Students digging into data archive spot mysterious X-ray source

August 10, 2018, European Space Agency
A peculiar X-ray source spotted in the globular cluster NGC 6540 as part of a collaboration between scientists at the National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF) in Milan, Italy, and a group of students from a local high school. In 2005, ESA's XMM-Newton saw this source undergo a flare that boosted the luminosity of the source by up to 50 times its normal level for about five minutes. Too short to be an ordinary stellar flare, but too faint to be linked to a compact object, this event is challenging our understanding of X-ray outbursts. Credit: ESA/XMM-Newton; A. De Carlo (INAF)

An enigmatic X-ray source revealed as part of a data-mining project for high-school students shows unexplored avenues hidden in the vast archive of ESA's XMM-Newton X-ray Observatory.

When XMM-Newton was launched in 1999, most students who are finishing high school today were not even born. Yet ESA's almost two-decade old X-ray observatory has many surprises to be explored by the next generation of scientists.

A taste of new discoveries was unveiled in a recent collaboration between scientists at the National Institute of Astrophysics (INAF) in Milan, Italy, and a group of twelfth-grade students from a secondary school in nearby Saronno.

The fruitful interaction was part of the Exploring the X-ray Transient and variable Sky project, EXTraS, an international research study of variable from the first 15 years of XMM-Newton observations.

"We recently published the EXTraS catalogue, which includes all the X-ray sources – about half a million – whose brightness changes over time as observed by XMM-Newton, and lists several observed parameters for each source," says Andrea De Luca, one of the scientists who coordinated the student project.

"The next step was to delve into this vast data set and find potentially interesting sources, and we thought this would be an exciting challenge for a internship," adds Andrea.

Scientists at INAF in Milan have been cooperating with local schools for a few years, hosting several groups of students at the institute for a couple of weeks and embedding them in the activities of the various research groups.

"For this particular project, the students received an introduction about astronomy and the exotic sources we study with X-ray telescopes, as well as a tutorial on the database and how to use it," explains Ruben Salvaterra, another scientist involved in the programme.

"Once they were ready to explore the data archive, they proved very effective and resourceful."

The six students analysed about 200 X-ray sources, looking at their light curve – a graph showing the object's variability over time – and checking the scientific literature to verify whether they had been studied already.

Eventually, they identified a handful of sources exhibiting interesting properties – a powerful flare, for example – that had not been previously reported by other studies.

"One of the sources stood out as especially intriguing," says Andrea.

Featuring the shortest flare of all analysed objects, this source appears to be located in the globular cluster NGC 6540 – a dense grouping of stars – and had not been studied before.

After presenting their findings to the scientists in a seminar, the students went back to school. But the work for Andrea, Ruben and collaborators had only just begun.

"The source identified by the students displays brightness changes like no other known objects, so we started looking more in detail," says Ruben.

An otherwise low-luminosity source of X-rays, XMM-Newton saw it brighten by up to 50 times its normal level in 2005, and quickly fall again after about five minutes.

Stars like our sun shine moderately in X-rays, and occasionally undergo flares that boost their brightness like the one observed in this source. However, such events normally last much longer – up to a few hours or even days.

On the other hand, short outbursts are observed in binary star systems hosting a dense stellar remnant such as neutron star, but these outpourings of X-rays are characterised by a much higher luminosity.

"This event is challenging our understanding of X-ray outbursts: too short to be an ordinary stellar flare, but too faint to be linked to a compact object," explains collaborator Sandro Mereghetti, lead author of the paper presenting the results.

Another possibility is that the source is a so-called chromospherically active binary, a dual system of stars with intense X-ray activity caused by processes in their chromosphere, an intermediate layer in a star's atmosphere. But even in this case, it does not closely match the properties of any known object of this class.

The scientists suspect that this peculiar source is not unique, and that other objects with similar properties are lurking in the XMM-Newton archive but have not yet been identified because of the combination of low luminosity and short duration of the flare.

"The systematic study of variability that led to the compilation of the EXTraS catalogue, together with this first attempt at data mining, suggests that we have opened a new, unexplored window on the X-ray Universe," adds Sandro.

The team plans to study the newly identified source in greater detail to better understand its nature, while searching for more similar objects in the archive.

"It is exciting to find hidden jewels like this source in the XMM-Newton archive, and that young students are helping us find them while learning and having fun," concludes Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton project scientist at ESA.

Explore further: First catalogue of X-ray sources in overlapping observations published

More information: Sandro Mereghetti et al. EXTraS discovery of a peculiar flaring X-ray source in the Galactic globular cluster NGC 6540, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2018). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833086

Related Stories

Andromeda's first spinning neutron star found

March 31, 2016

Decades of searching in the Milky Way's nearby 'twin' galaxy Andromeda have finally paid off, with the discovery of an elusive breed of stellar corpse, a neutron star, by ESA's XMM-Newton space telescope.

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

132 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) Aug 11, 2018
Evidence of a cosmic thunderbolt. Electric discharge on a grand scale.
RNP
4.3 / 5 (17) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
This is an idiotic claim. Where would such a discharge originate or terminate?

BTW. Open access copy of paper here; https://arxiv.org...8057.pdf
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2018
Where would such a discharge originate or terminate?

By the looks of the data, it was a discharge between the two stars as there seems to be a clear connection between the two during the event. And the researchers seem to agree an interpretation beyond the standard guesswork is appropriate.
From the paper;
"However, the flare luminosity is significantly higher than what commonly observed in stellar flares of such a short duration, leaving open the possibility of other interpretations."
RNP
4.2 / 5 (17) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85

By the looks of the data, it was a discharge between the two stars as there seems
to be a clear connection between the two during the event. And the researchers seem to agree an interpretation beyond the standard guesswork is appropriate.

You have clearly not understood anything in the paper ( https://arxiv.org...8057.pdf )

For instance, if you look at the paper; the objects in question are located at a distance
of ~4 kpc (~13,000 light years) from Earth, and their separation is about 30 arcseconds (Fig. 1 of the paper). It is then easy to estimate they are separated by more than 100 light years.

Your purported "thunderbolt" lasted only 300 seconds, so, assuming that it moved at the speed of light, it was at most 100 million kilometres long (0.00001 light years).

Do you want to try to explain how/why your "thunderbolt" was only visible for only such a tiny part of its existence?
RNP
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 11, 2018
@All
APOLOGIES!

My estimate above was wrong. Under the assumption that they are are at the same distance as the X-ray burst, the separation of the objects in the image is only about 2 light years. But, my argument still stands.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2018
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star at all.
RNP
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star at all.


As usual, your post is pure BS. Your post clearly indicates that you have NO understanding of the science you try to discuss.

You have no evidence for **any** of your silly claims. I challenge you to give me a single piece of evidence that supports a single idiotic thing that you said in your above post!
RNP
4 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2018
@cantdrive85
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star at all.


As usual, your post is pure BS. It clearly indicates that you have NO understanding of the science you try to discuss.

You have no evidence for **any** of your silly claims. I challenge you to give me a single piece of evidence that supports a single idiotic thing that you said in your above post!


So, for instance, what on earth is a "astromagnetosphere"? A creation of your own I think.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2018
@cantread the electric acolyte troll
The average radius of the astromagnetosphere
LMFAO
really?
just making sh*t up now, cd??

from Google Scholar
Your search - astromagnetosphere - did not match any articles
so what about an astrophysics lexicon! lets see: it goes from Astrology to Astrometric Binaries
https://ned.ipac....mes.html

still no astromagnetosphere!
so who is using the word?
No results
https://duckduckg...p;ia=web

it seems not even the cult you joined is using that term
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 11, 2018
So, for instance, what on earth is a "astromagnetosphere"? A creation of your own I think.

It's pretty self-explanatory, it would be the magnetosphere of a star. All stars will have them. One of these stars encountered an interstellar doorknob (the other star) and received a zap of cosmic plasma proportions. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2018
@cd the electric cult looney
It's pretty self-explanatory
no, it isn't, otherwise it would be in at least one lexicon for astrophysics, in nothing else then as a pseudoscience term in the lexicon as noted above about astrology
It's not a difficult concept to grasp
neither is it difficult to grasp that you're making up words for the sake of sounding science-like

that is one of the earmarks of pseudoscience

just because you can make up technical sounding words doesn't mean they have any basis in reality
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 11, 2018
Cap'n Stoopid, you'll have to speak up! This is all I can hear of your blather;
Comment posted by a person you have ignored...

RNP
4.2 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2018
@cantdrive85



So, for instance, what on earth is a "astromagnetosphere"? A creation of your own I think.

