I'm sick of this. There is a dogma among people around here ''in the close nit family of string theorists, and alike,'' that when someone like me has something to say, it's either cessied or put in psuedoscience.

Take Ben. He is constantly moving posts at his disposal, and really most of the time, the subjects are quantum based. Is such a place only reserved for him and his cronies?

In a recent PM, i said:

''Would you explain to me why you moved my thread?

I did not get anything out of context. It started from Alphanumeric trying to make me look bad, for talking about a subject i supposidly did not understand.

I know quantum waves are potential, or in the term virtual, so why move it. And answer me please.''

But he hasn't answered my last PM too him concerning another subject of removal. Why is it he has the power to move without due cause? What is the cause?

I understand a subject that is considered ''out of topic,'' but most threads moved are not.

He is a little to move-and-lock happy, and i am not the only one to recognize this. What happened to the day mods actually took the poster up on a challenge, talking about it, before removal?

Nowadays, Ben just moves, at his according. It's wrong, and unscientific, not to mention the biased intentions behind them -- so here is an example.

I know, that if i created a thread before the he made his own thread on ''why photons cannot make matter,'' explaining that matter is just trapped photons, it would have been moved to psuedoscience or the cesspool, because i was the one who made it. (Actually, i did make such a thread several months ago, and it was psuedo'd. -- just shows you the authoraty around.)

To his disclosure, someone must have informed him that all matter is actually trapped photons, and apologized for his mistake.

So what will it be? This continuation and abuse of power?

Since this seems to be missed an awful lot by those that complain, this is being stickied.

Open Government was initially an Experimental forum created by the Sites initial founder Porfiry, it was made to allow certain thought to be made about the sites operation and not created as a place to Flame about Moderators in regards to peoples personal discontent.

Complaint threads about Moderators will be LOCKED, not just in this forum but all the others too. This is because it doesn't do anything constructive but just causes more problems in the long run.

If you have a problem with a Moderator then you can:

* Take it up with the Moderator in question through Private Mail (PM). This is not suggested if you are wanting to send abuse, only if you want to ask why a post was deleted, where a post has been moved or why something has been moderated. For the most part they will explain themselves and you might be able to remedy the problem via either a repost that's been through moderation or just the understanding not to do it again.

Always ask if they are the moderator you need to deal with, they will ask of the other Moderators if they aren't and direct you to the correct one.

Just Remember: Moderators are Human (no matter the rumours) so treat them nicely. We aren't here to be abused or throw abuse back, if you want that get yourself a chat bot that you can program yourself.

* If the Moderator is personally singling you out from the rest of the forum and you feel unfairly moderated, PM a Super-Moderator or Administrator about that Moderator. We can look round and ask questions about what's going on. We will try to remain unbiased when dealing with situations and will attempt to deal with things fairly.


If by this time you still think there is some sort of conspiracy or we (Sciforums) is being unfair, then the likelihood is you've burnt so many bridges that people just don't want to deal with you any more.

[Resources]
List of Moderators/Administrators

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79023

And what if they do not respond to a message? If you ask me, that is a mod not doing their work. So we are left to resort to the government.

For an update, Bens answer was, ''virtual has specific meanings in physics.''

HELLO?

I said i did not deny the photon was virtual, and yet a monkey knows that virtual also means potential, behind its own statistics.

There is some biased conspiracy going on here.

I can't call it a "conspiracy" but here is the reasoning behind Bens locks/moves:

If it contradicts, can't be explained by or highlights any short comings in (his flavor of)the mainstream QED- he moves it.

Its true he does not allow any debate of the "whys"

I started a thread to ask the Sciforums community if anyone knew if an experiment had ever been performed specifically eliminating consciuosness as a cause of decoherence.

Please forgive me for using the "C" word in a physics forum but Ben moved me before anyone could really consider this scientifically verifiable and relavent question regarding a phenomenon squarely dead center in the realm of physics.

Its a valid question that I neither advocate nor oppose. I just wanted to know where I could read up on the subject.

Hence, biased attacks.

You also know, that consciousness has its own Quantum Mechanical explanation. So Ben had no right to move your post. I was actually annoyed by it.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79023

Gracias.

And, Ben?

You never answered my last disagreement. Can't remember what it is now, so i came here. If you don't like it, maybe you can explain yourself better with this peer-review?

