Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

I know the source, you gave it later in your post. I asked a series of rhetorical (at least they were by that point) questions about the source of the picture because the first time I asked you responded initially with something irrelevant about your own work, which didn't have anything to do with what I asked.

It was to get you to realise your response was entirely inappropriate and irrelevant. When someone asks you for the source of a claim you provide it, not waffle about your own unpublished debunked nonsense.

Just like I haven't read your book I haven't read his. I'm not going to give either of you two any money. But do you honestly think he got the idea from you? You're not the first person to wonder about the perhaps non-point nature of particles. Have you asked him? You and he have interacted on this forum. Has he said anything?

I love how you quote "coherent electron scattering" and then immediately truncate it to "coherent electron". The 'scattering' part is essential, in that it illustrates the picture is of an interference pattern formed by scattering. It is not literally a picture of a single electron. Density or orbital distributions formed by a single particle are not pictures of the particle in the sense a picture of a car tells you the shape of the car. You're still making the misinterpretation I warned you about.

You're the guy claiming to have been the source of numerous people's work and who seriously thinks he was in the running for the directorship of a major research institution despite having no published work in journals and not even a doctorate. Out of the two of us the one with the unrealistic view of himself is you. I do not claim to be a great physicist/mathematician or one with much impact but I'm demonstrably a competent one. On the other hand you misrepresent yourself, your work and your achievements (or lack there of).

Like when you wouldn't accept your 'derivation' of the SC metric was flawed because you didn't understand the \(ds^{2}\) notation? Or how you couldn't do coordinate transformations properly? Or how your results were wrong because you equated vectors and scalars and rank 2 tensors?

Again, I wonder if you're just trolling. Your comments about myself and other physicists are so staggeringly hypocritical you simply cannot be unaware of it. You cannot make statements about physicists being blind to flaws in their work when you've had your work demolished for being riddled with undergraduate (or even high school) level errors. Coupled with your "Do you see what you want to see in the mirror?" comment you must be trolling. The only alternative is that you're doing one of the most extreme cases of projecting your faults onto others I've ever seen.

Honestly, I cannot imagine how you could be unaware of your hypocrisy, the cognitive dissonance required would be ridiculous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You caught me at a good time. I am in teaching mode today. So students (AlphaNumeric) pay attention!

Do you even know what scattering means? Based on your recent post!

And, the picture is a literal picture of the electron; despite your objections and your warped sense of reality.

The short and the skinny for how that picture of the electron is taken is this.

Electron is deflected from its original trajectory, and made to bounce within the "atto-second" pulse wave. Because the "atto-second" light wave pulse is of a size similar to a certain portion of the electron, the electron is somewhat riding the wave of the "atto-second" light wave pulse. And similar to how a picture is captured when the "atto-second" light wave pulse is in phase with the electrons field nature, it resonates and yields an image similar to an interference pattern in diffraction.

So the scattering that they are referring to is that they are able to make the electron oscillate within the "atto-second" light wave pulse. And similar to taking a picture you don't see the light pulse of the camera, you see the image! And in this case the image is the "Electron!"

The Electron Scattering is such:

Electron scattering is the process whereby an electron is deflected from its original trajectory. As they are charged particles, they are subject to electromagnetic forces.

Electrons can be scattered by other charged particles through the electrostatic Coulomb forces. Furthermore, if a magnetic field is present, a traveling electron will be deflected by the Lorentz force. An extremely accurate description of all electron scattering, including quantum and relativistic aspects, is given by the theory of quantum electrodynamics.​

Common electron scattering processes include:

• Compton scattering, in which an electron absorbs a photon and reemits it, changing the energy and momentum of both;
  
  
• Møller scattering, in which two electrons scatter off of one another;
  
  
• Bhabha scattering, in which an electron and a positron scatter;
  
  
• Bremsstrahlung, in which an electron (most commonly, but also any other particle) passes by a heavy charged object (like a nucleus), changes energy and direction, and emits a photon;
  
  
• Deep inelastic scattering, in which a high-energy electron interacts with a nucleus and breaks it up;
  
  
• Synchrotron emission, in which an electron interacts with an external magnetic field, changes direction, and emits a photon.

