Unexpected phenomenon in a merger of a cluster of galaxies

October 5, 2017
Astronomical airplane trails do not fade but lighten up
A galaxy (in orange) moves to the left and leaves a gas trail. The trail seems to extinguish slowly, but lightens up again near the second, white-yellow galaxy. Most white dots in the image are complete galaxies. Credit: Leiden University

An international team of astronomers led by Francesco de Gasperin has witnessed a gas tail of a galaxy that slowly extinguished, but then reignited. It is unclear where the energy for the rejuvenation comes from. The researchers have published their findings in Science Advances.

The astronomers were investigating Abell 1033. This is a that consists of two smaller, merging clusters. Abell 1033 is located in the northern constellation of Leo Minor (near Ursa Major). Clusters of are the largest structures in the universe. They can contain hundreds to thousands of galaxies similar to the Milky Way. Smaller clusters can merge together to form a larger cluster.

The astronomers observed that an individual galaxy in one cluster of Abell 1033 left a of gas as it traveled through the other cluster. On an astronomical scale, such a trail resembles the trail of coloured smoke behind a stunt plane.

The astronomers had expected that the gas trail, like the ones behind a stunt plane, would slowly die and eventually disappear. To their astonishment, they saw that the end of the gas trail was brighter than the middle.

"This was totally unexpected," says Francesco de Gasperin. "As these clouds of electrons radiate away their energy over time, they should become fainter and disappear. Instead, in this case, after more than a hundred million years, the tail of electrons is brightly glowing."

There is no precise explanation for the phenomenon, yet. It seems that the trail brightens near the centre of the other cluster of galaxies. De Gasperin says, "Part of the energy released in the merger event must have been transferred to rejuvenate the cloud of electrons."

The research on merging clusters of galaxies is complicated because astronomers only see a snapshot of the process that in total takes billions of years. In addition to that, the telescopes that are needed for the investigation have to receive signals with extremely low frequencies.

The astronomers combined data from the Indian Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope and LOFAR, the Low Frequency Array. LOFAR was designed and built by the Dutch research institute ASTRON. The telescope consists of thousands of antennas spread across eight countries. The heart of LOFAR is in Drenthe in the north-east of the Netherlands.

"It's like being among the last explorers. As soon as we move into uncharted territories, or in this case, unexplored frequencies, our universe is still full of surprises," says De Gasperin. "And this is just a first step. Much is still to be done to understand the complexity of , and find what is lurking at low radio frequencies."

Explore further: Image: Hubble catches galaxies swarmed by star clusters

More information: Francesco de Gasperin et al. Gentle reenergization of electrons in merging galaxy clusters, Science Advances (2017). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701634

Related Stories

Image: Hubble catches galaxies swarmed by star clusters

October 2, 2017

In the center of a rich cluster of galaxies located in the direction of the constellation of Coma Berenices, lies a galaxy surrounded by a swarm of star clusters. NGC 4874 is a giant elliptical galaxy, about ten times larger ...

Colliding galaxy cluster unravelled

May 24, 2012

An international team of astronomers has used the International LOFAR Telescope from ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, to study the formation of the galaxy cluster Abell 2256.

Researchers explain mystery of 'banging' galaxy clusters

June 6, 2017

Two galaxy clusters in the process of merging created a layer of surprisingly hot gas between them that University of Colorado Boulder astronomers believe is from turbulence caused by banging into each other at supersonic ...

A lot of galaxies need guarding in this NASA Hubble view

May 4, 2017

Much like the eclectic group of space rebels in the upcoming film Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has some amazing superpowers, specifically when it comes to observing innumerable galaxies flung ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

97 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2017
Article: "An international team of astronomers led by Francesco de Gasperin has witnessed a gas tail of a galaxy that slowly extinguished, but then reignited. It is unclear where the energy for the rejuvenation comes from."

It's akin to asking why the wires in your home don't disappear when you shut the power off. We can see from both the laboratory and our own solar system that plasma filaments can switch between glow and dark modes. The power comes from the fact that they are transmission lines.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2017
The plasma ignoramuses just don't get they are dealing with plasmas and all the phenomena that are associated with said plasmas. These "gas tails" are not at all gas tails, they are electric currents. This is precisely why EE are more relevent to the studies of space plasmas and cosmic phenomena, they understand circuits, current density, and other aspects of EM that the plasma ignoramuses just cannot seem to grasp.
691Boat
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2017
So we've just got an electrical current goin round and round in the one spot where the galaxy used to be? One would think the whole "transmission line" between the galaxies would be lit up equally, unless there is a magic current sink in the middle of that "transmission line".
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 05, 2017
So we've just got an electrical current goin round and round in the one spot where the galaxy used to be?

Who made this claim, other than you?
One would think the whole "transmission line" between the galaxies would be lit up equally, unless there is a magic current sink in the middle of that "transmission line".

There you go "thinking" again, you should probably stop using your own preconceived notions and try to learn a bit more about actual plasma physics. BTW, don't rely on the plasma ignoramuses to 'splain it to you.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
Re: "So we've just got an electrical current goin round and round in the one spot where the galaxy used to be? One would think the whole 'transmission line' between the galaxies would be lit up equally, unless there is a magic current sink in the middle of that 'transmission line'."

What is being argued is that people should pay more attention to what plasmas do in the laboratory. They form very complex geometries, naturally. I've seen these "skeletal structures" in pic's taken in tokamak's by Russians.

They developed algorithms which help to identify these structures.

The formation of filaments in plasmas is not something which anybody expected. This realization that it is happening has always been driven by observations -- which is why all of the critiques miss the mark. It's not an unwarranted belief.

Just take the time to pay attention, and evidence is always at hand that electricity flows through space, and does things of tremendous importance.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
Henri Poincaré, at the conclusion of the preface to his book, 'Hypothéses Cosmogoniques' (1940), states:

"One fact that strikes everyone is the spiral shape of some nebulae; it is encountered much too often for us to believe that it is due to chance. It is easy to understand how incomplete any theory of cosmogony which ignores this fact must be. None of the theories accounts for it satisfactorily, and the explanation I myself once gave, in a kind of toy theory, is no better than the others. Consequently, we come up against a big question mark."
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
This quote is now appearing in various publications, another surprise ...

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

"In 2010, I received a paper that was eventually published as Akasofu (2011). One paragraph in the original draft text quoted Chapman on the field aligned current issue. Akasofu withdrew the remarks from the published version. It is probably worth giving Chapman (through Akasofu) the final word: 'Chapman mentioned in his letter to me on 13 April 1969, 'the history of studies of geomagnetic disturbances is a tangled skein,' and he continued '-- but I did overlook something (a three-dimensional current system, the author's insertion) to which I was blind and they (Birkeland and Alfven, the author's insertion) saw. Perhaps people listened too much to me --.'' This sounds to me like Chapman speaking."
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
Heh, they finally figured out the point about a current requiring a source and sink and invented a perpetual motion machine to explain why you don't need that.