I don't think you can.

And, Ben?

You never answered my last disagreement. Can't remember what it is now, so i came here. If you don't like it, maybe you can explain yourself better with this peer-review?

I don't think you can.

Oh Reiku...

you should have included a poll.

Maybe. Why don't you? I don't think my use of English can be argued with.

I don't think my use of English can be argued with.

Let no one ever say that you can't speak English. Wait for it...

I did not get anything out of context. It started from Alphanumeric trying to make me look bad, for talking about a subject i supposidly did not understand.

Ok students. Spot the spelling mistake here. Bonus points for (1) grammar mistake!

You fool.

This all started from knowing that ''virtual'' and ''potential'', even from the physical jargon viewpoint, that they meant the same. NOTHING any more.

So, students, who knows a CERTAIN difference between potential. and virtual?

I'm sick of this. There is a dogma among people around here ''in the close nit family of string theorists, and alike,'' that when someone like me has something to say, it's either cessied or put in psuedoscience.
Because you never talk about a viable new theory you have or mainstream work, you have to throw in your own views or 'theories' which are nonsense and demonstrably so. This isn't a string theorist conspiracy against you, it's the fact you cannot do physics or maths and you don't like being told that by people who can.

Ben and I aren't in communication about you, the few PMs we occasionally exchange generally relate to a bit of work, requests for a paper or "Do you know so and so...?". The 'unspoken agreement' we have is just because we know physics and we know you don't know.
He is constantly moving posts at his disposal, and really most of the time, the subjects are quantum based. No, they are your take on quantum mechanics. Using words like "wavefunction" and "normalised" doesn't mean you're talking viable science.
What happened to the day mods actually took the poster up on a challenge, talking about it, before removal?I'll take you up on a physics challenge. You said you'd accept and Guest said he'd ask a question. Then you backed out.

If you're willing to defend your position, let's go!
I said i did not deny the photon was virtual, and yet a monkey knows that virtual also means potential, behind its own statistics.That's the common use of the word, and a questionable use too. To a quantum physicist, the words have different meaning. You don't know this because you don't do quantum mechanics or read textbooks written in proper terminology.

Ben does. I do. And yet you ignore what we say, even when we provide evidence that physicists talk as we do.
There is some biased conspiracy going on here. The bias is to science. The conspiracy is the community not putting up with your ****.

If you want to defend yourself, lets see you prove you can do the things you claim.
This all started from knowing that ''virtual'' and ''potential'', even from the physical jargon viewpoint, that they meant the same. NOTHING any more.Physics terminology :

Virtual : Off shell
Potential : The terms in equations or Lagrangians which result in field couplings
Not real : The quantity takes values in \mathbb{C}, not \mathbb{R}

Common usage of terms :
Virtual : Make believe, not physical or actual.
Potential : If something has the potential to do an act, then it has the possibility of doing said act. The potential to run 100m in 10 seconds means that it's possible to run 100m in 10 seconds.
Not real : Make believe, not physical or actual.

See the difference? In common usage, 'virtual' and 'not real' are synonymous. To a physicist they aren't. Just like there's different meanings for 'differentiate' whether you're a mathematician or a layman. Layman usage would be "I can differentiate between butter and 'I can't believe it's not butter'". A mathematician would say "I can differentiate f(x) by x". The mathematician's usage doesn't even make grammatical sense when read by a layman, because you're not differentiating between something.

So there's another simple example of how layman usage and technical terminology can differ. Do you need any more examples?

How predictable. Bens Lacky comes into the picture.

Potential means '' not real.''

So does virtual.

From his terminology:

Virtual : Make believe, not physical or actual

Not real : Make believe, not physical or actual.


Next question:

What does potential mean, when it may not reveal an actual value" does it not mean...

not physical or actual..?

Hi my name is Nonsense and I wish there would be world peace. Thanks :D

Actually, if you were REALLY clever, you would have chosen your name to be

"Naansense"

That's fucking hilarious.

Is it. Wait until i roll over in laughter.

There, there i am.

Now, tell me why the word potential and virtual are not invariant under the same discription. Oh sorry, you can't, well... not a real educated word.

How predictable. Bens Lacky comes into the picture.Firstly, I'm not his lacky and neither is he mine. We agree a lot on many areas of physics. Why? Because we've been taught similar things, we work in similar things and we're both competant in similar things.