​

Papers on Models of Fermions and Boson Nature:

THE PRINCIPLE OF PHOTON-INERTIA - By, Robert Louis Kemp - ca. 1994


THE QUANTIZATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC CHANGE - By, Robert Louis Kemp - ca. 1994​

Now, this next paper, I choose just for you, it is from a book written by, Prof. Dr. Ferenc Krausz of Max-Planck-Institut in 2004; as part of his lecture notes on Quantum Optics.

In this next paper, I know that you will like because it is the kind of "Math" that you like, and Dr. Ferenc Krausz's (2004) chapter is named similar to my 1994 paper. And, he is presenting similar material under that similar name: See below.

QUANTIZATION OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD - By, Dr. Ferenc Krausz of Max-Planck-Institut - ca. 2004​

I find the above paper very fascinating!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bullshit. The camera doesn't "see" an object, it records the electrochemical interactions produced inside the camera by the light scattered off said object. Photographs of the electron see the light it scatters, not the electron itself. It doesn't take a bachellor's degree to understand this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Damn, Firefox just ate my post!

As usual you try to be patronising and play 'teacher' but fall flat on your face.

I know how to calculate scattering differential cross sections for loop level processes in QED and QCD thanks. I doubt you even know what that means.

I warned you about making a common mistake and you didn't listen. I pointed out the abstract disagreed with you and you didn't listen. Here's a few quotes from the article itself, bolding mine :

"The pulse to pulse separation in the
train is tailored to exactly match an optical cycle of the
laser field, and the electron momentum distributions are
detected with a velocity map imaging spectrometer
(VMIS) [16,17]."

"The EWPs disperse as they fly
towards the detector where their momentum distribution is
recorded."

"Consecutive EWPs will therefore overlap and
interfere. Since the impulse imparted to the electron by the
IR field depends on when the ionization occurs [23–25],
each phase of the oscillating laser field yields a unique final
momentum distribution. "

"In contrast, if ionization occurs over the whole IR
cycle, or even at as few as 2 times during the cycle, the
resulting momentum distribution will be smeared out and
show interference fringes that depend on the different
ionization times"

Then there's the label for the picture itself :

"the net transfer of momentum is zero, and the resulting momentum
distribution is symmetric relative to the plane perpendicular to
the laser polarization. "

"When the EWPs instead are created at the
zero-crossings of the IR electric field (b), the momentum distri-
bution is shifted by the field along the direction of the laser
polarization. "

You didn't even read the label for the picture!

Generally I have no issue with people linking to Wikipedia when it is clear they understand the material and are just saving themselves some time typing. In your case I honestly don't think you understand what you're copying and pasting.

Why do you think linking to your unpublished, unreviewed nonsense is going to hold any weight with me? I don't think you could pass an undergraduate course at a decent university, let alone have anything original worthwhile to say on subjects clearly beyond your grasp. Heck, reading the labels to figures seems beyond you.

Your continued self promotion isn't 'promoting' your image, it just makes you look desperate. If your work was worth reading you'd not need to advertise it on forums (a criticism I level at Farsight too).

And what 'math' would that be? I don't think you understand the sort of 'math' I like. Actually, I know you don't because you demonstrated it when we talked about your work and relativity.

The 'paper' you link to is covering basic introductory quantum mechanics. It's much the same as I covered in one of my introductory courses. And should I take it from your comments that you are trying to insinuate Krausz got some of the material from your 'paper'? Your unpublished paper? The stuff in those lectures notes has been standard material for any quantum mechanics course for about half a century, it is older than you are. Titles like 'Quantizing [something]' are hardly rare in the realms of quantum mechanics.

You absolutely must be trolling now. No one would be so stupid that, based on similar titles. The material is decades older than you and if you were as well read in quantum mechanics as you claim you'd know that. Hence either you are aware that material is standard stuff, known to every student of quantum mechanics since 1950 and you're trying to troll or you're lying about knowing any of the material and you're so deluded you fail to realise what you think is novel is literally homework for undergraduates.

