Possible explanation for excess of electron neutrinos detected by IceCube Neutrino Observatory

October 2, 2018 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report
The IceCube Neutrino Observatory at NSF's Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. Credit: Mike Lucibella, National Science Foundation

A pair of researchers with the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark has come up with a possible explanation for the excess of electron neutrinos detected by researchers at the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, Peter Denton and Irene Tamborra describe their ideas and how they arrived at them.

The IceCube Neutrino Observatory is located on and below the ice in Antarctica—unlike other observatories, it is pointed downwards. This allows for detecting after they have passed all the way through the Earth. This approach means that the Earth can be used to filter out unwanted noise. It also provides a way to track the behavior of the particles after they pass through the planet or after they have collided with other particles. In this new effort, the researchers have offered a possible explanation for an anomaly detected at the observatory.

Neutrinos at the observatory are studied in two different ways. In the first, researchers study the tracks they make as they move through a detector. In the second, they study particles that cause light to be emitted when they smash into ice particles. Scientists studying the neutrinos have found an apparent anomaly, one that is in need of an explanation. The anomaly involves the ratio of neutrino types that are detected at the observatory. Prior research has found that there are three kinds of neutrinos—electron, muon and tau—and that they should be found in equal numbers. But the detector consistently detects many more electron neutrinos than the other two types. Denton and Tamborra suggest this discrepancy can be explained by tau and decaying into a different particle called a majoron. And this is where it gets truly interesting because majorons are a proposed dark matter particle.

Majorons have been proposed as a that could allow a neutrino to have mass. If so, that would help explain experiments that have shown that actually do have mass. If it can be shown that muon and decay to them, that would not only explain the anomaly, but it would also offer more credence to theories surrounding dark matter.

Explore further: Two teams estimate the flavor of neutrinos detected by The IceCube Neutrino Observatory

More information: Peter B. Denton et al. Invisible Neutrino Decay Could Resolve IceCube's Track and Cascade Tension, Physical Review Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.121802 , On Arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05950

Related Stories

New results confirm standard neutrino theory

February 16, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In its search for a better understanding of the mysterious neutrinos, a group of experimenters at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has announced results that confirm the theory of neutrino oscillations ...

Mysterious IceCube event may be caused by a tau neutrino

June 19, 2018

Eight years ago, the IceCube detector, a research center located at the South Pole to detect neutrinos emanating from the cosmos, was commissioned. Three years later, it began to register the first momentous results. The ...

Recommended for you

Researchers study interactions in molecules using AI

October 19, 2018

Researchers from the University of Luxembourg, Technische Universität Berlin, and the Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society have combined machine learning and quantum mechanics to predict the dynamics and atomic ...

Pushing the extra cold frontiers of superconducting science

October 18, 2018

Measuring the properties of superconducting materials in magnetic fields at close to absolute zero temperatures is difficult, but necessary to understand their quantum properties. How cold? Lower than 0.05 Kelvin (-272°C).

The big problem of small data: A new approach

October 18, 2018

Big Data is all the rage today, but Small Data matters too! Drawing reliable conclusions from small datasets, like those from clinical trials for rare diseases or in studies of endangered species, remains one of the trickiest ...

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rrwillsj
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2018
This evidence was difficult enough to find. Now it needs tto be confirmed and verified from multiple and repetitious research.

The next big step forward in order to finally rename the crappy designation of "Dark Matter"? Will be to describe and confirm the mechanism (maybe there's more than one way?) that at the Big Bang or soon after, produced so much DM?

Perhaps Dark Energy is the excessive remainder of the forces that processed such a quantity of tau & muon neutrino's into majorons?

Oh, this is going to be so much fun!
Parsec
not rated yet Oct 02, 2018
Is it possible for a particle to decay into a heavier one? I didn't believe that was possible, as decay always proceeds from higher energy/mass to a lower one. In which case, the neutrinos themselves would be better candidates as dark matter particles.

But my previous understanding is that the total estimated mass of the universe's neutrinos cannot account for this mass... so how could a decay particle be considered a candidate?

I am not suggesting the research explanation is necessarily wrong, I just am looking for a better understanding. Anyone out there able to provide one?
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
Leprechauns and unicorns decay into DM too, and if this is considered in addition to the guess above it explains the discrepancy in the discrepancy.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
Is it possible for a particle to decay into a heavier one?

In the never-ending attempt to promote faerie dust and all things dark and missing, all kinds of magic is not only possible but required.
leetennant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2018

I am not suggesting the research explanation is necessarily wrong, I just am looking for a better understanding. Anyone out there able to provide one?


