For those more advanced in their courses, i was wondering, do we ever apply a net force on a vector?

You lecture to us about the Standard Model, yet you're having trouble with this? It's peanuts by comparison, you could wake me up at 4:30 in the night with a hangover and I could do this stuff... Anyhow I don't mean to be rude, but I think you have a very long way to go with your math background and that a lot of your ideas and claims about modern physics are going to be radically changed as you learn the maths and rigorous details.

I know that's the experience I had- when I was a teenager, I thought that because I could talk about Lorentz transformations and neutrons and stuff, that I was on the verge of becoming an expert in modern physics. Then as I learned more I realized "whoa there, slow down, trooper. You don't even know how to solve the equation for a damped spring yet."

Anyway to answer your question, if your question is not a 1-dimensional problem then you should always have all of your forces represented by vectors, and the net force, being the sum of these vectors, is itself a vector.

As phrased, the question in post #1 makes no sense.

What does it mean to "apply a force on a vector"?

Nothing, as far as I can tell.

You don't apply forces to forces. You can add vectors, so if you have worked out the net force on an object and then an additional force is applied, the new total force is the sum of the net force and the new force. But things like velocity and acceleration are both vectors but you cannot add them any more than you can add kilograms and seconds.

CptBork, I've been saying that to Reiku for about 6 months. He claims to have looked into researching string theory but doesn't know the difference between a vector and a metric. Doesn't know basic algebra. Doesn't know any vector calculus beyond high school (and even that he's very shakey on). And yet he claims to have 'universal equations' and to understand group theory.

If I was feeling vindictive towards Reiku I'd link you to a few threads but judging by your post, you've already seen enough....

You don't apply forces to forces. You can add vectors, so if you have worked out the net force on an object and then an additional force is applied, the new total force is the sum of the net force and the new force. But things like velocity and acceleration are both vectors but you cannot add them any more than you can add kilograms and seconds.

CptBork, I've been saying that to Reiku for about 6 months. He claims to have looked into researching string theory but doesn't know the difference between a vector and a metric. Doesn't know basic algebra. Doesn't know any vector calculus beyond high school (and even that he's very shakey on). And yet he claims to have 'universal equations' and to understand group theory.

If I was feeling vindictive towards Reiku I'd link you to a few threads but judging by your post, you've already seen enough....

Reiku has made a giant leap forward in his thinking so that, like many great scientists before him , he is not understood by the establishment. One small step for Reiku, one giant leap for physics.

Of course, to be fair to me, and don't appreciate math as much as my fellow students. And i tend to contemplate physics and philosophical teachings together, over the general rigour of math. Even though i have to do it.

CPtborg

Actually, thats not very fair.

Let me explain why.

I think i lecture quite good on physics, explaining the implications quite well to the non-scientifically minded.

Now physics is a big subject. Its covers a multitude of spectra which a single physicist can never learn in a single lifetime. Now, the very fact i was unaware of the answer to the question:

do we ever apply a net force on a vector?

Only highlights the fact that the course i am taking is cetainly correct, and it is my general thoughts that was wrong. But anyone here who claims authority on a subject, without recieving their PhD, are no more wiser on physics than the next Joe. There may be differential knowledges we all know, which makes each and everyone of us unique, but to try and bring a question down with insults, for me anyway, expresses how over-confident people can be in this area of science. (Also, there was no need to explain to me what a net force was. It was one of the first things we covered) -- but thank you anyway.

As i have said before, the dogma of physics students, hasn't changed since i was last at college.

Alpha

Give it a break. When i said i had looked into string theory, i also made it clear that i was brushing through it. I know basic algebra, but only the basic algebra i left school with. Next year, my lecturer wants me to take a mathematics course, to make my physics training stronger.

You see, the people who surround me have high hopes for my development in physics.

.................................

A few things for anyone who reads this.

I am a 23 year old man, who is in his second year of training. If i have a question which seems basic to you, just stop and remember, that physics is not black and white as you may insideously compare.

