct''. Which WASN'T the case! It was @antialias et al WHO WERE WRONG; and PREFERRED TO REMAIN WRONG!...ignoring/attacking ME for advising they OBJECTIVELY check the obviously flawed Bicep2 claims. THAT was @antialias's FIASCO! Learn!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, tsk tsk tsk. You're lying again. Your claim, for years now, has been that it was the scientists who committed the fiasco. Now you're changing that to @anti. It's not about @anti, it's about you, and your lies.

Stop lying, @RC. You always, always get caught.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, tsk tsk tsk. You're lying again. Your claim, for years now, has been that it was the scientists who committed the fiasco. Now you're changing that to @anti. It's not about @anti, it's about you, and your lies.

Stop lying, @RC. You always, always get caught.
Your reading confirmation bias and just plain stupidity is all too evident now, DS. Get it through your thick skull: There were TWO FIASCO contexts. The INITIAL FIASCO for that Bicep2 'team'; and the PARTICULAR FIASCO for @antialias_physorg (and the rest of that CS-gang of bot-voting ignoramuses) who started gleefully 'bashing cranks' while they FAILED TO OBJECTIVELY CHECK OUT the Bicep2 claims for themselves, as I suggested they do before they continue 'bashing cranks'.

Get it now, mate? TWO fiascos. ONE for the Bicep2 'team' itself. ANOTHER for @antialias et al.

Good grief; you lot need to be 'spoonfed', 'led by the nose' to objective comprehension in context: perfect 'CS-gang material'. lol
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, tsk tsk again. Your lie about "reading confirmation bias" has already been dealt with on this thread, and here you are telling it again.

And it's not about me, it's about you, and your lies. So now you're trying to change the subject, which is another lie.

Two lies in one post. In fact, in the first sentence of one post.

Stop lying, @RC. It's never going to work.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? (Never mind, it is the rhetoric question.) I'm still good but got to go do my diligence as the engineer soon.

Skippy, you need to take a break. This is getting you prickly and tetchy. You are getting double extra weird with your letters and symbols and typing. It is almost impossible to read.

Unless that is what you are chooting for. Is that what it is, you are doing it on purpose? If you are then just forget this and carry on like you have been doing "all along".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schyneib.
@RC, tsk tsk again. Your lie about "reading confirmation bias" has already been dealt with on this thread, and here you are telling it again.

And it's not about me, it's about you, and your lies. So now you're trying to change the subject, which is another lie.

Two lies in one post. In fact, in the first sentence of one post.

Stop lying, @RC. It's never going to work.
DS, with you it has now gone well beyond reading confirmation bias; what you are doing is just plain dishonesty and stupidity in order to distract from the increasingly obvious fact I am being confirmed correct by mainstream more and more; while you/CS-gang of dishonest twits keep pretending to your circle-jerk bot-voting fellows that you are doing anything other than ego-tripping while being wrong on both the science and the behavior. If your ambition/aspiration was to become ludicrously irrelevant INTERNET ASSES, then you have succeeded beyond your wildest trollish imaginings! Shame.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, tsk, tsk, tsk. You're lying again. In your first sentence, you tell the "reading confirmation bias" lie again, and then in that same sentence you tell the "confirmed correct" lie too.

This is four posts, four lies. Care to try for five?

You are as transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its chest and the broken cookie jar on the floor in front of you. And about as bright. Tell me, @RC, why anyone should pay attention to someone who lies in every post, and regularly lies more than once in the first sentence of every post.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@Really-Skippy. How you are again Cher? (Never mind, it is the rhetoric question.) I'm still good but got to go do my diligence as the engineer soon.
I hope no lives are at stake while you "engineer"; as your demonstrably industrial level of insensibility will lead to disaster sooner or later,if niot for yourself then for others around you. Best of luck to you/them.
Skippy, you need to take a break. This is getting you prickly and tetchy. You are getting double extra weird with your letters and symbols and typing. It is almost impossible to read.
Yes, I can understand how me being correct and conveying info in English can 'confuse' a bot-voting ignoramus into 'seeing weird' things where real correct science is being posted/linked. lol
Unless that is what you are chooting for.
My being correct is now posted/linked fact, Ira; being confirmed by mainstream daily. As an independent objective scientist that is sufficient purpose/reward for me, Ira.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, well, at least you didn't lie in the first sentence this time; instead you descended to raw insults.