Maybe galaxies are superconductors. <- latest #physicscrank "theory" from the Eclectic Universe.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
https://www.thund...oras.htm

"One of the conflicts in early 20th Century astronomy was between Sydney Chapman and Hannés Alfvén. Alfvén, following Birkeland's lead, believed the auroras to be powered by charged particles from the Sun. Chapman developed a mathematically elegant theory showing that the auroras were generated entirely in the Earth's magnetosphere by buffeting of the solar wind. Chapman refused to give Alfvén's ideas a hearing. At conferences, rather than address particular points of the theory, Chapman would state that he and his colleagues disagreed with Alfvén and that a paper explaining it all was in process. On one occasion, when Chapman was a guest of Alfvén's in Sweden, Alfvén built a replica of Birkeland's terrella experiment, which produced auroras on a magnetized sphere suspended in a vacuum ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Alfvén hoped that if Chapman could see how plasma behaves in the laboratory, he would be more amenable to discussing it. Chapman refused to look at the experiment."

The quote floating around claimed to be from Chapman would appear to be reacting to this historical debate which occurred. It seems Chapman, like Sagan, had regrets; they both ended up in different places than they started.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
Re: "Heh, they finally figured out the point about a current requiring a source and sink and invented a perpetual motion machine to explain why you don't need that."

"I personally feel it is presumptuous to believe that man can determine the whole temporal structure of the universe, its evolution, development and ultimate fate from the first nanosecond of creation to the last 10^10 years, on the basis of three or four facts which are not very accurately known and are disputed among the experts."

- J. Bahcall, senior astrophysicist, Institute for Advanced Study
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2017
And here comes @Chris_Spam.
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
Anthony L. Peratt, 'Dean of the Plasma Dissidents', The World & I, May 1988, p.190-197

"To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a fable -- a fable devised to explain creation. 'I was there when Abbé Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory,' he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing."
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
Part of the Big Bang's Success is Attributable to the Idea's Religious Appeal

The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang?
William C Mitchell
(p181)

"(A factor contributing to the wide acceptance of [Big Bang Theory] in the Judeo-Christian world is that it is not terribly inconsistent with the creation of the world as told in the Bible. After hearing of the [Big Bang] in 1951, Pope Pius IX is quoted as having said, 'True science to an ever increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each door opened by science.')"
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
"It is almost amusing to see the proponents of Big Bang cosmology, who have themselves been accused of fostering a religious intolerance toward those who question whether the foundations of the Big Bang hypothesis are scientifically justifiable, now getting a dose of their own medicine from biblical creationists."

- Dr. Anthony L. Peratt
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
https://youtu.be/...M?t=2847

"Cosmology as a science has begun one century ago with Einstein's theory. So, in one hundred years, you cannot produce a theory of everything. This is crazy. Even from a philosophical point of view, a historical point of view, we have begun a hundred years ago ... In 1920, we thought that the Milky Way was all the universe. And now, you want to produce the belief that in 80 years or something, you have produced the theory of all the universe, from the beginning to now. This is not ... credible."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
https://youtu.be/...M?t=2681

Martín López Corredoira
Astrophysicist / Cosmologist / Philosopher / Published Numerous Papers, Oftentimes as Lead

(same person as quote above)

"Cosmology is ... is not a science. It ... has a lot of scientific aspects. We can know many things with the science. We can know how the galaxies are distributed; we can measure them with observations; we can know how many matters are in the interstellar medium or in the galaxies, and all of these aspects are scientific.

But, with regards and considerations about the beginning of the universe, this is in some way crossing the boundary of the science, and going to something between the science and metaphysics aspects, in my opinion."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2017
So, where does the electricity come from?

{shoulders shrugging}

What I know is that it's definitely better to not pretend to know.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2017
"Given statements emanating from some cosmologists today one could be forgiven for assuming that the solution to some of the great problems of the subject, even 'the origin of the Universe' lie just around the corner. As an example of this triumphalist approach consider the following conclusion from Hu et al. [1] to a preview of the results they expect from spacecraft such as MAP and PLANCK designed to map the Cosmic Background Radiations: '... we will establish the cosmological model as securely as the Standard Model of elementary particles. We will then know as much, or even more, about the early Universe and its contents as we do about the fundamental constituents of matter'."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (6) Oct 06, 2017
(cont'd)

"We believe the most charitable thing that can be said of such statements is that they are naive in the extreme and betray a complete lack of understanding of history, of the huge difference between an observational and an experimental science, and of the peculiar limitations of cosmology as a scientific discipline. By building up expectations that cannot be realised, such statements do a disservice not only to astronomy and to particle physics but they could ultimately do harm to the wider respect in which the whole scientific approach is held. As such, they must not go unchallenged."

- Mike Disney, The Case against Cosmology, arXiv:astro-ph/0009020 v1 1 Sep.2000
691Boat
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
@CR
You posting people's opinions and gossip does nothing for you.
Yeah, i know..."history of blah blah blah..." but that doesn't do much to help you explain what your EU brethren believe, why it is correct, or why mainstream is wrong.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2017
Reason in Revolt, Vol. I: Dialectical Philosophy and Modern Science, Ted Grant, Alan Woods

"We see a steadily increasing tendency towards a purely abstract theoretical approach to cosmology, based almost exclusively on mathematical calculations and relativity theory. 'The annual number of cosmology papers published skyrocketed from 60 in 1965 to over 500 in 1980, yet this growth was almost solely in purely theoretical work: by 1980 roughly 95% of these papers were devoted to various mathematical models, such as the 'Bianchi type XI universe.' By the mid-seventies, cosmologists' confidence was such that they felt able to describe in intimate detail events of the first one-hundredth second of time, several billion years ago. Theory increasingly took on the characteristic of myth-absolute, exact knowledge about events in the distant past but an increasingly hazy understanding of how they led to the cosmos we now see, and an increasing rejection of observation.'"
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2017
@Da Schneib.
And here comes @Chris_Spam.
Seriously, DS, are you so insensible to your own ego-tripping spam that you are unaware you made an inexcusably hypocritical drive-by post totally unheeding of the perfectly ON-TOPIC subject matter being posted by @Chris? Listen when appropriate, instead of ignoring all the time, DS. Sort the gems from the dross; that is the only way you will ever 'catch up' and be correct instead of being ignorant, incorrect and insulting as usual. Listen and learn, DS; you are still reading up while others have ben there, done that, and can teach yu many things which your ego has yet to let you learn correctly. Less ego and more objectivity/humility, DS; otherwise you will only ever be a drunk poster on the internet with and oversized ego and mouth which refuses to listen and learn when the situation calls for it. Try, DS. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2017
@691Boat.
@CR
You posting people's opinions and gossip does nothing for you.
Yeah, i know "history of blah blah blah" but that doesn't do much to help you explain what your EU brethren believe, why it is correct, or why mainstream is wrong.
A word of advice, mate: don't follow the example of DS and the other personal-feud types who would rather keep kneejerking/feuding rather than update/correct their own knowledge/understandings base.