I love my work, and i could possibly blow your heads off in my expertise of physics. But then again, these things are lost to generally most here, who believe that they are advanced, and somehow superior, just because of a greater mathematical knowledge...

... and its cool. You don't need to grill me about these things. I get it nearly everyday from lecturer. I realize how important math is, and generally, the equations i have HAD to learn, i do learn them grudgingly, i admit. I am one of these people who do not believe that math is adequate to reduce the complexities of a universe.

But anyone here who claims authority on a subject, without recieving their PhD, are no more wiser on physics than the next Joe. So if you were really ill, you'd go knock on your next door neighbour's door rather than go see a final year med student, simply because they haven't yet obtained a particular bit of paper but have demonstrated all the required skills?

You're basically saying that someone like Ben, who is a published physicist and holds a masters and a degree is no more knowledgable than 'the next Joe'.

So why bother doing a degree in anything if you learn nothing about the subject? Is there some sudden change the day you get your PhD from "Layman's knowledge" to "Knowledgable in physics" ?

Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Give it a break. When i said i had looked into string theory, i also made it clear that i was brushing through it. I know basic algebra, but only the basic algebra i left school with. Next year, my lecturer wants me to take a mathematics course, to make my physics training stronger.Lecturers? When did you get to uni? Only last month you were in sitting the courses you need to take to get into university!

Are you at university or not?

And taking a maths course with physics isn't a complement. Everyone who takes physics should do maths courses. Even the really thick students who take A Level physics but not A Level maths at my old high school are given extra maths lessons. Why? Because you cannot do physics properly without maths.

And don't give me that "I didn't mean serious research into string theory!!". You have claimed, specifically, to know about group theory and it's application to the Standard Model. The application of group theory to particle physics is a 4th year topic at Cambridge. And you don't just 'brush through it' because it's all entirely mathematical. And you've previously (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=19414) tried to pretend you could do such things. Now you find yourself deep in a hole you dug yourself. Too many times you tried to pass off BS as viable physics and too many times you've been caught lying and/or a long way short of the physics whiz you think or wish you are.

And anyone who searches for threads you've started here will find them mostly in Pseudoscience and on Physorg they are mostly debunked.
You see, the people who surround me have high hopes for my development in physics.You have previously posted things like your 'universal equation' which said 0 \not= 0 and claimed "I've shown it to a physicist and he said it was right". Either you lied about showing it to anyone or the person you showed it to was mathematically inept.

So I don't believe that the people around you think you're a promising physicist unless they themselves know nothing about physics (which, going by the state of some high school teachers in the UK, is entirely possible).
i could possibly blow your heads off in my expertise of physicsSo your lengthy 'essays' weren't trying to impress anyone? This thread (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17930) wasn't an attempt at saying "I'm better than AlphaNumeric at topics I hope he doesn't know about because I sure don't!"?

Threads like this one and your "How do I rearrange these brackets?" maths question last week show that you aren't an expert in physics or maths. I know plenty of people younger than me who are much MUCH MUCH smarter than me. I used to post a lot on NRich. Go look on that forum and see the mathematics they do. When I was in my 3rd year of uni a 17 year old was asking questions about a course I was taking which went completely over my head! He blew a lot of people away with his abilities. Unsuprisingly he's now in the 3rd year of maths at Cambridge and pasting the course with ease.

I'm more than happy to admit when someone knows more than me about something. Ben knows more than me about GUTs. QuarkHead knows more than me about topology (as does Temur by the looks of it). D H knows a lot more about pure maths than me. I share an office with a few guys who know more than me about lattice QCD, GUTs, MHV, AdS/CFT correspondences, phenomenology of the Standard Model. If I'm wrong about something, good. At least I then learn something. But you don't like that, you don't like being told you're wrong even when you know you're talking about topics far out of your reach.

I'm not lying when I say "I know more about the Standard Model than you" but you don't like being corrected on it, even when you know you don't know about it. QuarkHead is corrected all the time in that thread of his and it does him the world of good. You should learn from his example and maybe the path to being that great physicist you seem to believe you're destined to be won't be so hard....