It's pretty self-explanatory, it would be the magnetosphere of a star. All stars will have them.
One of these stars encountered an interstellar doorknob (the other star) and received a zap of cosmic plasma proportions. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.



So, be honest, you made up the word "astromagnetsosphere" in an attempt to sound knowledgeable. Silly really because it had the opposite effect.

Also, you still can not provided ANY kind of evidence for your claims.

Perhaps you could instead give us an estimate of the voltage required to create a discharge between two doorknobs separated by two light years? How could such a voltage develop?

I am interested in your thoughts because I note that even for real doorknobs separated by only millimetres, it requires thousands of volts.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2018
So, be honest, you made up the word "astromagnetsosphere" in an attempt to sound knowledgeable.

We have 1000 characters per post, it was more about conservation of characters. Regardless, I put a prefix on a word, just like the guy who coined the term 'magnetosphere' and likely was ridiculed by people like yourself for doing so.
At least you dwell on the important stuff...Not!
RNP
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2018
@cantdrive85
OK. Let's concentrate on the important stuff.

What voltage is needed to create a discharge between two doorknobs separated by two light years?

How could such a voltage develop?
andyf
5 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2018
We're waiting.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2018
@RNP, @cantdrive85.

Impartially observing your exchanges so far. In the interests of your discussion, will make observation/comment.

From @cantdrive to @RNP:
Your "assumptions" are flawed in so far as you are suggesting the discharge has to travel the whole distance, not accounting for the entire EM system of the stars. The average radius of the astromagnetosphere need be 1ly. It is the outer reaches of the astromagnetosphere that make contact which causes the discharge, that is why the brightest part of the discharge occurred where there was no star...
From @RNP to @cantdrive:
I am interested in your thoughts because I note that even for real doorknobs separated by only millimetres, it requires thousands of volts.
Now @RNP, your 'doornobs' example is not like-with-like conditions unless there is space plasma between your two doornobs AND 'touching' magnetic fields generated by respective doornobs.

ps: Languages/Sciences have history of coining new terms. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2018
and this is why you're ridiculed, penguin head fodera
ps: Languages/Sciences have history of coining new terms. :)
sigh

A magnetosphere is the region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are manipulated or affected by that object's magnetic field
- Ratcliffe, John Ashworth (1972). An Introduction to the Ionosphere and Magnetosphere (wiki)

see also: https://science.n...nosphere

you don't say "one-wheeled unicycle" because a unicycle, by definition, has only one wheel
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
A magnetosphere is the region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are manipulated or affected by that object's magnetic field
...
you don't say "one-wheeled unicycle" because a unicycle, by definition, has only one wheel
He didn't say anything like "one-wheeled unicycle", as you put it. He said "astromagnetosphere"; a legitimate composite word which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean the 'magnetosphere of a stellar body'; which would have taken more characters than astromagnetosphere (this site's limited text format is what prompted his use of astromagnetosphere, as he explained; so why quibble over trivial/legitimate semantics? Science before Semantics! Stick to the substantive science/logics issues being raised/discussed instead of creating semantic diversions.

ps: Please address posts properly/respectfully. You're not a cranky child anymore; you acting like a cranky old man is no better.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2018
@fodera the penguin-headed illiterate TROLL
a legitimate composite word
no, it's not
which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean
so, obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere
or you never knew what it meant
which would have taken more characters than
wrong
the term is "magnetosphere" which has fewer characters, you moron

if you're not going to bother to actually read what you comment on, why jump in the middle and prove you're stupid?
Science before Semantics!
if you have a pseudoscience idiot, like you or cd, making up words that have no clear, concise definition and aren't specifically described containing the requisite data for information to be communicated, then it's not science, nor is it a "substantive science/logics issues being raised/discussed"

it's called pseudoscience technobabble
or bullsh*t
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@fodera the penguin-headed illiterate TROLL
a legitimate composite word
no, it's not
which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean
so, obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere
or you never knew what it meant
which would have taken more characters than
Wh you trying to convince, CS?

Your 'you didn't know" gambit (insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere') is just more patently childish tactic from you whenever you are afraid of the dark descending on your character/mind every time you get called out acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting.
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
Who you trying to convince with that pathetic self-deluding untruth, CS? Are honesty and integrity intelligible/alien concepts to you still? Look them up; then try to get some, CS.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@fodera the penguin-headed illiterate TROLL
a legitimate composite word
no, it's not
which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean
so, obviously, you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere
or you never knew what it meant
which would have taken more characters than
Wh you trying to convince, CS?

Your 'you didn't know" gambit (insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere') is just more patently childish tactic from you whenever you are afraid of the dark descending on your character/mind every time you get called out acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting.
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
Who you trying to convince with that pathetic self-deluding untruth, CS? Are honesty and integrity intelligible/alien concepts to you still? Look them up; then try to get some, CS.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

*Edit/Submission stalled; trying again*
[@cantdrive's] "astromagnetosphere" is legitimate composite word which I and any reasonable person immediately understood to mean 'magnetosphere of a stellar body'
you didn't bother to actually read the definition of magnetosphere or you never knew what it meant
Who you trying to kid, CS? Your 'you didn't know" gambit (insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere') is just more patently childish tactics from you whenever you are afraid of the dark descending on your character/mind every time you get called out acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting.
Please address posts properly/respectfully
stop posting/defending pseudoscience
Again, who you trying to kid with that pathetic self-deluding untruth, CS? Are honesty, integrity alien/un-intelligible concepts to you still? Look them up, CS; then try to get some. And grow up.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience penguin head TROLL
insinuating I didn't know the meaning of 'magnetosphere')
it's not an insinuation: you didn't read the definition and obviously didn't know the meaning, otherwise, you would have understood the point I made about one-wheeled unicycle
acting so malignantly to science and humanity discourse with your trolling, insulting and bot-voting
1- I don't "bot vote"
there isn't anything automatic, programmed or coded about my voting

2- you're the one defending a pseudoscience parasite with absolutely no science presented
you do it because you're one of the pseudoscience parasites yourself

the only self-delusion here is your willingness to put factual science (RNP et al) supported by evidence on the back burner simply because someone (cd) believes in some BS

that isn't science, that is religion or faith

you and cd are trolls
FOAD
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
you didn't read the definition and obviously didn't know the meaning, otherwise, you would have understood the point I made about one-wheeled unicycle
What "obviously" you talking about, CS. The term "magnetosphere applies to ANY body in space having such. Period. If said body is a STAR, then "astromagnetosphere' (as used by @cantdrive) was perfectly clear, valid.
I don't "bot vote" there isn't anything automatic, programmed or coded about my voting
So all the times you downvoted me when I was correct all along on known/evolving science and the logics, was you just being a biased ignoramus? Glad we cleared that up, CS.
the only self-delusion here is your willingness to put factual science (RNP et al) supported by evidence on the back burner simply because someone (cd) believes in some BS
I support proper/fair science discourse. Period. My comments re RNP's 'challenge' of @cantdrive's scenario went ONLY to the applicability of @RNP's example. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2018
@idiot illiterate sammie
What "obviously" you talking about
how about this:
The term "magnetosphere applies to ANY body in space having such
do you say "the One-wheeled Unicycle"?
So all the times you downvoted me when I was correct all along on known/evolving science and the logics
just because you "claim" to be correct doesn't mean you *are* correct
pseudoscience acolytes like yourself *literally* can't see the evidence why you're wrong
http://psycnet.ap...7.6.1121

I support proper/fair science discourse
no, you don't, and I can prove it
links available upon request (there are so many)

"proper/fair science discourse" doesn't allow for unsubstantiated conjecture, nor does it allow for blatantly false pseudoscience or gibberish on the fly in an attempt to "sound" technical

it requires clear, concise communication that can be verified (argument from evidence)

anything else is a discourse in belief
RNP
4 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2018
@Realitycheck
@RNP, your 'doornobs' example is not like-with-like conditions unless there is space plasma between your two doornobs AND 'touching' magnetic fields generated by respective doornobs.

If you had followed the conversation, you would realise that the "doorknob" analogy was cantdrive's, not mine. If you knew anything abut the subject, you too would be trying to relieve this person of his ridiculous misconceptions.

Alternatively, since you seem to be offering support to his ideas, perhaps YOU want to try and answer the questions I asked above.

I will paraphrase them for you;

What electric field is needed to create a discharge between objects separated by 2
light years (given reasonable estimate of the density and ionisation fraction of the intervening medium)?