So which is it :
1. You are so thick you couldn't even read a figure label in a paper you linked to and you honestly believe people copied your unpublished, unreviewed work from 1994, despite it being in the textbooks decades earlier (and done coherently and correctly, unlike in your work's case)
2. You understand the material you linked to and how it is basic knowledge known to all QM students for decades but you're just trolling by trying to pretend to be thick and delusional.

Or can you provide a third possible explanation for why you're so completely and consistently wrong about other people's work, your own and physics in general?

 

First, I read and studied that article/paper when it first came out in the year 2008.

Coherent Electron Scattering Captured by an Attosecond Quantum Stroboscope

What I find amazing is that you are so well studied and read, why are you just now finding out about this type of electron structure imaging??

This is 2011, this paper is three years old. What were you doing sleeping??

Lastly, neither you nor I wrote that paper or were involved in the experiments, so we are only interpreting their results as external observers.

I first studied the paper three years ago. The way that I understood and interpreted, what are the "electron momentum distributions" mean is that the momentum distributions are the various states of momentum of the electron particle/wave has, as it oscillates back and forth within the "atto-second" light wave pulse. This "electron momentum distributions" means that the electron, which as a momentum when it moves is not at rest, within the wave; but is scattering or bouncing back and forth in the wave pulse.

Here is very short video that was circulating at the time:

Electron Image Video

And here is a video of Dr. Ferenc Krausz explaining his picture/imaging technique before his team actually captured the electron picture/image

See Dr. Ferenc Krausz explaining his "Atto-second" Camera


Keep up the physics, I think that you are learning!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So why did you falsely claim that it was literally a picture of an electron? It says it isn't right there in the paper, several times. If you'd studied the paper why did you claim something in direct contradiction to it?

Firstly where did I say this was the first I'd ever heard of this sort of imaging? I asked you for the source of the picture you posted, which is a different thing.

Secondly my area of research wasn't quantum optics, it was flux compactifications. You might not realise this but physics is a large area of research and it isn't possible to keep up to date with everything which is published. Instead people tend to focus on their own areas of interest.

I was reading papers on compact dimensions and generalised geometry, writing papers on said things, as well as gravity/gauge dualities, and getting a doctorate. Which is more than can be said for you, Mr Kemp.

I'm quoting them! They specifically said what the pictures are, they are not 'literally an electron' as you claimed. That has nothing to do with you and I being 'external observers', the researchers who wrote the paper said what the picture was and what it was is not as you claim.

Back peddling. You said it was literally an electron and now you're making excuses.

At least be man enough to face up to that.

You just demonstrated you can't read labels on figures, I hardly think you're in a position to try to be patronising. You asked what I've been doing for 3 years, knowing full well I've accomplished more in physics in that time than you have. I really do hope you're just trolling because it's a very sad statement about the human mind if you are experiencing so much denial and self delusion you believe what you say, Mr Kemp.

 

From this OP selection, we get the link:
Graphical timeline of the Big Bang

Showing quark activity after inflation, and ...the beginning of inflation coinciding with the separation of the strong force and the electronuclear force. Merely a coincidental event?

Quark activity is related to the strong force with Asymptotic Freedom, or to say, " ...the force of containment gets weaker so that it asymptotically approaches zero for close confinement..."

No data for planck era space-time conditions.

1) As space-time expands into a larger than plank-size "existence" (large enough to be called existence, even though one could debate that a timeless state, that has the potential towards becoming a time state, would have to also, and always, be considered "in existence").
2)Gravity separates from the electronuclear force (a weak force, but it's decoupling perhaps involved in the strong force decoupling to follow).
3)It is not for "amateur me" to discuss how strong force decoupling and inflation are perhaps related. Whether conditions in that decoupling could mimic certain aspects of particle/quark dynamics that would release the energies needed for inflationary ignition. It would be foolish for me to continue here, and I will leave it as that.

I don't think there is any rational reason to debate the possibility of a Big Bounce condition, as current Universe conditions seem to suggest a collapse of the current Universe is off the table.
And because of the Early Universe conditions discussed above, it would seem unnecessary (if not at least currently distinguishable), to invoke an untestable scenario, that is "The Big Bounce".
Without data to bolster a "pre-universe condition" possibility, I must leave the discussion of "oscillatory states" to the experts in polarity and particle spin dynamics.

