The BICEP2 Project at the South Pole:

[Undefined]

No one or no thing is perfect. It happens sometimes, but what is obvious is it is still being researched by that same mainstream.

Don't be so blase' about it, paddo. We all know 'accidents happen'. But things have got beyond that 'occasional' and 'self-corrected' stage. Get it?

My point was that it has 'happened' too often in the past, just like that latest instance.

My point was that the flaws get built-in to the orthodoxy and treatments/assumptions etc which 'bias' all later 'conclusions/interpretations' of the actual data, leading to further 'snowballing' errors in all the areas I mentioned were flawed in the BICEP2 'paper'/'work' etc.

So be careful in your belief in source rather than content. That was the point, OK?

You, you, you and more you. Sorry, I don't believe they would know you from a bar of soap.
Just saying.

Who cares?

It's not about me; but that is what you and other trolls made it about when you and others attack me for merely suggesting that you be more objective and careful what you 'believe', irrespective of source, especially in that latest instance. It's then about you attacking the messenger instead of checking out the content for yourselves. So it's about you and your 'personality cult' preferences over suggested objective scrutiny of the content then, isn't it?

I'll pop in when necessary, to see how the troll is doing arguing against the certain observed facts of SR.

That's the ticket! Let the reality-chips fall where they may, and learn from the exchange regardless of the outcome.

You keep saying that. "nudge nudge, wink, wink"

If you will recall correctly, I made clear that I would have time for occasional postings and mainly be reading-only for a while. These posts were 'loose ends' related, so needed to be made for the sake of completeness, irrespective. There will be less and less of these as I withdraw more and more from net posting.

Cheers and good luck and try to keep the 'padding' in your posts to a minimum so the threads will be cleaner and more easily scanned for the important/relevant bits, hey paddo?

Cheers all.


PS: Paddo, talking of 'loose ends' items: I read somewhere in some thread here recently where you again mooted the physical possibility of space warping drives such as "Alcubierre drive'. I would again remind you of what I said to you (last year in some thread or other), that the 'warp' WAVE cannot propagate faster than light (since it would be akin to a gravitational wave which also, according to GR, cannot propagate faster than lightspeed). Hence the ship creating the 'warp' cannot go faster than light, or it will run into its own 'warp wave' front and be destroyed. So neither the ship NOR the 'warp front' can ever exceed lightspeed. So you'll have to let go of that fantasy, however 'appealing' it may be to you personally. OK? Try reality based speculations instead of sci-fantasy based ones, the former are much more interesting and useful. Cheers!

 

[paddoboy]

PS: Paddo, talking of 'loose ends' items: I read somewhere in some thread here recently where you again mooted the physical possibility of space warping drives such as "Alcubierre drive'. I would again remind you of what I said to you (last year in some thread or other), that the 'warp' WAVE cannot propagate faster than light (since it would be akin to a gravitational wave which also, according to GR, cannot propagate faster than lightspeed). Hence the ship creating the 'warp' cannot go faster than light, or it will run into its own 'warp wave' front and be destroyed. So neither the ship NOR the 'warp front' can ever exceed lightspeed. So you'll have to let go of that fantasy, however 'appealing' it may be to you personally. OK? Try reality based speculations instead of sci-fantasy based ones, the former are much more interesting and useful. Cheers!

Your continued "loose ends" excuse for coming back is just that. An excuse to again show your derision for the tried and true mainstream, and getting that last dig in.

Oh, I don't accept your "hypothesis" re the Alcubierre drive.
Again, purely and simply you are wrong. Spacetime has no speed limit as dictated by "c "or GR, simply because it has no mass.
Difficulties aside, and the fact that at this time, we have no idea how to achieve it, it is theoretically possible.
The rest of your post...Meh!
Another loose end for you undefined.

 

[paddoboy]

My point was that it has 'happened' too often in the past, just like that latest instance.

Too often??? Please elaborate. On second thought forget about it.
Perhaps they'll give your ToE what it deserves.