Well again, I'm not trying to be insulting or to hurt your feelings. It's just a simple fact that physics gets extremely heavy in a mathematical sense. From what I've seen of your math abilities so far, I have no way to judge where you'll be in the future, but I can tell you right now that you're only just getting started. I think you'll be shocked by how much you still need to learn before you can do calculations in modern physics. The math doesn't just get fancier, but the ideas and concepts become far deeper than anything you would have seen in high school.

Plain English explanations can only get you so far in physics. Many ideas are too vague when expressed in this fashion, so it is easy to misunderstand them and commit fallacies in interpreting them. Additionally, the math gives you a clear expression of precisely what's going on, what are the exact implications of the model you're working with. Finally, much of modern physics is mathematical by its very nature. Einstein didn't explain the mechanism by which matter curves spacetime, nor the reason objects want to travel along geodesics in this spacetime. He just wrote down some equations and said there, here is a working relativistic description of gravity. Why these particular equations? Ask god.

So don't take it as attempts to put you down when you get criticized. I believe you have made several erroneous statements about physics in the past, and since you want to be seen as a reliable source on the subject, it's fair for us here to expect that you learn the rigours of the subject. If you want to teach us things and make claims without the math, it's important that you at least understand the math and be able to work with it and reference it if need be.

P.S. I don't claim to be a Ph.D., just a lowly grad student, but I don't think it's accurate to say that only a Ph.D. knows what they're talking about. The difference in knowledge levels at this point is much smaller than it is for the entry-level students just beginning their first classes.

Emmm... hold on AN. You read that wrong.

When i say no one is better than the average joe, it means that intelligence is a measure of a knowledgable intellect in a field. We are all knowledgable in our own area's, and trying to measure intelligence is for adolescent and immature cunts like you.

Oh, and we all know how you like to brag AN, so don't go there. As for the rest of your post, and my general feelings towards you, i simply can't be arsed responding.

(Oh and i say lecturer. My teacher lectures to us about physics, so that was my use of the term)>

CPt

That's all very well. As for the errors i have made, i would like to know... but remember what Einstein said

''Those who haven't made errors, haven't lived.''

Good quotation that ! Your time will come. I can't wait to see the look on their faces.

That's very nice. Thank you. But i should remain humble.

CPt

That's all very well. As for the errors i have made, i would like to know... but remember what Einstein said

''Those who haven't made errors, haven't lived.''

An example would be one of your previous threads where you claimed you could prove that 0=1. I checked the math and pretty much all of your statements there were based on incorrect mathematical manipulations. Your explanation of why 0^0 is undefined also didn't really explain why, since all you showed is that the logarithm of 0^0 is undefined, which doesn't mean 0^0 is itself undefined (i.e. ln(0) is undefined, yet 0 exists all the same). A better means of looking at 0^0 is to write 0^0=0^{1-1}=\frac{0}{0}, then it's easy to see why this can't be defined as being any 1 specific value.

Aside from the various mathematical fallacies you stated in that thread, you then went on to state that the Standard Model assigns 0 to nonexistence and 1 to existence, and that you had shown from the Standard Model how something can come from nothing. This would not in any way be related to what the Standard Model actually says, any more than it would to Newton's laws.

You've also passed on claims from authors such as Fred Wolf, who in turn claims they are based on quantum physics, when even if that were true, the calculations to demonstrate this would be so massive that your computer would need to be as big as the solar system in order to handle it. We have a very limited understanding of the brain, and we can't even make a proper quantum model of a single neuron, yet you propose that we can use quantum physics to explain consciousness. These kinds of fallacies are things we object to, especially when you try to establish them as based on good authority. So we challenge them, as is right to do in any proper scientific debate.

Anyhow there's nothing wrong with being wrong, as long as you can admit it when it's clear you stand to be corrected. I make mistakes all the time too, and it helps me a lot when I'm corrected and can see where I went wrong in my reasoning, and in the end I'm better off.

