Throughout the universe, supersonic shock waves propel cosmic rays and supernova particles to velocities near the speed of light. The most high-energy of these astrophysical shocks occur too far outside the solar system to be studied in detail and have long puzzled astrophysicists. Shocks closer to Earth can be detected by spacecraft, but they fly by too quickly to probe a wave's formation.
Opening the door to new understanding
Now a team of scientists has generated the first high-energy shock waves in a laboratory setting, opening the door to new understanding of these mysterious processes. "We have for the first time developed a platform for studying highly energetic shocks with greater flexibility and control than is possible with spacecraft," said Derek Schaeffer, a physicist at Princeton University and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), and lead author of a July paper in Physical Review Letters that outlines the experiments.
Schaeffer and colleagues conducted their research on the Omega EP laser facility at the University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics. Collaborating on the project was PPPL physicist Will Fox, who designed the experiment, and researchers from Rochester and the universities of Michigan and New Hampshire. "This lets you understand the evolution of the physical processes going on inside shock waves," Fox said of the platform.
To produce the wave, scientists used a laser to create a high-energy plasma—a form of matter composed of atoms and charged atomic particles—that expanded into a pre-existing magnetized plasma. The interaction created, within a few billionths of a second, a magnetized shock wave that expanded at a rate of more than 1 million miles per hour, congruent with shocks beyond the solar system. The rapid velocity represented a high "magnetosonic Mach number" and the wave was "collisionless," emulating shocks that occur in outer space where particles are too far apart to frequently collide.
Discovery by accident
Discovery of this method of generating shock waves actually came about by accident. The physicists had been studying magnetic reconnection, the process in which the magnetic field lines in plasma converge, separate and energetically reconnect. To investigate the flow of plasma in the experiment, researchers installed a new diagnostic on the Rochester laser facility. To their surprise, the diagnostic revealed a sharp steepening of the density of the plasma, which signaled the formation of a high Mach number shock wave.
To simulate the findings, the researchers ran a computer code called "PSC" on the Titan supercomputer, the most powerful U.S. computer, housed at the DOE's Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The simulation utilized data derived from the experiments and results of the model agreed well with diagnostic images of the shock formation.
Going forward, the laboratory platform will enable new studies of the relationship between collisionless shocks and the acceleration of astrophysical particles. The platform "complements present remote sensing and spacecraft observations," the authors wrote, and "opens the way for controlled laboratory investigations of high-Mach number shocks."
Explore further:
Ripples in space key to understanding cosmic rays
More information:
D. B. Schaeffer et al, Generation and Evolution of High-Mach-Number Laser-Driven Magnetized Collisionless Shocks in the Laboratory, Physical Review Letters (2017). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.025001
cantdrive85
The researchers "accidentally" rediscovered double layers and were "surprised" by the findings...LOL
"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century." Hannes Alfven
Da Schneib
Alfven said that about astrophysics textbooks in 1986. That was, in case you hadn't noticed, three decades ago. I'd say we've made some pretty major discoveries since then. You might want to try to keep up.
cantdrive85
Please post evidence that anything of significance has changed since his statement.
Also, explain in plain Engrish the difference between the two phenomena.
Help me keep up, would you?
Da Schneib
Maybe you should check some textbooks that were published since the 1990s, two decades ago. Looks to me like you're making an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence and then trying to shift the burden of proof.
That's why I call you @cantthink69 and usually keep you in your ignore cage.
Da Schneib
Typical EUdiot sub-90-IQ claims that never get substantiated. Straight up Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
cantdrive85
Da Schneib
cantdrive85
Da Schneib
Good luck with that.
Noted when you did not have an answer to this you shifted the goal posts by bringing in an extraneous claim. This is called "changing the subject because you got pwnt."
cantdrive85
Ditto, who posted the request first?
BTW, it is analogous to the exploding circuit vs. magnetic reconnection discussion. On one hand you have an actual physical description based upon well founded EE principles and on the other you must rely on pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of frozen-in fields and breaking and reconnecting of field lines.
Da Schneib
That isn't relevant to whether you're shifting the burden of proof. What's relevant is the logical progression, which is they have different names so it's on you to prove they're "the same" since you claimed it. You're still trying to shift the burden of proof.
It is these sorts of deceptive arguments and selective observations that make it clear you are a troll and an EUdiot. Show evidence that elephant=rhino and shockwave=double layer and then I'll have something to argue against.
cantdrive85
I'll point to the most obvious example of astrophysicist double speak;
Ionized gas = plasma.
Two different terms to explain what is claimed is the same state of matter. However, on one hand the astrophysicists treat the matter with theoretical "ideal gas" laws with mostly mechanical hydrodynamic interactions in which the electrical phenomena are secondary byproducts of the mechanical processes whereas electrical engineers treat plasmas as fully electrodynamic systems and the electrical phenomena are the primary movers of the physics involved.
In reality a shockwave is a mechanical phenomenon and double layer an electrodynamic phenomenon. Astrophysicists prefer to misapply the incorrect mechanical physics to what is reality an electrodynamic problem. They are both however surface features.
cantdrive85
You are quite pathetic. When was the last time you read a theoretical astrophysical research paper that discussed critical ionization velocity, double layers, Marklund convection, pinch phenomena, or other known plasma phenomena that which Alfven was referring? Good luck with that!
jonesdave
dereks@princeton.edu: why not email him, and put him straight? Let us know what he replies. If you actually knew anything about the subject matter, you would be doing just that, and telling him that you will be replying to the paper in the relevant journal. But you won't. Because you're just another one of the Dunning-Kruger stricken know-nothings who infest this place. Maybe I'll email him instead.
Da Schneib
Thought we were talking about textbooks.
And since you claim there are no papers on these I suggest you provide proof since I find plenty when I look. Here's one from 1981: http://adsabs.har...19..163S
cantdrive85
Jul 15, 2017Da Schneib
jonesdave
cantdrive85
Should be easy enough for You to post evidence of all these papers you so readily seem to be able to find.