 

The same source says it was not a "co-incidence."

If you follow the nearest link, you get this article: Wikipedia: Inflationary epoch

And this introductory article on inflationary cosmology says the same. http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

 

The time-line that is presented with your link, is why this post was created.

There is a lot of ambiguity in that time-line that need to be seriously resolved.

I won't dare to go into all of the ambiguities, but here is a couple:

1) The photon Era is starting with the "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis" however there should definitely be photons before then; such as the "Electroweak" era.

2) What type of particles was carrying away the "Gravitational Heat Radiation" during that "Electroweak" era.

3) There is so much going on there, I just don't have the time!! Maybe some other time.

Trying to explain this time-line with a good conceptual theory is why "Cosmology" is a very exciting field right now!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

RPenner,

This Inflation for Beginners, by JOHN GRIBBIN, was very insightful. I really like the history that he provided. I thought that the history was dead on!

It appears that JOHN GRIBBIN is claiming those cosmologists are open to an "Oscillatory Universe" model if presented with the right conceptual and mathematical sophistication. And he appears to be claiming that there might already be experimental evidence that could justify such a model. An "Oscillatory Universe" model of the universe would have to a combination of a “Big Bang” along with something else. The something else is what is up in the air, and the reason for the post.

The thing that made my skin crawl as I was reading was the idea about "Monopoles." I know that they have been searching these "Monopoles" for a long time. I think that this exercise is "Futile."

A magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop. This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of the (B-field) is zero. The magnetic vector fields are called solenoid vector fields; meaning that there is no starting or stopping point. This property that a magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles.

I really wish that cosmologist would leave this idea alone!!:bugeye:


If you could ever separate from your "Anti-Particle" AlphaNumeric, you would probably turn out to be a good guy!

The articles/papers that you have presented, and your mathematical skills so far appear to be really good!!

 

Well, I cancelled the CrankClaims foundational meeting and instead brought a pound of cheeses to the San Francisco Wikipedia meetup/picnic/wiknic. I've spent a lot of time over the past few weeks trying to firm up the idea and distinguish it from RationalWiki or other websites. I continue to think there is a need for it.

CrankClaim: "My personal failure to understand is proof that others were unclear."
Reply: Claiming to be a competent authority is not a demonstration that one is competent. Due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the incompetent are more likely to claim competency than those with more experience and those with more skill. Finally, not all materials are written for all audiences, and materials written for specific audiences tend to include jargon and other language peculiar to that audience which might be misunderstood by an outsider.
CrankClaim: "My personal failure to understand is proof that science has failed."
Reply: No, it's merely an admission that science education has not educated you personally in the subject matter. Science is as simple as possible while still being the best means to usefully and precisely describe the subject matter. This does not imply that it is necessarily simple or intuitive or well-known. A process of discovery is at the core of science and a secondary process of communication and education is require to convey these discoveries to an audience which is willing and able.

CrankClaim: "Lots of photons were around in the Electroweak epoch"
Reply: During the electroweak epoch, before the electroweak symmetry broke, the electroweak force was mediated by the B bosons (hyper-photons) and the three W bosons. Today's photons are composites of B and W fields.

Note: Wikipedia: Electroweak interaction is written for an audience capable of doing most of the work in a graduate-level field theory textbook, and not at the more general level targeted by pop-physics books. But further details are in the review article: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-standard-model.pdf

CrankClaim: "Stupid scientists claim there were no photons before the photon epoch."
Reply: This claim rests under a shallow misunderstanding of the jargon. The definition of the photon epoch which were the hundreds of thousands of years between the time when the universe was hot enough for positrons and electrons to be in thermal equilibrium with the light of their annihilation and the time when then universe grew cool enough for neutral hydrogen atoms to be stable. At the start of this period gamma rays outnumbered protons by a factor of more than 50,000 and thus photons had far more influence on the development of the universe than they do today. Thus the "photon epoch" was that interval in time when photons, not matter, dominated the dynamics of cosmology. Photons existed as we understand them today as far back as the end of the electroweak epoch, \(A = B \cos \theta_W + W^3 \sin \theta_W\) in the language of electroweak symmetry breaking.