Please FORGET the Electric-Universe 'crowd' altogether when reading anything to do with the PLASMA science/knowledge being discovered as we speak; by scientists who NOW realize their OWN longstanding paradigm and OPINIONS were simplistic and/or incorrect (much like what has happened in 'theoretical' cosmology/astrophysics field).

Remember always: the opinions of the very scientists that FOUNDED/DEVELOPED the plasma science may be more valuable/valid than the opinions of BOTH 'EU-crowd' AND 'you/others' who may be EQUALLY WRONG.

Ok? :)
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2017
@ Reality:
A word of advice, mate: don't follow the example of DS and the other personal-feud types who would rather keep kneejerking/feuding rather than update/correct their own knowledge/understandings base.

Really? You are the most argument-prone participant here. The majority of what you write has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Drop your "feuds" and speak to the science instead. You aren't a moderator, don't pretend to be one. Your 'moderating' does as much for the discussions as CR's copy/paste techniques: nothing.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2017
@691Boat.
@ Reality:
A word of advice, mate: don't follow the example of DS and the other personal-feud types who would rather keep kneejerking/feuding rather than update/correct their own knowledge/understandings base.

Really? You are the most argument-prone participant here. The majority of what you write has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Drop your "feuds" and speak to the science instead. You aren't a moderator, don't pretend to be one. Your 'moderating' does as much for the discussions as CR's copy/paste techniques: nothing.
Mate, seriously, do you ever consider the meaning of that longstanding observation?...
For evil to flourish it is sufficient for good men to do nothing.
Your above mischaracterization of my challenges to others' personal attacks and lies against me and other victims of same is NOT "argumentation" but CHALLENGE and CORRECTING the record. Why do you 'excuse' the trolls and 'attack' the victims, mate? Rethinkit all, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2017
PS @691Boat.

The @Forum will note that I posted ON SCIENCE and raised serious valid SCIENCE/LOGICS points for polite and on--topic response; and what happened?....the REAL TROLLS just insulted and evaded the actual points/logics in question!

Will you still excuse those trolls, @691Boat, because you are biased/ill-informed?...DESPITE the recorded facts/posts puttin the lie to your claim above that I 'do not address the science and am argumentative' etc? See your own failure in objectivity, fair treating making you part of the problem, and me yet again the victim of trolling/insults/bias?

Like I suggested before, mate; stop emulating the real trolls who personalize/insult every otherwise serious scientific/logical discussion they want to sabotage because THEY MAY BE THE ONES wrong on the science/logics as well as the behavior.

RETHINK YOUR OWN part played in the problem which led you to make the above FALSE attack on the victim while excusing the REAL TROLLS, mate. :)
691Boat
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2017
@Reality:
Here is your first post in this thread. Show me the on-topic science in it. Looks argumentative to me.

@Da Schneib.
And here comes @Chris_Spam.
Seriously, DS, are you so insensible to your own ego-tripping spam that you are unaware you made an inexcusably hypocritical drive-by post totally unheeding of the perfectly ON-TOPIC subject matter being posted by @Chris? Listen when appropriate, instead of ignoring all the time, DS. Sort the gems from the dross; that is the only way you will ever 'catch up' and be correct instead of being ignorant, incorrect and insulting as usual. Listen and learn, DS; you are still reading up while others have ben there, done that, and can teach yu many things which your ego has yet to let you learn correctly. Less ego and more objectivity/humility, DS; otherwise you will only ever be a drunk poster on the internet with and oversized ego and mouth which refuses to listen and learn when the situation calls for it. Try, DS. :)
[/q
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@691Boat.
Here is your first post in this thread. Show me the on-topic science in it. Looks argumentative to me.
Please note that my post was about @Chris's ON TOPIC posts which DS trolled/insulted etc rather than engaging objectively, fairly on the substantive points/issues raised.

I also point to these threads where my own on-topic posts raising serious valid scientific/logical points were trolled/insulted etc instead of being addressed objectively, fairly:

https://phys.org/...arf.html

https://phys.org/...big.html

https://phys.org/...sts.html

See the REAL 'pattern'; and who the REAL trolls are, mate? :)

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2017
#spammers, #physicscranks, #liars, #physicsdeniers, and other filth don't get the time of day from me.

If you don't like being treated like filth stop acting like filth.

Get over it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
#spammers, #physicscranks, #liars, #physicsdeniers, and other filth don't get the time of day from me.

If you don't like being treated like filth stop acting like filth.

Get over it.
First take great care and effort to ensure that you yourself are not one of those as well, DS. Otherwise hypocrisy and irony overflows in every post like that.

PS: Are you angry-drunk posting again, mate? Not good.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@RC, I see no reason to take care. Out of perhaps 500 threads, you've lied on 499 and I was wrong on one. And that's OK; I'm willing to learn on that one. You aren't capable of learning from the 499.

I'll go with my record, #physicscrank EUdiot.

Keep pushing and I'll go find the threads where you pushed EUdiocy and post them along with my @RC lies threads. The list will get a lot longer.

After the times you've been caught lying I'd be very careful here. Because if I put in the effort to find this I'll post it every time I see you post.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I see no reason to take care. Out of perhaps 500 threads, you've lied on 499 and I was wrong on one. And that's OK; I'm willing to learn on that one. You aren't capable of learning from the 499.

I'll go with my record, #physicscrank EUdiot.

Keep pushing and I'll go find the threads where you pushed EUdiocy and post them along with my @RC lies threads. The list will get a lot longer.

After the times you've been caught lying I'd be very careful here. Because if I put in the effort to find this I'll post it every time I see you post.
Stop it! Your egotistical/drunken imagination is deluding you! You have BOASTED about NOT reading before opening your big mouth and insulting those who knew better than you. You've been incorrect every time you kneejerked from ego/ignorance against me. You pretend to 'know' but when challenged/corrected you have been found to NOT 'know' correctly. You keep insulting and making it personal with tactics/strawmen/lies. Stop!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
Fine, I'm looking, @RC. I'll post as many lies as you told.

Remember, you asked for it.

Bend over, dudebro.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
Here it comes again: another five lying posts by @RC:

Thread where @RC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC lies about dark matter existing inside stars: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @RC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @RC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html

Shall I continue? Lots more where this came from.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Fine, I'm looking, @RC. I'll post as many lies as you told.

Remember, you asked for it.