The alternative, a massive magnetic re-connection, is against cantdrive's religion. I do not think he would appreciate your using that one.

Whatever the case, how would such a field develop?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2018
@RNP.
...the "doorknob" analogy was cantdrive's
Yes. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression as to initial source of said example. My comment went to the validity/otherwise of your 'challenge' questions keeping @cantdrive's 'doornobs' example. I pointed out the non-comparability of that example with the two-stars situation because your questions did not have any regard to the different contexts either.
since you seem to be offering support to his ideas
I neither support nor refute @cantdrive's ideas; I merely made impartial observation re your above exchanges, pointing to certain 'contextual' difference between two doorknobs vs. two stars (re differing intervening-space conditions/contents).

Anyhow, the answers to your questions I leave for @cantdrive to make (if he can) re his ideas/claims. They must be consistent with the reality of the intervening space plasma dynamics and any interactions between two 'close' stars generating respective magnetospheres/fields. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
What "obviously" you talking about
how about this:
The term "magnetosphere applies to ANY body in space having such
do you say "the One-wheeled Unicycle"?
No, mate! @cantdrive said "ASTROmagnetosphere". There is MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE between the GENERAL term 'magnetosphere', and the SPECIFIC term 'ASTROmagnetosphere'.
So all the times you downvoted me when I was correct all along on known/evolving science and the logics
just because you "claim" to be correct doesn't mean you *are* correct.
But I HAVE been confirmed correct MANY times, CS. You just keep ignoring, denying, downvoting, lying, insulting, stalking and trolling irrespective. Look to your ethics/objectivity, CS. :)
I support proper/fair science discourse
no, you don't,
You're lying to yourself, CS; as well as to everyone else. The way you address your juvenile, emotional posts despite my being correct all along and you/gang incorrect, says it all, CS. Bad.
barakn
5 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2018
Now @RNP, your 'doornobs' example is not like-with-like conditions unless there is space plasma between your two doornobs AND 'touching' magnetic fields generated by respective doornobs. -RealityCheck
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2018
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience sam
There is MEANINGFUL DIFFERENCE between the GENERAL term 'magnetosphere', and the SPECIFIC term 'ASTROmagnetosphere'
there is no specific term "astromagnetosphere" - it's not in any astrophysics manual or lexicon anywhere, even the one the idiot electric loons use

it's made up on the fly to sound technical or scientific for the purpose of misinformation or distraction from lack of evidence (IOW - pseudoscience)
But I HAVE been confirmed correct MANY times
so you say
but the only thing you can be confirmed on is that you have a lot of places on PO where you claim to have been confirmed on something
Look to your ethics/objectivity
I do
that's why I downrate you and point out your lack of ethics/objectivity/science/knowledge/scruples
You're lying
no, I'm not
despite my being correct all along
Ok, so produce your 4 fatal flaws + other 4 flaws you claimed to have seen

& hurry
it's strawberry shortcake night
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2018
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?

barakn steps to the soapbox and announces his willful ignorance of plasmas.
https://physics.a...s/v6/131
In situ measurements of a stream of double layers which showed a potential of a million volts over a 6 minute period of time.
You keep believing in that fanciful ideal ionized gas nonsense, science will move on. Eventually...
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@barakn.
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?
You've just put your finger on the very aspect which made @RNP's challenge/question to @cantdrive's 'doorknobs' example non-sequitur (because it's not neutral air, but space plasma, between). :)

I was impartial, and left @cantdrive to answer RNP's questions (if he can), having regard to reality of intervening space plasma dynamics, respective astromagnetospheres interactions).

But since you/RNP asked me, I will impartially point out (in the interests of your/RNP's discussion of @cantdrive's claims):

- Dynamical plasma streaming/swirling strengths/velocities are known to be amplified/accelerated via turbulent phenomena/conditions;

- Stars so close may be 'scavenging' ejected 'charged' material from each other (via 'coronal-mass ejections', 'stellar-winds');

- turbulence, mag-fields etc tend to 'sort' charges.

Enjoy your discussions, guys! :)

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate pseudoscience sam
Readers are increasingly noticing the lack of calm objectivity in your mental processes; and you continuing to address your posts like that only further confirms your lack of calm objectivity. Chill out, CS. :)
there is no specific term "astromagnetosphere" - it's not in any astrophysics manual or lexicon anywhere,
So in your view, @cantdrive's CRIME is that HE COINED a shorter term for saying "magnetosphere of a star"? Are you JEALOUS you, or your 'stumpy-approved' ASTROphysicists, didn't think of coining that term first? Get some perspective, CS; and chill out! :)
But I HAVE been confirmed correct MANY times
so you say,...
I don't just "say". I have previously pointed out the specific instances/threads which show it in black and white. You ignored it all and just insulted, lied and cluttered the threads with your personal, malicious, 'noise' posts.

Start afresh, CS. Be calm, objective. Learn.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
Hey @cantdrive! How did that post from YOU get between my post (to barackn) and Stumpy's last post to me? Your post wasn't there when I submitted mine. :)
barakn
5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
Oh, so somehow a huge potential difference builds up between two objects separated by a conductor (plasma)?

barakn steps to the soapbox and announces his willful ignorance of plasmas.
https://physics.a...s/v6/131
In situ measurements of a stream of double layers which showed a potential of a million volts over a 6 minute period of time.
You keep believing in that fanciful ideal ionized gas nonsense, science will move on. Eventually...

So you've dropped the idea that huge charges build up via some unnamed and unphysical process and have come around to the mainstream idea that particles can be accelerated in quasi-neutral plasmas embedded in magnetic fields? Hallelujah brother, welcome to the fold.
granville583762
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2018
RNP please refrain from feeding This Demonic Troll captain stumpy, who has been allowed to enter The Five Star Club
RNP> @All
APOLOGIES!

My estimate above was wrong. Under the assumption that they are are at the same distance as the X-ray burst, the separation of the objects in the image is only about 2 light years. But, my argument still stands.

This Demonic Troll has been allowed to enter The Five Star Club by any commentator who has grovelled before This Demonic Troll and prostrated themselves and paid their homage to This Demonic Troll paying their dues, namely those glittering 5 stars!

RNP
4.1 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2018
@granville583762
RNP please refrain from feeding This Demonic Troll captain stumpy, who has been allowed to enter The Five Star Club.


You seem to be new to the site, so let me disabuse you of a couple of things;

1) Although you may not like his style, Captain Stumpy is one of few rational people that you have communicated with here. He is constantly calling out the nonsense posted by pseudo-scientific trolls (some of which, I should point out, you already seem to have fallen for).

2) The is no such thing as "The Five Star Club". There are just a group of scientifically literate people that take the time to let people like you know that what you are reading is nonsense. You should be thanking them, not deriding them.

granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
this could be a spectroscopic binary star undergoing stellar interaction with another star or jupiter sized planet in eliptical orbit emmiting x-ray flares, there could be a lot miore of these unusuall stars hiddn in the photographic plates
this could allso be a new line of astronimical observational research in the making by this dilligent time consuming research may be even new telescopes percificaly built to look for these stars
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
RNP only a Troll goes into disseminating attacks and using personal expletives which although you do not yourself, you do feed This Demonic Troll, as the saying goes "do not feed the trolls", if you can persuade him to stay within the bounds of as you say "one of few rational people that you have communicated with" all well and good.
Bosenova
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2018
seems like these could be the result of a couple dim brown dwarfs colliding.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@idiot sam
Readers are increasingly noticing the
I must have missed the poll
did they log in as individuals or using their sock puppets? where's it published?
you continuing to address your posts like that
labels are important in science communication: they convey meaning using a specific lexicon
you know, like magnetosphere!
So in your view
not just my view
CRIME is that HE COINED
no
his "crime" is that he arbitrarily used a term to attempt obfuscation using a technique common to pseudoscience by making sh*t up and then not giving a clear, concise, specific set of criteria that covers the newly coined term

check a study that "coins" a new term and you will see they specify what it is supposed to mean (usually using -*gasp*- evidence!)
I don't just "say"
actually, you do *just* say
BICEP is a good example
you've been saying it for 7,913 posts - still no evidence

you're a chronic liar
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@granTROLL the obfuscating narcissistic D-K religionist pseudoscience wanker
only a Troll goes into disseminating attacks and using personal expletives
sorry, but you had a lot of chances for honest communication and scientific discourse, and I kept it civil till you went full idiot (here is a good example: https://phys.org/...ics.html )

If you believed in the "do not feed the trolls" you would avoid benji and Surveillance_Egg_Unit
and that means not using your sock-puppet to engage with them too, mind

there are two things that have no place in honest scientific discourse, which is why rc et al are treated so poorly: pseudoscience and religion

when your pseudoscience becomes your religion, like cd, it means you're irrational and delusional

lastly, you're seeing a conspiracy despite the fact that I mentioned the literate of this site can't seem to band together to get rid of trolls (like you)

your D-K thus proved

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2018
So you've dropped the idea that huge charges build up via some unnamed and unphysical process

barakn doubles down on shouting his ignorance high and wide. Those double layers described in the paper show there is in fact a potential difference of a million volts separated by plasma and electric fields. It is neither unnamed nor unphysical, it's plasma physics known since Langmuir in the '20's.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2018
RNP only a Troll goes into disseminating attacks and using personal expletives which although you do not yourself, you do feed This Demonic Troll, as the saying goes "do not feed the trolls", if you can persuade him to stay within the bounds of as you say "one of few rational people that you have communicated with" all well and good.