 

[paddoboy]

And of course just to invalidate your claim re BICEP2 and the mainstream, this was also a part of the one of the first reports

"""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
And so, for better or worse (just kidding—it's definitely better) this is how science works and how science is supposed to work. A claim is presented, and, regardless of how attractive its implications may be, it must stand up to any other possibilities before deemed the decisive winner. It's not a popularity contest, it's not a beauty contest, and it's not up for vote. What it is up for is scrutiny, and this is just an example of scientists behaving as they should.
Still, I'd keep that champagne nicely chilled.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cosmologists-inflation-evidence.html#jCp
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

[Undefined]

And of course just to invalidate your claim re BICEP2 and the mainstream, this was also a part of the one of the first reports

"""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
And so, for better or worse (just kidding—it's definitely better) this is how science works and how science is supposed to work. A claim is presented, and, regardless of how attractive its implications may be, it must stand up to any other possibilities before deemed the decisive winner. It's not a popularity contest, it's not a beauty contest, and it's not up for vote. What it is up for is scrutiny, and this is just an example of scientists behaving as they should.
Still, I'd keep that champagne nicely chilled.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-cosmologists-inflation-evidence.html#jCp
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Paddo, you failed to note that your referenced article above is dated 25 March (and even the referenced-therein response in arxiv is dated 20 March).

Whereas MY observations and suggestion to look more closely was first made to Phys.Org mainstreamers etc on 17 March (see here: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-rumours-gravitational.html ), and then again on 18 March (see here: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-hints-gravitational-big-afterglow.html ).

The word got round pretty quickly that I spotted MANY serious and obvious flaws as mentioned, and then the mainstreamers who took note DID look more closely at the claims/methodology etc of that BICEP2 'paper'....and they found the flaws AND also saw that it was basically a RUSHED and SLOPPY 'publish-or-perish' offering as it stood, and nothing at all to justify all the 'mainstreamer trolls' claims to the 'cranks' that it 'proved' BBang etc model/interpretation of the evidence. Get it right and stop the 'apologist for flawed work' opinions and 'versions' of what went down, paddo. You are coming across as a confirmation-bias 'believer', and not an objective observer of the long-time peer-review failures that have led to that latest silly claim of 'proof of BBang etc' which mainstream trolls were reveling in until I pointed out "The Emperor has no clothes on" in that latest instance of mainstream self-serving tripe.

Anyhow, paddo, I trust you will not waste any more of the forums' time with your self-serving true-believer confirmation-biased 'source-apologist' posts whilst ignoring the actual important points/lessons being put for your attention/edification. Best of luck in future, paddo.

Bye FOR NOW.

 

[paddoboy]

The word got round pretty quickly that I spotted MANY serious and obvious flaws as mentioned, and then the mainstreamers who took note DID look more closely at the claims/methodology etc of that BICEP2 'paper'....and they found the flaws AND also saw that it was basically a RUSHED and SLOPPY 'publish-or-perish' offering as it stood, and nothing at all to justify all the 'mainstreamer trolls' claims to the 'cranks' that it 'proved' BBang etc model/interpretation of the evidence. Get it right and stop the 'apologist for flawed work' opinions and 'versions' of what went down, paddo. You are coming across as a confirmation-bias 'believer', and not an objective observer of the long-time peer-review failures that have led to that latest silly claim of 'proof of BBang etc' which mainstream trolls were reveling in until I pointed out "The Emperor has no clothes on" in that latest instance of mainstream self-serving tripe.

And you truly believe they were prompted by you?
I mean really?
I suppose coming from someone who claims to have a ToE, that's understandable.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28127576


As Dr Tauber explained, Planck's approach to the problem is a different one to BICEP2's.


"We hope to start working with them very soon, and if all goes well then we can maybe publish in the same timeframe as our main result [at the end of October"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28127576


Real mainstream science and peer review in action.

 

[origin]

The word got round pretty quickly that I spotted MANY serious and obvious flaws as mentioned, and then the mainstreamers who took note DID look more closely at the claims/methodology etc of that BICEP2 'paper'

You don't actually believe that, do you?

I have no doubt that you stated your disbelief of a mainstream idea. I also have not doubt that you do not understand the process nor the details of any aspect of the experiment. You just did your normal 'thing' which is to state that the evil mainstream is wrong.

Now you seem to believe you had some unsight why the experiment was wrong. You have no idea - you simply did your normal routine of denying all things mainstream.

Nobody listened to you. You had no useful insight. You did what you always do which is rail against science. Big deal.