Bend over, dudebro.
Have you no self-control, mate? Take control of yourself before it's too late, DS! Don't stay on this self-deluded drunken/egotistical path to self embarrassment and infamy, DS. Is this the legacy you would want to leave behind you to posterity, DS? A spammer, denier and drunk-posting, ego-tripping, waste of intellect, DS? Get a grip, mate! Now, before it's too late. Try. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
And the previous ones:

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
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
[contd]
Thread where @RC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
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
Thread where @RC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @RC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html

Now we're up to three posts needed to show all this #troll #physicscrank's #lies. Does anyone need more? I hate to tell you this but I have plenty more. Every time this #troll posts this #rtroll #lies. There really isn't anything more you need to know.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
Shall I find another 5 threads where you lied, @RC? Just let me know by posting again. More than happy. This is easy and fun.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Forum.

Isn't it so sad to see DS resort to spamming half-truths and misrepresenting self-serving opinions instead of addressing the scientific/logics points made in discussion? Such self-destructive tactics and evasions and just plain malice is not part of the objective scientific method/discourse ethics/principles. So any younger readers coming across such a pitiful display of unscientific and unconscionable behavior such as DS is again exhibiting, please do not emulate! It is the surest way to ruin your intellectual integrity and scientific credibility. Take DS'd tragic slide into self-delusion and unscientific ego-tripping as a salutary reminder of what can happen when ego and malice drive your life and mind. What a waste! Poor DS. Drink and Ego excesses did for him, obviously. Don't go the same way. Good luck in your choices, everyone. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
Great here come the next five threads:

Thread where @RC tries to support EUdiocy (despite claiming not to): https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @RC makes up stories about another poster: https://phys.org/...ars.html
Thread where @RC insults a user by lying about what that user said: https://phys.org/...ter.html
Thread where @RC lies about GR "predicting" singularities: https://phys.org/...s_1.html
Thread where @RC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @RC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @RC has never said what three of them are.

This #troll #physicscrank lies at the drop of a hat. Nothing it says should ever be mistaken for reality.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Now you're just digging your self-embarrassment hole deeper, mate. Stop. Can't you see your evasions/distractions/denials/mischaracterizations 'tactics' won't work anymore? It's on record that YOU are the one that BOASTED about NOT reading before jumping in and insulting/trolling etc. Now you SPAM your self-serving half-truths and outright lies in order to 'convince yourself', not others. Have you no sense at all? Has the drink and ego excesses taken you over the edge of reason and objectivity, mate? It seems so. Please say you are not gone over completely, DS; please say you can stop yourself from becoming yet another AGW-denier-like troll and ego tripping drunken spammer on the net, DS. Stop it now and rethink your whole 'tactics' and purpose in science/life, mate. Try. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
Great, here come another 5 lies @RC has told:

Thread where @RC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html
Thread where @RC lies about "inconsistencies" it claims exist in the Big Bang model: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @RC lies about BICEP2 again, still without any evidence of four errors in the paper: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html

Go ahead, bring it, you've been lying for years, @RC. Plenty more where that came from.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.

You're really in denial big-time, DS. The record shows that recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have increasingly confirmed my past observations/insights correct all along on many fronts; while you (a trolling spammer) and those you are trying to impress with your spamming and lying now, were NOT correct, and were just parroting orthodoxy and vaguely 'understood' paradigm 'ad hoc 'fixes' which eventually made the whole BB etc fantasy obviously unworkable in the face of reality recently discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself and confirming I was correct and you ignorant pretenders to 'knowledge' which did not exist or was obviously flawed.

Don't you just hate it that I have been correct all along, DS? No wonder your ego and drunken raging (what's left of your) mind is driven to despair; and hence spamming to prop up your self-deluding 'version' of what's been going down. Oh well, you are the architect of your own downfall, mate. Too bad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
And another typical @RC ploy: "You're in denial."

Despite the fact I keep posting another and another and another 5 threads where this #troll #physicsdenier has lied, and concealed its #EUdiot beliefs in order to try to inject FUD into science conversations.

Another 5 new threads coming right up. I've found one thread where @RC didn't lie so far, and it's the one it didn't post on.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
Here we go now, another 5 new threads, and another 5 to add to my list:

Thread where @RC claims the #EUdiot #physicsdeniers have made scientific predictions: https://phys.org/...ven.html
Thread where @RC claims time is somehow motion: https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @RC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @RC claims DM and DE are the same thing, and that there is no evidence for either (bonus, two lies in one): https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims redshifts are "highly unreliable:" https://phys.org/...ies.html

Keep it coming I got plenty more.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.

If you spent even a fraction of time and intellect on actually honestly engaging with the science/logics points raised, as you do with your endless personal drunken/ego tactics in ignorance and malice, you might actually have learned something in those threads, DS. As it is, your ego and denial is raging against my being confirmed correct all along by recent mainstream discovery/reviews while you have been left 'holding the baby' of BB etc fantasies and flawed paradigms flowing therefrom for decades. Penrose/Steinhardt and others are 'moving on' from those old fantasies, but YOU and the other ignorant 'believers and diehard parrots' haven't understood either the OLD or the EVOLVING paradigm based on reality not fantasy. Get a life and a scruple, DS; the scientific/logical investigation/comprehension of the universal reality is way beyond your pay grade. Leave it to those who can be objective and fairminded as the scientific method/discourse requires. Good luck.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
@RC, I wouldn't bother if you weren't so attractive a target, for example if you didn't lie and didn't keep posting supercilious and arrogant insults after lying.

Perhaps you might want to consider whether your behavior is to blame. You might even consider changing it and acquiring a little humility and ability to admit you're wrong, and folding your arrogant supercilious insults up until they are all sharp points and corners and sticking them up your... well, I guess we know where that's going.

I got another five. I'm almost to 50, keep it coming sport.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, I wouldn't bother if you weren't so attractive a target, for example if you didn't lie and didn't keep posting supercilious and arrogant insults after lying.

Perhaps you might want to consider whether your behavior is to blame. You might even consider changing it and acquiring a little humility and ability to admit you're wrong, and folding your arrogant supercilious insults up until they are all sharp points and corners and sticking them up your... well, I guess we know where that's going.

