Inconsistent ban policy?

You must have some kind of, nagging psychological disability if you think the way you go about ''correcting'' peoples mistakes is an honest, humble approach.

If someone stopped making endemic mistakes starting from tomorrow, they would not be human alphanumeric. But you think yourself justified to stand there and ask someone not to make them, otherwise you come into a thread, derail it royally and then expect some kind of feedback, from an otherwise uncivil, catagorically crap attitude-filled post, which is condescending in an attempt to disgrace any kind of credibility from that poster.

No, this is not about you trying to ''point out problems'' when someone makes one. You are bent on bringing up the past, in your uncivil approaches which half the time have ****-all to do with the post at hand, it is just another way for you to bring someone down.

There are tonnes and tonnes of different approaches you could take. But no. Not one single second passes by were you would think ''mmm I might change my attitude a little bit towards the person'' especially now that you have became a mod. But no.

And here we go again... ''I will not let you pass off work which is not your own.''

I am so glad you have raised this little snag. Because, I am under the impression I have NEVER DONE SUCH A THING. You have misinterpreted or intentionally distorted the meaning of a post I have created. You went as SO FAR to target me for posts which contained equations which you then said I am doing the next best thing to Plaigarism, that is, basically spewing textbook equations. THAT IS VERY DISHONEST OF YOU since I can trace COUNTLESS POSTS in which you, Guest (probably), Rpenner, Prometheus and whole list of other attendees at this place who have over the years spewed standard equations which have NEVER BEEN CITED. In fact I gave an excellent case not too long ago were Rpenner had a whole list of equations in one post. He admitted that some of them were his, but not all of them.

YOU PICK AND CHOOSE who are capable of speaking about physics, not because YOU POINT OUT ERRORS but because you are incapable of being unbiased. Even when I was accused by yourself of plaigarism, I came back to this place under a different moniker and proved to EVERYONE that, that specific work was mine. YOU FAILED to remove your BLATENT ACCUSATIONS which was arrogantly written in bold red moderator writing. You probably thought ''Yes! Finally, the post which proves he's a little cheat!'' Well it flew in your face, like a lot of things recently, like that mix up of your scalar and vector quantities, a rather embarrasing mistake I might add. But then again, you are so happy about bringing up the past in a (heated debate) for a more polite way of calling our arguements, then so shall I...

Then consider recently, ANOTHER VERY DISHONEST ACT by yourself, was try and tell everyone, in seperate threads you had stalked me to, topics which had nothing to do with the OP, link to the matrix confusion of my book thread. You told everyone I was incapable of the physics and continued to do so, but failed to mention that you had only said there was a problem with the alpha and beta matrices, but if YOUR THEORY HAD BEEN TRUE I would never have noticed were the mistake had been made, proving I must have sat there and did the calculations.

BUT YOUN FAILED TO MENTION THIS, JUST LIKE YOU PICK AND CHOOSE WHO IS CAPABLE OF DOING PHYSICS. And so I am writing this in a very unsual fashion for me, I don't usually write sentances in block writing. But sometimes I feel YOU COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT or are SO DELUDED you think your actions are always justified. You a low, weasle, HYPOCRITICAL time-waster and THREAD DERAILER.

I actually think nowadays you spend more time on cranks than you do the real science. And you have a cheek to question ANYONE ON WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO WASTE THEIR OWN LIVES DOING THE THINGS THEY DO, when obviously this attitude is a CRYSTAL CLEAR REFLECTION on yourself. I actually have a theory, that maybe you were bullied as a child, severely maybe, or maybe did not have the most pleasent of childhoods. Whatever the reason, you're an angry little man who seriously should think about some medication or something, BECAUSE SOMEONE AS NEGATIVE AS YOU, I FEEL STALKING MY EVERY MOVE is a clear sign you have deep issues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, and that's another thing. Saying the alpha and beta matrices were wrong, was also an incorrect statement. Only the beta matrix was wrong, and it was wrong because I copied the latex for the alpha matrix and forgot to change the entries.

WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING ELSE YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE, THEN TRY AND PASS IT OFF AS A MASSIVE ERROR BECAUSE YOU HAD PLENTY TO SAY ON IT, VERY DISHONEST.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly I didn't say humble. It is honest though, else I'd be a lot more pleasant to you.

And I hardly think you're in a position to be implying people have psychological issues given what your actions, repeated and consistent, say about you.

I'm trying to tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or you're really that bad at understanding basic concepts. You do a similar thing when comparing small mistakes people (including myself) occasionally make compared to your systematic and concerted mistakes. In each case you fail to realise the vast gulf between normal behaviour and your own.

The level of errors and the frequency with which you make them are the issue, given you general claim to understand the material of which you speak. Dropping factors of 2, referencing the wrong term in an equation, forgetting a second order correction. Those are small slip ups which anyone, even an expert, will make from time to time. Not knowing a potential is a function of q and not \(\dot{q}\) while presenting yourself as familiar with Lagrangian mechanics, including its application to QFT via the Dirac equation, is utterly different.

I seriously don't get how you can not grasp this, yet you seem to struggle with it so. Is it a deliberate thing or do you simply not understand? Perhaps an analogy is in order.....

Suppose someone claimed to speak English competently. I claim to speak English to a decent level. Despite being fluent in English I will occasionally say things which are not grammatically correct, such as "It's over by there". If I'm typing I might make typos or drop a punctuation mark here or there. However, no one would be able to reasonably claim from a post like this one that I'm not fluent in English, even with a typo here and there. However, if I constructed sentences in the manner of a native German speaker but just changed each German word into its English version then it would become obvious. Phrases like "I went to the cinema" would instead be written as "I to the cinema went". If all of my sentences were constructed in that manner then although Firefox spell checker wouldn't pick anything up as misspelt it would none-the-less be clear to anyone who speaks English that I'm actually understanding what I'm saying, I don't really understand English. I would make excuses for the occasional sentence, everybody makes spoonerisms or jumbles words occasionally, but if every time I posted a lengthy post 80% of it had this 'signature' of being mistranslated it would be compelling evidence I didn't speak English properly. You are the physics/maths version of that. You aren't making the occasional typo, as anyone does from time to time, you're consistently spouting gibberish.

I'm not the only person to think it. Most of the physics & maths regulars have made comments to you about it, particularly all of us with formal physics or maths educations. It's the reason you're not allowed in that forum at the moment, we don't want you in there until you can learn to behave (the parent/child thing I mentioned in my last post).

So your repeated attempts to pass off your consistent and systemic errors as normal background typos or mistakes are just daft. It's demonstrable that you're doing much more than just posting a few typos. I have demonstrated it.

I mention things which are relevant. In the last week you've shown you are so unfamiliar with Lagrangians you don't know potentials aren't functions of \(\dot{q}\). Since this is required knowledge for the Dirac equation and its place in QFT it provides evidence for the non-physicists that your claims about understanding it are undermined. You've also discussed with James space-time intervals and actions, which you again mangled. Coupled with the fact this week you've explained more about your current place in the education system it's relevant to mention how you claimed to be covering more advanced GR in your community college several years ago.

If you want to wash all that away then just be honest, put your hands up and say "Yeah, I was lying back then. I've learnt from that mistake and I'll not do that any more". It's the thing with lying, you generate a web of lies which eventually you contradict. The person who'll benefit most from you learning to be honest is you.

You mean you deserve the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, I ran out of that 3 years and a dozen of your sock puppets ago. Like I have said to you, you're exactly where you were 4 or 5 years ago when we first crossed paths. Clearly if you plan to do anything with your life which is physics related you need a kick in the arse. Your habit of perpetual lying shouldn't be indulged. On other websites, like TSR, where you're indulged somewhat you just keep spewing out nonsense, going nowhere. If you want to post nonsense here expect to have it pointed out.

If it were clear you were being more realistic then I'd be a lot nicer. With some people it's possible to tell where in their education they are from the questions they ask. The questions then evolve as time goes on in a predictable way. If that pattern were to be seen in your posts you'd get not only a nicer response from me but from others too. Instead you have this incessant need to talk about conciousness and quantum mechanics and post mathematics you don't understand.