BTW, if these concepts are so prevalent in the textbooks they should appears in the literature that is produced.
jonesdave
Neither have you. Except the usual ranting about long dead scientists. Let's be honest, if you knew as much as you pretend, you wouldn't be on here telling far smarter people that they have got it wrong; you'd actually be doing something about it. It's all a pretence. Just like EU as a whole - all talk, no trousers.
jonesdave
You mean you are criticising this paper having not even read it? Or seen the radiographic images, or the experimental set up? Yep, usual crap.
RealityCheck
Objective, fair and polite discussion, without insults, evasions and 'tactics', is the only way to come to mutual understanding of the actual reality being studied/discussed. I below highlight an example demonstrating where this scientific ideal is not being upheld by those who should be role models rather than being bad examples and worse than the 'cranks' they insult/evade...
Eg, @Da Schneib: You said: Then @cantdrive complied and provided another example where astrophysicists may use different names refer to the same phenomenon: That example effectively satisfied @Da Schneib's challenge to @cantdrive, and so turned the onus back onto @Da Schneib to support his own contention that 'double layers and shock waves are different things".
Proceed. :)
cantdrive85
Post your username and password to that pseudoscientific rag and I'll read this tripe.
jonesdave
You think I pay to get these papers? Lol. And what is the point of reading it if you've already decided it's tripe, sight unseen
If I told you how to access papers on here, I suspect I'd be banned, and the site would find itself in trouble.
cantdrive85
You are obviously an individual of impeccable character.
Da Schneib
Flash forward to today, and there are plenty of textbooks on it as well as textbooks that mention it, and there's plenty of research on it and papers coming out all the time.
Meanwhile, one class of Internet troll keeps trumpeting the thirty year old "news" as if the long dead eminent scientist's observation of the state of the science thirty years ago is unchanged. These are the EUdiots.
And that's how that works.
cantdrive85
Give some examples without the diversion, that's how it works. You haven't done it yet because you know you are lying through your teeth and very little if anything has changed. Give examples of CIV, pinch effects, Marklund convection, or the other plasma phenomena described by Alfven in the current literature. You can't do it, not only do you not understand the argument but the basics are so far over your head you'll just embarrass yourself. This is why the constant diversion (as pointed out by RC) and avoidance of the discussion ILO the name calling and baseless statements.
Da Schneib
Here's a paper that has nearly a hundred citations on plasma physics about half of which have the words "double layer" in their titles: http://lasp.color...sson.pdf
So it's obvious this is a fairly "hot" area of research these days, and your whining about what the eminent scientist said 30 years ago may have been true then, but that's no evidence it's true now.
And that's not even mentioning what you're trying to sweep under the carpet: double layers are not shock waves. You made this claim too, and still haven't provided any evidence to support it.
Now stop lying, @cantthink69. It's not going to work.
cantdrive85
What I would like to know is why they didn't use plasma with the field lines already frozen-in? Why were they required to generate electric currents to create this magnetized ambient plasma? Where in nature do these "laser driven plasmas" exist? So many questions, yet nary an answer to be found.
Da Schneib
Da Schneib
cantdrive85
Typical diversion from da schnied. We are talking about theoretical astrophysical research. I would posit that 2.7+million on those hits are regarding chemistry physics. Try staying on topic and not changing the subject.
Da Schneib
cantdrive85
Theoretical astrophysical research! Stay on point. I have been quite clear that plasma research is and has been vibrant. Astrophysicists choose to ignore it. Stop changing the subject.
Da Schneib
Da Schneib
cantdrive85
Jul 15, 2017jonesdave
Indeed. That is why I have found you an Arxiv copy of the paper:
https://arxiv.org...6533.pdf
jonesdave
https://www.resea...a_plumes
RealityCheck
Anyhow, please stop treating science discourse as some ego-tripping 'win at all costs to decency' opportunity, and actually respect objectivity/fairness. :)
moops
Captain Stumpy
because, despite the site claims that "Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted", they have chosen to not moderate in any form whatsoever allowing the pseudoscience advocates, creationists, conspiracy theorists and other cult fanatics to overrun the site chasing off most of the scientifically literate posters
the obvious reason is that it pads their numbers allowing them financial compensation (some users have multiple socks)
it also gives the illusion of incredible interest so long as no one actually reads the comments, which also influences their finances
by all appearances of the site, moderation and admin - trolls make the site money whereas being literate and loving science obviously do not
cantdrive85
Explain the difference between the two phenomena. Show me where I am wrong. Give a simple explanation that clearly resolves the difference between the two phenomena. Explain the mechanism which accelerates the charged particles in a shockwave. It is well known the electric field is responsible for this in DL's, what drives these processes in shocks? Note the two papers linked by jonesdumb, the paper related to this article makes no mention of an electric field. The second paper he linked does discuss the electric field and how it accelerates the plasma. It is a simple request, explain the difference between the two phenomena.
Good question! I can say my comments are a direct result of the response I have gotten from "The Protectors of the standard theory" and their dogmatic narrow minded approach.
Da Schneib
Just sayin'.
moops
Characteristic speed. Entropy conditions.
an initialized double layer is not obligated to progress to a magnetosonic shock.
cantdrive85
Yet a "shock" behaves as a surface layer isolating two plasmas from one another, it it accelerates charged particles, and eventually results in a process of equalization. All of the characteristics of a double layer. Traditionally, "shocks" are used to describe the physics of fluids which are mostly a mechanical process. However, as has been pointed out repeatedly, plasmas are fully electrodynamic systems. Treating plasma interactions as mechanical process produces misleading results and largely ignores the electric fields in the plasma. This is likely another example of astrophysicists applying the incorrect physics to explain electrodynamic plasma processes. Plasmas are not "ideal gases" and cannot be treated as such.
jonesdave
They are not fecking astrophysicists! They are PLASMA physicists. Capice? They also have to have a good understanding of astrophysics. Otherwise, what is the point of studying plasmas as they relate to the astrophysical environment, if you are clueless about the astrophysical environment (see D. Scott!)? Properly, they would be called plasma astrophysicists. At least that is what one of the plasma scientists on the Rosetta team refers to himself as. I assume that is common. If you really wanted to discuss this with a plasma astrophysicist, can I recommend posting a question in the Cosmoquest Q & A section. The aforementioned plasma astrophysicist is a moderator on that site, and did his Phd on DLs. I'm sure he'd welcome a good chinwag on why this isn't a DL, and will probably give you very good reasons why it can't be. Pointless doing it here.