No i don't but that's not actually my problem. They say that we have electron, muon and tau neutrinos and that there are too many electron neutrinos. They are therefore speculating that the muon and tau are breaking down. Up to here I have no problem. But the majoron contention is a stretch. As far as I can tell, they have some evidence they're breaking down, not what they're breaking down to. As far as I know, a majoron is still a hypothetical particle. So ti's fine for them to go looking for it. But to use it as an explanation for this phenomenon is premature.
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2018
Premature? True but the competition to be "First Chair" to a major discovery is intense. Not only for the glory but gaining the status to be able to gain funding for future projects.

Oh, no pressure there, right?

The fun part for all this discombobulation? When the "majoron" particle is proven, confirmed verified by multiple sources as the phenomena misnamed "Dark Matter"?

Will be the bawling outrage from all the anti-science hucksters and fake-science plagiarizers that infest the Phys,org commentaries.

It'll be sweeet!!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 04, 2018
@rrwillsj.
Premature? True but the competition to be "First Chair" to a major discovery is intense. Not only for the glory but gaining the status to be able to gain funding for future projects. Oh, no pressure there, right?
You have unwittingly described the exact 'expedient' 'publish or perish' imperatives which led to the Bicep2 fiasco; where pressure to 'be first' against rivals caused that 'team' to take short cuts which compromised scientific objectivity; ie, making unwarranted assumptions about models, datasets, analytical techniques/interpretations/conclusions etc; which clearly would not have been made had scientific principles been strictly applied/adhered to at all stages of that (as was obvious then and later) multiply-flawed 'exercise'.

The exercise which is the subject of this thread also appears at first glance to involve similarly 'iffy' assumptions/techniques etc due to similar 'be first' pressures/imperatives that doomed the Bicep2 'results' to GIGO.
rrwillsj
3 / 5 (2) Oct 05, 2018
EC you have made a very cogent comment. Can't agree with you more...

Except, you can learn a lot from failure. In all sorts of unexpected ways.

To paraphrase Edison: "He did not invent the incandescent light bulb. He invented how to commercialize the product. What he did invent were a thousand different ways to NOT build a light bulb!"

If the Majoron particle is a failure? I would be sad that we couldn't finally scrap that awful stupid designation of "Dark Matter".

However, that's science for you. Pick yourself up. Dust yourself off. And get on with the next project.

The fear of failing is a crippling handicap. You see that all the time, in the comments from the cultists and the hucksters.

They are terrified of being exposed as frauds. The more wrong they are? The more determined they are to keep repeating the same lies and falsehoods. They are frozen in their fear of being laughed at.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2018
@idiot fodera the pseudoscience quack
... similarly 'iffy' assumptions/techniques etc due to similar 'be first' pressures/imperatives that doomed the Bicep2 'results'...
re: bicep2 - you make claims of specific faults that you have yet to actually validate or provide evidence for which makes your vague, hand-waving assertions of self-validity suspect

given that no other poster, search engine, moderator, admin or bot can actually find any evidence that you specifically spelled out your 4 fatal (or additional 4) flaws, then continuing to self-promote your superiority and beliefs on bicep2 makes you a liar and promoter of pseudoscience

.

that makes 7,978 posts without evidence accurate as of Oct 4th

reported for spamming and trolling with known inflammatory defamation and pseudoscience stupidity
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot fodera the pseudoscience quack
... similarly 'iffy' assumptions/techniques etc due to similar 'be first' pressures/imperatives that doomed the Bicep2 'results'...
re: bicep2 - you make claims of specific faults that...
The flaws were categorized/alluded to in conversations with others; which I have linked you/others long since. The fact you still ignore/deny/lie it all is too sad, CS.

Anyway, the flaws I mentioned were also seen by other objective scientific observers who noted/exposed same later, CS.

So there can be no denial of same, CS; except by trolls still trying to ignore/deny/lie rather than learn from that 'bad science' debacle.

Your continuing campaign against me re that is disturbing on many levels, CS; not least because it doesn't do you, that team, or science going forward, any good; only more damage.

@Forum, Beware. There's lying campaigns. There's damn lying campaigns. And then there's Captain Stumpy lying campaigns!

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2018
@idiot illiterate fodera-head
which I have linked you/others long since.
not one person, moderator, administrator, search engine, bot or even yourself has been able to provide any shred of this evidence you claimed to have linked long since

you're a liar
that aint speculation - that's proven
were also seen by other objective scientific observers
your claim, your requirement to provide evidence
that is how science works

it is telling that you can't comprehend that little detail
Forum, Beware. There's lying campaigns
I just proved you are the one with the "lying campaign"

you have never been able to prove I lied

.

reported for your lying campaign, spamming, crossposting and pseudoscience stupidity