If it were a once off I'd be inclined to let it slide. Initially when someone posts something very mathematically don't jump on them as hard as I could. For example this thread from recently. Quite an advanced topic and though I had suspicions from early on I gave him a chance to discuss them, explain himself and the like. However, if he were to return with half a dozen similar threads in the space of a month with similar dubiously justified claims I'd be less lenient, as happened with Magneto. Initially I had to get a handle on him, wondering if he was just saying things he wasn't too sure about but then it became clear he was asserting demonstrably false things.

Eventually it comes down to me illustrating that if you're going to post nonsense phrased in high level buzzwords and LaTeX then expect to be called on it. I don't know how long it takes for you to compose those sorts of posts, lifting equations and watching and rewatching sections of YouTube videos, but I knock my replies out off the top of my head in one sitting so I imagine it's quicker for me to reply than you to compose.

My actions before and after becoming a moderator are generally within the guidelines. I don't call you obscene names, I don't call your mother's actions into question, I don't swear at you (unlike yourself, who swears at people a lot), I go through your "Here's a load of complicated physics I claim to understand" posts and I list the mistakes and explain why they are mistakes. If the mistakes warrant it I then comment about how there's evidence you're misrepresenting yourself because your mistakes, repeated and frequent, contradict your claims about your knowledge and/or education.

Yes, I call you a hack and dishonest but it isn't a one line response, it's at the end of lengthy posts where I have laid out the reasons I'm stating such things.

As it happens since I got moderator powers I've resisted using them on a number of occasions, including on you.

Again, this is something you've had explained to you in the past. Are you deliberately obtuse or do you just not get it? I'll explain again.

Let's consider a specific example, this thread involving, for the most part, you, James and myself. On the first page you post a lot of equations, including in response to some questions James asks you. After the initial few exchanges you also post a link to a YouTube video, saying you got this stuff from there. Now if someone watches the video they'll notice that the equations you've been giving are precisely what Susskind writes down, except in a few instances where you miscopy them. Now this is the fundamental point I'm talking about.

Let's consider a concrete example, say the expression for a Lagrangian you give. It's wrong. I'll quote what you said for context, the bold bit is the question James asks.

The second term is wrong, it should be \(\frac{\phi_{x}^2}{2}]\). This follows immediately from the fact you're writing down \(\frac{1}{2}\partial^{\mu}\phi\partial_{\mu}\phi\). You not only miscopied Susskind (see YouTube video at 9:36), you didn't realise the mistake, despite the mistake being very very obvious given you're writing down something which appears in all such quantum field theories, which you were presenting yourself as sufficiently familiar with to be 'schooling' James on the details. Furthermore you assert what you've written down is a canonical momentum. It isn't, it's just the Lagrangian. However, 9 minutes into the YouTube video Susskind talks about canonical momentum and points at the Lagrangian you quote. You made a mistake, a huge one which shows you don't understand anything about this stuff, but worse it's clear from the video why you made that mistake. You were just verbatim parroting Susskind. And you don't even answer James's question, despite it being answered by Susskind in a manner which is not quite "This is a Lagrangian density". He points at it regularly. He points at it when he says "field momentum" at 9:40~9:41, it's the thing inside the integral for the Lagrangian!

Then there's the question I asked you. I asked you to explain how T-U being invariant under \(t \to t+\epsilon\) implies T+U is too. You state it as if it follows immediately. It doesn't. I asked you to explain why it requires a little more work, though if you know the answer it's 2 or 3 lines of LaTeX. Unfortunately for you Susskind clearly states (21:20) it isn't an immediately implication and involves a more complicated approach which he wasn't reproduce. The answer is one fundamental to quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, relativity, pretty much any area of advanced physics. But you cannot answer because Susskind didn't answer.