You clearly have not appreciated the frustration that the scientifically literate feel after YEARS of trying to stop the nonsense disseminated by the REAL trolls on this site (e.g. Benni, RealityCheck, cantdrive85, Surveillance_Egg_Unit etc). Indeed, it is the effort of preventing the corruption of people such as yourself that motivates Captain Stumpy. So, even if you do not like his language, for your own sake, you should still be listening to him and applauding him for his efforts.
hat1208
4 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@cantdrive85

it's plasma physics known since Langmuir in the '20's.

Have there been no progress in plasma physics since the 20's?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP
Thanks

just for the record, I don't have a problem discussing science even with the pseudoscience or religious type people here (science being the keyword)

Zeph is a great example of a long-term advocate for a known debunked belief, yet I can discuss things with him in various areas when he uses evidence and science (example: https://phys.org/...ire.html )

that type of interaction opens up the doors to the cognitive abilities of the person posting

however, if someone is incapable of validating a claim, makes unsubstantiated conjectures and wields them as fact, and then blatantly lies about the entire interaction (rc, gran, andrew, eggy, benji, et al) then...
IwinUlose
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2018
seems like these could be the result of a couple dim brown dwarfs colliding.


I was wondering something along the same lines. The linked paper, I think, states there is a variable X-Ray emitter where we see the flare. Since it doesn't fit with star or compact object I was wondering if a star or compact object has a failed star grazing it on an elliptical orbit or had a one time close encounter with a failed start that's getting flung around the cluster.
RNP
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
No need for thanks, nor any explanations of your position. You are one of the few remaining voices of reason still posting here. Most of the others have given up in disgust, much as I am tempted to do.

However, you might consider moderating your understandable frustration (as I have found I have had to), in order to not be confused with the very trolls you are trying to repudiate.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP
However, you might consider moderating your understandable frustration
thanks. Some of it is absolutely necessary in order to gain insight, unfortunately
No need for ... any explanations of your position
It's never been a secret, though, not since I started
and that is astounding when you consider the implications, isn't it?

I have, however, repeatedly appealed to the site to moderate, including presenting a plan that would be the least costly (changing permissions in certain profiles) while being the most effective (those profiles are known professionals in their field, like Q-Star, A_P et al). I even gave them the means to moderate the moderators

the only conclusion I can think of that makes any sense is that the trolls are financially important to the site and moderation would deplete the site ability to make $
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
the only conclusion I can think of that makes any sense is that the trolls are financially important to the site and moderation would deplete the site ability to make $


Sadly, I think you are right. Which makes me wonder whether or not I am complicit in the dissemination of pseudoscience.

It is a disturbing thought, and part of the reason I'm thinking of binning this site.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP
no, you're not complicit as you take time, a precious resource, to fight against ignorance, pseudoscience and religious delusion

maybe there are options to help fix the site?

it will take unification on the part of the science literate - something not always possible IMHO as most just ignore everything after the article and links

RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
maybe there are options to help fix the site?


OK. phys.org will not help. But there are other rational beings out there. You can see it from the voting. Unfortunately, I believe most of them are those that have left in disgust as I mentioned above.

Could we reach out to them for support?

Come on, guys/gals, you know who you are!

cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
Have there been no progress in plasma physics since the 20's?

Tremendous progress, but that in no way changes the fundamental aspects of the science. Problem is, astrophysicists don't rely on the well established experimentally based physics of real plasmas. They still rely on the hypothetical "ideal ionized gases" which only exist in maths equations.
hat1208
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@cantdrive85

but that in no way changes the fundamental aspects of the science.

Do you mean like, "static state" or "aether" that was all the rage in the 20's. Some fundamental aspects that were accepted as, dare I say it, "gospel" are now known to be untrue.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@cantdrive85
Problem is, astrophysicists don't rely on the well established experimentally based physics of real plasmas. They still rely on the hypothetical "ideal ionized gases" which only exist in maths equations.


OK. Prove it. Give us an example where you can show that astrophysicists have misunderstood the plasma physics and explain why.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
Thank you for taking your time on this issue RNP
granville583762> RNP only a Troll goes into disseminating attacks and using personal expletives

RNP> You clearly have not appreciated the frustration that the scientifically literate feel after YEARS of trying to stop the nonsense disseminated by the REAL trolls on this site (e.g. Benni, RealityCheck, cantdrive85, Surveillance_Egg_Unit etc). Indeed, it is the effort of preventing the corruption of people such as yourself that motivates Captain Stumpy. So, even if you do not like his language, for your own sake, you should still be listening to him and applauding him for his efforts.

As you said we might not like everyone one this site RNP, It also follows we might not like the intellectual view point of phys.org commenter's RNP. It is not for phys.org commenter's to decide the scientific view point, point out scientific error by all means; but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@granville583762
As you said we might not like everyone one this site RNP, It also follows we might not like the intellectual view point of phys.org commenter's RNP. It is not for phys.org commenter's to decide the scientific view point, point out scientific error by all means; but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP.


I acknowledge that you have the right to choose to promote pseudoscience over real science. Just know that, if you choose to do so, you will become another of the trolls that the real scientists here will despise.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP
Could we reach out to them for support?

Come on, guys/gals, you know who you are!
if anyone wishes they can hit me up on Sciforums.com or physicsforums.com (truck captain stumpy for both sites)

we can build something better together

hat1208
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP @Cap'n

Keep up the good work! And thanks.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2018
Thank you for realising you're a phys.org commentator RNP
granville583762> As you said we might not like everyone one this site RNP, It also follows we might not like the intellectual view point of phys.org commenter's RNP.

RNP> I acknowledge that you have the right to choose to promote pseudoscience over real science. Just know that, if you choose do do so, you will become another of the trolls that the real scientists here will despise.

It is not for phys.org commenter's to decide the scientific view point, point out scientific error by all means; but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP – So far you are following the rules of not using disseminating attacks and using personal expletives RNP.
Whoever promotes pseudoscience, please feel free to be critical, but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@granville583762
I am sorry, but you do not seem to have even begun to understand the issues. Your contributions are worthless. Perhaps you should try to learn some science, so that your posts could be more relevant.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
Please feel free to be critical, but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@granville583762
Again, you seem unaware of the YEARS that some people have been fighting the pseudoscience presented by some people on this site.

Do you have no respect for people that challenge such nonsense?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
@gran
Please feel free to be critical, but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP
ok, so... here is the problem
if we're critical of something you say, like say, your ability to communicate clearly (etc), you take umbrage ( https://phys.org/...ics.html )

if we discuss science, you attack the source (like Antialias)
whereas it's ok to question the source, you never once actually presented a technical or scientific argument to refute Antialias - you ASSumed benji did it because she claimed she did
(unscientific - see link)

if we talk facts, and its proven in black and white you blatantly lie or misrepresent what is stated (see link above)

plus, you support pseudoscience and known trolls and you have known socks

that is, by definition, trolling (and a few other things)

so, honest question here:
why should you get special dispensation when you can't provide what you demand of others?
691Boat
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
there is no specific term "astromagnetosphere" - it's not in any astrophysics manual or lexicon anywhere,
So in your view, @cantdrive's CRIME is that HE COINED a shorter term for saying "magnetosphere of a star"? Are you JEALOUS you, or your 'stumpy-approved' ASTROphysicists, didn't think of coining that term first? Get some perspective

@RC: so.....per your and CD85's definition of the new "astromagnetosphere" word, are you implying that astrophysicists only study stars? seems you missed the point.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
@691Boat
are you implying that astrophysicists only study stars? seems you missed the point.
totally missed it

get ready for a multi-post tirade defending his comments and actions while ignoring the point too

or tangentially referring to it while never actually addressing it and then "saying" he set you straight like his conversations with DaS, A_P and others

LOL

I could go on, but...
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
I acknowledge that you have the right to choose to promote pseudoscience over real science.