But, unfortunately, you *did* lie in the second sentence, and again twice. This lying seems to be a habit with you; this is now eight lies in five posts. First you told the "me being correct" lie again, then you accused your numerous detractors of being @Ira's sock puppets again, another of the lies you regularly tell. I can't help getting the impression that you've built up a fantasy world where everyone who disagrees with you is all one person. That's called "paranoid schizophrenia," @RC. You might want to talk to a professional about that. And if it's not paranoid schizophrenia, then it's compulsive lying, which you also might want to talk to a professional about.

There are no rape machines hiding in the bushes, and the Queen of England is not a lizard. Get over it.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2017
I hope no lives are at stake while you "engineer"; as your demonstrably industrial level of insensibility will lead to disaster sooner or later,if niot for yourself then for others around you.
There is non need to worry. I went to the engineer school like you did not do in the science school.

And I been doing this a long time on dozens of different boats and never make a problem yet. Choot, out of the 100 or 90 engineers in my company, I am probable in the top six or five senior and pay wise.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, tsk,. You're lying again. In your first sentence, you tell the "reading confirmation bias" lie again, and then in that same sentence you tell the "confirmed correct" lie too.

This is four posts, four lies. Care to try for five?

You are as transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its chest and the broken cookie jar on the floor in front of you. And about as bright. Tell me, @RC, why anyone should pay attention to someone who lies in every post, and regularly lies more than once in the first sentence of every post.
What's "transparent" is you trying to 'bury' the fact I am being confirmed correct all along on science by mainstream; while you childishly and dishonestly try to retend that irrelevances and distractions such as your/SC-gang's are fooling any objective reader here.

You obviously not only never learn your lessons, you also are reduced to lame tactics to hide the fact you are internet asses of the highest order.

Science wins. lol
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, well, at least you didn't lie in the first sentence this time; instead you descended to raw insults. But, unfortunately, you *did* lie in the second sentence, and again twice. This lying seems to be a habit with you; this is now eight lies in five posts. First you told the "me being correct" lie again, then you accused your numerous detractors of being @Ira's sock puppets again, another of the lies you regularly tell. I can't help getting the impression that you've built up a fantasy world where everyone who disagrees with you is all one person. That's called "paranoid schizophrenia," @RC.
Don't you ("raw insults" king) just hate it that I'm the one being confirmed correct all along by mainstream while you/CS-gang malicious circle-jerk of mutual-'5'-goosing bot-voting ignoramuses are shown up for what you are: a sad collection of internet asses pretending to 'speak for' and 'defending' science while doing the exact opposite for all to see now. Pitiable.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, I don't have to "bury" anything, you're doing that yourself, with lies. And oh, look, there's you lying again. That's nine lies in six posts now.

And, gee, look there, you're telling the "confirmed correct" lie again, too, in the same sentence. That's ten lies in six posts.

I can do this all night, and your lies are what makes it possible. Every time you post, you lie, and most times multiple times in the first sentence in the post. Thanks, @RC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, tsk tsk tsk, you're lying again. It's not an "insult" to point your lies out. It's the truth, which you hate and fear. Oh, and look there, that's eleven lies in seven posts.

And worse yet, you're telling the "confirmed correct" lie too, in the same, first sentence of your post. That's twelve lies in seven posts. Pretty soon I'll start separately counting the individual lies and the multiple lies in a single sentence and the multiple lies in the first sentence; you're a statistical universe of lies, @RC! Congratulations.

Just stop lying, @RC, it's not working and it's never going to work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and by that definition you are definitely insane.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
I hope no lives are at stake while you "engineer"; as your demonstrably industrial level of insensibility will lead to disaster sooner or later,if niot for yourself then for others around you.
There is non need to worry. I went to the engineer school like you did not do in the science school.

And I been doing this a long time on dozens of different boats and never make a problem yet. Choot, out of the 100 or 90 engineers in my company, I am probable in the top six or five senior and pay wise.
Well then, even a bot-voting ignoramus on a science site can be taught to do something after all (if no trained monkey is immediately available). It's a shame though, that "engineering school" left you incapable of learning new things in science; especially subtle/complex things which a bot-voting ignoramus automatically tacitly admits is beyond him; else he wouldn't BE a bot-voting ignoramus on a science site.

Take care, Ira. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, tsk tsk tsk, you're lying again. It's not an "insult" to point your lies out. It's the truth, which you hate and fear. Oh, and look there, that's eleven lies in seven posts.