Da Schneib
Also correct. A double layer, because it progresses at sonic speed, gives time for the ions and electrons to shuffle around; a supersonic shock wave proceeds through the medium (the plasma) faster than the populations of electrons and ions move by themselves. This is analogous to the difference between the way air behaves at the edge of an object moving at subsonic and supersonic speed; the supersonic object generates a shock wave because the air molecules cannot move out of its way fast enough. This creates the well-known "sonic boom" phenomenon. In astrophysical environments, such shock waves move through plasmas with visible results.
[contd]
Da Schneib
And finally, also correct. In fact, in some circumstances double layers are actually generated by shock waves; see http://adsabs.har...c9c18563 from 1989. It's not necessarily true, however, that all shocks generate DLs. I will point out that this was known nearly three decades ago, continuing the rejection of the narrative that "astrophysicists don't know anything about plasma."
@moops, it's nice to talk to someone who actually knows some of the underlying physics. One grows tired and irritable constantly dealing with the trolls. Please add any thoughts you might have.
Da Schneib
@moops, this slander against scientists who obviously know more about the entire subject than @cantthink and the other EUdiots ever will is what I find most irritating. And most of that comes from decades-old situations that have since been corrected by findings in the lab, in space, and in simulations. This slander generally drives the competent scientists away and poisons the conversation on this site. If the moderators would actually enforce the rules posted on the site, these individuals wouldn't be posting here. Since they don't enforce them, we are impelled to defend the site ourselves, however imperfectly.
Da Schneib
RealityCheck
Please take care not to confuse the causes with the effects. eg:
-@Da Schneib, the driving process/object may be supersonic (in applicable medium) and the sonic waves 'pile up' ahead of it to form the 'shock wave' because it's is being 'pushed at supersonic speeds' by the driving process/object, BUT as the shock 'slips aside' OR once the driving process/object stops or decelerates to sonic/subsonic speed, THEN the 'freed' shock wave ITSELF proceeds at the SONIC speed applicable in the relevant medium, albeit it as a very compressed/dense wave front.
@jonesdave, lab experimenters and astrophysicists are still using misleading terms/concepts to describe/interpret/convey the 'events' in such plasma situations.
@cantdrive, even ordinary 'neutral particle' sonic waves involve interactions of Electromagnetic 'fields' of particles, but in such low energy contexts the electromagnetic nature of the 'collisions' is ignored.
Careful! :)
jonesdave
Do us a favour mate. No offence, but these cretins believe in electric comets!!! Have you ever seen one of these uneducated cretins come on here and defend that crap? Even though it turned out to be complete crap? This is sh*te quoted by the buffoon Thornhill. "The solar wind will create water." How many times do I have to show what a tosspot that bloke is, before people get it through their thick heads, that he is just a jerk, with no scientific knowledge? Seriously? The bloke is a fraud, as are the idiots that follow him. He is a Velikovskian nutjob. With eff all scientific qualifications. Yes?
tl:dr EU is absolute sh*te. Always has been, always will be.
jonesdave
OK, that did it. Anybody like to disagree? Thought not. It's sh*te. Yes?
jonesdave
Agreed. However, you never know. Interacting with a plasma physicist who worked on DLs in Alfven's lab, and knew the bloke, might actually help to take the cbap out of the 1960s. Unlikely, I know. However, one always must try.
Let's be honest, even Falthammar p*ssed on him (Alfven) from on high. Caught on to magnetic reconnection. Yes?. Doubt Hannes would have liked that; but he was never a plasma physicist, was he? And he wasn't around long enough to see the Princeton results. Falthammar was. And knew results when he saw them (references available).
Shame that the EU idiots can't update themselves likewise.
Da Schneib
The problem here is that there's these trolls who are still stuck in the 20th century. They don't know what to do now that their hero has been "proved right." So they troll science sites with 30-year-old BS hoping to find someone as stupid as they are.
jonesdave
Well, it certainly gets a bit complicated. Falthammar definitely accepted magnetic reconnection. I think that the EU idiots misrepresent Alfven's views on that, too. And also on frozen-in fields. It is totally ludicrous to say he dumped that. They are just incapable of understanding what he said. For what it's worth, it doesn't take much research to prove the idiots wrong.
jonesdave
Well, not exactly. He was wrong about magnetic reconnection. His obsession with double layers was also seemingly wrong. His anti-matter universe was also horribly wrong. He was good in the 40s - 60s. After that, it left him behind. Presumably why Falthammar went his own way, and accepted MRx. Lived longer; saw the results. Such is science.
Da Schneib
Da Schneib
jonesdave
RealityCheck
Note my name: "RealityCheck". That's what I DO; post objective reality-checks; for ALL 'sides'; as needed (especially if arguments/discussion veering off into insults/fantasy/biased dogma etc in complete contradiction to known/evolving science).
I have NEVER knowingly lied or steered you/anyone false, on ANYTHING. An that is the best 'favour' one can do anyone, on ANY 'side'. :)
cantdrive85
Chris_Reeve
Jul 17, 2017Captain Stumpy
point being: your entire argument comes from a belief in the eu and their "authorities"
there is absolutely no science at all being done
just argument from history or belief
that is technically a religion, not science in any way, shape or form
if the eu (or any other pseudoscience cult member) were to simply adhere to the scientific principle and publish under the same constraints, including validation, there would be evidence you could argue from
but somehow all you ever end up with is conspiracy
and out of context history
the eu epic failure is epic
RealityCheck
So please adjust your understandings/arguments accordingly. Thanks. :)
PS @cantdrive et al: Stop goading! :)
cantdrive85
Captain Stumpy
if you can't link reputable peer reviewed journals then you're crying about a religion, not science funny
the astrophysicists have provided:
empirical evidence not only made in a lab with plasma physicists and electrical engineers (see: http://www.pppl.g...%20FACTS ) but also that can be replicated in other labs, anywhere
you've provided:
your opinion, which has been historically proven to be false and or based upon a delusional belief on almost every science topic everywhere you post
(i've not seen every topic, so i gave you the benefit of the doubt... but considering your known conspiracist ideation, it is far more likely you reject reality for your delusional beliefs)
jonesdave
Really? Reference would be good. And nobody is saying that the field is permanently frozen in. If you have a ratio when dividing magnetic field energy density by plasma particle kinetic energy density that is <<1, then the plasma will drag the field along with it. As per the solar wind. If you are modelling this over relatively short timescales, which they are, then it is perfectly valid to assume it is frozen in. If you don't accept that, then I would refer you to the same plasma astrophysicist I referred cd to, above.