That is what I am referring to. You aren't claiming "I invented this method" or "I found this equation" but you are presenting what is almost a line for line reproduction of someone else's explanation as your own, right down to idiosyncratic notation. When you leave something out, it's clear the reason is because it's something Susskind skips over. When you make a mistake like the momentum thing it's clear from the video why. You aren't explaining something you understand, you're parroting mindlessly something someone else said.

And before you come out with (again) "What about Rpenner or you!" we understand the stuff we type. When I post the QED Lagrangian I don't have to copy it symbol by symbol from somewhere, I know it immediately. When someone asks me to explain something about the Dirac equation I don't have to Google for the words they use and try to find an explanation someone else has written, I write my own words. If you had said to James "Sorry but I don't really know the answer to your questions. I have been watching this YouTube video lecture and rather than just reproduce what it says just watch it for yourself" then there's not be a problem. Instead you just parroted it, trying to match words in James's questions to bits of the video.

That is what I mean when I say you just spew out equations from textbooks. There's nothing wrong with honestly explaining/discussing results other people have done. Passing off other people's explanations as your own understanding is wrong and is a form of plagiarism. It's clear that if someone claimed to be an expert in something and all their answers to questions were just copy and pastes from Wikipedia then it would be considered extremely dishonest. You're doing the same but from other sources. If you understood even a fraction of what you talked about in that thread you'd have answered James's questions quite differently. Again, it's the "German speaking English vs native English speaker" thing, it sticks out a mile.

Hopefully I won't have to explain this to you again at a later date.

You mean this thread and this post on another forum?

As I just explained about your understanding of Lagrangians etc if the extent of your knowledge about them is that Susskind YouTube video then you cannot possibly be sufficiently familiar with Lagrangians in quantum field theory on a working level to have developed your own neutrino model. As such the stuff you posted is a combination of equations you've mindlessly lifted from places and jammed together.

You obviously don't understand what you posted because it had loads of mistakes in. In fact, as I commented, some of those equations you'd previously posted when you were Reiku the first time and I'd corrected you on them then. Years later and you were still posting the same error riddled stuff.

So yes, I stand by the statement that you were plagiarising because you have insufficient understanding of any of the relevant areas of physics to have actually constructed a working neutrino model yourself. As such you've at best just lifted equations from various places and mangled them together.

That's really the only thing you can come back with? I list loads and loads (many screens worth) of errors you made in a single thread, some of them highlighting fundamental misconceptions you have, and your reply is a single slip up. I demonstrably know frequency is a scalar, it was an honest mistake. You demonstrably don't know about Lagrangians, actions, metrics and the Dirac equation.

Your continued attempt to somehow compare a single honest mistake of mine, which I have no problems saying was indeed a mistake, with your many threads (many years) is dishonesty is really quite laughable. Who do you think you'll convince? You recently tried to assert it was evidence I don't know 'what the **** I'm talking about'. Do you think, given my posts, anyone will believe I don't know frequency is a scalar?

If you really understood this stuff you'd be able to answer my simple questions, not just throw laughable, desperate, insults.

I know its hard for you to believe but you aren't the centre of my universe.

Your matrices did not anticommute thus they could not have satisfied the requirements for the Dirac equation.

I feel the same about you, particularly given I regularly explain myself at length and despite you quoting it you regularly ignore it and require the explanation again a short time later.

I do 'the real science' 10~6 5 days a week (and some of my spare time too), my posting ratios here are not a reflection of how much crank vs proper stuff I do. I know forum posts are the totality of your scientific work but that isn't the case for all of us.

Actually my life is going very well. I love my job, I play sport 2 or 3 times a week with some great people, I've started taking art classes and I just bought my own home. I get paid to do what I love, that's something not a lot of people are lucky enough to get. I can honestly say I'm enjoying my life many many times more than I was 4 years ago, when I went through a period where I felt I was spinning my wheels during my PhD with a less than great supervisor. My life has moved on very well.