Ah yes, well it was an abstraction to represent the obsurdity of something 1 coming from nothing 0. Of course, before time zero, the very first chronon, you cannot attempt to deal with a value or non-value like 0. That is why it was used as an abstraction...

You know, from time to time, i will make posts like that. Usually because i am bored, and possibly philosophically enduced. ... ... but i will ask you, not to read to much into these things i say.

And Fred, whatever you might say, is well-liked in the field.

If these things are how you judge the clarity of someone, then... what can i say? I certainly don't operate that way, and i don't understand the audasity of people who do.

Personally, reflecting on the things i have written since my time here, i think the general public enjoy what i have to say. If i am wrong, then i am highly deluded, and my clarity is certainly foggy...

Well just keep in mind, we're not the general community here, we have very specific interests so our standards of what we do and don't agree with are different from those of the general public when it comes to what we study. We also want to make sure that all facts are on the table and presented accurately, specifically so we don't end up confusing the general public. Any time someone has a reason for criticizing another's ideas, those reasons should be presented and discussed, not repressed out of politeness.

Anyhow take it for what you will, it's audacious to float an idea and expect everyone to go along with it and not have to back it up, so be open to criticism or you'll come across as feeling overconfident in your own abilities and knowledge.

Are you speaking about the members not being the general public, or the 500-odd visitors?

We are all knowledgable in our own area's, and trying to measure intelligence is for adolescent and immature cunts like you.And where have I said that? Where have I said "What's your IQ?"? If anything, I think IQ tests, particularly online ones, are dubious.

And when it comes to maturity I'm willing to bet people find my posts somewhat more mature than your own. Your use of swear words is a big negative in that department.
Oh, and we all know how you like to brag AN, so don't go there. I'm sorry all I can state is facts about what I've done. It's a shame I don't claim to have a 'univeral equation' or to have proven there was something before the big bang.

Now that would be showing off, wouldn't it.... ;)

And much of my post was advice on how you might learn physics a bit better. You just seem to want to ignore the advice of people who actually are or have learnt a considerable amounts of physics. You claim to want to be in the position that Cpt and I find ourselves in, physics grad programs. Yet you won't heed a single bit of advice.
(Oh and i say lecturer. My teacher lectures to us about physics, so that was my use of the term)>So you aren't in university.

The fact you seem to use deliberately unclear terms when making reference to your education doesn't help either. So far as I can gather you claim you went to university and have a psychology degree, during which time you took physics courses too. Now you're back in high school/6th form, doing physics, biology and chemistry with the intent of going to university to study physics.

Is this true?
If i am wrong, then i am highly deluded, and my clarity is certainly foggy...At least you're admitting it.

"Just a question": Why are you all humouring this twit?

Oh here he comes. Alphanumerics lapdog. Here, boy, come on...

Why is it with cranks who just don't want to learn that whenever more than one person tells them they are wrong it's due to a conspiracy or 'lap dogging'?

Notice how the people telling you what I tell you are always people who demonstrate they can do a fair amount of physics and maths? Cpt, Ben, me, Euler, QH, DH, Rpenner etc.

Oh here he comes. Alphanumerics lapdog. Here, boy, come on...This is an exceptionally offensive remark. I trust that all here will see I am quite capable of thinking for myself.

To be specific: Do I admire Alpha for his combined math and physics skills? Yes, hugely

Do I think think he is infallible? No, I don't

Would I hesitate to point out what I believed to be to be an error in any of his posts? No, I would not

Why does that make me a lap-dog? I cordially invite you to apologize, to me and to Alpha, for this offensive remark.

Oh dear, did i hurt your feelings quarky boy? Next time, consider other peoples feelings first, before you spout off your radicals.

And no, i won't apologize. If i did, it would be a lie.

Aw.. come on, apologize. Rise above yourself :)

lol

But again, what's the point. I'd be lying through my teath if i said anything like the word ''sorry.''