I got another five. I'm almost to 50, keep it coming sport.
You are now reminding the @Forum of that 'armless and legless Knight sketch' in Monty Python, mate! You bluster and dare and threaten, all the while having not a leg to stand on nor an arm to wield against anyone. You are so busy with your own delusional 'version' of the reality that you haven't a clue what's going on around you. You are delusional and self-destructive character, DS. Stop it now.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2017
OK, another five bringing the current total to 45:

Thread where @RC claims all magnetic fields are due to plasma: https://phys.org/...lts.html
Thread where @RC claims the long-debunked "tired light" hypothesis of the Babble-thumpers is still viable: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC claims universal expansion is supported by a circular argument: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC claims dark matter is electrical (the EUdiot "theory" it pretends to dismiss): https://phys.org/...-ia.html
Thread where @RC advertises its supposed "Theory of Everything" (ToE) which it has never provided even an explanation of, then tells the Steinhardt lie again: https://phys.org/...ark.html

I found another thread where @RC didn't lie, and it's another one it didn't post in. Still plenty out there.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I found another thread where @RC didn't lie, and it's another one it didn't post in. Still plenty out there.
What denial, projection and self-delusion, DS! You really are 'good' at it (tragically so). Mate, you can put yourself out of your misery by explaining to yourself/and @Forum why you lie and misrepresent like that? The proof that you lie/misrepresent is self-evident in the following thread/link:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Your SPAMMING more lies and misrepresentations is not healthy for your psyche, DS. Face that truth bravely, and admit the reality as it is in fact, and you will be on your way to recovery, mate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
@RC, it's easy to tell when you're lying: just look to see if you're typing. I googled "site:phys.org realitycheck electric universe" and every thread you posted on had one or more of your lies. This is an unbelievable record of pernicious duplicity. You are a cancer on this site.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, it's easy to tell when you're lying: just look to see if you're typing. I googled "site:phys.org realitycheck electric universe" and every thread you posted on had one or more of your lies. This is an unbelievable record of pernicious duplicity. You are a cancer on this site.
Any scientist who offered up such a misleading observation without the fuller context to make sense of it, is DISHONEST mate, and would be laughed out of the science profession, DS. You purposely left out crucial facts: I corrected BOTH SIDES as an independent observer; and I also stressed that ALL cosmo/astro features/phenomena is HYBRID one resulting from more than just one force/factor; and occurs over scales of space and time. At NO stage did I ever claim to be a EU proponent; I only observed the particular phenomena/issue under discussion and made reminders/comments accordingly. Your twisting and lying by omission is dishonest, DS. Not good, DS. Very Bad, DS. Stop doing it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
I can't imagine anything you might say after you lied on 50 threads, @RC.

If you had any pride or shame you'd apologize and move on, stop lying, and never insult anyone again. But of course you have neither. What a disgusting excuse for a human being you are.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I can't imagine anything you might say after you lied on 50 threads, @RC.
Not reading before opening your mouth to misrepresent in ignorance again, mate? Why post such obvious unheeding comments when you haven't got all the facts because you DIDN'T READ. Obviously you haven't learned from your debacles to date, mate. Pity.
If you had any pride or shame you'd apologize and move on, stop lying, and never insult anyone again. But of course you have neither. What a disgusting excuse for a human being you are.
The @Forum reader must be astounded at your insensibility in making such 'projection' and 'mimicking' comebacks without realizing how much the hypocrisy and irony drips from every word of that lame excuse for a self-justifying rationalization, DS. Are you even aware you're doing it? Or of how juvenile you sound? Read this...it should help shock you back to reality and to grow up:

https://phys.org/...per.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
Keep on pushing, @RC, maybe I'll go keep looking and bring the total to 100 threads.

And you now know I don't make threats. I tell people the natural and logical consequences of their actions, and if they continue then those consequences happen. You're going to be paying for this as long as you post here unless you change your ways.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Keep on pushing, @RC, maybe I'll go keep looking and bring the total to 100 threads. ...
Mate, you are the one that has been "pushing", not me. I have been "defending"; against YOUR "pushing" insults and tactics while you evade the scientific points I raised for discussion. Your "pushing" is also evident by your SPAMMING and misrepresentation campaign which demonstrates that YOU are the "problem" here, mate. That has become all too clear by now to all fair @Forum readers who have read the thread/link most representative of YOUR 'crying liar' and other atrocious unscientific and ungentlemanly behaviour....persisting even AFTER you realized you were wrong and your interlocutor correct all along. That representative thread/link is what you have been AVOIDING EXPLAINING to @Forum readers while you spam and try desperately to deny/distract from the truth about yourself; READ THIS, DS:

https://phys.org/...per.html

Read.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@RC, you are well known here by many posters for supercilious insults and #physicscrank posts supporting EUdiocy and religious themes like "tired light" along with antics like making up lies about Nobel Prize winners. Examples are rife in the fifty threads you have posted lies on and I have documented, and will continue to document from now on since you have put me to the trouble of finding them.

Lying, posting #crankphysics, and arrogant and subtle insults intended to make it past moderation are not defensive; they are offensive, and I mean that in all interpretations of the word. You are offensive, rude, supercilious, arrogant, and accuse others of your own faults as a tactic to avoid admitting them. There is no misrepresentation but yours.

You are free to apologize, stop lying, stop insulting, and lose your arrogant attitude at any time; you refuse to do so and have refused for many years. You have no redeeming qualities I have ever seen.

Go away.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
What I find most revealing is that you do not question whether you have lied on 50 posts and do not claim I cannot find another 50 just like them. You yourself know what you have done, and you have done it consciously. The question that follows that is, if you know this perfectly well, why are you posting here? And the obvious answer is, you are here to disrupt this forum because you hate science, and you hate it because you fear it; and since science is the truth as far as we can learn it, you hate and fear the truth and think you can stop it. This is pathological. You should seek psychiatric assistance for this problem instead of inflicting it on all of us who you do not perceive as people just like you, but as objects you are allowed to do whatever you wish to.

Now we're doing it back to you. Hope you enjoy what you do to others being done to you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
You are free to apologize, stop lying, stop insulting, and lose your arrogant attitude at any time; you refuse to do so and have refused for many years. You have no redeeming qualities I have ever seen.

Go away.
Your arrogance and duplicity (even of your own psyche) knows no bounds, mate. Even your denial and projection is becoming predictable of your psychosis. DS, your 'unfortunate' self-evident lying-insulting/denial psychosis is exemplified in the following thread/link which all @Forum readers by now will be well aware of so that you cannot deny, run and hide from any more without looking even more pathetically dishonest than you have been already, DS...

https://phys.org/...per.html

You have been spamming prodigiously while assiduously avoiding explaining your behavior in that representative thread/link; so demonstrating how hypocrisy, denial and evasion is become second-nature to you, DS. Face it. Own it, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
I'm not the arrogant one, @RC. I am not posting insults; I am telling you exactly what you look like to me directly and honestly. I'm sorry you find it demeaning but when one is as sorry an excuse for a human being as you are honesty is bound to make you feel bad. Maybe you should accept it and do something about it instead of blaming everyone else for your problems.