7,982 with zero evidence [which has been validated by multiple sources] and still increasing
howhot3
not rated yet Oct 10, 2018
I just wanted to throw my voice into this discussion. But my thinking is that the neutrino varies in energy similar to the redshifting of photons.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate fodera-head
which I have linked you/others long since.
not one person, moderator, administrator, search engine, bot or even yourself has been able to provide any shred of this evidence you claimed to have linked long since...
The last time I recall discussing a flaw with bicep2 exercise/analysis was in a discussion with @imfromcanada. I recall pointing out their most simplistic assumption(s) re quantum fluctuations. You were insulting/trolling/ignoring etc as usual in that thread at the time, so you denying now is just lame, CS. If you cannot even find that instance in a thread wherein you could not have missed it unless you purposely did not read replies, then what hope is there that you can find the rest which your boasted-about "TL;DR" method made you miss, CS? Anyhow, give it up, CS. It's way past time you concentrated on learning from that fiasco instead of futilely trying to defend the indefensible. Good luck, mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2018
@idiot fodera headed trolling pseudoscience illiterate
The last time I recall discussing a flaw with bicep2 exercise/analysis was in a discussion with @imfromcanada
besides validating my posts above
1- I'm not he
2- so what's your point?
3- you have never once been able to produce or prove said 4 fatal flaws (etc), regardless of your claims
If you cannot even find that instance in a thread wherein
you made the claim, you provide the evidence

Oh wait... there is no evidence

there is only your assertion that it once existed somewhere sometime on some forume on the interwebz
It's way past time you concentrated on learning from that fiasco
if there is one important thing I am teaching others from that situation it is this: if an idiot like you can't provide evidence of their claim, it's bullsh*t pseudoscience (or a lie) until proven otherwise

incredibly enough, this is also a foundational requirement of science

7,989 posts and still adding more BS
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

Been there, done that. You ignored it all. Now your problem. Not wasting any more time playing your games, CS. You should have learned from that fiasco, not manically and futilely attacked/trolled me because you were wrong to 'just believe' that bicep2 crap then tried to bash cranks with that flawed work/claim. Learn, CS. Good luck. :)

ps: The manner in which you still address posts tells the readers all they need to know abut your malignant mental state and character flaws, CS. Take a long break to heal/correct yourself, or seek professional help, mate. Seriously.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate sam fodera

Been there, done that. You ignored it all
you keep making that claim, yet you can't prove it by actually linking your proof of 4 fatal flaws

IOW - you're making a claim that is obviously a lie
ps: The manner in which you still address posts tells the readers
let me finish that for you
it tells the readers that you're a liar, fraud, pseudoscience crackpot and that you will willingly defraud them for the cheap thrill it gives you

of course, we're not even going to address the fact that you're also willing to let them send you money, which is called fraud... (your idiot earthling BS)

7,990 posts and counting
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate sam fodera
Stop digging, CS! The manner in which you still address posts tells the readers all they need to know about your malignant mental state and character flaws. Take a long break to heal/correct yourself; or seek professional help. Seriously.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2018
@RealityCheck
Stop digging, CS! The manner in which you still address posts tells the readers all they need to know about your malignant mental state and character flaws.


OK. Let's try it another way......

==========
Dear RealityCheck
I respectfully remind you that you have never produced any real evidence for
any of your ill-informed and self-engrandising claims. Surely, you must realize
that this means your posts are without value. In other words, you are an internet troll,
deliberately trying to misinform people for the sole purpose of massaging your sorry ego.

Yours sincerely.

A real Scientist.

P.S. You could disproveCaptain Stumpy's claims with a single link. So go ahead.....
=========

Does that make you fell better?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2018
@RNP.

It's NOT about 'feelings'; it's about MY time/energy being wasted by a trolling ignoramus pretending he gives a hoot for real objective science/discourse while he manically ignores, derides and trolls (not to mention the malignantly false accusations of 'criminal' contained in the very way he addresses his posts to me).

I have no time to waste on bot-voting trolls who want to waste my time again and again while impugning my character with lying campaigns.

Until you experience such concerted unwarranted campaigns against you, RNP, you may not comprehend why I won't play HIS games anymore than I have, for years now.

Anyway, I categorized flaws/mentioned them in side-discussions; latest I recall was with @imfromcanada (wherein CS was trolling/insulting/ignoring as usual, but STILL claims he "can't find it"!).

I will not go through reams of old discussions to please TROLLS proven to have NO interest in science/humanity, only their egos and malignant 'gang' activity. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2018
@idiot criminal pseudoscience trolling FRAUD
I have no time to waste
and yet, if you were just able to prove you had posted your 4 fatal flaws, you would be able to point to a specific post in a thread and rub my face in it

the simple fact that you don't do that is indicitive of your blatant lies

you can't even link to a historical thread where you linked to or discussed the flaws
Anyway, I categorized flaws/mentioned them in side-discussions
and yet you still can't actually link any of them?

and you can't see the problem here?

you still think you're being the objective one when all I am asking is that you validate your claims?

this is why you're considered a fraud

that and the fact that you've posted 7,993 times without being able to validate your claim

that is 7,993,000 wasted characters and just shy of !*400 hours*! of fraudulent BS when you could have either linked your evidence or admitted you were lying

reported
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.