 

[Trippy]

Whereas MY observations and suggestion to look more closely was first made to Phys.Org mainstreamers etc on 17 March (see here: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-rumours-gravitational.html ), and then again on 18 March (see here: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-hints-gravitational-big-afterglow.html ).

You weren't the only one discussing possible flaws in the results on the 17th: http://resonaances.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/curly-impressions.html :shrugs:

 

[Undefined]

Hi Trippy, origin. Haven't much time to discuss at length, so briefly...

You don't actually believe that, do you?

I have no doubt that you stated your disbelief of a mainstream idea. I also have not doubt that you do not understand the process nor the details of any aspect of the experiment. You just did your normal 'thing' which is to state that the evil mainstream is wrong.

Now you seem to believe you had some unsight why the experiment was wrong. You have no idea - you simply did your normal routine of denying all things mainstream.

Nobody listened to you. You had no useful insight. You did what you always do which is rail against science. Big deal.

Not so, origin, although that is what you have been telling yourself, no doubt, to excuse your propensity to dismiss me as some 'generic anti-science crank', as you have been trying to do for some time now, yes? Unfortunately for you, the internet record is replete with many instances over the YEARS where I TRIED to start discussions which would have led to the conclusion that my 'mixmaster of deep space processes' was the correct one when looking at radiation data from vast space regions within and outside our local galaxy/group (which the BICEP2 paper/exercise tried to sweep under the carpet as 'insignificant', simply because THEY 'treated/interpreted' the data in the obvious 'confirmation biased' exercise which has been exposed as the UN-scientific 'publish-or-perish' exercise/publication that it WAS, as commented upon by many mainstream scientists since my earliest warnings that the BICEP2 'work/offering' WAS OBVIOUSLY FLAWED, and in MORE WAYS than the subsequent mainstreamers scrutiny has YET to identify, but which I have done already and will be publishing it in my ToE publication).

Discussions which you and other trolls sabotaged and otherwise trolled so it became impossible to develop the discussion calmly and logically with supporting evidence presented at appropriate stages. That is why I stopped trying to get through to you and your prejudiced/trollish antagonistic sabotaging in lieu of calm reasoned discourse into the actual scientific evidence which you dismissed even before you allowed it to be put! Your loss. Now you'll have to wait until I publish the lot. I suppose that you were one of the many mainstreamer trolls 'true believers' types who eagerly and prematurely beat 'cranks' over the head with the BICEP2 'paper' as proof of BBang etc, yes? But it turned out, as mainstreamers now also admit, to be a fraudulent attempt at 'one-upsmanship' against their rivals, and nothing more than a 'publish-or-perish' foray that went sour real quick once I pointed out the flaws and that the BICEP2 'paper' "Emperor had no clothes" on!

You weren't the only one discussing possible flaws in the results on the 17th: http://resonaances.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/curly-impressions.html :shrugs:

That was what I was counting on, Trippy. It's good to see that some great OBJECTIVE minds were on the job and not 'giddy schoolgirls' repeating the conclusions/claims as 'fact' to beat the 'cranks' over the heads with. And as I just pointed out to origin above, and as you and he of all people must have been long aware, I have for many years pointed out that the vast gulfs of space contain MANY processes and features and attenuating/complicating ways of affecting incoming/received CMB radiation. Only you wouldn't listen and neither would the mainstream.

NOW that the BICEP2 fiasco had brought it to a head, my LATEST reminder to LOOK CLOSELY at ALL the flaws which are obvious to me but still not all of which were fully appreciated by the mainstream and especially not by the BICEP2 'team', it was heartening to see SOME brave independent minds in mainstream doing what I suggested long since BEFORE that latest fiasco from the mainstream HERD mentality 'publish-or-perish' crowd calling themselves 'scientists' when they are practicing the same sort of CONFIRMATION BIAS 'treatments/interpretations etc which they accuse 'cranks' of doing! Such 'science' and 'papers' as those BICEP2 'treatment/claims' are more 'religious practice/claims' self-delusion exercises than OBJECTIVE SCIENCE efforts. OBVIOUSLY....as the braver among mainstream have spoken out about since I made that objective observation early on.


Anyhow, haven't time to argue with you all on this, it is enough that the fiasco has (hopefully) taught many here to rein in their elitism and egotism and trollish disregard for genuine posters like me, who is probably the MORE OBJECTIVE of all here....as I have proven more than once to BOTH 'sides' on whatever discussion I commented in.