Your inability to accept other people as something other than objects you are allowed to do anything you like to, and your inability to change your behavior, marks you as a sociopathic personality. I hope you haven't and don't hurt anyone, but I strongly suspect you have and if you are not stopped, will. You have certainly hurt this forum, and don't appear to feel any remorse for it.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I'm not the arrogant one, @RC. I am not posting insults;
Deliberate lie and/or in-denial self-delusion.
I am telling you exactly what you look like to me directly and honestly. I'm sorry you find it demeaning but when one is as sorry an excuse for a human being as you are honesty is bound to make you feel bad. Maybe you should accept it and do something about it instead of blaming everyone else for your problems.
Projecting and in-denial hypocrisy. Mate, how can anyone take your opinions seriously in view of your recorded history of NOT being objective while insulting/kneejerk/misrepresenting and calling people "liar" as a TACTIC; as demonstrated by you here...

https://phys.org/...per.html

Your inability to accept other people as something other than objects you are allowed to do anything you like to, and your inability to change your behavior, marks you as a sociopathic personality.
Projection-in-Denial.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@RC, you make supercilious and subtle insults intended to avoid moderation. Most of those threads I have posted links to contain these insults and demeaning comments, which are not justified by the material you have posted as evidence to support your claims.

@RC, you lie. 50 threads in which you have lied have been posted, and moreover the the exact lie in each one has been posted.

@RC, you treat others as objects, insulting and demeaning them without regard to their knowledge being far beyond your own.

@RC, you respond to every attempt to point out your insulting, demeaning, lying ways as an insult rather than objective fact supported by your own words.

@RC, you use every tactic to avoid admitting what you have said may be wrong.

@RC, no evidence has ever convinced you that you may be wrong.

@RC, you have never replied with evidence to support your views; when challenged you descend to insult, innuendo, and demean those objects you perceive as "insulting" you.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@RC, what a disgusting, despicable, reprehensible, ugly, nasty, whining caricature of a sorry excuse for a human being you are. You should be ashamed but you are shameless. I cannot imagine a reason for interacting with you other than to show how bad a person you are and discourage others from interacting with you in order to force you to find someplace else to pollute with your posts.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
Have you no shame sir? At long last, have you no shame? No sense of decency? No pride? What is the matter with you, @RC?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, you make supercilious and subtle insults intended to avoid moderation. Most of those threads I have posted links to contain these insults and demeaning comments, which are not justified by the material you have posted as evidence to support your claims.
Your 'memory' is conveniently in error, mate. I make serious scientific/logical points and you kneejerk, confuse, cry "liar!" and make uncalled for UNsubtle insults while evading the science/logics point. In denial again, DS?
@RC, you lie. 50 threads in which you have lied have been posted, and moreover the the exact lie in each one has been posted.
That claim from you is not worth the bandwidth; since your dishonesty/lack of objectivity is renowned; as amply demonstrated...

https://phys.org/...per.html

@RC, you treat others as objects, insulting and demeaning them without regard to their knowledge being far beyond your own.
Projecting-in-Denial, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
It's not memory. It's your own posts, @RC. You're lying again. This is what you always try in order to get out of admitting the meaning of what you yourself posted. The links are right there. Your posts are right there. Your words are right there. It has nothing to do with memory.

The links to the threads are posted and your posts are evident within those threads. They are your own words, sir. You are lying and you are doing so shamelessly and with no decency, no apparent awareness that you cannot put this off on someone else, and no pride or dignity. It's not denial to note your own words in your own posts. You're lying again, @RC.

That you make the claims (such as projection) about others you do is obvious from the links to your own posts that have been shown. These claims objectify others and attempt to justify your lies, but everyone but you can see that you are lying.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib
@RC, you respond to every attempt to point out your insulting, demeaning, lying ways as an insult rather than objective fact supported by your own words.
Meanwhile you were the main purveyor of same and forcing me to defend against same from you, DS. In denial and projection again, DS?
@RC, you use every tactic to avoid admitting what you have said may be wrong.
I use scientific/logical points and observations; while you attack the person and evade the point because you are incapable of being objective or understanding actual subtleties/complexities involved.
@RC, no evidence has ever convinced you that you may be wrong.
Recent Mainstream discovery/reviews confirming me correct all along on many fronts. You are in denial of evidence because you boasted you DON'T READ it. @RC, you have never replied with evidence to support your views; when challenged ... You/others attack the messenger. Not on; especially when messenger correct. No excuses!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
I ask again, have you no dignity, sir? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency? Have you no pride? Are you completely unable to comprehend that the depths of your depravity have been fully exposed to the view of everyone on this forum, and that only sociopathic personalities like you will ever bother to associate with you?

Understand that every time you post in another thread from now on, I will choose five of the links showing your lies at random and post them in response, exposing you yet again. Understand that every serious scientific poster I have seen here has immediately identified you as someone to be avoided, and many of them no longer post here in order to avoid you. Understand that I merely point out the mess you yourself have made with your lies and insults.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@RC, what a disgusting, despicable, reprehensible, ugly, nasty, whining caricature of a sorry excuse for a human being you are. You should be ashamed but you are shameless. I cannot imagine a reason for interacting with you other than to show how bad a person you are and discourage others from interacting with you in order to force you to find someplace else to pollute with your posts.
An apt description of you/your behaviour lacking in objectivity, fairness, courtesy, respect to those who know better than you, DS. Your constant attacks and insults in lieu of addressing the science/logics points raised is now almost 'the norm' to expect from you when a thread/discussion 'needs' to be sabotaged because you cannot handle others knowing better than you and correcting you, DS. Look in the mirror before persisting in your denial and projection, mate. It's an awful look you are presenting...

https://phys.org/...per.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Have you no shame sir? At long last, have you no shame? No sense of decency? No pride? What is the matter with you, @RC?
That's what I have been asking you, DS. Did you miss that too, because you don't read so you can deny? Lame.

Here is why I keep asking you that, DS....

https://phys.org/...per.html

How you can sit there and project while you have that recorded behaviour to explain to @Forum is beyond insensible, just silly, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
I cannot imagine why the moderators here tolerate you when you along with your EU co-conspirators have driven off most of the really knowledgeable posters here, actual scientists who have forgotten more than you will ever know. If this is to be a place where real scientists can occasionally show up and make posts without being harassed, then you and your EU crowd must go. This is unfortunate but true. People who have spent the time and effort to complete long college degrees and have given up the possibility of employment in industry where they might make more money are very unlikely to tolerate sociopaths like you and the abuse you hand out without regard to their knowledge, far greater than your own.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I ask again, have you no dignity, sir? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency? Have you no pride? Are you completely unable to comprehend that the depths of your depravity have been fully exposed to the view of everyone on this forum, and that only sociopathic personalities like you will ever bother to associate with you?