You haven't and, like Kaneda, you see conspiracy when several people disagree with you.
From his terminology:

Virtual : Make believe, not physical or actual

Not real : Make believe, not physical or actual.

Next question: .Did you read the post or are you trying to take a quote out of context? I said the physics terminology is different, which doesn't agree with what you claimed. You said that talking to a physicist and saying "There's a potential" would imply "It's not real". It doesn't, it means there's an interaction component to it's equations of motion which means it's not a free particle. Physics terminology disagrees with you.

Do you understand the difference? You are doing as StevenA does on PhysOrg. You don't understand or know the technical use of words so you go to layman dictionaries and get the non-technical meaning of words and then claim that's the usage researchers use. This is wrong. I've given examples of where it's wrong.

What about my example of 'differentiate'. Do you think mathematicians never use a different meaning to the layman definition of "Tell two or more things apart" ?
What does potential mean, when it may not reveal an actual value" does it not mean...

not physical or actual..? So you didn't fully read the post you quoted of mine? Where I mentioned the physics terminology? OR the thread which is now cesspooled where I gave a more elaborate definition?

So you don't bother to look at my posts and then continue to whine about how I'm wrong? Are you taking a leaf out of Kaneda's book?

I'll support a non-biased question of the use of authority.. but not baggage packed personal attacks.
(unless I make them :))

The more you try and argue for Ben, the more you prove my point.

Now, tell me why the word potential and virtual are not invariant under the same discription. Oh sorry, you can't, well... not a real educated word.I have. Twice. And I also mentioned Peskin & Schroder, the textbook recommended for graduates learning QFT, which makes mention of potential and virtual in the manner I explained. Not in the way you use it.

Your usage of 'virtual' means the 'uncollapsed wavefunction' in technical terminology. Your 'not real' means that the uncollapsed wave function isn't observed and so doesn't have 'observable status'. See how the layman explainations differ from technical terminology again.

Tell me, what textbooks on quantum field theory are you reading. You claim you've researching QFT and you know the terminology. Are pop science and emails with Wolf your own 'sources'?
The more you try and argue for Ben, the more you prove my point.So we're lackies because we agree on science?

You all agree on the same basis, even if science CAN say the oposite. This is what i fight against. These evident ''biased'' attacks.


You are a bunch of hypocritical fucks, the way you support your own psuedoscience, string theory.

A say tomato, you say ketchup.
I suggest we kill each other to validate the pronunciation.

Actually, if you were REALLY clever, you would have chosen your name to be

"Naansense"

That's fucking hilarious.

Are you implying that I am not clever? :bugeye: :p

Naansense

You all agree on the same basis, even if science CAN say the oposite. This is what i fight against. These evident ''biased'' attacks. So where can science say the opposite and you have provided coherent explanations and justifications for your claims?

I have asked you whether you are using a non-pop science texts to get work/ideas/results/justifications/methods for your work and claims but you keep ignoring the question. Are you afraid to answer?
You are a bunch of hypocritical fucks, the way you support your own psuedoscience, string theory. It is the best current line of research into uniting GUTs, relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology into a single framework. That has been the goal of theoretical physics since we developed those things individually.

So where can science say the opposite and you have provided coherent explanations and justifications for your claims?

I have asked you whether you are using a non-pop science texts to get work/ideas/results/justifications/methods for your work and claims but you keep ignoring the question. Are you afraid to answer?
It is the best current line of research into uniting GUTs, relativity, quantum mechanics and cosmology into a single framework. That has been the goal of theoretical physics since we developed those things individually.

I hope Ben gives you personal brownie points for this.

Maybe a fuck up the arse.

You said that we agree on things where science can say the opposite. I've asked for an example. And you seem upset about that.

If you think there's a conspiracy against you and I'm incorrect when I call you a liar, just answer some direct questions, simple ones like "What are the recommended books for your college course in physics?" and "What is the topic you are doing at the moment? Can you give me an example of the equations you're using?". Is it too much to ask for you to answer what must be 2 lines?

And it's funny you insinuate a homosexual relationship or the like just because we agree. You're an 'out' gay, yet you use such things as an insult?

So you spam my threads, and spam my complaints. I've had enough.

Do you know what, by mentioning my sexuality, you crossed the major line this time, mate.