Well I don't know where the vitriol originally started, as I haven't looked too far into the past to see everyone's posts (I've only been here about a week or 2). Insults aren't the way to have an intelligent debate, but it's perfectly valid to criticize an idea if you have counterpoints. Whoever cast the first stone should be the one to apologize, but by casting the stone I'm referring to personal attacks, not critiques. For instance, whoever was the first to drop the f-bomb should be the one to apologize for bringing these kinds of attacks into our community, where they are completely inappropriate.

Reiku, for your part, you should at least understand that you have many, many, many things to learn, not just in mathematics but also in classical and modern physics, before you can really speak with authority about what's beyond the horizon. At least, that's the firm impression I've gathered from reading your posts. We all have to start somewhere, so you should make the maximal effort to learn new things when a fallacy in your own logic is exposed. From the perspective of some of the other posters you've clashed with, it's insulting to them when you make statements with authority on subjects where those statements demonstrably conflict with well-established principles. Like if someone comes in asking a question about the Big Bang, and you give answers which collide with what is widely taught in established, reputable universities, it doesn't make them happy. It doesn't make the majority of the physics community happy in general, and it certainly doesn't make me happy either.

You're entitled to your opinions, and we welcome you to exchange ideas with us and deliver points and counterpoints in a proper debate, but at the end of the day this is a community for mainstream physicists conducting mainstream research or helping people understand mainstream concepts. Ideas that go against the mainstream and can't be properly demonstrated from maths and experiments don't contribute anything to the intended function of this community, and there are plenty of alternative places where such ideas can be discussed.

No offense, but again, you have only just arrived.

And by the way, what fallacy? I asked a question, and you replied. I said thank you. Its because i had never heard of such a thing, and i wondered if anyone else had as well.

Finn

You really want examples? I'll list some recent examples where you've made factual statements that were just totally wrong. What gets to me is that you state these things as if you're a real solid authority on them, not someone who's just beginning to learn these concepts. It's not fair that you represent yourself in this way- you are giving the false impression to many laymen that your answers are to be taken on good authority, so that when they argue over the same points with other people, they will argue your points and say they heard it from a real physicist.

This isn't an IQ competition to see who's the smartest and has the brightest future. We are all trying to tell you that you need to learn more about the subjects you're discussing before you can speak about them with confidence and authority. Maybe you could pull a Faraday and do it all without the mathematics, but remember that Faraday himself missed out on a lot of potentially exciting discoveries because he couldn't work with the maths describing his experiments and observations. In any case, it's not just a matter of doing the math- I feel, and I'm probably not alone, that there are many concepts in classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. that you have not studied in detail and which are of central importance to modern physics. I mean, for instance, have you ever worked with the Hamiltonian? It's very useful in classical mechanics, but it also gives rise to something called action-angle variables which are of central importance in quantum mechanics. It's a mathematical concept, but without math such as this, QM would have been impossible to discover. This is just one example. I have a nagging feeling that you skipped many steps and tried to fast forward straight to the cutting edge physics, but you can't do that, you just won't have a proper understanding of what scientists are really talking about, no matter how many popular books on modern physics you might read.

I just want you to know, I'm not against you. I'm not against the idea that one day you might be better at this stuff than myself or anyone else I know- I'd welcome that, we need all the brains we can get in this community. Myles says he/she can't wait to see the looks on our faces if you ever surpass us- well, mine would be a look of pride, not jealousy. But you need to be more humble and recognize that today, being a newcomer to the field, you're nowhere close to the level where you can compare your understanding of physics to the typical graduate. If you can't take criticism from those with more experience, when they can give you a solid demonstration of why you're wrong, you won't go far at all.