And worse yet, you're telling the "confirmed correct" lie too, in the same, first sentence of your post. That's twelve lies in seven posts. Pretty soon I'll start separately counting the individual lies and the multiple lies in a single sentence and the multiple lies in the first sentence; you're a statistical universe of lies, @RC! Congratulations.

Just stop lying, @RC, it's not working and it's never going to work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and by that definition you are definitely insane.
You're in denial and accusing me of lying and being afraid etc? How old ARE you, DS? Only a silly child could be so silly as to think the objective readers here haven't checked out the posts/links for themselves. Pity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, and there you go again. Lying again. The "bot voting" lie again. Now it's thirteen lies in eight posts.

Tell us all again why anyone should believe anything you say when you lie more often than you post.

This thread will be added to the list; it's a classic! I have to say, I've rarely seen someone lie more often than they talk.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2017
It's a shame though, that "engineering school" left you incapable of learning new things in science;
I am glad you think that. That is why I have you at the disadvantage "all along" Cher.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@RC, tsk tsk tsk tsk. Another post, more lies. "In denial" is a lie, and you can't possibly miss it; the lies you tell aren't even very good ones, you just keep telling them over and over and over again.

Now we're up to fourteen lies in nine posts. This is, as usual with you, becoming ridiculous and boring. Now give me another lie and it will be an even ten posts; I doubt anyone can miss the fact you always lie when you do it ten posts in a row. The more lies you post, the better this thread gets.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, I don't have to "bury" anything, you're doing that yourself, with lies. And oh, look, there's you lying again. That's nine lies in six posts now.
Now that is a silly juvenile lie, DS. Why do that? You are "burying" as fast as your little lying in-denial mouth can go! You have no scientific counter; you are denying my correct posts as increasingly confirmed by mainstream discovery/links. What has become of that promising intellect/character that once claimed/promised so much but has now delivered such crap, DS? Yep, you became a CS-gang member, that's what happened. Too bad.
And, gee, look there, you're telling the "confirmed correct" lie again, too, in the same sentence.
It hurts you to admit it's all true, doesn't it, DS?
I can do this all night, and your lies are what makes it possible. Every time you post, you lie, and most times multiple times in the first sentence in the post. Thanks, @RC.
I bet you CAN....SPAM....all night, CS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
And @RC rises to the bait and completes the ten-fecta: fifteen lies in ten posts.

You lie in every post, and twice in every other post. Why would anyone ever make the mistake of believing anything you say?

I can't believe you're so gullible you keep telling lies over and over again when they keep getting pointed out over and over again.

Now officially bored, and got what I came for. G'bye, @RC. Smell ya around.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It's a shame though, that "engineering school" left you incapable of learning new things in science;
I am glad you think that. That is why I have you at the disadvantage "all along" Cher.
Are you saying your Ignorance and Dishonesty beats my Knowledge and Correctness, Ira? Nah. Not even you could be so naff. A 'Cajun' joke, yes? lol
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Jul 27, 2017
the lies you tell aren't even very good ones
Get him to tell you one about the Really-Skippy-Cavalry, riding into the International Panel on Climate Change in Paris with a paper they were waiting on to change the world. (He had to stop working on his toes about everything for a couple weeks to get ready to save the world.)

And no I am not lying or even exaggerating. He really did Really-Skippy tell us all that stuffs.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
It's a shame though, that "engineering school" left you incapable of learning new things in science;
I am glad you think that. That is why I have you at the disadvantage "all along" Cher.
Are you saying your Ignorance and Dishonesty beats my Knowledge and Correctness, Ira? Nah. Not even you could be so naff. A 'Cajun' joke, yes? lol


He did not say that. I did. And naff is not a Cajun word. I am not sure if it is a word at all non.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Da Schneib.
And @RC rises to the bait and completes the ten-fecta: fifteen lies in ten posts.
Don't you just hate it when I defend against your lying idiocy and show up your lying idiocy for all objective readers here to see for themselves, DS? lol
You lie in every post, and twice in every other post. Why would anyone ever make the mistake of believing anything you say?
You're in denial and trying to bury the fact I am being confirmed correct by mainstream (as per links), and you try to pretend I am the one who is "lying", DS. Now that is just transparently silly 'tactics' on your part, mate.
I can't believe you're so gullible you keep telling lies over and over again when they keep getting pointed out over and over again.
Actually, what you REALLY "can't believe" is the increasingly apparent fact that I am being confirmed correct all along by mainstream. In denial, CS?
Now officially bored,
Attention span of a goldfish, DS? That explains a lot, mate. :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 27, 2017
RealityCheck:
Are you saying your Ignorance and Dishonesty beats my Knowledge and Correctness, Ira? Nah. Not even you could be so naff. A 'Cajun' joke, yes? lol


At what point do you just melt into the page sparking and cackling some random garbage about everyone else being in denial of what you're increasingly confirmed to be correct about?