jonesdave
Except a knowledge of science. At least some of it. Which is totally lacking from the Velikovsky inspired cult to which you pay homage. Science >>>>> cults based on myths. Every time.
jonesdave
cantdrive85
Nice off topic rant, maybe you would like to point to where any of those individuals were mentioned. Or any of their ideas were mentioned? BTW, are you seven-years-old? That was the last time I heard so much name calling. A psychiatrist and some heavy pharmaceuticals can help you with your uncontrollable emotions.
Da Schneib
If this is the objection, it's sillyness, and more FUD from @RC and the other Velikovskyoid EUdiots. Let's try to stick to reality here, and in reality humans aren't immortal. As usual, get over it.
Da Schneib
Now stop lying.
I love the smell of burning strawman in the morning.
RealityCheck
Stop this, mate. It's not healthy for you or anyone, let alone science discourse. Try. :)
ps: CS, they are talking about you!...
http://www.abc.ne.../8701424
It's as if they knew you, mate! :)
Go on, CS, stop your malice and clutter, and do something constructive with your intellect/life that is left to you. You don't want to leave a legacy of internet thuggery and stupidity behind you, do you? Of course not. Go on. Try to be a good human being and objective science, for your own sake as well as the greater good. Try. :)
RealityCheck
Da Schneib
So, what's "unstable" mean?
@RC is lying again. And caught again. Sounds pretty "frozen in" to me. Just sayin'.
RealityCheck
Anyhow, please consider: Currents of fast electrons can arise and continue for as long as the dynamics/drivers persist. So if the 'cloud' of your example arose from a dynamics which ionized/moved it, then the internal dynamics is UNstable because (as mainstream plasma physicists are now aware) there are Magnetic fields everywhere and over vast distances. So the temporal/spatial 'scale' is not a 'barrier' to the dynamics WITHIN the plasma 'cloud' just because it covers vast reaches and is moving long times/distances.
DS, you conflate YOUR perspective/expectation/interpretation with objective internal dynamics occurring PRECISELY BECAUSE of motion/range differences between Electrons/Protons.
Da Schneib
You're lying again, @RC. Just stop.
RealityCheck
Just because YOU strawman 'supelunimal speeds' at me doesn't mean the reality isn't doing what its doing as mainstream now knows it does, as I alluded to. Please separate YOUR fixations/strawmen from the real physical phenomena involved.
The plasma is unstable by its nature/dynamics, DS; else it would not BE a plasma, would it? And we NOW know energetic electron currents which move quickly in any direction can both generate, affect and be affected by internal/ambient magnetic fields; THAT is what drives the INSTABILITY at ALL temporal/spatial scales.
PS: Drop the insults, DS.
Da Schneib
You're lying again, @RC. Just stop. This is going to be another one of those threads where you get caught lying and get reminded of it over and over again. It's almost more than will fit in a post.
Da Schneib
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
This guy always lies. Simple as that.
RealityCheck
PS: Your persistence in gratuitously insulting while being wrong is your Achilles Heel in intellect/argument, CS. It betrays your intellect and all objective scientific ideals. Not good.
Da Schneib
Let's see whether this guy admits he lied above, or chooses to transparently and explicitly lie here and now.
I'll just point out that I'm listening to Peter Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" just now. Seems pretty appropriate, in a couple of different ways.
Da Schneib
Just stop lying, @RC. You sound like Peewee Herman. Nobody believes it, and nobody can fail to notice it who interacts with you over more than a couple of posts. You are hated here by everyone who knows anything. You should either turn over another leaf or leave.
RealityCheck
Re your "frozen in" descriptor:
NO, I do not 'admit' it at any scale/level. That is as bad as "magnetic reconnection" descriptor. They mislead from get-go.
UNDERSTAND: Plasma is UNSTABLE. Period. It NEVER 'settles' in mag-fields or charge-currents. Period. At ANY scale. Period.
That is what MAINSTREAM has NOW confirmed. The OLD 'frozen in' and 'magnetic reconnection' descriptors are NOW OBSOLETE. Don't use them anymore, DS!
Ok? :)
Da Schneib
In this post, you start with lies: Every single post you make, @RC. Every single one contains a lie.
RealityCheck
RECALL: You yelled "liar" in the plasmoids-in-sun discussion! You were CERTAIN they did not exist! You were WRONG!
You never apologized for callig ME "liar", DS; as I/others tried to inform you they DID exist. :)
Da Schneib
Stop lying, @RC. Just stop. It's not going to work, ever. All it will do is make everyone hate you.
RealityCheck
You are again 'projecting' your own character/actions onto others, DS.
Stop digging, DS.
Da Schneib
Here's your lie in this post: I don't accuse anyone of lying "at the drop of a hat." You have lied over and over and over and over and over and over and over again; sorry, but after you've done that it's perfectly reasonable to figure everything you say is a lie. After all, you lie in every post. And for the most prideful and trivial of reasons. You are a really lousy excuse for a human being, @RC.
Stop lying, @RC. Just stop.
Uncle Ira
Since ol Really-Skippy has ruined another good article, I don't feel bad about making an objective REALITY based unbiased correct all along comment of my my own.
I hope you have the patience Cher. We been waiting for 10 or 9 years and he never even slowed down long enough to tie his shoe that keeps falling off.
That would have been good advice about 10 or 9 years ago, but it is too late for that now.
Da Schneib
Hope springs eternal, man. ;) Be a shame if no one ever engaged @RC right where it lives and lies; you never know, maybe it might decide to stop lying and grow some courage, honor, shame, and credibility. Like you I doubt it, but hey, nothing much wasted by trying; I got nothing better to do until the herbed chicken is done. :D
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
Da Schneib
Your lie in this post is: "I gave example." You gave an example of me discovering I was wrong and changing my mind, something you have demonstrated no capability for because you have no honor, shame, courage, credibility, decency, or ability to stop lying.