The manner in which you address your posts tells readers all they need to know about you, CS.
...rub my face in it
I'm not a demonstrably raving sado-masochistic psycho like you, CS (as you still self-demonstrate via your sicko manner of addressing your posts on a science site).
the simple fact that you don't do that is indicitive of your blatant lies
No, it's indicative that (as already alluded to in my above reply to @RNP) I have done so before; and that you insulted away as usual, because, as you BOASTED OFTEN: YOU DID NOT READ my posts at the time; due to you egotistically employing your CS-trademarked "TL;DR" method for ignoring reality 'inconvenient' to your maniacal bot-voting/insults troll bully gang lying campaigns/agenda.
reported
You "reported" me 1000s of times already, CS. They obviously realized long ago that you're a raving bot-voting insults troll with a nasty agenda, CS; so stop digging your already very deep psychotic hole!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2018
@idiot criminal fraud sam fodera
"TL;DR"
TL;DR does not mean "not searchable for content", you illiterate idiot
for ignoring reality
that is your trademark
I can't well ignore relevant factual information that can be validated

which is a serious point you seem to forget: your claims have not been validated
You "reported" me 1000s of times already, CS
and if you will look at your own posting history, those posts *eventually* were deleted. in point of fact, more than 1400 of your posts have been deleted

the only reason you're still here is because the site doesn't moderate unless you spam with specific types of links

you've posted 7,994 times without being able to validate your claim

that is 7,994,000 wasted characters and just shy of !*400 hours*! of fraudulent BS when you could have either linked your evidence or admitted you were lying

reported
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot criminal fraud sam fodera
The manner in which you address your posts tells readers all they need to know about your character flaws/lack of objectivity, CS. :)
"TL;DR"
TL;DR does not mean "not searchable for content", you illiterate idiot
That wasn't what I said it meant, silly CS. I said it was the term YOU used when boasting YOU DID NOT READ before continuing your unwarranted attacks, CS. :)
for ignoring reality
that is your trademark I can't well ignore relevant factual information that can be validated
You BOASTED you did NOT read; so how would you know the reality, CS? :)
your claims have not been validated
Mainstream has concurred with me re bicep2 etc long since, CS.
in point of fact, more than 1400 of your posts have been deleted
You're dreaming, CS; PO PMs notified only a handful deleted mainly because they involved harsh language etc responding to you/gang trolls attacks/lies campaigns.

Get real, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2018
@idiot criminal pseudoscience trolling FRAUD sam fodera
your unwarranted attacks
you/gang trolls attacks/lies campaigns
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
You BOASTED you did NOT read; so how would you know
obvious isn't obvious to you, apparently

moreover:
1- obviously you don't comprehend the power of a search engine

2- I repeat: TL;DR does not mean "not searchable for content", you illiterate idiot

3- every single one of your posts are searchable, in case you didn't catch the point
therefore, if you actually produced content explaining your 4 fatal flaws (or the other 4 flaws), it would be searchable

4- you obviously don't comprehend how "research" for studies actually works
perhaps you should take some courses on it

.

what you have done above is called "distraction" because you know you can't produce validation for your claims

making more claims based upon your irrational delusional beliefs isn't validation of your beliefs or claims
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot criminal pseudoscience trolling FRAUD sam fodera
The manner in which you address your posts tells the readers all they need to know about your character flaws and personal animus/bias, CS. Bad for you and science, CS.
your unwarranted attacks....you/gang trolls attacks/lies campaigns
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer Your repeated DENIAL doesn't make it any falser, CS.
You BOASTED you did NOT read; so how would you know
obvious isn't obvious to you, apparently
The "TL;DR" was the term YOU used when (often) BOASTING that YOU DID NOT READ before continuing unwarranted attacks. Just as you're OBVIOUSLY NOT READING NOW...else you wouldn't make that lame DIVERSION IN DENIAL attempt...again, CS.
you obviously don't comprehend how "research" for studies actually works
Patently your 'work' is on a par with that bicep2 team who were selective/biased as to data/analysis that LED to OBVIOUSLY FLAWED 'work'.

Give it up, CS.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot criminal pseudoscience trolling FRAUD sam fodera
The manner in which you address your posts tells the reader all they need to know about your character flaws and personal animus/bias, CS. Bad for you and science, CS.
your unwarranted attacks..you/gang trolls attacks/lies campaigns
repeating a lie doesn't make it truer
And your repeated DENIAL doesn't make it falser, CS.
You BOASTED you did NOT read; so how would you know
obvious isn't obvious to you, apparently
The "TL;DR" was the term YOU used when (often) BOASTING that YOU DID NOT READ before continuing unwarranted attacks; just as you're OBVIOUSLY NOT READING NOW..else you wouldn't make that lame DIVERSION IN DENIAL attempt...again, CS.
you obviously don't comprehend how "research" for studies actually works
Patently your 'work' is 'on a par' with that of bicep2 team who were selective/biased as to data/analysis that LED to THEIR OBVIOUSLY FLAWED 'work'.