Understand that every time you post in another thread from now on, I will choose five of the links showing your lies at random and post them in response, exposing you yet again. Understand that every serious scientific poster I have seen here has immediately identified you as someone to be avoided, and many of them no longer post here in order to avoid you.
That's right, SPAM away, DS. That's all you're reduced to now by your own drunken/egotistical 'compulsion' to insult and lie (that hasn't driven anyone away?). Oh, don't forget this while you SPAM, DS...

https://phys.org/...per.html
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
I cannot imagine someone who keeps harping on a single thread when they have been proven to have lied on fifty threads and do not deny they lied on fifty more. Especially when I actually admitted I was wrong, and you have never done so.

1 << 50

On Earth.

Have you no honor, sir? Have you no pride, sir? Have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame, sir? What is the matter with you, @RC? Are you totally unaware that you present as a sociopathic personality?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
You keep trying to "win," @RC. That's over after you lied on 50 threads and have tacitly admitted I could find 50 more if I looked. It's not going to do any good to deny any more; the lies are out, the threads are linked, your comments are set in stone, and no one can miss them after I linked them and said what the lies were.

There is nowhere left to run. There is nowhere left to hide. Run away little sociopathic whiny troll.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
I cannot imagine someone who keeps harping on a single thread when they have been proven to have lied on fifty threads and do not deny they lied on fifty more.
Not that you would know this, DS: in Science Method only ONE observation contradicting a theory is sufficient to FALSIFY and make a theory (in this instance your self-serving 'version' of reality) WRONG. So why need I list the many other instances that falsify your campaign of lies and misrepresentations, DS?...when I can just cite the MOST 'representative' ONE..

https://phys.org/...per.html

Read it and be ashamed, DS.
Have you no honor, sir? Have you no pride, sir? Have you no decency, sir? Have you no shame, sir? What is the matter with you, @RC? Are you totally unaware that you present as a sociopathic personality?
You are saying the same things I have been asking you whenever you say you "don't lie" or call me 'liar' even though YOU were wrong, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
@RC, your posting record is clear. It's revealed, linked, and the lies exposed.

I don't see a need to defend myself from someone who lied on 50 threads and admits to 50 more, who claims I lied on one when I didn't.

I am not ashamed to be wrong; when I am wrong I learned something. You are the one who is ashamed to be wrong and can't ever admit it. Speaking of projection.

You do understand that when you are proven to lie on 50 threads and can't admit it, you have no basis for criticism of others, right?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
So, @RC, hypocritical much?

Just askin'.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
your posting record is clear..
That's what I have been pointing out about your posting record that you are in-denial about, mate. Have you no originality or sense of irony at all?
I don't see a need to defend myself from someone who lied on 50 threads and admits to 50 more, who claims I lied on one when I didn't.
You have been the one attacking; I have been the one defending. You can't even get that straight, DS.
I am not ashamed to be wrong; when I am wrong I learned something.
Yet you show every indication that you NEVER learn, DS. That's why you keep doing this to yourself again and again!
You are the one who is ashamed to be wrong and can't ever admit it.
Recent Mainstream discovery/reviews increasingly confirming ME correct, DS; while you remain WRONG and CLUELESS.
You do understand that when you are proven to lie on 50 threads and can't admit it
Read, DS: I'm being confirmed correct while you just SPAM and DENY YOUR "problems".
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
@50LiarRC, you're lying again. One post isn't a "posting record." 50 posts is a posting record.

Stop lying, @50LiarRC.

Like I asked, hypocritical much, @50LiarRC?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@50LiarRC, you're lying again. One post isn't a "posting record." 50 posts is a posting record.

Stop lying, @50LiarRC.

Like I asked, hypocritical much, @50LiarRC?
Stop your desperate digging of that hole, mate. I cited the most representative instance of your atrocious behavior demonstrating your tactics and your lies and your incorrectness in the face of superior knowledge from me and others; as anyone can see for themselves...

https://phys.org/...per.html

The problem you have is that your behaviour now is much the same as it was then; hence no amount of citing more instances will make it any more clear to the @Forum reader than your behaviour did then. The irony is also that the instances in your latest spamming campaign are also the instances where it is demonstrable that you have not learned from me despite my pointing things out to you that you previously misunderstood or didn't know. Stubborn ingrate. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
@50LiarRC, I'm not the one who's been tagged a 50Liar. You are. I'm not the one who's been desperate ever since the lies started coming out 5 at a time. You are. I'm not the one who makes up supercilious subtle insults intended to get past moderators. You are. I'm not the one who tries to pretend the one and only thread where I was wrong-- not where I lied, mind you, just was wrong, and admitted it when presented with good evidence-- is the same as lying on 50 threads, @50LiarRC. You are.

The problem you have is you are a sociopath. You can't stop yourself and you can't control yourself. Now you're making up excuses where one thread where I was wrong is the same as 50 threads where you outright lied, @50LiarRC.

@50LiarRC, I have to go sleep now in order to do my job. Presumably, @50LiarRC, you don't have a job because no one will work with you.

Good night, @50LiarRC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
@50LiarRC, I'm not the one who's been tagged a 50Liar. You are. I'm not the one who's been desperate ever since the lies started coming out 5 at a time. You are. I'm not the one who makes up supercilious subtle insults intended to get past moderators. You are. I'm not the one who tries to pretend the one and only thread where I was wrong-- not where I lied, mind you, just was wrong, and admitted it when presented with good evidence-- is the same as lying on 50 threads, @50LiarRC. You are.

The problem you have is you are a sociopath. You can't stop yourself and you can't control yourself. Now you're making up excuses where one thread where I was wrong is the same as 50 threads where you outright lied, @50LiarRC.

@50LiarRC, I have to go sleep now in order to do my job. Presumably, @50LiarRC, you don't have a job because no one will work with you.

Good night, @50LiarRC
So much denial, self-serving assumption/ projection/ diversion, mate! Stop digging! :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
Perhaps you'd prefer @100LiarRC. I can and will make that happen if you don't STAND DOWN RIGHT NOW. I am tired of you and will bring overwhelming force if you do not comply. Apparently you don't understand anything else. You'll be @500LiarRC if you don't knock it off.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
Here's another five in earnest:

Thread where @RC reveals his Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Wasn't it claiming the Big Bang is a religion somewhere on here? Looks like it's the real religionist.
Thread where @RC claims universal expansion in GRT is an "a priori assumption" despite the fact it is empirically observed: https://phys.org/...ant.html
Thread where @RC claims math is philosophy: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @RC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere" ignoring the fact that it obviously isn't the same between the Milky Way and M31: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @RC claims there's enough baryonic matter to explain dark matter: https://phys.org/...ies.html

Next installment @100LiarRC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
Now up to 55 lies. I'll continue tomorrow. Current goal is @100LiarRC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
You'll want to get this taken care of pretty quick, @100LiarRC. Otherwise I'll figure you are going to stick it out and I won't bother looking to see if you've surrendered.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.