RealityCheck
You're in denial, DS. You NEVER apologized to me for FREQUENTLY calling me "liar" due to your OWN ignorance. You're STILL doing it, DS. Learn, DS.
Da Schneib
There is no point in paying any attention to these trolls; just vote them down and move on.
Uncle Ira
I see you still obsessed about how I use the vote the nice peoples at physorg give to me. Cher, how many times over the years I offered to quit giving you the '1' karma votes if you would be nicer? I bet it was a couple of hundreds. Anyhoo, you vote the way you want, and I will vote the way I want. That is how voting works. If it worked different, then the nice peoples at physorg would let you push my vote button. And since they are more smart and nice to do something as silly as that, you just got to play by the rules Skippy.
If you want better votes, you have to DO BETTER DILIGENCE cheery matey.
Da Schneib
I will never, ever, ever apologize to you, @RC. I may admit I'm wrong and change my mind, but after all the lies you told and tell, there is no reason to make any apology for assuming ab initio that anything you say is a lie.
And your lie in this post is above: I have never spammed, nor have I ever told a half-truth, and this is demonstrable by the fact that you have no examples to present. I present multiple examples of you lying, and will do so in the next post since you seem bent on continuing your lying, dishonor, shameful behavior, and lack of credibility, courage, and decency.
Da Schneib
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
RealityCheck
Da Schneib
Good bye, @RC liar. Talk to you in a month or two. Stew in your own vile juices until then.
cantdrive85
RealityCheck
jonesdave
Hey, s***forbrains,
Still awake yes? Explain to us, in scientific terms, how the moron Thornhill is creating H2O at a comet? Is it scientifically possible? Of course it isn't. What about the loon Scott. and his invisible incoming current to power the Sun? Anything to add to that crap? It is crap. You do realise that, don't you? Please elucidate us, if you believe otherwise. Lol.
Da Schneib
EUdiot Velikovskyoidism was dead decades ago; your inability to comprehend 21st century astrophysics is noted but proves nothing but how stupid you are. Good luck with that.
jonesdave
Quiet, idiot. You are way out of your depth.
cantdrive85
cantdrive85
Da Schneib
Grow up, and start using that ugly cancerous growth on top of your shoulders for something other than a hat rack.
RealityCheck
jonesdave
Instead of alluding to them, why not actually link them? Yes? Just a bleeding thought, eh? I will tell you right now, that you are talking crap. If you would like me to post this as a question on the Q & A section of Cosmoquest, and have it answered by an actual plasma astrophysicist, then fine. Let me know. Trust me, you will lose. You simply are not sufficiently qualified. But, hey; let me know. I'll post it on your behalf, unless you start coming up with references.Yes?
jonesdave
Shut up idiot; you are well out of your depth here.
RealityCheck
jonesdave
Jul 18, 2017jonesdave
Link the papers. Yes? Are you seriously saying that the frozen-in condition is no longer used? Trust me, you are going to get your arse kicked on this. Refer to my post on the particle density v magnetic field strength. You want to keep going down this route? Like I said; you'll lose.
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
Mate, be less gung-ho, more sober. Read up, catch up, but do so without confirmation biases or preconclusions based on 'old' terminologies that may have misled. Cheers.
jonesdave
Yep, and we don't need to be told that by someone who is not involved in the science. Eh? Like I said; if you want, I'll put your question up on Cosmoquest. Then you can defend it. Unlikely, eh? Don't need a plasma astrophysicist telling you that you are bleeding clueless, eh? Best to make out that you understand stuff on a place like this. Yes? Same old, same old. Yawn.
jonesdave
RealityCheck
jonesdave
Yep, heard that a few times. As I always say, publish or STFU. Yes?
RealityCheck
jonesdave
jonesdave
Then may I rephrase? Until you publish, STFU?
RealityCheck
I've NO 'beliefs'; only observations/insights I've posted from time to time over years; which have been attacked/ignored etc by some who prefer gang-tactics, ego-tripping etc over objective scientific discussion.
Best. :)
Da Schneib
GTFOOTW of science and stop lying and whinging while the scientists do the work you're incompetent, too stupid, and don't have the integrity to do, K?
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
jonesdave
In which case, you need to publish said work. Posting it on a medium such as this does you no favours! You are falling into the trap of believing that anybody gives a damn about what is posted on an irrelevant sci-news site like this. Never matters, never will. And this goes for the idiot Thornhill, and his faithful. Anything to say? Want to influence scientific thinking? Publish. Do some frigging work. Stop making it so easy to take this crap down. Do real science. (Solar wind making H2O! FFS!)
jonesdave
I laughed!
RealityCheck
Again, you seem to be under a misapprehension of what I am here for. This is a news reading/comments/discussion site. I am not 'publishing' my work as such. I make occasional observations/insights/suggestions/reminders etc in discussion, on the thread topic and/or on side-topic discussions. I am not 'publishing' my work as such. I merely post as indicated occasional reminders/observations/insights etc for the benefit of discussion/others info. Period. As for your disdain for this site, you'd be surprised who reads through such sites as these when they do google enquiries on subject/discussion terms which relate to what they have published/mooted 'officially' in the relevant approved science publishing/discussion venues/papers. It pays for scientists to keep abreast of how their work/ideas is being received by the 'unofficial' venues/commentators, and many do so as part of their daily routine for checking feedback and new ideas etc. Don't be 'elitist', mate. :)
RealityCheck
jonesdave
I have communicated with scientists. Occasionally just to get a clarification, or explanation, whilst doing a degree. To a man and woman, they have been excellent in providing answers. When I have occasionally brought idiocy like EU to their attention (such as during the Rosetta mission), their response has unanimously been: "what the f*** is EU?" Hell, I even wrote to a scientist re the ice seen at 103P/ Hartley 2. She'd heard of some sort of weird antimatter sh*te regards the comet, but not EU! Way to go guys. How to get the message out there, eh? Repeat after me; we are irrelevant, we are irrelevant, we are irrelevant, et boring cetera.
jonesdave
I followed it mate. I did science. Yes? I do not come on here telling people that are better qualified than I am that they are wrong. I know my limitations. I am not stupid enough to believe that I can change scientific thinking by posting on here. I don't even try. Therein lies the difference.