Wise up, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
Your repeated DENIAL doesn't make it any falser, CS.
want to know the best evidence to prove you're a liar and that you didn't post those fatal flaws?

read this thread: https://phys.org/...ter.html

not only do you manage to dig up a 2014 thread where you claim DS made "serious misjudgments and outright embarrassing errors" and you can't seem to find *any* proof of your own statements of 4 fatal flaws...

but in that thread you have been outed and proven as a liar because there are no less than 50 links to your own conversations that prove you're a liar

that isn't subjective argumentation from a delusion like your claims about DS, Ira, myself and everyone who proves you're an idiot

that is factual, black-and-white evidence from your own posts proving you're a fraud, liar and that you're an idiot pseudoscience hack

Period

full stop
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
How your address posts tells readers you're a manic liar, CS.
want to know the best evidence to prove you're a liar and that you didn't post those fatal flaws? read this thread: https://phys.org/...ter.html

not only do you manage to dig up a 2014 thread where you claim DS made "serious misjudgments and outright embarrassing errors"
Just how insensible can you get, CS? And just how desperate? Yep, THAT insensible and desperate!

YOU and DS crying 'liar' a hundred times is readily shown up as TROLL SHITE tactics; because YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT NOT READING before you attacked. The proof of that sorry state of affairs is in the thread I linked already...

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

...in that other thread you desperately vaguely referenced as if it contained proof of anything except your own failures, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
tells readers you're a manic liar
LMFAO
Just how insensible can you get, sam? And just how desperate? Yep, THAT insensible and desperate!

besides being transference, that is called delusional

you've been proven to be a liar, therefore I can conclusively use the label, just like you've proven yourself to be illiterate, trolling, a pseudoscience advocate, etc

my address to you isn't false, nor is it factually incorrect - every bit of it is proven here on PO alone, and should you be willing to come here and try your hand in court, you will find that the evidence is king: you will lose your shirt (etc)
because YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT NOT READING
really?
so... you can finally provide those 4 fatal and 4 other flaws now?

I'm waiting...
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
tells readers you're a manic liar
LMFAO
So you add 'maniacal laughter' to your 'manic lying' manner of addressing posts, CS? Not a good move, CS. It tells the readers you've 'lost it', CS.
Just how insensible can you get, CS? And just how desperate? Yep, THAT insensible and desperate!
Just how insensible can you get, sam? And just how desperate? Yep, THAT insensible and desperate!
Now you're channeling the "Yes you are, but what am I" parrot, CS. Pretty Polly! Squawk!
besides being transference, that is called delusional
Delusional Transference works both ways, CS; and it's been YOU FIRST doing it for YEARS now, CS.
my address to you isn't false, nor is it factually incorrect
Delusional Denial there, CS. Not good, CS.
because YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT NOT READING
really?
YOU BOASTED about ignoring posts before attacking/posting "TL;DR" plus insults, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal

so.. I take it that means you still don't have evidence for your 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws?

wow

you claim to be objective, but you can't actually substantiate that claim. an "objective" person would have said "it's a singular study, so I reserve the right to make a judgement until there is validation"

that would have been rational, objective and scientific

however, you made a specific claim: 4 fatal flaws (then 4 additional flaws)
refusal to actually provide evidence by pointing out your "fatal" flaws isn't scientific, objective or rational, let alone intelligent

it's not my opinion, either

it's fact

and that is one reason you continue to refuse to produce the evidence and distract with every other possible argument under the sun

because you've lied
you're a fraud
and a criminal

and it's all proven in your own words

thanks for validating that for me once again

.

reported
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
The way you address your posts tells the readers all they need to know about your character flaws and personal animus/biases, CS. Not good.
I take it that means you still don't have evidence for your 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws?...wow you claim to be objective, but you can't actually substantiate that claim. an "objective" person would have said "it's a singular study, so I reserve the right to make a judgement until there is validation"
The thing that prompted me to comment at all was the fact that YOUR 'gang' was '"bashing cranks" with that (as any objective observer could see was) obviously flawed Bicep2 'work'. So I suggested you all calmed down and checked out that 'work' and claims FOR YOURSELVES, as any objective observers SHOULD HAVE DONE BEFORE EVEN THINKING of "bashing cranks" with such patently obvious crap. You're STILL trying to 'save face'. Learn from it, CS. :)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2018
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
@Captain Stumpy
The way you continually ignore evidence as well as refuse to validate your claims tells the readers all they need to know about your character flaws and personal animus/biases, dumb*ss. Not good

it also proves you're a liar, fraud and pseudoscience advocate
The thing that prompted me to comment at all was the fact that YOUR 'gang'
1- I still don't have a gang

2- lying about BICEP was because you aren't objective, you're a liar and you promote pseudoscience:

it has nothing to do with me

3- continuing to lie about BICEP validates my point that you didn't see any "fatal flaws" and are trying to avoid admitting it

4- pointing out that you're still lying after more than 8,000 posts helps others see your fraudulent behaviour and tactics because you compulsively reply

5- you're still playing the martyr-victim card, but it's really just because of your D-K
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2018
Stump, 98% of All of your 14800 some posts, so far, have been personal attacks and quite often slander people as well as use profanity.