If these last 'loose end' issues are now 'tied up', I will withdraw and only post rarely while still reading-only you all! Good luck and good thinking, origin, Trippy, everyone...and enjoy your enlightened and respectful future discourses in the fields of both science and the humanity.

Again, no hard feelings, guys...life's too short, and science and humanity too important, for such things to drive our thinking and our actions! Cheers all...and...Bye FOR NOW!

 

[Trippy]

Only you wouldn't listen and neither would the mainstream.

Liar.

 

[paddoboy]

Hi Trippy, origin. Haven't much time to discuss at length, so briefly...
.

You have plenty of time. Stop trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with this sill tidying up loose ends rubbish. It aint fooling anyone.

your propensity to dismiss me as some 'generic anti-science crank', as you have been trying to do for some time now, yes?

Your words, not origin's.

to identify, but which I have done already and will be publishing it in my ToE publication).

Send me a copy.

If these last 'loose end' issues are now 'tied up', I will withdraw and only post rarely while still reading-only you all!

I have now given you more loose ends.

Really undefined, there is only one person that believes your continuious rants.

 

[origin]

Not so, origin, although that is what you have been telling yourself, no doubt, to excuse your propensity to dismiss me as some 'generic anti-science crank', as you have been trying to do for some time now, yes?

You have shown yourself to be a generic anti-science crank, and as such quite easy to dismiss. I guess your fantasy that you do some sort of actual science is very exciting, but to anyone that has any science education you are just living a silly fantasy.

 

[Declan Lunny]

Liar.

RC, not quite the word I would use but your presentation of your "discovery" of the "flaws" that the mainstream investigators "took notice of" so as to "be made aware" and change their tune because of "your input" is entirely disingenuous and dishonest.

Why don't you present the real story about what happened on the other sight? You made a comment within an hour of the story being posted to the effect of: "You guys are missing the obvious. I just perused the article once and immediately found several glaring errors."

When asked what errors, you could not or would name them. You just called everyone else a fool for not seeing what you saw. Asked over and over what errors. You could not or would not name them. You continued to tell everyone how unscientific and knowledgeable they were for not seeing what you see.

Several more people asked for you aid in figuring out the errors you claimed were so glaring an undergrad should catch them. You would only tell them to learn it on their own.

You never were able to name or identify any errors. It took you over two weeks to start giving the errors you found a name or description, and those you plagiarized from the popular science press.

The links are there for anyone would like to see RealityCheck get reality checked. Out of the gate you were rude, called the regular posters ignorant, trolls and all manner of things just because they asked what the problems with the BICEP2 investigator's work. You began rude and everyone else gradually became rude because of it.

That is the 100% unmitigated truth. No slant. No spin. No faction. I know because I was there and watched in real-time as it unfolded. I wanted to discuss that article and you ruined it for me (and others) because you created a situation that while entertaining in some respects, was not what a person seeking "science discourse and discussion" would find any worth in. That is why I told you prior to your latest banning that I have NEVER traded a comment with you about BICEP2, EVER.

And that is 100% on you. The links are there for anyone to see a RealityCheck getting a reality check.

 

[Undefined]

Hi Declan. Just as well I came back to check for typos. Thanks, at least you have tried to be 'fair' (as 'fair' as you can be in your own way).

RC, not quite the word I would use but your presentation of your "discovery" of the "flaws" that the mainstream investigators "took notice of" so as to "be made aware" and change their tune because of "your input" is entirely disingenuous and dishonest.

Why don't you present the real story about what happened on the other sight? You made a comment within an hour of the story being posted to the effect of: "You guys are missing the obvious. I just perused the article once and immediately found several glaring errors."

When asked what errors, you could not or would name them. You just called everyone else a fool for not seeing what you saw. Asked over and over what errors. You could not or would not name them. You continued to tell everyone how unscientific and knowledgeable they were for not seeing what you see.

Several more people asked for you aid in figuring out the errors you claimed were so glaring an undergrad should catch them. You would only tell them to learn it on their own.

You never were able to name or identify any errors. It took you over two weeks to start giving the errors you found a name or description, and those you plagiarized from the popular science press.