DNP not only acknowledges this right, but also use his right to promote the dark pseudosciences he is so eager to support.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
For the greater good of science
RNP> @granville583762
Again, you seem unaware of the YEARS that some people have been fighting the pseudoscience presented by some people on this site.
Do you have no respect for people that challenge such nonsense?

When the pseudoscience disseminating attacks descend in an arbitrary fashion they have lost their direction RNP, as my presence here requesting - Please feel free to be critical, but not in a way that can only be described as a Troll RNP

If you are truly doing this for the greater good of science, why is my presence here RNP?
hat1208
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
@granville583762

If you are truly doing this for the greater good of science why is my presence here RNP?

Huh?

BTW that username looks nothing like one that would be generated by the site.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
OK. Prove it. Give us an example where you can show that astrophysicists have misunderstood the plasma physics and explain why.

Alfvén described this in his Nobel lecture, it's old news and has been pointed out numerous times. The clearest evidence there is a difference in the application of real plasma physics and the fanciful 'ideal ionized gases' of astrophysicists is the existence of Plasma Cosmology. Alfvén's PC describes plasma physics properly, standard astrophysics does not.
hat1208
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@cantdrive85

I don't see how this is an answer to the question that RNP asked. A lecture for the Nobel is not science.
434a
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
Hi Cap
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 14, 2018
@434a
Hi Cap
site is down (under maintenance) so I can't read the conversation except what is blurbed, but I got an e-mail notification

your idea has merit and perhaps you should share that as noted
perhaps social media can be helpful in this instance

.

@hat
BTW that username looks nothing like one that would be generated by the site
but it looks oddly similar to certain others, though

I wonder if you would be up to some research?
check out alexander2468 and do a linguistic comparison to ol' gran; tell me what you think
I have others I'm checking out now too, like eggy

I noticed ol' gran thinks we're all psychic here, asking RNP "why is my presence here"... LOL

I shook my magic 8-ball and it said "try again later", which is as good an answer as any given by gran
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
@691Boat.
so...per your and CD85's definition of the new "astromagnetosphere" word, are you implying that astrophysicists only study stars? seems you missed the point.
All languages have terms which depends on context for specific usage in a particular discussion. The astrophysicist term evolved from the historical astronomer term (one who studied the 'asters'; from Greek meaning 'stars'). It evolved further to include other 'celstial bodies' as well, since no-one knew what the stars actually were (even the planetary celestial bodies, or 'planetas', were just pinpricks of light, same as the stars, to Greek astronomers). So, now you know the background, and having regard to 'usages in context' for many terms, you can appreciate, as I did, that @cantdrive's coining/usage of 'astromagnetosphere' having regard to specific context was valid, reasonable and clearly meant exactly what it implied in that context.

Coining/Contextual usage is not 'new thing', mate. Cheers. :)
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2018
I don't see how this is an answer to the question that RNP asked.

Sometimes a historical perspective is required to understand an argument. This is an excerpt from his lecture;

"Before we concentrate on our main topic: how the solar system originated, we should make a brief summary of the state of plasma physics. As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one (PC POV) was the hundred years old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists looked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations and double-layers, the electron distribution was non-Maxwellian, there were all sorts of oscillations and instabilities. In short, it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories..."

TBC..
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP.
@granville583762
Again, you seem unaware of the YEARS that some people have been fighting the pseudoscience presented by some people on this site.
The problems arise when these "some people" you allude to show lack of discernment/objectivity as to what is correct/incorrect, or who is/is not actually a troll; and so proceed to blithely apply their own personal biases/misunderstandings/ignorance to DEMONSTRABLY MISTAKENLY 'label' things/posters as 'pseudoscience' or 'troll'....and moreover abuse the ratings system as a way of 'punishing', harassing etc posters they do not personally approve of; even when a poster is correct on the science/logics, and objective, fair and impartial in observations and comments on the substantive issues raised in discussions!

Sure, RNP, your intentions may be as you/gang overtly state, but the flaw is in the actions/methods used to implement your 'worthy' crusade. The road to a self-made 'hell' is paved with good intentions.

Rethink.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2018
CONT...

"...The other approach (Standard theory) came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that with a limited amount of work this field could be extended to include also ionized gases. The theories were mathematically elegant and when drawing the consequences of them it was found that it should be possible to produce a very hot plasma and confine it magnetically. This was the starting point of thermonuclear research. However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years ago. It taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments...."

TBC...
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 14, 2018
CONT...

"...The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come. I think it is evident now that in certain respects the second approach to the
physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back..."

The maths based MHD models of the plasma ignoramuses is a dead end street we will have to backtrack down.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2018
@RNP.
@Captain Stumpy
....
However, you might consider moderating your understandable frustration (as I have found I have had to), in order to not be confused with the very trolls you are trying to repudiate.
I have been trying to get CS make a fresh start for years now, with calmness and objectivity as highest priority, so that he wouldn't keep coming across as yet another a vicious troll on the net; but he just redoubled his campaign of insults and mistaken attacks. I hope he takes your advice now, for his own sake and for the sake of science and humanity discourse. It's heartening to see that you, at least, are not the 'vicious' type; and are reasonable and honest enough to have also seen the need for such advice as mine/yours to CS (for his own good, if nothing else). Kudos for that, RNP. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
I have been trying to get CS make a fresh start for years now
you've also promised to save us all from AGW: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

you've stated you were writing a ToE that was a "non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics" earthlingclub.com

and you don't believe in zero http://phys.org/n...ole.html

so, you've been quite the busy pseudoscience crank, but you still don't adhere to any scientific principles
mistaken attacks
unproven unsubstantiated conjecture
for his own sake
or what?
are you going to withhold your ToE?
The problems arise when these "some people" you allude to
the problem arises when idiots like you blatantly lie and can't substantiate your claims, but then just claim that you did

you're not a science advocate
you're a fraud
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
Arbitrary in its pseudoscience application
RNP> @granville583762 Again unaware of the YEARS people have been fighting the pseudoscience

RealityCheck> when people show lack of discernment what is correct is not a troll; to apply their own personal biases to DEMONSTRABLY MISTAKENLY 'label' as pseudoscience or troll Abuse the ratings system punishing posters they do not personally approve of; even when a poster is correct on science....

Implication is coincidental with impartiality, pseudoscience's no know bounds are unlimited in application by the frustration of time that does not bring any rewards, as one pseudo scientist makes their exit just as in the wild that vacant seat is taken by another pseudo scientist that it becomes a mole whacking sport of epic proportions that by its implication inadvertently descends into arbitrary in its pseudoscience application
A fruitless unrewarding endeavour that in its darkest hours is pointless as is space and time
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
Captain Stupid your worship of authority and willful ignorance of history leaves you blind to your hypocrisy. Must be great to believe in the non-falsifiable. Modern Cosmology and its Mathamagic, faith is the bedrock of modern science fiction.
hat1208
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@cantdrive85

Alfven:
It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back..."

Several important cases not the entire approach. Also what were the several important cases?
It seems you are taking Alfven's words as your own and then misrepresenting them.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience electric cult acolyte
your worship of authority
you're still illiterate, then?
1- there is no person or persons of authority in science
2- only the evidence is king, and only when validated
3- if you had evidence that could be presented that debunked MS Theory you wouldn't be posting to a news aggregate comment section in the hopes of finding collusion for your delusional beliefs
Must be great to believe in the non-falsifiable
there is nothing in MS science that is non-falsifiable
that is reserved for pseudoscience

in point of fact, pseudoscience *literally* ignores evidence that falsifies their belief simply because they don't want to give up their delusion

you know, like you do
Modern Cosmology and its Mathamagic, faith
you have the same ability as anyone else to present evidence to a journal

the fact that you can't speak volumes about your argument
691Boat
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@RealityCheck:
Your argument of astromagnetosphere being valid based on the old origin of astro doesn't matter. You should recognize that current terms often differ from the origin. If we still took origin words literally, then the "atom bomb" is a true oxymoron. It would translate to 'an indivisible bomb' that we know works through the process of splitting atoms.
-What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a planet?
-What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a black hole?
-A pulsar?
-etc etc etc
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@gran/alex et al TROLL
A fruitless unrewarding endeavour that in its darkest hours is pointless as is space and time
that's where you're wrong

Science always prefers debate with evidence
opposition is the backbone of science, and more importantly, competition drives it to heights

however - there is a requirement that all people abide by a set of basic principles
https://en.wikipe...c_method

this allows for the advancement of knowledge through a reality-based argument from evidence rather than an argument from belief, which is religion

this is why pseudoscience is repulsive and leads to ignorance (or stupidity when people cling to it regardless of the evidence proving it wrong)
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

educating the ignorant is important, hence RNP, 691Boat, hat, Thermo, et al presenting here is a good thing

what is bad is the idiot trolls like you, cd, rc et al obfuscating with stupidity with the site advocacy
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2018
Cantthink says:
Sometimes a historical perspective is required to understand an argument. This is an excerpt from his lecture;


And then calls on Alfven, from nearly 50 years ago, as back up to a totally unscientific bunch of crap, that Alfven would have had no truck with.
If you, or any of the other scientifically illiterate EU loons have got a real hypothesis, let's see it in print. And I don't mean here, or on some crank mythology site. The fact is that EU don't have anybody capable of coming up with such hypotheses, because none of them are sufficiently qualified. Which is why they believe this Veliokovskian garbage in the first place.