I asked you about it because you have always given the impression you planned to go into physics. Mentions of one day getting a PhD or writing papers, that sort of thing. However, in the last 4 years you've moved no closer to that, hence why I ask what it is you're doing with yourself. If you don't plan to go into physics, fine, this wasting time doing nonsense here isn't hindering your progression through life. However, if you are planning to try to go into physics then your current approach is hindering your progression. This isn't some insult or the like, it's honest advice from someone who has done it. Unfortunately you seem to consider honest advice you don't want to hear as just insults.

No, I had a very nice childhood. Wonderful parents, never had any family or money problems, school was easy, plenty of friends and socialising, the occasional girlfriend, single figure golf handicap. I can't think of anything I'd change personally.

I don't suffer dishonest fools gladly. Most of them learn to either stop posting demonstrably nonsensical or flawed nonsense or to go to another forum. Magneto for instance. The ample amount of evidence you've given over the years that you are intellectually dishonest and have no intention of changing means I don't bother to sugar coat anything with you. I'm more than happy to help people who want to be helped or discuss advanced topics with lay persons (I liked the recent discussion with Capt Kren. on game theory for instance) in a perfectly pleasant way. But discussions with you aren't like that, that's no honest intention to learn.

Except many of the threads you post in I don't post in. Hell, I don't even read them. I just did a forum search for your name. Of the 25 most recent threads you've been in I've replied to 5 of them, one of them nothing to do with you (Pincho's thread).

When you post about physics you always aim at the advanced stuff, which happens to be my area of interest. If you were spouting nonsense chemistry I'd not take as much notice of you.

*sigh* Again you attempt to grab onto anything you can try to throw back, rather than just accepting corrections. And to do it you misrepresent me (which is ironic considering you complain I do that to you)

I explained to you how the pair of matrices didn't have the correct relations. I explained how you needed to correct one of them because you'd only considered their squares and not their mixing anticommutation properties. There's many representations of the Dirac matrices, something I've told you before. None of them can be the identity since it obviously doesn't anticommute with anything so that one was definitely wrong. The post where I explained this is here. In it I said, and I quote,

If you want a proper representation of the Clifford algebra \(Cl_{1,1}\) you can pick the following, for the signature (-+),

Notice how I phrase it. I give an example of two matrices with the correct properties for that Clifford algebra. I'd already told you previously that there is no one specific form of the matrices, all that matters is the anticommutation relations. The essential fundamental property is that the matrices satisfy \(\alpha\beta+\beta\alpha=0\), else you cannot get the wave equation from the Dirac equation. It's the whole reason matrices are used, not standard coefficients. That was what you'd failed to show any understanding of, that was your big mistake. I didn't state "There exists no representation where one of your matrices could be correct" so your "OMGZ VERY DISHONEST!" response is itself a dishonest representation of what I said. I suppose I can't really blame you for thinking you'd got something you could throw at me, you probably don't even understand what I was talking about in regards to representations.

Again, rather than you responding with a thought out response at the time where you demonstrated a working understanding, you completely failed to show any understanding. Now, later, you grasp at anything you think you can throw at me, as if that's a substitute for demonstrating understanding. Post hoc failed insults only dig you deeper into the hole you're in. If you truly understand the subjects which you speak about then demonstrate working understanding during the thread and over time you'll convince me and others you really do understand it, rather than just appearing the equation mangling parrot you appear as at the moment.

I suspect you'll not bother to read much of this rather lengthy post, though you might end up quoting it all as is your habit. It's lengthy because I can explain myself and provide justification for myself. If you could do likewise, rather than a scatter gun of increasingly hostile short posts, so you explain yourself rather than just act indignant that'd be super.

 

Well, that is my nuetrino model, and I modelled it in style of what I called the Tsao Mass term, a take-off of the Majorana Mass term in the form of neutrino fields derived from Dirac's Theory.

I am not arguing this with you any longer - I've had my say. One last word though, you keep talking about ''I'll bring up the past when it's relevant''... sounds like you yourself have a bit of growing up to do, never mind any one else.

 

What?

 

And what of his accusations of plaigarism? What about saying I can't do the math, yet I demonstrated I could when I knew where the mistake was in my beta matrix?