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
Captain Stumpy
you're in the liar crowd (demonstrated and validated yourself in your own words yet again here: https://phys.org/...ure.html )
you're also in the pseudoscience crowd (not only because the above link, but you don't understand what the scientific principle is, & because when you make claims that can't be substantiated, and you've done that plenty, then it's directly against the principles of science and it's methodology) they do
that is why there is a peer review system and they require evidence for claims
it limits the discourse to relevant evidence based argument or constrained science based extrapolation
6,924 posts and you still lie, still can't produce evidence, still based your argument on false claims
jonesdave
RealityCheck
Why keep doing this? You know by now that your kind of trolling malice has been rejected by those who previously 'supported' you because it suited their own agendas. As the 'paddoboy' case over at Sciforums has demonstrated, even the most hardened naysayers and trolls in the 'gang' get fed up with such relentless irrelevant and malignant trolling as you and 'paddoboy' brought to practically every (otherwise interesting and polite) scientific discussion. That malignancy was observed by members of Sciforums. Whenever paddoboy turned up in a thread the malignancy and irrelevance post count went through the roof. He was poisonous to good discussion on merits. Your posts have been doing the same for years now, CS. Take the lesson from the 'paddoboy' fiasco over at Sciforums. They got sick of him and told him so. He is no longer there. He took the hint. Why don't you, CS? Be/Do better. Don't keep sabotaging discussion with malicious intent. Good luck. :)
RealityCheck
Captain Stumpy
that is not what happened at all, you idiot!
you would know that if you had not been repeatedly banned for doing the exact same thing you do here on PO
so either you can't read or you're making sh*t up again and you appear to think that just calling yourself objective and a scientist makes you either one
PROTIP - it doesn't
Only the evidence can determine that
and to date, the evidence (6,926 posts of it) shows you're a liar and you can't substantiate your claims
that's not debatable, and you validated it in your own words here: https://phys.org/...ure.html
so by all means, continue to backpedal and hope someone believes your lies
you will continue to get downrated by anyone who is literate
jonesdave
Crap. Give one example. Publish it. or you are not even in the conversation. There has been nothing accomplished by internet warriors in the scientific field. Remember all those Velikovskian magazines, back in the day? Kronos and others? How long has the EU cretinry been around? Seen them making headway? Via dunderdolts? Via youtube? No, of course not. Sh*te is sh*te. Back it up, scientifically,.
RealityCheck
RealityCheck
Whydening Gyre
which you BELIEVE are correct... But offer no substantive evidence of...
Once again, an observation/insight which you BELIEVE...
Ergo, something you have convinced yourself of to explain a lack of acceptance of your OTHER beliefs....
RealityCheck
Da Schneib
antialias_physorg
...which you could neither explain nor corroborate (despite being asked dozens of times).
Not impressed.
You tried a con (here, of all places...the sheer hubris of this is mind-boggeling) and it blew up in your face. If ever anything disqualified you terminally it was the lack of backup to your claims on this matter.
Uncle Ira
I bet that makes you mad, eh Cher? This is all you got for checking on your feedback and the feedback that you get.
But you are the Earthman Club, a crowd of one Skippy.
http://earthlingclub.com/
Oh yeah, I almost forget. You are not the scientist. You got to go to school for that. And a Earthman Playhouse is not a laboratory. It's where the kids and demented grownups hang out.
Laissez les bons temps rouler. How you like me now Skippy?
RealityCheck
To think that such characters as DS can so self-servingly betray all good scientific objectivity/humanity ethics!
In this age of supposed high enlightenment; and on the Internet for all to see too!
@DS, don't pretend to use Whyde as the 'source' of your own lies. It's not only dishonest but also a cowardly slur on Whyde's own character; Whyde wouldn't lie like you do DS.
Whyde is honest even when mistaken.
But YOU, @DS, are BOTH mistaken AND dishonest.
As the above attempt to 'frame' and 'manufacture' yet another lie demonstrates!
All PO readers now see for themselves how little regard YOU have for science and humanity ideals, DS.
You, DS, are a nasty self-demonstrated disgrace. Yuk.
RealityCheck
No amount of that can detract from the fact you/gang were 'believing' Bicep2 crap; and 'bashing cranks' with your flawed claims/beliefs; due to your bias/ego-tripping disregard for scientific objectivity.
I clearly suggested YOU checked the Bicep2 work/claims for YOUR selves, objectively.
But you/gang preferred to attack the messenger instead!
Your failures are not my doing, antialias; they are due to YOUR ego-tripping eagerness to NOT follow scientific principles while 'bashing cranks'. Shame.
RealityCheck
cantdrive85
jonesdave
Crap. As Alfven would tell you. Like me to dig out the reference, dear?
jonesdave
While I'm at it, why don't I dig out a few references to Carl-Gunne backing up MRx? I'm sure you've seen them before. and have never been able, or prepared, to comment on them. Why not start now, genius? Was C-G Falthammar a tosspot, who went over to the dark side? Yes or frigging no? Do you think the fact that he lived longer than Alfven (who had given up on plasma physics by the late 80s) might have changed his mind? Because he saw results that were incontrovertible? What do you think, genius? Let us know. Especially if you want the references to prove you wrong.
Here's a thought; get out of the 1980s, and try to understand plasma physics as it is in the 2nd decade of the 20th century. Jerk.
jonesdave
Anybody with a relevant degree like to object? If so, it should be bloody obvious. Eh? Please point us to who is claiming otherwise. Within the last 10 years.
Da Schneib
Da Schneib
Picture a plasma cloud a thousand light years across. How long does it take for the fastest possible disturbance to cross it? Duh, a thousand years at the speed of light.
Now, how long does it take a sonic disturbance to cross it? Depends on the speed of sound. Above we see that the speed of sound in a plasma is five orders of magnitude slower than the speed of light. So obviously it takes five orders of magnitude longer. That would be, duh, a hundred million years.
Now given that, and given the fact that a thousand light year wide star forming nebula is a pretty small one, I think it's fair to call any feature caused by double layers or shock waves "frozen in."