CrankClaim: "Science is useless because it doesn't address a term I just invented."
Reply: Language, like software, is very mutable. When you invent a term, it is your responsibility to define it so that other people may use it to accurately describe the thought you had when you used it.

Note: Gravitation radiation, by definition, is carried by gravitons. According to models, any particle collisions, such in a hot gas or plasma, will generate gravitational radiation, but in cosmology of the Big Bang there is no destination to "carry away" the energy. Everything is just about equally hot. I have no idea why the term was capitalized and quoted, but I suspect that the author is referring to a reference given to him on another thread and not to any Wikipedia page and not to the diagram under specific discussion.

Based on what source(s)? I don't know how you would know the history unless you read about it somewhere else.

Citation required. Gribbin seems to advocate the position that the universe will not collapse, which is a prerequisite for any type of "Oscillatory Universe" model. So in my reading, your claimed source advocates the opposite of the position you claim he has.

CrankClaim: "Freedom of expression belongs only to me, and any contrary position is evidence of a conspiracy to oppress and censor me."
Reply: Criticism, the expression of opposing viewpoints, is not censorship, the denial of freedom of expression.

CrankClaim: "If I ignore the statements of fact and rational arguments made by my critics, they will cease to exist."
Reply: That is not the way the universe works, there is a empirical reality confirmed by shared experiences and if one self-censors what statements and arguments one allows yourself to consider that does nothing to negate the factual content of the statements or diminish the force of the arguments.

And yet, having missed my chance to be on the Math Olympiad team, I know others are far better. I can name two with certainty on this very forum, and I know they each can name twenty whose math skills they in turn are also in awe of. By these higher lights, I am displaying the skills of a humble librarian and doing (in some cases literally) simple sums.

CrankClaim: "I'm among the smartest people I know."
Reply: It is still statistically unlikely that you are in the top ten thousand of those who ever lived, or in the top fifty of those who considered the exact problem or field you are now considering. Nothing is to be gained by patting yourself on the back even in the unlikely case than your self-perception is exactly correct because the value of intelligence is not in the having but in the doing.

 

A magnetic monopole is the magnetic equivalent of a charged particle. If there were no electrically charged particles all electric field lines would form loops and have zero divergence. The monopole is hypothesised to complete the symmetry of Maxwell's equations. If you understood anything about electromagnetism on a working level you'd understand why they are suggested. Instead all you do is a copy & paste from somewhere about the magnetic field. It's obvious when you do it, you suddenly become slightly more coherent and use terminology correctly. In normal back and forths you don't use terminology correctly.

I like how you praise Rpenner's maths ability for presenting other people's papers but you complain about me and how I should keep learning, despite you having been presented with papers I wrote. You have double standards, not least because you try to claim you're a competent physicist because you've written a book. So if you write something it's evidence you're good but if I write something (and my work actually passes peer review) I still need to learn?

It's clear you can't provide legitimate retorts to my criticisms of you and my demonstrations you're constantly wrong, so you have to employ hypocrisy and ignorance. Rpenner has done a good job showing yet more of your misconceptions and falsehoods. I'm beginning to wonder if you're capable of anything else?

In all likelihood Magneto invented the phrase 'Gravitational Heat Radiation', he likes to do that but fails to define his terminology when he does. He used the phrase 'complex general relativity' many times in our discussion of his work but the definition kept changing. It was a catch all for anything he wanted to claim credit for, initially he said it was to do with GR's prediction of extra dimensions. The fact GR has no such prediction and 'complex GR' wouldn't imply that from its name anyway didn't seem to bother him.

I haven't checked the thread about that in a while but I'll PM you my email so if there's a list of crank claims you want help with its easier/quicker for interaction that way (I can't ignore my work email). If that is the style you plan to have I think I already have a fair few retorts from past interactions with people like Reiku.

 

Robert Louis Kemp (Magneto_1) is a fraud.

 

Crankclaim: the universe came from nothing 14 billion years ago.

The trolls are out in numbers today.

 

And in reply, what experiment would you like to cite which says otherwise?