The links are there for anyone would like to see RealityCheck get reality checked. Out of the gate you were rude, called the regular posters ignorant, trolls and all manner of things just because they asked what the problems with the BICEP2 investigator's work. You began rude and everyone else gradually became rude because of it.

That is the 100% unmitigated truth. No slant. No spin. No faction. I know because I was there and watched in real-time as it unfolded. I wanted to discuss that article and you ruined it for me (and others) because you created a situation that while entertaining in some respects, was not what a person seeking "science discourse and discussion" would find any worth in. That is why I told you prior to your latest banning that I have NEVER traded a comment with you about BICEP2, EVER.

And that is 100% on you. The links are there for anyone to see a RealityCheck getting a reality check.

Actually, here's what happened 'over there' IF you read without bias. I made it clear I was withdrawing from posting because I wanted to concentrate on finalizing my ToE work. As a PARTING observation/recommendation to those there who were acting like 'giddy schoolgirls' (lapping up the claims and conclusions etc of those BICEP etc offering, and using the 'papers' and conclusions to beat up on 'cranks'), I ADVISED them to "settle down" and just take a closer look and do DUE DILIGENCE for THEMSELVES before accepting anything from that BICEP2 'treatment/interpretation' as gospel, let alone 'proof' of anything 'scientific'.

I tried to LEAVE it at that PARTING suggestion and log out...but Captn Stumpy got all 'emotional and shrill' about ME rather than just taking my advice to CHECK OUT the BICEP2 'work' etc for HIMSELF (because I saw the OBVIOUS flaws which I have LONG MENTIONED afflict all these 'CMB work/treatments/papers whivh passed 'peer review' in the past and this BICEP2 being just the latest 'publish-or-perish' FLAWED 'offering'.

So what went on from there? Captn and his 'friend' the downrating-bot-operating troll "Uncle Ira" and others started to attack me and lie about me. I defended, and pointed out the half-truths and lies.

It was the trolls who made it about the person rather than the message TO CHECK OUT FOR THEMSELVES and find the obvious flaws for themselves in the BICEP2 paper just as other mainstreamers have found for themselves since...including the obvious fact that that 'paper' was 'publish-or-perish' RUSH and FLAWED 'presentation/interpretation/claim/conclusion' etc, and not a proper scientifically rigorous exercise/treatment etc.

So, I already said I had mostly withdrawn and had no time to discuss that BICEP2 BS any further because I had work to do on my (yes, it's real) ToE.

Frankly, the lies and half-truths and plain ill-informed PERSONAL attacks on me are obvious tactics by trolls who WON'T ever admit that someone whom they labelled a 'crank' is MORE of an OBJECTIVE and INDEPENDENT observer and scientist than they have been or probably will ever be, despite all their egoistic/elitist/arrogance pretense to know better, even when they are behind in their beliefs and their 'knowledge' of what reality is actually being discovered by me rather than those whom you and others idolize but have proven WANTING when it comes to scientific objectivity and practice like that BICEP2 'team' and their 'obviously tragically flawed 'publish-or-perish' attempt at SNOWING YOU gullible egoistic types because they feed your own 'confirmation biased' way of 'discussing/viewing' evidence which has been under your nose but you have dismissed all this time until I pointed out this latest IN-BUILT-FLAWS-Laden 'paper/claims' from BICEP2 which has been proven LAME in all departments from assumptions/interpretations of data, systemic and methodology and plain 'wishful thinking' math-treatments which only prove the GIGO maxim true yet again.

But will you listen and learn from all this to CHECK CLOSELY FOR YOURSELF the CONTENT/CLAIMS and not just 'trust authority/sources' blindly? No. Apparently you'd rather continue your egoistic/elitists arrogant trollish games and lie about and kill the messenger, while the lessons and new insights )which have been longstanding with me and my ToE implications) pass you by as you troll along 'as usual'.

Bur again, I will give you credit for at least attempting to 'sound' fair; other trolls and saboteurs of proper science discourse on the forums don't even manage to do even that much while they lie and take cheap shots while ignoring the 'gems among the dross' which crosses their computer screens while they are too busy trolling and being 'proper d!cks and tvats' indiscriminately because they kneejerk to the conclusion that all those who disagree with FLAWED orthodoxy/mainstream stuff are 'all cranks'.