If you disagree post some evidence. Or at least post some sort of rational argument other than "[it's] utter bollocks."
Da Schneib
RealityCheck
Regardless of the electron/proton-ion disturbance/sonic velocities, the changes in the electric field energy status is transmitted at almost the speed of light (you can see this when you switch a power station 'on' and the electricity (em energy wave) travels to your home at almost lightspeed to appear 'almost immediately' there even if it's hundreds of kilometers away.
So, talking of the 'speed' of space plasma constituents/disturbances, is only PART of the FULLER dynamics/effects which can affect the whole cloud from end to end/side to side, even as plasma 'sonic wave' disturbance propagates at ITS applicable velocity in that plasma cloud.
Please don't make simplistic/non-sequitur arguments based on 'speed'. Use the fuller ELECTRO-MAGNETIC dynamical phenomena that arises in reality.
Good luck and good thinking. :)
691Boat
Every single time you put something in quotation marks, it completely detracts from any point you are trying to get across. When i read a post you have written that has dozens of words in quotations, it seems that you don't know what you are actually trying to say, or embellishing way beyond the truth, and I struggle to take any of it seriously.
But beyond that, you really do lack the ability to support the points you try to prove with any relevant information or supportive links. Just my two cents.
cantdrive85
Really, you don't say. Oh, and neither did I. If you knew anything about anything you might realize that a prerequisite of the 'frozen-in' condition is that the plasma must be a perfect conductor. This is what Alfven explained when he proposed both MHD physics and the frozen-in condition way back in the1930's-1940's. It is a plain and simple fact. You are promoting the use of pseudoscience. It is a plain and simple fact.
RealityCheck
Da Schneib
Noted you had no reasonable argument other than "Alfven said so." Sorry, I don't accept arguments from authority unsupported by any indication of why. Looks like I'm more selective than you are, which means I'm more accurate. Which is not surprising since you are an EUdiot.
691Boat
When Da Schneib discusses the speed of a disturbance in plasma, you then comment on it and put it in quotations. You are therefore making the word speed (per your definitions) either open to interpretations or you mean the word speed requires textbooks worth of defining. Therefore you are not actually addressing the issue of speed, but instead you are discussing 'speed'. You then later use the word velocity (not in quotations mind you) as if it is better than speed.
Da Schneib
jonesdave
Alven said, Alfven said, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum. Why don't you get an education on current plasma physics? And then read up on Alfven? Why was he still producing tables in papers in the 70s and 80s saying where the frozen-in condition WAS appropriate, if he didn't think it was appropriate? How can Alfven suggest that it is valid in some circumstances (more than he realised, actually) when no plasma is a perfect conductor? Was he an idiot? Like you? No, because he knew that it was valid for those conditions due to the reasons I've already given. Which you would know if you knew anything about plasma physics or Alfven.
RealityCheck
That is what I tried to get across. Hence necessitating the inverted commas. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
The maths 'map' is NOT the plasma 'territory, DS. Even the wiki definitions make distinctions between the Mathematics and Physics terms/usages/concepts! Learn the difference, DS. :)
As for your lame assertions.. ..it is tragic that YOU STILL do NOT 'get' it.
LISTEN!
Algebra is incapable of treating THE REAL UNIVERSAL INFINITY because the latter is NOT a "value" OR a "number" OR an 'abstract 1'.
LEARN!
691Boat
even considering the entire electromagnetic wave as the actual shock front while moving across a field of 10 ly, it will still take at least 10ly to get across. Not sure what you are getting at. Considering the scale involved (i.e. light years), Da Schneib's explanation seems perfectly logical. Unless you can prove that taking all EM considerations into account results in travel fast than the speed of light, you aren't disproving Da Schneib at all.
RealityCheck
I didn't post that FYI to 'disprove' anyone; I just pointed out that electro-magnetic nature of plasmas makes them *inherently unstable* due to its dynamics being subject to much internal/external influences as energy and constituents move/flux at different rates. That is the crux. The different rates of action/reaction of electron flows, proton/ion flows....and the incessant flux of magnetic field *re-arrangements* that entails.
Ok? :)
Da Schneib
Ahem.
@691, it always lies. Even when everyone can see it just by looking at two posts it made one after the other, separated by a single post by you. All it knows how to do is lie, and it's never going to stop lying. It has no honor, no shame, no dignity, no decency, no integrity, no purpose here but disruption, and no intent of ever changing.
This thread has already been added to the list, and this latest lie is only the most recent, neither the worst nor the most obvious.
Play with it if you like, but even when you obviously make the point, and everyone can see it, it will just lie again. Don't expect it's ever going to admit it lied, or stop lying, because it won't. If that doesn't bother you, then feel free.
RealityCheck
@691Boat, @Forum.
See for yourselves how DA Schneib twists, misattributes, intentionally misleads YOU into 'believing' his lies and trolls.
OBVIOUSLY:
- my FYI post was ON SCIENCE; reminding ALL of relevant dynamics.
- my OTER post taking to task DS's "lame assertions" went to HIS lies claiming I 'deny/don't understand' 'one', 'maths' etc; and I gave examples of how he lied and doesn't yet comprehend himself that he IS lying.
TWO SEPARATE things.
Why does DS do it? Pity.
Da Schneib
ORLY?
Seriously, @RC, it's like you think everyone else's IQ is as low as yours. Not merely insulting to everyone who reads your spew. Denigrating, and intended to degrade them. You are disgusting.
Da Schneib
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
Just so we're clear.
RealityCheck
Get it straight. There was NO "contradictory things in two posts". They were TWO SEPARATE things in TWO DIFFERENT CONTEXTS. Got that?
It's obvious to the Forum that YOU want so desperately to contrive yet another STRAWMAN lie, that YOU intentionally conflate the two distinctly separate things/contexts.
This is beneath you, DS. It betrays not only science/humanity discourse principles/ethics, it also betrays your own intellect/character. It's UNHEALTHY to keep doing this, DS. Please stop digging your hole. Try. :)
Da Schneib
You can't stop lying; it's a character flaw. Pretending that mutually contradictory posts are "separate" is lying, and it's dishonorable, disgusting, dishonest, shameless, indecent, and indicative of a pathology. There is nowhere to hide any more. You should admit it, stop, and apologize to the forum for your foolishness.