Stop digging your hole! It's embarrassing for you and painful for everyone else to watch you making such an ass of yourself. For example, JUST TODAY you again made an ass of yourself due to your drunken malice and egotistical unheeding kneejerking in ignorance and arrogance...

https://phys.org/...sts.html

You therein just again just engaged in EVADE-and-INSULT 'tactics' post which unambiguously demonstrated your ignorance and/or you malice for everyone to see; thus proving you have LEARNED NOTHING from your MANY past debacles, eg, in...

https://phys.org/...per.html

You poor schmuck, DS; you STILL haven't learned to keep your big drunken ignorant malicious mouth shut long enough to actually let your brain-mind be objective and courteous and apply the Science Method ethics/principles, instead of your 'ego-tripping bot-voting trolling-in-malignant-ignorance method'. Sad.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2017
OK, moving on, here are five more threads where @100LiesRC lies:

Thread where @100LiesRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @100LiesRC repeats the Steinhardt lie yet again: https://phys.org/...ics.html
Thread where @100LiesRC lies about the possibility of the Sun having an electric charge: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @100LiesRC lies about the ISW effect and insults an actual scientist posting on this forum: https://phys.org/...eor.html
Thread where @100LiesRC lies again about the Big Bang and supports LaViolett, a known crank: https://phys.org/...tar.html

Obviously, more coming soon. I will apparently be continuing to at least 100 threads this #physicscrank #troll has posted lies in. It seems I will have no trouble doing so.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2017
@Da Schneib.
OK, moving on, here are five more threads where @100LiesRC lies:

Thread where @100LiesRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html

Obviously, more coming soon. I will apparently be continuing to at least 100 threads this #physicscrank #troll has posted lies in. It seems I will have no trouble doing so.
You're patently psychotic now mate; it's probably the detrimental effects on your cognitive faculties by all that booze you sometimes boast about ingesting, combined with that obvious malicious ego-tripping addiction you have acquired due to weak character and trying to over-compensate for feelings of self-loathing.

Snap out of it, mate! NOW! Before it's too late for your psyche.

Seriously, DS, if you can't see your own flaws and debacles in those past/present threads/links I gave, then it's time you looked for help from someone close, or even a professional, to STOP and RECOVER. :)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
OK, the next 5 bringing the total to 65.

Thread where @100LiarRC claims a "cloud" of ions is not a plasma: https://phys.org/...gas.html
Thread where @100LiarRC makes numerous erroneous claims including that the EM force can change the path of light and the Sun is held from collapsing by e-e degeneracy: https://phys.org/...lar.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that galaxy dynamics can be explained without dark matter, and claims "the latest research: shows it: https://phys.org/...ole.html
When pressed to provide this research of course it can't.
Thread where @100LiarRC makes the same claim about galaxy dynamics and "the latest research" and still can't produce any of this "latest research:" https://phys.org/...ght.html

Only 4 fit this time. I'll post the fifth in a minute.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2017
Here's the fifth:
Thread where @100liarRC claimes magnetism makes radiation by some unspecified means: https://phys.org/...axy.html

Looks like we will make 75 lies tonight, maybe more.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.
Looks like we will make 75 lies tonight, maybe more.
You're getting obsessed now mate. People are starting to worry about your sanity. Please stop. Your claims of lies are your own imaginings not reality. Every time you have attacked me and called me "liar!" you 've been proven wrong because the known/evolving science was/is on my side, not your heedless attacks from ego, ignorance, malice. It's tragic to watch the disintegration of your mind and character like this, caused no doubt by the toxic combination of excess drink, overweening ego, and vein of malice in your character makeup/upbringing. Please snap out of that unhealthy 'funk', mate. It's getting so everyone can 'just see' you drooling over the keyboard while your sanity slips away. Get help from a loved one or a professional. Now. Don't wait until it is too late for your poor psyche. This obsessive delusional activity is rapidly disintegrating your intellect and character, and it's tragic to see.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2017
OK, here are the next five:

Thread where @100LiarRC forgets that doppler shift is not visible to the human eye then denies forgetting it: https://phys.org/...axy.html
Thread where @100LiarRC tells the Steinhard-doesn't-believe-in-the-BB lie again: https://phys.org/...rby.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims that dark matter should visibly influence Solar System dynamics: https://phys.org/...ong.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims math doesn't work: https://phys.org/...nal.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims plasma is a "force:" https://phys.org/...ism.html

That brings the total number of threads on which @100LiarRC has posted lies to 70. I'm getting lazy; I may not bother with the next 5 until tomorrow. I'm in no hurry; it's obvious this is going to be a long effort requiring perseverance.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.
That brings the total number of threads on which @100LiarRC has posted lies to 70. I'm getting lazy; I may not bother with the next 5 until tomorrow. I'm in no hurry; it's obvious this is going to be a long effort requiring perseverance.
Tragic. Just tragic. Is there no close friend or family member to help you, mate? Are the bot-voting gang voting your delusional obsessive posts '5s' your only 'friends'? Beware, DS, they are not friends at all, because they are just using you as their pawn for 'entertainment' watching you create 'drama' and 'chaos' with your self-deluding campaign, and they will be giving you '5s' to 'egg you on' until you implode. Think of your sanity, DS. Don't let that gang use you like that. They have used others before you, and they didn't fare too well either, with their own reputation in tatters. Take my advice, stop it now; take a rest; get help for your obsessive ego problem. Get better and then come back fresh. Try it now, DS.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2017
Well, how about that, we *are* going to make 75 tonight:

Thread where @100LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...cal.html]https://phys.org/...cal.html[/url]
Thread where @100LiarRC claims not to have an agenda: https://phys.org/...cal.html]https://phys.org/...cal.html[/url]
No one can possibly look at all these lies and believe that.
Thread where @100LiarRC claims again to have been "right all along:" https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims BICEP2's first findings were "bogus" (i.e. a conspiracy by degreed credentialed professional scientists): https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @100LiarRC claims gravity and EM can engage in "feedback loops" with no evidence: https://phys.org/...tar.html

If this keeps up we'll be to 100 threads in which this #physicscrank #troll has lied tomorrow night. Stay tuned!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 12, 2017
@Da Schneib.
If this keeps up we'll be to 100 threads...
You probably don't realize it, mate, but you are doing my work for me. Your list directs readers to the many instances where I have pointed out things based on known science and/or logics as well as evolving science being informed by the more recent mainstream astro/cosmo/quantum physics discoveries/reviews. Saves me a lot of time and trouble, DS. Thanks! :)

The downside is it's tragic for you and unhealthy for your psyche; because you're doing it for all the wrong motives: to 'feed' your ego-tripping, personal malice and drunken compulsions in lieu of objective science discourse. Too sad, DS. Take a break, mate; all indications are saying you really need a long rest. Good luck, DS.

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.