So you spam my threads, and spam my complaints. I've had enough.http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84109&page=2

You claim you do quantum field theory research but you don't realise that -1 and 1 aren't equal.
Do you know what, by mentioning my sexuality, you crossed the major line this time, mate. .So it's not okay for me to comment that someone who openly talks about the fact he's gay saying to someone that they are gay because someone agrees with them is a little odd, but you saying Ben and I engage in homosexual acts because we agree with one another is okay?!

So who crosses the line? You for calling me gay or me for saying that it's odd you saying that, given you're gay? Now you're saying I've cross a line, yet don't think you did?

You know what. You did cross it this time.

You better hope someone here bans me for good.

Do you hear me saying, ''you straight cunt...''
NO!

I will pray to God you get fucking knocked over for your fucking ignorance.

Maybe. Why don't you? I don't think my use of English can be argued with.

Har-Har-Har!!!

Your usage of the English language is about the absolute WORST of any I've seen by someone from an English-speaking country!!!!

What a dumb joke you are!:bugeye:

I hope Ben gives you personal brownie points for this.

Maybe a fuck up the arse.

Not only are you less educated than many here, you are also VERY crude!!!

(Reported!!!!)

Just hold it right there. I have no intentions of targeting a single person, like he has.

My words are dependant on the fact Ben sticks with his cronies, nothing specially indepent about their sexuality.

However, Alphanumeric does, and this is what i am pissed about. So if I get reported, so should fucking he, for even worse.

In fact, if anyone has anything to say about it, then ban me for good.

YYou better hope someone here bans me for good.Just like I said on PhysOrg when you said such things, why don't you show some self restraint and just leave?
Do you hear me saying, ''you straight cunt...''
NO!Where did I say anything like "**** you you fag" or "You're a ****ing homo!". You attempted to use the insinuation of a homosexual act as an insult, which I commented seemed odd. I have not insulted you for being day, I've insulted you for showing some hypocrisy.

I dislike your hypocrisy. Your sexuality I have no problem with. As I've said to you via PM, I have many gay friends. I dislike people for things like ignorance, stupidity, lying and hypocrisy. All of which you show. If they are gay, it doesn't come into it.
Just hold it right there. I have no intentions of targeting a single person, like he has. I'm not targetting you specifically. I insult all the cranks I come across here. You, Farsight, Kaneda, John whatever his face is, Bishandi, plane. And then there's people on PhysOrg. I wonder how people like StevenA, Ub and DavidD hold down jobs because they are so detached from reality.

You post a lot of crap and so I have a lot to correct. Same goes for Kaneda. I've said it many many times, you stop posting BS, I'll have nothing to correct you on.
My words are dependant on the fact Ben sticks with his cronies, nothing specially indepent about their sexuality.
Fair enough. To prove I'm not above saying so, then I apologise for what I said, at the time I considered it to be an attempt by someone openly gay to try to insult someone else with a "You're gay!" comment. Might I suggest if you wish to avoid such confusion in the future you stick to sexuality neutral insults.

But then your comments like "You're a wank stain" aren't exactly taking the moral high ground, are they?
However, Alphanumeric does
I didn't insult you for being gay, I insulted you for what I viewed as hypocrisy. Do you understand that? As I said via PM, it seemed like the equivalent of someone Jewish saying something antisemitic or a black person saying "Up yours n*****!".
I will pray to God you get fucking knocked over for your fucking ignorance. Ignorance? I haven't said "I hate gays" or "You're stupid because you're gay" or "Dead the fags", I've pointed out perceived hypocrisy.

Now you want me to be hospitalised or killed because I've said "You seem like a hypocrite!". Talk about blowing things out of proportion and putting words in my mouth. :shrug:

He is a little to move-and-lock happy, and i am not the only one to recognize this. What happened to the day mods actually took the poster up on a challenge, talking about it, before removal?
I'm not sure you've really been around long enough to say "back in the day". Not much has really changed around here in the past couple years.
Nowadays, Ben just moves, at his according. It's wrong, and unscientific, not to mention the biased intentions behind them -- so here is an example.
I'm not even a physicist, and even I can tell that there is little science in your posts. Science works because of rigor -- you refuse to let your ideas undergo even the most basic levels of scrutiny and only repeat yourself ad nauseum. I don't think AlphaNumeric's questions of you are unreasonable, so why is it that you are having such a hard time answering them?