What could you possibly get out of provoking this kind of abuse? You're really sick.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
Get him to tell you one about the Really-Skippy-Cavalry, riding into the International Panel on Climate Change in Paris with a paper they were waiting on to change the world. (He had to stop working on his toes about everything for a couple weeks to get ready to save the world.)

And no I am not lying or even exaggerating. He really did Really-Skippy tell us all that stuffs.
You already read where I explained that was overtaken by new political events/scientific developments.
He did not say that. I did.
Yes, it was a typo. You already knew that before you asked, though, didn't you, Ira? :) Or are you and DS going to start another lame "liar" campaign based on that as well?
And naff is not a Cajun word. I am not sure if it is a word at all non.
Look it up. It has a couple of usages in English; one of which means:
"lacking taste or style."
My my but you are learning more and more interesting correct things from me every day, Ira. Good. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
At what point do you just melt into the page sparking and cackling some random garbage about everyone else being in denial of what you're increasingly confirmed to be correct about?
Reminding of apparent fact(s) for CS-gang (who attack and deny), is the only way to prove to the objective reader that the tactics being employed by the CS-gang bear no relation to, or respect for, the science or the humanity discourse/ethics. Would you have me slink away and let the CS-gang of liars and asses get away with their malice and assery, EcS? You know from history what eventuates once one begins appeasing bullying and dishonesty, don't you, EcS? Yep, we get Tyrants/Crooks running things.
What could you possibly get out of provoking this kind of abuse?
Posting correct science, defending against scurrilous attacks from SCS-gang of circle-jerk of mutual-'5'-goosing bot-voting ignoramuses, is "provoking" them? Awww; we musn't upset the little dears.

Get real, EcS.
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (5) Jul 28, 2017
Re
Posting correct science, defending against scurrilous attacks from SCS-gang of circle-jerk of mutual-'5'-goosing bot-voting ignoramuses, is "provoking" them? Awww; we musn't upset the little dears.


Posting lie after lie of course provokes the rest of us. Why bother posting your "correct science" at a bunch of people who attack you? Especially if (according to you) we're just a gang of liars and asses? Why bother enlightening a bunch of bad, stupid people like us, who absolutely refuse your enlightenment? Why not try your special sauce on a different group of people who might appreciate it?

BTW, ever since I pointed out your foulmouthed "circle-jerk" comment, you've been repeating it like a mantra. We're dragging you down to our vile assery. Get out before we corrupt you into bullying someone else.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
@EmceeSquared.
Posting lie after lie...
Oh dear! Pull the other one, mate, it has bells on! You are uninformed/biased and deep in denial; AND disingenuousness if you expect objective readers here to naively give credence to opinions/accusations coming from the long self-demonstrated malicious CS-gang circle-jerk of mutual-'5'-goosing bot-voting ignoramuses.
Why bother posting your "correct science" at a bunch of people who attack you? Especially if (according to you) we're just a gang of liars and asses?
Be aware of your 'surroundings', mate! I post scientifically/logically tenable (as per links provided) COMMENTS on a SCIENCE NEWS and DISCUSSION site, EcS. Who reads/understands them or not is out of my control.
ever since I pointed out your foulmouthed "circle-jerk" comment, you've been repeating it like a mantra.
You hypocritically OMITTED the YEARS of foulmouthed, malicious, unwarranted attacks on ME; despite my being confirmed correct. Why bother, EcS? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
PS @EmceeSquared.
We're dragging you down to our vile assery.
No mate, I stop short of your hypocrisy and malice. I only stoop to occasional 'in kind' responses to highlight the kind of "vile assery" you/CS-gang are perpetrating (for years); despite my being confirmed correct all along; while you/they trolling hypocrites, liars try to gain control of sites you/they infest, by unethical/unconscionable tactics/campaigns against the person; while ignoring the correct scientific insights posted for your/their benefit ("Casting pearls before swine" comes to mind). Their/your loss not mine, EcS.
Get out before we corrupt you into bullying someone else.
Haven't you realized what's going down yet? I am obviously NOT as easily CORRUPTED or led into "evil assery" as YOU, and certain other unwary/weak minds/characters inveigled by lies biased propaganda and patently mutual-goosing 'blandishments' and '5's from CS-gang, are, EcS. I'm independent, objective...and correct. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
PPS @EcS.
...before we corrupt you into bullying someone else.
Oh, EcS, you are so naive and/or disingenuous or just plain don't care who's who in the piece. Look, mate, here in a nutshell is the usual progression of things and the reason these exchanges keep occurring:

- I post initial correct and polite comment/reminder etc on the science and on the topic;

- I get attacked by malicious/personal CS-gang of self-demonstrated bot-voting biased troll/ignoramus BULLIES;

- CS-gang make blatantly false, repeated/spammed accusations of "liar" etc, and otherwise clutter/derail the threads, all the while ignoring/denying the posts/links provided (which they demanded!) because those posts/links show recent mainstream discoveries/reviews confirm me correct all along, on many front;

- another naive/weak, otherwise easily-corruptible, 'newbies' comes along to add their own quantum of insensibility/dishonesty' 'noise' to that of CS-gang's malice/assery.

Get real, EcS! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
@idiot illiterate lying trolling pseudoscience dipsh*t with a police record
... uninformed/biased ... denial; AND disingenuousness...
Ok
lets examine the facts:
i asked you for evidence of your BICEP claims when you posted this lie Mar 17, 2014

your response:
-7,030 posts with absolutely no evidence (current as of July 28, 2017, 4:39 pm)
plus
- (finally) your admission that there isn't any evidence to find: https://phys.org/...ure.html

when pressed for admission for evidence you make claims that can't be supported
then you distract with claims that you're being proven correct, but you can't be specific
then you attempt to blame everyone else as being part of a bot gang and against you

this site is regularly archived

so that means:
it's not debatable
it's fact
you even validated that fact
anyone can check for themselves

you're a liar - proven by your own words, actions and validated by you
:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
@EmceeSquared.

Have a look at CS's post. How many times has he spammed his drivel and clutter and malicious lies like that (for years now)? While all the while ignoring the posts/links which show that new recent mainstream discoveries/reviews are confirming me correct all along on many fronts while CS-gang bullies keep plugging away and ignoring the reality. If by now you haven't had your eyes opened as to who is the bullying liars and who is their correct all along victim, then all I can do is hope for your future wellbeing and objective enlightenment, eventually, EcS. In order to harbor that hope I must trust that your intellect and character have not been damaged beyond recovery by the CS-gang's influence on you via their lies and '5' and '1' bot-votes and trolls based on personal rather than scientific considerations of correctness or not. Good luck and good thinking to you, EcS. No hard feelings. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
@RC, nobody will believe anything you say after all the lies you've told. There's very little left that you can say that will get you out of this. At a certain point, you have to admit you've lied, apologize for lying, agree to stop lying, and seek forgiveness; but most importantly, you must stop lying. If you cannot, then it is obvious that you are in the grip of a compulsive psychiatric disorder. It doesn't matter how you try to rationalize the lies; that's already been proven false. There is nowhere to run. There is nowhere to hide. There is no lie you can tell that will "make it all OK."

Is there a 12-step program for compulsive liars? If someone knows of it, post it and perhaps @RC will decide that being pwnt for lying in every post is enough to justify following it.

I pity you, @RC, because you are a pitiful excuse for a human.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 28, 2017
@Da Schneib.
after all the lies you've told.
The objective readers of PO and Posterity will come to their own conclusions based on the facts recorded here and elsewhere about your/CS-gang's "TL;DR self-induced ignorance followed by Insults from Malice method" for assessing who is "lying", DS. You hate/attack me because I have caught you out too many times falsely crying "liar" only to find out you have been wrong and me correct all along. Your problem not mine, DS. So far, DS, your 'contributions' to science/humanity discourse here/elsewhere, has consisted of lame parrotings of out-of-date/wrong orthodoxy you have only just read on; compounded by your foul mouth/shameless exploitation of Uncle Ira etc malignant bot-voting circle-jerk mutually-'5'-goosing while '1'-downvoting others, irrespective of science/correctness. Your contravention of all principles/ethics of objective science and fairness identifies you/CS-gang as "The Pitiables", DS. Get better/honest soon, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2017
@RC, you're not getting it: we *are* the objective readers of physorg. And, oh, look there, you lied again. Sigh.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you're not getting it: we *are* the objective readers of physorg.
DS, you're now in full self-delusion mode, way past in-denial.