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a planet?

You guys truly are jackasses!
What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a black hole?

Unicornholiomagnetosphere... Fictional name for a fictional object.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a planet?

You guys truly are jackasses!
What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a black hole?

Unicornholiomagnetosphere... Fictional name for a fictional object.


You felt it important to specify the 'type' of magnetosphere surrounding a star, so why not other celestial bodies? Is their magnetic field and the effects from it somehow different because they are or are not from a star?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@691Boat.
@RealityCheck:
Your argument of astromagnetosphere being valid based on the old origin of astro doesn't matter. You should recognize that current terms often differ from the origin. If we still took origin words literally, then the "atom bomb" is a true oxymoron. It would translate to 'an indivisible bomb' that we know works through the process of splitting atoms.
Who said "take it literally"? Not me!

I pointed out that 'present' CONTEXT dictates meanings implied. Please don't manufacture any more 'strawmen'. :)
-What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a planet?
-What is the EU term for a magnetosphere surrounding a black hole?
-A pulsar?
-etc etc etc
How many times do I have to say it: I have NOTHING to do with EU/PC? I am scrupulously independent objective LONE scientist/observer. OK? Good.

Anyhow, the magnetosphere of a planet: "PLANETOmagnetosphere". Of Earth: "GEOmagnetosphere. Etc.

Please stick to science not trivial semantics. :)
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2018
@Forum.

You will note the usual diversionary/trolling/cluttering tactics by the usual "some people" to bury the actual science points raised; and instead once again, go the personal insults and trivial strawmen route. Is it any wonder science/scientists get a bad rep when such "some people" pretend they are 'pretending' scientific objectivity and fair play while they ego-trip and troll like that to divert from actual science discussion of the pints raised? Sad.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
The rats in the sack
Since I coined the phrase OBFUSCATION as jonesdave can testify; being he is the master of Obfuscation. I am grateful to you all in paying homage to myself in that respect, that some of my phrases are taking affect as you unconsciously absorb my unique insights.
Or you can dispute my recent observation of fellow commentators copying my particular use of phrases like the proverbial rats in the sack!
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
First impressions are the one that always count RealityCheck
RealityCheck> @Forum.
You will note the usual diversionary/trolling/cluttering tactics by the usual "some people" to bury the actual science points raised; and instead once again, go the personal insults and trivial strawmen route. Is it any wonder science/scientists get a bad rep when such "some people" pretend they are 'pretending' scientific objectivity and fair play while they ego-trip and troll like that to divert from actual science discussion of the pints raised? Sad.

First impressions are always correct, on first walking through the door the first thing that struck me was the Five Star Club, members only have type an exclamation mark to be showered by those glittering 5 Stars
I thing that about sums this up, do you not think RealityCheck
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@691Boat.
[@cantdrive85] You felt it important to specify the 'type' of magnetosphere surrounding a star, so why not other celestial bodies? Is their magnetic field and the effects from it somehow different because they are or are not from a star?
Finally you ask @cantdrive a pertinent question. Kudos, 691Boat! :)

And I suggest that the answer might be that two 'close' stars likely exchanging 'coronal-mass-ejection' and 'stellar wind' charged material must have respective astromagnetoshere dynamics VASTLY different from those of Earth's geomagnetosphere (or from any planetomagnetospheres of any ordinary planet generally).

Anyhow, now that you asked a pertinent question of @cantdrive, perhaps he will (hopefully politely) respond in whatever detail he wishes to add to your discussion (a discussion which I hope will now leave behind any personal antipathies/rancor/insults etc).

Enjoy your discussion, good luck and good learning, all. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Everything is good here, thanks for asking.

How many times do I have to say it:


I don't know how many times you are going to say it, but considering you have been saying the exact same ol stuffs for 12 or 10 years now you must be doing a really bad job of saying it. So far you have found about zero peoples that understand it the way you are saying it. And knowing you from personal experience like I know you really good,,, I suspect me that you will still be saying the exact same ol stuffs 12 or 10 years from now.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I thought you was going to put all this foolishment in a book about toes and everything so you would not have to litter up the physorg saying it over and over and over one more time being disrespectful to the scientists and humans. When you are going to be finished with him?
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
Complements for those glittering 5 Stars
The rats in the sack
Since I coined the phrase OBFUSCATION as jonesdave can testify; being he is the master of Obfuscation. I am grateful to you all in paying homage to myself in that respect, that some of my phrases are taking affect as you unconsciously absorb my unique insights.
Or you can dispute my recent observation of fellow commentators copying my particular use of phrases like the proverbial rats in the sack!

Thank you - I know, fortunately its a consequence of responding to fellow comentators, are phrases rub of one another to the benefit of the forum as a whole!
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
I don't know how many times you are going to say it, but considering you have been saying the exact same ol stuffs for 12 or 10 years now you must be doing a really bad job of saying it. So far you have found about zero peoples that understand it the way you are saying it.
If generations of 'professional' scientists and philosophers (much better intellectually equipped than you and certain others here for contemplating such wide scope and deeply complex matters) has for centuries failed to work out the complete theory and understanding of the nature and workings of the universal physical reality, then the opinion of a self-admitted bot-voting ignoramus called "Uncle Ira" is hardly a basis on which to judge what someone else may or may not have understood from my observations/comments. :)
Oh yeah, I almost forget. ..When you are going to be finished with him {ToE book]?
When I finish the reality-axiomatic-based construction of the appropriate maths. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2018
@idiot pseudoscience sam
@Uncle Ira...
When I finish the reality-axiomatic-based construction of the appropriate maths
so... why the sudden change of heart and addition of Maths?
you specifically stated for years that you had
a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics
- earthlingclub.com

7,919 posts and still nothing

PS - just a reminder
s.134.2(1)
s.135.1(1)
s.135.1(3)
https://www.legis...15C00507

Penalties
The maximum penalty for:
- an offence against section 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code is 10 years' imprisonment
- offences against sections 135.1(1), 135.1(3) and 135.1(5) of the Criminal Code is 5 years' imprisonment.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
"Uncle Ira" is hardly a basis on which to judge what someone else may or may not have understood from my observations/comments.


Well it is not like I am pretending to genius like you are pretending to be. Any couyon who has been watching you be told you are a couyon by everybody can tell that nobody has ever told you on the physorg that they understood the foolishment you try to pass off as "observations/comments/aximomal-biased blahs". (With or without the really biased astromatic math blahs you want us to think you are working on.)

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot pseudoscience sam
@Uncle Ira...
When I finish the reality-axiomatic-based construction of the appropriate maths
so... why the sudden change of heart and addition of Maths?
you specifically stated for years that you had
a new theory of everything providing the only real, complete and non-mathematical perspective on the Universe's nature, origin, structure and mechanics
Mate, that was from an in-house publication in 2001!....when I first put together in one book the CONCEPTUAL construct! Since then I tried to use existing maths, but they all failed to properly treat the real things, because existing maths was constructed from axioms based on abstract/unreal/metaphysical concepts rather than reality based concepts. Hence my work (first mentioned in my posts in 2014!) to identify reality-based axioms from which to construct the maths more able to model the conceptual reality already earlier described. Not "sudden" at all. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
PS @Captain Stumpy. What on earth does your quote/link to legislation have to do with science discussion? Are you still trying to insinuate (falsely) unspecified things about me? If so, Do I have the same right to insinuate (falsely) unspecified things about you in similar manner? Please stop with the unscientific and ungentlemanly conduct, CS. Stick to the science/logics discourse on substantive scientific matters; handle your personal demons in private. Thanks.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
Well it is not like I am pretending to genius like you are pretending to be. Any couyon who has been watching you be told you are a couyon by everybody can tell that nobody has ever told you on the physorg that they understood the foolishment you try to pass off as "observations/comments/aximomal-biased blahs". (With or without the really biased astromatic math blahs you want us to think you are working on.)
A 'genius' you certainly aren't. You obviously can't understand what is meant when I pointed out to you that the opinion of a self-admitted bot-voting ignoramus called "Uncle Ira" is hardly a basis on which to judge what someone else may or may not have understood from my observations/comments. And you associating yourself with the other 'non-geniuses' you 'run with' here, only highlights more dazzlingly that "some people" are more gang-like than genius-like in mentality. Stop digging about in your 'self-made bot-voting-ignoramus' hole , Ira. :)

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2018
You obviously can't understand what is meant when I pointed out to you that the opinion of a self-admitted bot-voting ignoramus called "Uncle Ira" is hardly a basis on which to judge what someone else may or may not have understood from my observations/comments.