Now since you ask for it, a small list of fallacies which you presented as facts from good authorities:

-Misuse of the Minkowski metric to state that "space and time are invariant" (wrong, separately they are not invariant), and also misused in the same context to argue that distance can't exist without time
-Deriving 0=1 using demonstrably false mathematics (and no, quantum physics doesn't just invent new answers for well-defined mathematical quantities whenever they don't fit with the theory), and trying to connect your belief that 0=1 with the Standard Model to explain where stuff comes from
-You claim that attempts to explain consciousness through quantum mechanics are popular in the community and taken seriously. This shows you haven't spoken to many physics profs in the past, aside from perhaps a couple who feel the same way as you do. It also shows that you have little understanding of the enormous complexities that would be involved in any such attempt. If you make it all the way into an introductory quantum mechanics class (where they start teaching you the actual math), I dare you to stand up in class and discuss this issue, you will see just how poorly such ideas and their proponents are regarded by the mainstream.
-Someone linked to a PhysOrg discussion where you wanted to prove to AlphaNumeric that you understood more about GUTs than he did. You misunderstood a quote of Stephen Hawking regarding chaos and its limitations on our ability to understand the universe. He is saying that even if we knew the fundamental laws governing everything in the universe, down to the last decimal point, we'd still be limited in our ability to predict things due to mathematical chaos. It's like the pendulum attached to a pendulum. You can write down the classical laws to 100% precision describing an ideal system of this sort, yet when you solve the equations, you are forced to approximate the answer and your answer will grow more and more inaccurate over time, no matter how precise your initial approximations are. Instead of just accepting AlphaNumeric's perfectly reasonable explanation, you continued to argue and insist your translation is better. If you had actually studied chaos theory and nonlinear dynamics, you wouldn't have done that.

It's perfectly cool to make mistakes, the problem is you seem to insist that you're to be taken as a solid authority, as much authority as anyone else who doesn't have a Ph.D., and you seem to resist being corrected even when the corrections are very reasonable and well-informed.

You're not an authority either, missy. So things you will say, i will generally disagree with as well, for instance,

If we put this down as A ascending, then i disagree with A, because you misunderstood me, or totally neglected the fact the the rotation was made in space, and takes time to do so, making them both spacetime and distance was involved in the equations. You made it more complicated than i was trying to demonstrate.

B, fine, but you neglect again i said it wasn't to be looked into too deeply, as i was using it as an abstract.

C is totally wrong. I have spoken to plenty physicists who explain that consciousness requires a quantum theory. This is fallacy by presuming, on your behalf. And i am completely aware of the complexities. Its one of my main studies by past time. I would blow your head off with the deep study i have put into psychophysics.

D, fine, whatever. But when Alphanumeric did that, it just showed he likes to bring the past up quite often, just to proove a point, while some of us move on, you know?

And yeh, i've made mistakes. Won't be the last. But i won't agree with everything you say, nor do i expect any sane person to read what you just said, and take it as gospal. So please, don't talk down to me.

But all i do ask, is be given a little respect in the area's i do know about, such as topics relating to consciousness. As i explained, my knowledge concerning the entanglement of physics and mind, or mind-body phenomena, is one of my specialities, while you would most probably ace my ass off at electromagnetic studies.

As for the corrections, again, that's a point of view. Other times, i will accept it, and move on. But the idea i don't, is just wrong. I do accept mistake. I accepted a question i gave in this very thread, and then all of a sudden, it was, ''let's shoot Reiku day.'' There is no such thing as a stupid question. Something which you tried to make it sound like at the very beginning.

You're not an authority either, missy. So things you will say, i will generally disagree with as well, for instance,

Already you're busting out the insults. Knock it off.

If we put this down as A ascending, then i disagree with A, because you misunderstood me, or totally neglected the fact the the rotation was made in space, and takes time to do so, making them both spacetime and distance was involved in the equations. You made it more complicated than i was trying to demonstrate.

What rotation would you specifically be referring to? In its most general form, the Minkowski metric talks about spacetime rotations, of which spatial rotations are just a small subclass. You don't require time to change reference frames if you set up 2 separate frames from the start. The math doesn't talk about this at all, all it tells you is how distances and times for a given sequence of events are going to change for different observers. In no way whatsoever does it say that distance fundamentally can't exist without time; the most it says is that you can find an observer for which time passes between two events separated in space, and this is only for a flat space governed by special relativity, which as you know isn't the full story.