So, go on, DS, explain to @Forum how you/CS-gang can be "objective readers", as you/CS-gang boasted you:

- DIDN'T READ ALLTHE FACTS posted/linked before proceeding straight to kneejerking and insult in self-imposed ignorance;

- BOT-VOTE on the basis of person instead of actual science/idea posted/linked;

- GANG UP on posters, clutter up, bury interesting/correct posts/discussion points, keep denying/distracting to evade same;

- BASH CRANKS with flawed Bicep2 claims, REFUSING to CHECK OBJECTIVELY those claims even after I suggested you should because they WERE obviously flawed.

Also DS, you especially, have many times cried "liar!"; only to find you WERE WRONG all along and ME CORRECT...yet you KEEP DOING IT!...never learning your OBJECTIVE lesson.

Learn what "OBJECTIVE" means, DS. Then also learn "HONESTY", DS. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
No, @RC, it's obviously not self-delusion since if it's delusion many others-- those who keep giving you one star ratings-- share it.

Looks like you're lying again, @RC. It's your go-to strategem. And it never works.

#RealityCheckCantCount. #RealityCheckAlwaysLies.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
No, @RC, it's obviously not self-delusion since if it's delusion many others-- those who keep giving you one star ratings-- share it.
DS, are you actually this doolally now, or is it just that you are this stupid? Even Ira can see that...
...those that keep giving you one star ratings...
...are the very ones who constitute that CS-gang perpetrating all the things I just listed for you above! Your 'logic' there is like citing ISIS-gang's ratings for western civilization....horribly biased and perverted, DS.

Are you so gone to delusion and stupidity that you aren't even sensible to your own horribly biased and perverted 'logics', DS? Surely not; there MUST BE some spark of intelligence and integrity left, even after so long in thrall to that CS-gang of imbecilic internet malignancies you've been running with for a while now!
Looks like you're lying again,
Looks can be deceiving, DS; especially when looking through your/CS-gang's biased eyes, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@RC, #RealityCheckAlwaysLies pretty much sums it up. I see no reason to make any other response than this.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
Here's evidence #RealityCheckAlwaysLies:

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
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
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, #RealityCheckAlwaysLies pretty much sums it up. I see no reason to make any other response than this.
You have no counter to the truly awful DS/CS-gang reality just presented for the objective PO readers to consider while you and CS-gang retreat into your own delusional gang headquarters "hash-tagging" each other until you again emerge to make yet more inane and dishonest attempts to pretend to PO readers you have any respect at all for either science or humanity objectivity and fairness....while still doing everything to make a mockery of both those things in your 'need' to ego-trip and bully as only a 'gang' of cowards and liars would. If ever the shame of what you have been doing penetrates that thick slime of self-serving malignancy, then you will have a lot of apologizing to do, not only to me but to all those whom you have unconscionably victimized regardless of whether they were correct or not. Good luck with that, DS/CS-gang. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
It won't even fit in one post:
Thread where @RC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

The list will go on, I'm sure. @RC can't stop. It is a pathological liar. It's unfortunate it can't stop but it's no reason for the rest of us to be victimized by its disease.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
@RC, I don't bother to "counter" your lies other than to point out they're lies. There's no point in doing anything but pointing out they're lies as has been shown. You can, will, and do lie on and on, but they're proven to be lies and you are only ignoring the proof. It's as obvious, as I have said, as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt sitting next to the shattered cookie jar.

i await the opportunity to add another link to your litany of lies and will continue posting links to them as you offer them.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Forum.
It won't even fit in one post:
Thread where @RC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html

The list will go on, I'm sure. @RC can't stop. It is a pathological liar. It's unfortunate it can't stop but it's no reason for the rest of us to be victimized by its disease.
The one who denies and ignores and lies about his denial and ignoring and lying is now so silly as to pretend he is presenting all the facts. For real facts see my response to DS a few posts back. Those things are just SOME of the many 'inconvenient truths' DS/CS-gang are so desperately trying to distract from with their spam and clutter campaigns. Unluckily for them, PO readers aren't all like DS/CS-gangsters. Pitiable, really, these DS/CS-gang internet asses bullying as only a gang of lying cowards and bot-voting ignoramuses would. Tragics all. Pity.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
@RC, there is no point in continuing to lie and deny and pretend. It's over, @RC. You have lost. Your lies are exposed for all to see, and they will be linked everywhere you post forever more. You cannot escape them, and denying them is only posting more lies, and they will follow you wherever you go here and whenever you post here.