Of course, this is only true if you wish to stop trolling.
RealityCheck
I pointed that out clearly for the Forum, DS.
That you still deny it, and continue your lying and baseless accusing, is indicative that something is seriously wrong with you. So stop diagnosing yourself, DS. You are far from well or objective. Go get that second opinion, preferably from a professional medico acquainted with your malady.
Stop digging; and get better soon, DS.
Da Schneib
RealityCheck
Your admission: QED.
Da Schneib
And yet again, you lie. This is #worsethantrump.
RealityCheck
Is that the "method" you were taught instead of objective science method, CS?
It's not a substitute, DS. Start learning the true objective method before pretending to know what is or is not going on, DS. Is that what you have come to, DS? Asserting a 'false equality' in order to 'rationalize' your own lies and kneejerks-in-ignorance?
DS, you still evade acknowledging the linked post/mainstream news confirming my observations correct all along while you were busy ignoring/not-read, crying "liar" and kneejerking-in-ignorance?
Are you so driven that you cannot bring yourself to admit I've been correct? Get objective, DS. :)
Captain Stumpy
or did you forget how to read?
it's not like you haven't been proven to be a chronic liar and pseudoscience idiot spewing about things you have no knowledge of
in fact, you (literally) proved that here when you admitted you had no evidence to link and refused to even search for it because it doesn't exist: https://phys.org/...ure.html
then you validate that here: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
that means, by definition, you are intentionally lying and attempting to interject FUD and pseudoscience into the news aggregate for the sake of personal validation because you can't pass peer review nor the requirements of evidence based science
RealityCheck
Do better, CS.
Captain Stumpy
let me explain in english, which you are obviously not conversant in
if this is what you mean: this means, specifically: [insert target person] learned a method instead of [or that is contradictory to] the objective science method that i teach
now, i do not disagree with that statement as it stands above, but you then absolutely contradict yourself further in the post adding to the confusion
only an illiterate idiot who didn't progress further than 7th grade english or a multi-lingual who is not familiar with english at all would word it that way expecting others to accept this as denigration on my part
do better, you moronic idiot
https://en.oxford...on/comma
RealityCheck
Da Schneib
Aesop's Fables were published in around 600 BCE, that's 2600 years ago. @RC doesn't seem to have heard of them. Considering he hasn't heard of any plasma physics since the 1960s, I can't say I'm surprised.
The thing is, see, that it isn't even a matter of any wolves coming; there aren't any. This troll is crying wolf when there aren't any wolves and never were.
RealityCheck
Mate, seriously, go read this latest (of many recent) mainstream confirmations that what I have been observing for your benefit for so long now was correct all along (despite your silly CS-gang influenced knejerking cries of "liar", insults' and denial of the OBVIOUS reality which even mainstream is now finding):
https://phys.org/...html#jCp
Get real, DS. :)
Da Schneib
When will you stop lying? *Can* you stop lying? It appears you cannot, and this is indicative of pathological lying, which you cannot control. This is a psychiatric condition, for which you should seek psychiatric assistance and psychological counseling. There is nowhere to hide, there is nowhere to run. Lying more just makes it more apparent. I strongly suggest you seek assistance with your psychological problems instead of demonstrating them here in front of people who are competent to note them and will abuse you because you will not seek help.
RealityCheck
Captain Stumpy
-DS proved you're a liar :o
-DS linked the threads with you're epic lies :O
-I proved you chronically lied (thats two separate sources not related - AKA Validation)
-i proved you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims
-i linked the thread where you admit you can't actually prove your lies about "4 fatal flaws"
...that thread?
.
Sorry to have to be the one to burst your self-delusional bubble, rc, but the only thing that happened in that thread is that your lies were outed, validated and it's proven in your own words
that isn't debatable because it's all there in black and white for any semi-literate person to read
that is called: evidence
freely accessible to anyone
and can be cross-checked with archived data
:)
RealityCheck
- 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 @Forum:
- Why did you keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of, CS/DS?
- Why call me "liar" when you DIDN'T KNOW sh!t, CS/DS?
Go on, CS/DS; face your reality.
Uncle Ira
What you call it when you write the same thing over and over and over on different articles everyday? Here in Louisiana we call that spamming. Why you don't knock it off before the management needs to get involved.
If nobody believes it now, saying the same thing one more time (10,979th time) probably won't change anybody's mind.
RealityCheck
- 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 out these, and more, for your benefit; so:
- Why did you/DS/CS-gang keep kneejerking in ignorance instead of checking out objectively what I tried to inform you of?
- Why do you/DS/CS-gang keep BOT-VOTING, calling ME "liar", when YOU DON'T KNOW sh!t?
Objective readers see You/DS/CS-gang: The Pitiables.
Captain Stumpy
why is that?
Is it because you already admitted you're a liar and didn't post your 4 fatal flaws? (here: https://phys.org/...ure.html )
or is it because you think no one will notice that you refuse to post the requested information?
hmm?
besides, you idiot, you're spamming and crossposting this BS to get distract from your epic failure to produce evidence yourself because i already answered it here: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
i will await your data with links and references
:)
Captain Stumpy
because not only has DS proven you to be a liar
but i have also proven you're a liar
and Uncle Ira has also proven you're a liar
when one person proves it, you may be able to get away with whining about it
but when it's also demonstrated by unrelated non-friendly secondary sources, it is called validation
having three people prove it just makes it absolutely pathetic on your part, because you can't stop yourself
LOL
RealityCheck
Why do you do this to yourself/CS-gang, Stumpy? Your address lines drip with personal poison, CS. And how long have you had, to post the evidence in support of your above lie re "criminal record", Stumpy? Please provide same to @Forum immediately; else cease and desist your silly campaign of lies, Stumpy. It's not a good look for you or CS-gang, mate. Rethink it, Stumpy. :) You and your CS-gang are the ones irrationally and gratuitously attacking without due cause in science or humanity. So you and your CS-gang are the ones who need to answer questions which highlight the reality of your shameful behavior and lack of cause/evidence for your false accusations/other outrages against correct/polite poster. You/they're dreaming and evading the questions. Why? :)