I have reported most posts you have ever put up due to that, ESPECIALLY the ones in your stupidity campaign against RC, who when allowed to talk science instead of defend himself from professional trolls, actually does a better job of talking science than you do.

You keep demanding Proofs of things people make surmises on that they are still investigating, and then when the proof Does come along you berate the person who had the idea prior for not having it Exactly Right, or you use a strawman argument to class the person with others who have been debunked, so you try to debunk by association.

So, keep it up, every time you post you actually Prove myself, CD and RC to be right, that you are nothing but a troll that sits here like a spider waiting for US to post, JUST so you get your little fun Trying to bash us.

We watch, and see, idiot.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot f*ckwad illiterate trolling pseudoscience sam the criminal
How you address your posts tells readers all they need to know abut your character flaws, personal animus/biases, CS.
the fact that YOUR 'gang'
I still don't have a gang.....it has nothing to do with me
You and your gang have engaged in, encouraged/enabled (and blackmailed/bullied) posters to join in your organized trolling/sabotage and bot/downvoting campaigns against members here (especially against me even though I was correct on the science!). It's all in your/your insidious gang's Posting Record, CS; as ADMITTED to @Steelwolf in...

https://phys.org/...ism.html

...wherein @Steelwolf called out your TROLLING, INSULTS, SABOTAGE CAMPAIGN, thusly:
Of your [@CaptainStumpy's] 14000+ posts here over 90% are bashing others
And what was YOUR 'defense', CS?...
it works, like it or not
Criminal Insensibility, CS. Sad.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2018
@steel
and quite often slander people
no, sorry
Slander is verbalised while libel is written, for starters, but libel under defamation law would require me to make a statement or comment that is "a false statement that, depending on the law of the country, harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation"

I have made no false statements

everything I stated can be corroborated with evidence (most of which is gleaned right here on PO, but some of which is elsewhere and a matter of public record)
I have reported most posts you have ever put up
and yet you don't report rc?
fascinating that you're so biased
every time you post you actually Prove myself
the funny thing is: even when I told you all what I was doing you keep falling for it

it's all part of studying people like you

keep up the great work, steel
You're one of my better subjects
We watch, and see, idiot
shall I report you now too?
LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2018
@idiot illiterate criminal trolling pseudoscience sam fodera
...wherein @Steelwolf called out
steel is a semi-competent person who is misled by the seemingly logical proclamations of idiot pseudoscience cult acolytes like you and the eu because he is ignorant of physics and the basics of the scientific method

steel has the potential to learn and comprehend the science

you, rc, do not

so long as you continue to lie, cheat, make false claims and fraudulently produce pseudoscience, I will continue to do exactly what I've always said

you managed to dig up a 2014 post with you and DS, then you should be easily capable of digging up your BICEP evidence of 4 fatal and 4 other flaws

to date: 8,039 posts and still no evidence

.

.

@Steel
take note of that - every single one of those 8,039 posts was logged, categorized, dissected and analyzed in our study, including the deleted ones

*that* is how I know for a fact he has never validated his claim and is lying
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate criminal trolling pseudoscience sam fodera
How you address your posts tells readers all they need to know about your character flaws, personal animus/biases; which fatally compromises from the get-go any 'research' you do, CS; and any claims (lies) relying on same (just like bicep2 'work' and claims!). Learn instead of trolling your malice and ignorance, CS.
...wherein @Steelwolf called [CS] out
steel is a semi-competent person who is misled by the seemingly logical proclamations of idiot pseudoscience cult acolytes like you
You're now trying to dishonestly IGNORE the fact YOU, CS, ADMITTED [to @Steelwolf] your campaign of over 14000 trolling, insults and sabotage, CS; saying:
it works, like it or not
So you're NO honest researcher; just a biased malignant troll with a D-K complex who is too insensible to realize what you really are, CS; a numbskull pretending to be relevant in science or internet. Pitiful, CS. Sad.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
@Steelwolf (and @Forum).

I note @Captain Stumpy tried to BS to you about his 'credibility', thusly...
@Steel
take note of that - every single one of those [RC] 8,039 posts was logged, categorized, dissected and analyzed in our study, including the deleted ones
*that* is how I know for a fact he has never validated his claim and is lying
And yet CS's so-called 'study' was NOT able to capture and 'analyze' my posts in discussion with @imfromcanada....wherein I pointed out one example of flawed bicep2 assumptions/interpretations etc. So how 'reliable' or 'credible' can @Captain Stumpy's word BE, when he says to you above...
those [RC] 8,039 posts was logged, categorized, dissected and analyzed in our study,
...when he CANNOT even 'find' or 'acknowledge' THAT instance of where I pointed out a bicep2 flaw?