Well Skippy that would be a really good theory you got going there,,, except for two little bitty problems. It is not me trying to judge your foolishment. Eh? It's all of the 100% of all the thousands and thousands of people you ever ran into on the interweb. After 12 or 10 years you would think you could find at least one person who said they understand you. But that person just doesn't exist.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. The other little bitty problem with your ignorant Ira-Skippy theory? Cher I would worry if you actually did think I was a genius. (If you ever did agree with me, I would have to run down to the library to try to figure out where I went wrong.)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
It is not me trying to judge your foolishment. Eh? It's all of the 100% of all the thousands and thousands of people you ever ran into on the interweb.
I only ever posted at 4 sites (old physorg/physforum; here at this new physorg; saposjoint; and Sciforums), and only to make occasional indicated observations/suggestions etc on the science/logics issues/points being discussed at the time. It is others who have tried to make it about me rather than about the science; in many cases colluding, trolling, framing me etc in order to get me banned (this was admitted by some of the perpetrators, and some were eventually banned or left, and I was vindicated thereby. So Ira, if you must tell porkies, at least make them plausible (which will be hard given the recorded facts).

Anyhow, Ira, your closing paragraph expressing concern that anyone might mistake you for a 'genius' is lol-worthy. Thanks for eliciting a giggle at this end. :)

Good luck anyway, mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
that was from an in-house publication in 2001
except it's not considered "in-house" if it's public access information, you f*cking illiterate moron https://www.merri...in-house

What on earth does your quote/link to legislation have to do with science discussion?
as it's public access, per AUS law, you will be liable for any accidents if people use your "CONCEPTUAL construct" in an attempt to replicate your work or create something using your idiotic pseudoscience given there are no disclaimers

it is also called fraud
Do I have the same right to insinuate (falsely) unspecified things about you in similar manner?
considering you are a proven liar and that you've already falsely insinuated or specified BS about me and others here...?

PS - the maths didn't work because you're an idiot and incompetent
just sayin'
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Now you ignore @RNP's advice to you as well; how ungrateful on your part. Sad.
it's not considered "in-house" if it's public access information, you f*cking illiterate moron
It was INITIALLY in-house and LATER made public. Do you also demand 'spoonfeeding' at home, CS? :)
as it's public access, per AUS law, you will be liable for any accidents if people use your "CONCEPTUAL construct"...
Now you're being silly (or more accurately: sillier-than-usual). Since when did conceptual theories in cosmology require such legal disclaimers, CS? :)
considering you are a proven liar and that you've already falsely insinuated or specified BS about me and others here...
You're the one become notorious for rabidly insulting, stalking, lying about people on the net, CS. And your continuing 'sprays' aren't helping you.
the maths didn't work because...
---a science/maths ignoramus's opinion! :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
how ungrateful on your part
ungrateful would be exactly what you are, considering I have been warning you about AUS law
It was INITIALLY in-house and LATER made public
are you retarded?
you stated it was in-house when it's clearly public access - I didn't make it up, you did and I quoted you, moron
Since when did conceptual theories in cosmology require such legal disclaimers
1- you're not affiliated with any school
2- you're not a scientist, theoretical physicist, nor a cosmologist
3- you're presenting known fallacious data as being scientifically accurate, per your own words on the page (and elsewhere)
4- science requires adherence to principle's which you cannot claim on your page as there are no peer-reviewed journal studies, nor is there experiments, testing or validation, etc

ignorance of the law is no excuse, not even in Oz
a science/maths ignoramus's opinion
we already have your opinion
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
ungrateful would be exactly what you are, considering I have been warning you about AUS law
You delude yourself people should be 'grateful' for totally gratuitous, irrelevant reminders of laws having no bearing on the science? That's 'far out', even for you, CS!
you stated it was in-house when it's clearly public access...
And I 'spoonfed' you the 'timeline' regarding progress of same from in-house to public. Are you this 'needy' and obtuse at home, CS?
Since when did conceptual theories in cosmology require such legal disclaimers
ignorance of the law is no excuse
Yet more irrelevant and immaterial blah blah blather from you, CS....signifying nothing. Who's wanting to be 'excused' for anything, CS? Not me. It's all in your tortured mind, CS. And your 'manic' posting/behavior, insensible/delusional 'fantasies' about your internet stalking victims etc, should be ringing alarm bells for anyone who cares about your welfare, CS. Get help.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
Continued @Captain Stumpy.
---a science/maths ignoramus's opinion
we already have your opinion
Now you're just playing with yourself, CS. Your personal bias/malice, plus your deep misunderstandings and ignorance re the actual, substantive, maths/science, is what's driving all these delusional outbursts/activities from you on the internet. For years and years you have quoted 'Dunning-Kruger' in your 'sprays'; and all the while not seeing that you yourself are 'presenting' all the symptoms, as exemplar of that syndrome; and doing so all over the net with ego-tripping pride! It's been a 'live cautionary tale' to watch, CS...full of pathos and a perfect tragedy of wasted intellect/character. Get help.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
having no bearing on the science?
it is directly relevant to the quote which is directly relevant to your comments about the science above, making it relevant to the conversation
more to the point, it's directly relevant to your willingly fraudulent claims
And I 'spoonfed' you the 'timeline'
time line is irrelevant when I took *your words* from *your source* and it's freely available to all who open the link
your site header is where the quote is from and there is no linked timeline in said header, nor is there a disclaimer
in short, it's not "in house" and not labelled as such, making your above commentary about timelines irrelevant and distraction from the point, which is that you're a fraud and it's punishable under AUS law
signifying nothing
except that you're aware of your fraud and that makes it willful and malicious fraud under AUS law

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad cont'd
Who's wanting to be 'excused' for anything, CS? Not me
thanks for this validation of your malicious and wilful intent
your internet stalking victims etc
I find it hilarious that you post garbage which is directly traceable to your web-page because you use the same exact bullshit terminology that is pseudoscience nonsense, which in turn has your f*cking street address on it, but somehow this is everyone else's fault and anyone who reads it is stalking you?
ROTFLMFAO
your deep misunderstandings and ignorance re the actual, substantive, maths/science
my understanding is why I can see that you're a liar, fraud and pseudoscience idiot
your D-K is why you can't see that
thanks for validating that one for me
a perfect tragedy of wasted intellect/character. Get help
projection
thanks for validating that one too

thanks for the admissions above
I'll forward them on
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
Really RNP – Your rational friend - Is there an age limit on this site RNP
RNP> Although you may not like his style, Captain Stumpy is one of few rational people that you have communicated with here. He is constantly calling out the nonsense posted by pseudo-scientific trolls

Your request fell on deaf ears RNP, is there an age limit in reading this site RNP?
Certainly RNP phys.org appears to write its articles respectively in regard to as soon as you are able to read a few words as a child these articles appear suitable RNP
The same cannot be said for your unmentionable friend RNP, who despite your best efforts has redoubled his efforts -If phys.org allow he might have to resort to what he retorts venting his spleen RNP.

Do you still stand by your statement RNP that your friend "is one of few rational people that you have communicated with here?".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2018
@idiot granTROLL
who despite your best efforts has redoubled his efforts -If phys.org allow he might have to resort to what he retorts venting his spleen
hypocrite

1- the site also specifically dictates that pseudoscience will be deleted, yet allows the trolls to propagate, and you to continue posting

2- labels aren't "venting [a] spleen" - they're accurate descriptors of the target

3- there is nothing above that is factually incorrect, otherwise, you would be able to prove it (hence the labelling of you and others to warn off the nooB's)

4- sock-puppets are also condemned by the site, yet it's not stopping you

I took serious consideration to RNP, however, I also have the mandate of my research
sometimes it's a fine line that must be walked

if the site were moderated as requested, you, rc and the rest would not be here and things would be far better
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
The Just Cause!
Do you still stand by your statement RNP that your friend "is one of few rational people that you have communicated with here?"