Enough. Good luck, and, believe it or not, no hard feelings. I can only trust that at least some of you can change that anti-science attitude/tactic which has damaged so much credibility of the forums and its moderators and self-professed 'scientists' and/or 'experts' (the same 'scientists' and 'experts' who were so readily swallowing without demure all that BICEP2 paper/claims BS!).

Nothing you or anyone on the forums does now will have any significance for me from now on, since I have basically withdrawn from discussing/posting on the net (especially where my ToE details/insights are concerned, for the usual reasons/risks of plagiarism and being mired down in pointless endless exchanges with trolls). Cheers, Declan, and I hope for your own sake you will be more honest with yourself and others in future (I have hopes that it will be possible for you; I have no such hopes for some types here and elsewhere because they are not intersted in truth, but their own trolling egos. Pity.).

Bye for now (I hope I don't have to come back and set more posters straight on what went down? Good! Cheers all!

 

[Trippy]

RC, not quite the word I would use but your presentation of your "discovery" of the "flaws" that the mainstream investigators "took notice of" so as to "be made aware" and change their tune because of "your input" is entirely disingenuous and dishonest.

He made an accusation. The accusation is false. QED.

 

[origin]

Nothing you or anyone on the forums does now will have any significance for me from now on, since I have basically withdrawn from discussing/posting on the net.

You keep saying that but you actually never do leave.:bawl:

Bye for now (I hope I don't have to come back and set more posters straight on what went down? Good! Cheers all!

We all are the ones hoping!

 

[Declan Lunny]

Bye for now (I hope I don't have to come back and set more posters straight on what went down? Good! Cheers all!

Well I am glad you had the opportunity to set us straight. Just curious, do you have these speeches boilerplated somewhere and recycle them? The links are up there, you keep forgetting that. Or do you hope that your boilerplate "woe is me the entire world rejects my specialness" tantrums will amuse them so much that they forget to go look at the links?

Good! to you too. (I'm willing to bet something small that you are now required to come back and set some people straight.) Bye for now RC.

 

[Undefined]

You keep saying that but you actually never do leave.:bawl:


We all are the ones hoping!

How puerile and irrelevant. How can I NOT return to DEFEND against such attempts at personal cheap shots while you keep taking same but not admitting your own failures? Is that all you have in answer to the relevant and important point that you and all your troll buddies were taken in by that obvious BICEP2 publish-or-perish 'paper' and 'claims', just because it came from mainstream?...until I (your alleged 'crank') and other brave and independent-minded mainstreamers called BS on that BICEP2 silliness, and rightly so. Who is in delusion/denial now, origin?...the one who got 'taken in' by that BS, or the ones who called that BS for what it was and suggested YOU do proper due diligence for yourself and not just accept some 'mainstream authority/source' flawed claims just because your confirmation bias is fed by them while you miss the gems from your alleged 'cranks'? Better luck in your future 'research' and 'thinking', origin! I trust I don't have to come back to defend against any more 'cheap shot' puerility from gullible trolls? Bye for now!

 

[Undefined]

Well I am glad you had the opportunity to set us straight. Just curious, do you have these speeches boilerplated somewhere and recycle them? The links are up there, you keep forgetting that. Or do you hope that your boilerplate "woe is me the entire world rejects my specialness" tantrums will amuse them so much that they forget to go look at the links?

Good! to you too. (I'm willing to bet something small that you are now required to come back and set some people straight.) Bye for now RC.

Since it is the obvious intent of the cheap shot puerile posts from the trolls, it's not beyond reason that I will DEFEND against same as I am honour bound to do. But honour and honesty seem foreign concepts to some here, obviously. And the 'links' I gave already will show the discussion 'over there' after I made the parting suggestion to do due diligence before 'believing' that obviously flawed BICEP2 paper BS....which has been demonstrated to be so, but you skirt around that and keep making cheap shots about me? Not very objective 'scientist' of you, is it? Come on, admit you were all agog and taken in by that BICEP2 flawed claims of proof etc; and stop the increasing self-embarrassment which further cheap shots about 'personality' will accrue to your own 'personal reputation' as well as reputation as a 'scientist'. Do better, Declan; I know you can, because you have shown glimmerings of such possibility where some others don't even have that to show for themselves. Good luck, and don't make me come back to defend against more trolling 'cheap shot' BS, hey? That's a good lad! Bye for now.