So, @Steelwolf (and @Forum), it's patently obvious that the "our study" claimed by @Captain Stumpy is a FIGMENT of a 'mind' afflicted by D-K at its most pitiful.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
@idiot illiterate criminal trolling pseudoscience sam fodera
TL;DR
CS's so-called 'study' was NOT able to capture and 'analyze' my posts in discussion with @imfromcanada
because it doesn't exist
- not a conversation where you spell out the 4 fatal and 4 other flaws of BICEP per your claims

you've never once spelt out your BICEP claims in any forum on any site that we've seen: here, SciForums (where you were banned, twice, for refusing to substantiate your claims, lying, trolling, false allegations, fraud and pseudoscience in a science thread) and Sapo's Joint (where you were banned for the same as SciForums)
profile realitycheck
http://www.scifor...?page=84

profile "undefined"
http://www.scifor...?page=55

other socks deleted

more to the point: had you actually spelt out your flaws you would be able to produce the links proving it and you can't (because they don't exist - anywhere)

reported for pseudoscience spamming
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate criminal trolling pseudoscience sam fodera
Readers can tell you're a raving liar, CS; as you keep proving by how you address your posts.
TL;DR
The "Captain Stumpy Patented Research Method". :)
because it doesn't exist
You're a hopeless/biased 'researcher', CS; go see my post to @imfromcanada dated April 6, 2017...

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

You not only LIE about that, CS, you ALSO (again) LIE BY OMISSION re my 'bans' from SciForums/Sapo's Joint. You OMITTED to tell readers those sites were RUN BY ADMITTED MOD-TROLL gangs at the time; who COLLUDED with certain posters to FRAME and BAN me, despite my being correct on the science.
other socks deleted
Again you LIE BY OMISSION, CS; those other usernames were for INTERNET EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE mod-troll-gang COLLUSION, which got some of THEM banned and/or eventually had to 'leave'.

You're a lying, biased, incompetent 'researcher', CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2018
@idiot illiterate criminal trolling pseudoscience sam fodera
go see my post to @imfromcanada dated April 6, 2017
ROTFLMFAO
really?

you're going to use that as your "answer" that spells out the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws of BICEP?

not only does it *not* actually call out the 4 fatal flaws (etc) but it also is pseudoscience bullshit!

and ZergSurfer, Whyde, Seeker and DS all call you out on it!
You not only LIE
and anyone with a computer can simply inquire to JamesR and get the details

if they have a log-in they can read some of the data in the links

the only thing you proved was that Moderation works and keeps the idiots from spreading stupidity, hate, and bullsh*t on a science site

You're a lying, fraudulent, criminal, delusional, biased, incompetent POS 'researcher', rc

and you just proved me right

again

thanks for that one!
LMFAO
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) 19 hours ago
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate criminal trolling pseudoscience sam fodera
How you address your posts tells readers all about your character flaws and personal animus/biases, CS; not good for your 'credibility', CS.
go see my post to @imfromcanada dated April 6, 2017
ROTFLMFAO
really? you're going to use that as your "answer" that spells out the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws of BICEP?
NO, CS; I used it as ONE INSTANCE, of ONE SIDE-DISCUSSION, wherein I specifically pointed out ONE bicep2 exercise FLAW to ONE interlocutor. Which YOU claimed your 'study' and 'analysis exercise "COULDN'T FIND"! So much for your "our study" figment, CS. Your longstanding patented "Captain Stumpy's 'TL;DR' Research Method" is 'working a treat', CS!...it's as 'good' and 'reliable' as that bicep2 team's 'method' was..worse than useless!
the only thing you proved was that Moderation works..
Yes, AFTER I performed INTERNET EXPERIMENTS PROVING mod-troll-gang COLLUSION. Pity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) 14 hours ago
the following label is factually accurate:
@idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera
wherein I specifically pointed out
no, not specifically

you make a claim
assumption... is obviously counter-logical
this is based upon your delusional beliefs that you state without any evidence
I said I was not at liberty to discuss specifically or in detail because the info formed part of my complete works to be published when ready
then you add in the following
Inflation itself is 'bogus'
followed by appeal to authority
as Prof Paul Steinhardt...
so, your claim of any specifics is completely bogus and a blatant repeated lie

you're distracting from the fact that you have never once pointed to anything in the free and available BICEP2 papers that is wrong, per your claims of
categorized the flaws
categorize implies you can point to specific data that is flawed, which you never once did, not even in that thread