This site is moderated or has not anyone noticed only just recently,.
Obviously speaks volumes for all the so called research taking place RNP
If after all your years of hard work you have come to the conclusion the pseudo scientists are still here RNP, does not that imply RNP that your well intentioned cause has no direction it can take to continue to the next pseudo scientists as progress has not been made on the firsts, when does the realisation dawn that this is a fruitless well intentioned cause.
If your cause is truly well intentioned RNP, you only have to ask the powers that be for assistance in your just cause RNP.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@idiot granTROLL
when does the realisation dawn that this is a fruitless well intentioned cause
why debunk stupid people posting pseudoscience
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

it aint for you
it aint to teach the idiot posting the pseudoscience
it aint even for personal gain or gratification

it's to teach others how to think critically and request an evidence based argument instead of accepting idiot proposals or nonsensical pseudoscience like your posts as legitimate
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

Your unfortunate posts to me above are not helping you. Your friends are really worried about you now. Your twisting of recorded facts and omitting context to fit your personal delusions born of ignorance, bias, malice and hypocrisy and self-serving ego does no good for anyone, least of all for yourself, science, humanity. If you won't seek professional help at least take your friend @RNP's advice and chill. Take a long break from the internet and recover and then return to make a fresh start. You will be welcomed back with respect and courtesy as befits someone making a fresh start; with all past unpleasantnesses forgiven and forgot from my end).

Good luck from your sincere friend in science and humanity-----RealityCheck.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Your twisting of recorded facts and omitting context to fit
projection
personal delusions born of ignorance, bias, malice and hypocrisy and self-serving ego
projection
Take a long break from the internet
wishful thinking - you only want this because I've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're a fraud and liar
You will be welcomed back with respect and courtesy as befits someone making a fresh start; with all past unpleasantnesses forgiven and forgot from my end
how "magnanimous" [sarc]
Good luck from your sincere friend
you've demonstrated you're not capable of being a "friend" to anyone unless they give you money and agree with your delusional writings and or statements

so where is the 4 fatal flaws you claimed to have seen?
7,920 posts and still nothing

that makes all of the above psychopathy
http://www.minddi...ist.html
yep
1 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2018
Captain Stupid whenever you rant it reminds me of the quote "We see things not as they are, but we are".
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2018
The Just Cause!

Do you still stand by your statement RNP that your friend "is one of few rational people that you have communicated with here?"
Your unmentionable friend RNP> if the site were moderated as requested, you, rc and the rest would not be here and things would be far better

RNP concerning your unmentionables friend rational logic taking to its logical conclusion would if implemented in its fullest extent would lead to this vibrant and diverse commentary forum so kindly provided by phys.org descending into secular insular singularity of commentary of such diminishing proportions its validity as a forum would result in you staring at your unmentionable friend in singular admiration in its totality!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2018
@yep,you're an idiot
whenever you rant it reminds me of the quote...
whenever you post it reminds me of the old adage "ya can't fix stupid, but you can muffle it with duct tape"
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Even your best friend(s) can tell that mode of address isn't the speech/behavior of a sane person. Get help.
Your twisting of recorded facts and omitting context to fit
projection
You're in denial. Get help.
personal delusions born of ignorance, bias, malice and hypocrisy and self-serving ego
projection
You're in denial. Get help.
Take a long break
you only want this because I've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you're a fraud and liar
You're lying to yourself. Get help.
You will be welcomed back ..... past unpleasantnesses forgiven and forgot from my end
how "magnanimous"[sarc]
No, just humane. Get help.
Good luck from your sincere friend
you've demonstrated you're not capable of being a "friend" to anyone unless they give you money and agree
Unlike you, I can be a friend while still disagreeing with you; ergo my advice: get help.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Even your best friend(s) can tell
projection
my best friend doesn't come here because he dislikes you
You're in denial
projection
You're lying to yourself
projection
Get help
plea for personal assistance - it's better if you call for your own help though because I'm too far away until next year
No, just humane
dunning-kruger and psychopathy
Unlike you, I can be a friend while still disagreeing with you
not true at all: I disagree with a lot of people on topics, including Antialias_physorg (our views on the Military, politics)

the difference is: he provides evidence, logic, respect for science
I can return that in kind (just ask)

you do none of that - and you regularly crap all over science, plus, you can't provide evidence for most of your claims

You can't respect science and you produce fraudulent pseudoscience
that deserves no respect when you troll a science site with it repeatedly
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

Your further posts are now just more evidence you're in denial and lying to yourself. Stop digging. Take a break. Get help.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2018
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Your further posts are now just more evidence you're in denial and lying to yourself
projection and attempted psychopathic distraction from the fact that you've now made 7,926 posts and still can't produce evidence for your claims

considering the site has deleted thousands of your posts, you should be able to produce that evidence

except that we know it doesn't exist

Stop digging
Take a break
Get help
learn to read

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

Your friends are really getting worried for you now. Your self-serving stalking/lying campaign is reaching manic level; as is the rabid manner in which you address your posts. Not healthy. Seriously, get help CS.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Your friends are really getting worried for you now
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
Your self-serving stalking/lying campaign is reaching manic level
projection
as is the rabid manner in which you address your posts
projection
Not healthy. Seriously, get help CS
plea for help and psychopathic manipulation

if you need help, and it's an emergency, call - 000
mental health 24-hour access line for you - 1800 011 511
or
call the Culburra community health centre at - (02) 4447 4390
they're right up the road from you, so it's close to home
need the address too?

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

@Captain Stumpy.

Your friends are really getting worried for you now. Your self-serving stalking/lying campaign is reaching manic level; as is the rabid manner in which you address your posts.


Cher, it is your friends (all of me) that is getting worried. Have you seen the picture of Captain-Skippy on his profile member place? I would hate for somebody that looks like that to get his paws on you. Maybe you should quit poking him before you make him really mad with you, eh?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot earthling club pseudoscience cult crank f*ckwad
Still rabid, I see. Not good, CS. Get help now, CS.
Your friends are really getting worried for you now, CS
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
I've been saying that to you for years now, CS. Take heed. Get help now, CS
Your self-serving stalking/lying campaign is reaching manic level, as is the rabid manner in which you address your posts. Not healthy. Seriously, get help, CS
projection. plea for help and psychopathic manipulation...
You're in denial, CS. Get help now, CS. And for proof of your manic stalking, CS, the @forum need only read the closing part of your post, ie:
call the Culburra community health centre at - (02) 4447 4390
they're right up the road from you, so it's close to home
need the address too?
I don't live in Culburra anymore, CS; so you're stalking whoever lives there now. You're a dangerous internet 'unfortunate', CS. Seek help now, CS. Good luck.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
@Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I'm fine and dandy, thanks for asking.
@Captain Stumpy.
Your friends are really getting worried for you now. Your self-serving stalking/lying campaign is reaching manic level; as is the rabid manner in which you address your posts.
Cher....Have you seen the picture of Captain[Stumpy]-Skippy on his profile member place? I would hate for somebody that looks like that to get his paws on you. Maybe you should quit poking him before you make him really mad with you, eh?
Too late, Ira. If his years of manic, self-serving stalking/lying campaign and rabid manner of addressing his posts is any guide, CS demonstrably passed "mad" long ago. And you're not the only person that has noticed his postings on the net showing propensity for stalking and threatening behavior. Which is why he urgently needs to take @RNP's/my advice to take a break and chill. And if that doesn't work, CS should seek help without further delay. Sad.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2018
And you're not the only person that has noticed his postings on the net showing propensity for stalking and threatening behavior.


Grab that mule's halter Skippy. How about you let me tell you about the things I notice, eh? I know a whole lot more about that than you ever will not know. If you are going to tell lies leave me out of them.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
And you're not the only person that has noticed his postings on the net showing propensity for stalking and threatening behavior.


Grab that mule's halter Skippy. How about you let me tell you about the things I notice, eh? I know a whole lot more about that than you ever will not know. If you are going to tell lies leave me out of them.
Since when did you get so precious about associating yourself with liars, Ira? You've been 'high-five-ing' CS's lying (and worse) posts for years now. Maybe you might learn to tell who it is that is the liar, Ira....and then stop high-five-ing them like they're your butt-buddies, hey Cher? :)

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.