C is totally wrong. I have spoken to plenty physicists who explain that consciousness requires a quantum theory. This is fallacy by presuming, on your behalf. And i am completely aware of the complexities. Its one of my main studies by past time. I would blow your head off with the deep study i have put into psychophysics.

Can you cite some articles published in mainstream physics journals to this effect? Consciousness isn't understood by anyone, so to presume that the key lies in a certain theory of physics is pure speculation and has no place in the scientific community. If you can cite mainstream articles that say otherwise, please do so. But citing quotes from Penrose, Wolf, Bohm, etc. isn't going to prove anything, all it would show is what those particular individuals believe(d), which is a very small minority in the community.

D, fine, whatever. But when Alphanumeric did that, it just showed he likes to bring the past up quite often, just to proove a point, while some of us move on, you know?

Of course, we all need to move on at some point. But you do build up a reputation with previous posts, so it's not like you can be immediately taken seriously if you have a track record of making false statements. I'm not one to favour digging up the past, but you were the one who asked for previous examples of where you crossed the line.

And yeh, i've made mistakes. Won't be the last. But i won't agree with everything you say, nor do i expect any sane person to read what you just said, and take it as gospal. So please, don't talk down to me.

But all i do ask, is be given a little respect in the area's i do know about, such as topics relating to consciousness. As i explained, my knowledge concerning the entanglement of physics and mind, or mind-body phenomena, is one of my specialities, while you would most probably ace my ass off at electromagnetic studies.

If I come down hard on you for something, and the moderators tell me that you're right and I should lay off, I'll take their advice.

As for the corrections, again, that's a point of view. Other times, i will accept it, and move on. But the idea i don't, is just wrong. I do accept mistake. I accepted a question i gave in this very thread, and then all of a sudden, it was, ''let's shoot Reiku day.'' There is no such thing as a stupid question. Something which you tried to make it sound like at the very beginning.

Nowhere did I say it was a stupid question. I was simply shocked that you're asking these things while professing to be knowledgeable in highly advanced areas of modern physics. You can't on one hand demonstrate a lack of basic understanding in complex numbers and on the other hand make authoritative statements about quantum theory, which is enormously dependent on such concepts. I doubt I'm the first to tell you these things, and at this rate I certainly won't be the last. If you just wanted to ask basic maths questions, fire away and we're happy to answer. But if you're going to ask basic questions while lecturing to us about far more complicated topics which themselves include these basic concepts, it doesn't go down well with many of us.

Yes, well, Yankie Doodle called his feather macaroni

I'm going to ask for this thread to be closed now. Its no longer about talking about physics, but instead, referring soley to ''knowledge'' and ''who is knowledgable.''

Its no longer about talking about physics, but instead, referring soley to ''knowledge'' and ''who is knowledgable.''If you stopped claiming to understand things you don't and posting huge essays in them then we wouldn't need to continually explain things to you about why you're wrong about Minkowski space-time or metrics or Lagrangians or field theory or group theory or any other area of theoretical physics you've tried to talk about while knowing full well it's completely over your head.

Yet you persist in trying to BS your way past people you know will catch you out. Not just once or twice but dozens of times! And every time, when you're called on multiple errors you get upset and start name calling, whining and saying how you're leavning because of someone (usually me). Then a week later you reappear and it starts all over again when you post 3 more lengthy nonsensical essays.

All your comments about planning to go to uni to study physics seem more and more like another set of lies, given how you avoid doing work even high school students do. If anything, I'm suspecting you are a compulsive liar, almost forcing yourself to tell elaborate webs of lies about your plans or achievements or abilities. Even something as simple as what you do at the moment you seem to have contradicted yourself on.

The common denominator with your threads going down the toilet is you. It's possible to discuss physics you don't understand/know, QuarkHead is doing it in his thread. But you cannot seem to do it because you don't want to be told "You're wrong", even if it's meant as a helping comment. If noone ever tells you 'You're wrong', you'll never learn from your mistakes. And you make a LOT of mistakes.

Don't know what you are saying. I must have put you on ignore.

Oh well.