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) 14 hours ago
the following label is factually accurate:
@idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera attention whore cont'd

moreover, in that same thread, you are not only called out for lying, but you're called out about your post that you want to claim is your breakdown of BICEP2
a single point without substantiation or references is still just a claim based upon your beliefs - http://www.auburn...ion.html )
none of what you presented is:
1- from the BICEP2 papers
2- objective science
3- factual or represented by evidence
4- in any breakdown from any reputable source of science

so, that makes you not only a repeat liar, but you just proved my point about your lack of ability to provide evidence for your claim as you link your delusional beliefs about something rather than actual evience
I performed INTERNET EXPERIMENTS
the only thing you proved was that moderation works

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) 14 hours ago
@Captain Stumpy.
@idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera
...so says a lying biased incompetent "researcher" who uses his patented "TL;DR method" for NOT 'finding' things now proved to have been there all along in the posting record. Your 'our study' results are about as 'reliable' as that bicep2 'exercise' was, CS; misleading, flawed/lying 'gigo' from the get-go due to the obvious flaws/sloppiness and plain biased 'work'.
wherein I specifically pointed out
no, not specifically
It was a specific flaw in the logics behind the 'BB signal discernibility' claim on which that bicep2 exercise was based, with a-priori assumption that it was 'detectable' at all after (alleged) BB/Inflation supposedly smoothed out such quantum fluctuations long ago to give essentially 'flat space' universe at large scales/distances. And Steinhardt IS an authority on BB/Inflation HYPOTHESES maths/models, CS; and HONEST/OBJECTIVE enough NOW to RECANT. Good. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) 13 hours ago
@Captain Stumpy.
the following label is factually accurate: @idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera attention whore
Your manner of addressing posts indicates weak character, strong animus/biases; which make any claims by you just more subjective invective, CS. Bad.
you are not only called out for lying,
NO, they started out ASSUMING I was 'lying'; because THEY didn't have ALL the facts, CS; like you still don't.
none of what you presented is: 1- from the BICEP2 papers ...
This is a COMMENTS/DISCUSSION site, CS; and I made PASSING COMMENT, for YOU ALL to check out those bicep2 claims FOR YOURSELVES before continuing to 'bash cranks' with that FLAWED 'work' (and I WAS CORRECT). I STATED CLEARLY I reserved full explanations for MY ToE publication when finalized. You "TL;DR"-d right past that, CS! Bad.
I performed INTERNET EXPERIMENTS
the only thing you proved was that moderation works
Yes, AFTER I PROVED COLLUSION, CS! Pity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) 13 hours ago
the following label is factually accurate:
@idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera attention whore
now proved to have been there all along
erm... you don't even realise that you just proved I was correct!
LOL
Your 'our study' results are
LOL
so, you've read the preprint?
Tell me: who are the other authors?
It was a specific flaw in the logics
and again, because you're too f*cking stupid to read it the first time:
you made a *claim* based upon *your* personal beliefs, stated without evidence or reference to any specific data in said BICEP2 paper, while then claiming you can't share specifics about your top-secret ToE which validates you all while stating you've categorized the flaws which you still refuse to actually point to in the paper

you're making more false claims

I think I'll forward DS this beaut of a sh*tshow from you so he can add it to his ever-growing list!

reported
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) 13 hours ago
@Captain Stumpy.
the following label is factually accurate:
@idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera attention whore
Still betrays your character flaws, personal animus/biases, to readers, CS.
now proved to have been there all along
you don't even realise that you just proved I was correct
Lame denial/delusion there from you, CS; in best D-K manner!
Your 'our study' results are
LOL so, you've read the preprint? Tell me: who are the other authors
Who CARES, CS? Your 'work/claims' are now shown to be as 'reliable' and 'objective' as that bicep2 'work/claims'...ie: crap 'gigo'.
It was a specific flaw in the logics
you made a *claim* based upon *your* personal beliefs,
It WAS a MAINSTREAM belief: "Inflation" hypothesized because BB 'needed' a way to 'smooth out' initial quantum fluctuations, to 'explain' observed 'flatness' NOW, CS; you lying ignoramus.
I'll forward DS this beaut of a sh*tshow
Your D-K gang.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet 2 hours ago
Still factually accurate labelling of your character flaws, personal animus/biases, for readers:
@idiot illiterate lying trolling criminal pseudoscience sam fodera attention whore
Lame denial/delusion
just because you can't read doesn't mean no one else can
Who CARES, CS?
you do

in point of fact, I can predict that you will respond to this post with yet another diatribe of various opinion already proven wrong by you, yourself, above
It WAS a MAINSTREAM belief
proves you're not conversant in the scientific method

MS Science doesn't do "belief" - they (generally speaking):
hypothesize, determine how to test, experiment, observe, report, validate or debunk (eliminate), repeat
https://en.wikipe...c_method

this reinforces the point that you're proving yourself to be a fraud and liar, mind

reported

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.