Enjoy.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
ROTFLMFAO
this is especially hilarious!
CS-gang
DS/CS-gang
DS/CS-gangsters
DS/CS-gang internet asses bullying
you do realise that DS and i aren't friends, right?

LOLOL

more to the point: it is not bullying or being an ass to require you, per the scientific principle, to provide evidence for your claims

lets see how that worked: so far you claim MS validates you, but you can't prove how, why or with what evidence except your mistaken interpretations of the articles you can't actually comprehend, which is demonstrated in many threads that DS has repeatedly linked here on PO

then when you do attempt specificity, like your "4 fatal flaws" claim, you suddenly can't produce the evidence which is in a paper with free access

when you claim procedural, systemic and assumptive flaws in someone else work, you should be able to point to specifics

instead we have 7,040 post avoiding specifics since July 29, 2017, 4:10 am
so...you're a proven liar
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.
there is no point in continuing to lie and deny and pretend.
Stop digging, DS! Instead of digging and spamming your delusional versions of what has been going down in our respective PO posting history, why not answer the following questions for the @Forum's objective members/readers:

- 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 knew all these things/more, DS; I tried to point them out for your benefit; so answer also these further questions for the @Forum:

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

- Why call me "liar" when you DIDN'T KNOW sh!t, DS? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

Cher, you getting your self worked again and you know what happens when you get too far gone. Yeah, they will make you go back to the institute again until you can get your mental conditions under control. Maybe you should ask your doctors for some better medicines when your delusions start to get grandiose because one day they might not let you come to the physorg if it's going to do this diligence to you.

I mean you realize you are not really a scientist, eh? And this really is not a science conference, eh? It is a science news site for interested amateurs, and such like.

Playing and pretending is one thing, but if it is going to make your conditions worse maybe you should stick to your Earthman Playhouse Club where you are not getting slapped around by real humans and scientists. And over there you don't have to worry about everybody else who gets 5 karma points while you only get 1.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@Uncle Ira, @Captain Stumpy, @Da Schneib.

You're still evading/cluttering, trying to 'bury' reminders of the reality which you/CS-gang refuse to face because you are cowards as well as malicious bot-voting ignoramuses. Reality questions for you:

- 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 knew all these things/more; I tried to point them out for your benefit; so answer also these further questions for @Forum:

- Why did you 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, UI/CS/DS?

UI/DS/CS-gang: The Pitiables.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2017
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll sam fodera with the criminal record
- Why did you *not know* about Bicep2 flaws?
LOL
besides the fact that DS has proven you lied about most of the above list

by all means, jack*ss, please be specific as to which "flaws" you are referring

not only should you point out the specifics, but please annotate which of said flaws you're pointing out are the "4 fatal flaws" you claimed to have seen

and then explain what the other 4 flaws you claim to have seen are

(total 8, because i know you can't count just like you're illiterate)

while you're at it, tell everyone why you've posted 7,047 times since then without being able to point to anything specific, though you claim to already have despite:

1- no one from anywhere being able to find anything on PO or any archived material

2- your admission that the information doesn't exist ( https://phys.org/...ure.html )

pitiable :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

More questions for you, CS-gang:

- 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?
DS has proven you lied about most of the above list
"Most"? :)

You/CS-gang are dreaming! and STILL evading the questions. Why? :)
EmceeSquared
5 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2017
snoosebaum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


This idiot is back posting links to videos without even bothering to say what they are. Probably without bothering to watch them.

I wouldn't bother watching them either, because the others were such crude propaganda for lonely suckers there's nothing but confirmation bias to get there.

But what's remarkable is that they were told how pointless it is to post just an uncommented link to a video, and at least started giving some idea - and now they've reverted to pure inanity.

Because they are nothing but a troll. Lateley they were blurting that they don't understand what they see, but they have opinions, so they must post them.

It's Tourette's Typing disorder at work. What a sad fool.

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.