I think it's a forum misconduct in itself to call people trolls every time they debunk a poor and dishonest misrepresentation of established science. So please stop with the personal attacks, it's getting irritating even though they're not directed at me personally (as far as I can tell). If you don't like what someone has posted in reply to someone else's argument and feel it goes beyond academics, report them and let the mods deal with it.

 

I have no experiment to reference that proves the universe didn't come from nothing or even from and infinitely dense zero volume point/space. I think there was a big bang event about 14 billion years ago but my simple pea brained logic tells me there were preconditions that had to effect the time line of events emerging from the big bang. Current time line ignores any preconditions or the effect that preexisting space filled with preexisting matter and energy would have had on the time line. Do you have any evidence that says otherwise?

Point taken.

However, it is also tiresome to see the same so called professionals constantly ranting about past threads, past trolling, fraud, and every other accusation that has been made and remade.

 

CrankClaim "Evolution can be summarized as Random Mutation and Natural Selection."
Reply: While those are important biological concepts, by themselves they do not fairly summarize the theory of evolution which is about variation in populations of living things changing over time. Living things reproduce, exchange genetic material and/or have sex, and are not all alike. Some of these variations are heritable. Thus even in the absence of natural selection and mutation, the genetic description of a population of living things obviously changes over time. This too is evolution. Mutation is just an obvious way of changing the genetic description of an individual in a population of living things. Natural Selection whether in the form of death or differential breeding success is the consequence that not all variation in a population is valueless. But you aren't thinking about evolution until you are thinking about whole populations of living things changing over time.

CrankClaim "The Big Bang is everything from nothing."
Reply: Not "nothing". The Big Bang is everything in the visible universe originating from a time when the universe was very hot and dense. Scientists feel confident in this because of independent lines of evidence which make mutual sense if the universe and the present-day laws of physics came to be fixed about 13.7 billion years ago. It was so hot and dense that our physics doesn't work to tell us what happened before that time. That statement of our scientific ignorance is distinct from the baseless claim that the visible universe necessarily arose from nothing. Indeed concepts of "what was before the big bang" are numerous, but as of this moment largely speculation.

 

The Tree and Its Fruit

Beware of false prophets (physicists - AlphaNumeric, RPenner & CPTBork) who come disguised as harmless sheep (claiming to be physicists) but are really vicious wolves.

You can identify them by their fruit (posts), that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes (good physics) from thornbushes (their postings), or figs from thistles (their postings)?

A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit.

So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down (eventually falsified) and thrown into the fire (loses all respect and credibility).

Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit, so you can identify people by their actions!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All true. But to insist that the science that describes the time line would not be affected by preconditions, what ever they might have been, seems to forgive our current consensus cosmology for not being able to know while being very enthusiastic regardless of what we don't know, lol.

 

I have seen people that have schizophrenia, write like that; what??? Did you not take your meds today??

Your listing of CrankClaim: and Reply:, makes you no more of an expert than it does anyone else. I am sure that this is what you would, like others to believe about you.

My bullet points were not meant to describe my understanding, or lack thereof, it was to make the point that the time-line in that link is full of ambiguities!!

I assume that you are either looking in the mirror or were referring to AlphaNumeric when you made this statement, "Due to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the incompetent are more likely to claim competency than those with more experience and those with more skill."

This I am completely aware of. What I am totally surprised about is that you aware of it!!

This equation is bogus. I know that you think that this makes you look like you have superior knowledge to others. But that equation is flat speculative and wrong!! The uninformed will think that you are correct I am sure.

Did you take your schizophrenia medicine today, because it is showing? You are using the term "Gravitational Radiation" in regards to "hot gas or plasma" the only thing I did was to make the term a little more self explanatory by adding the term "heat" to distinguish the actual phenomena. The term "Gravitational Heat Radiation" in my opinion is a much more descriptive term for the process which you state above.

Take your medicines guy, I already gave you accolades for presenting links to good material; however not commenting on the material that you present but criticizing others for commenting on what you present, makes you look "Insecure!!" But, like fear, I can smell the "Insecurity"

I don't know about the top fifty that ever lived; but because I now know you; and based on your claim, that means for sure, that I am smarter than you!!