Look, Alphanumeric can get away with it, because you lot keep feeding --- letting him away with his aggrevated behaviour. This is not about pointing out errors James and then believing I don't accept the errors when they are pointed out. My entire arguement, which has obviously flown over your head to, is the way he goes about it.

As for ''avoid talking about things I don't understand'' that's a load of crap. I understand lots of things involving physics. That's the point. Alphanumeric half the time, says things just to have a say in something. I saw something recently... an exchange between AN and tack in the tricky thread in physics. Tach, was actually absolutely right in what he said concerning the modulus question, but as per usual, alphanumeric had to open his big gob and say something, most likely because it was Tach who answered. He does it to me too. Sometimes it is about correcting, but when he tries and brings a poster down, each and every time, it's no longer about questions. He attempts to make it personal, whether I am thick skinned or not.

You've obviously not heard a word I have said today. If alphanumeric merely pointed out a few errors and went on his way, that I would find a lot more honest than his obvious attempts to go around and put me down, even when it isn't relevant to the post. I could give you loads of examples.

Just recently I had a discussion with him about string theory, then he brought up threads in which he thinks he corrected loads of errors. What is the point of doing that? We all know why he is doing it and it's not just to correct errors. Saying it is, is blind of you. Intentionally so if that is what you really believe. I mean, I laughed at this:

Also, you ought to understand that the qualified physicists here feel it is a moral duty to point out where you are wrong, so that your posts don't mislead other people who are trying to learn some real physics. It's nothing personal.

James, it is not as honest as that with him. If it was, why can't he stop himself from trying be all negative towards me each and every time??? Jesus, are you talking drugs or something, or do you not participate in that many threads to really see how irrelevant his claims can be at the time?

Please believe me, I could not give two flying monkeys whether I am corrected on something. Big deal. People make errors, I have made plenty. You just don't get my point!! And I am always first in line to say I am not an expert. I've admitted it plenty of times when someone has asked me what my qualifications are in physics! I simply say, I don't hold any degree in any university, so how is that misrepresenting myself? I've done it with three people under my mister account which has now been merged with this one. Saying I am misrepresenting people is a misrepresentation alone in itself.

I can't help it if I come across as confident, but that is a far cry from the accusations you seem to now be making James.

Why did you let me back here? Go ahead, ban me if I am such a disgrace on the place. No doubt you'll do me a favour too.

 

In fact, bells, ban me.

I've had enough of the place, AGAIN.

 

Reiku, banning you would obviously make no difference - you have been extended an unusual chance - time and again, you have been granted the opportunity to improve yourself, to redeem your mistakes, and to sit down and learn from those qualified to educate you on the subjects you profess to hold so dear.

However, you also seem entirely INCAPABLE of doing any of that... instead you insist time and again that you are right and that any mistake you make is a simple typo or editing error or some other such cop out... that simply WILL NOT work here, and the sooner you understand that, the better.

Now, either learn to deal with people correcting your mistakes and learn to take their criticism to heart, learn from it, and not REPEAT those mistakes... or you can simply stop talking about those subjects. However, continuing to whine and complain whenever someone corrects you... well, that just reflects poorly on yourself.

 

Load of crap.

I will admit a mistake easily if I can see the mistake. But since people here beat around the bush, obviously then I am the one who doesn't admit their mistake! It's all my fault. I haven't changed have I? Just the same old Reiku!

So I ask, again, why am I still here? If it is so blindingly obvious I haven't changed then rid of me quickly! You might as well, because you never know, you could have me for a lot longer. Better to rid yourself of the mistake while the opportunity presents itself.

:shrug:

 

Again - you have argued yourself blue in the face to deny a mistake that was made before, and you are doing the same thing now... and again, as for banning you - you've already said before that, if banned, you will simply create sockpuppet after sockpuppet and strive to disrupt this community, so why bother? Eventually, one of three things will happen:

A) You will calm yourself and start to learn from those willing to help teach
B) You will continue as you are and people will eventually learn to simply ignore you
C) You will tire yourself out professing your all-knowledge and innocence and leave this place of your own volition

*shrugs* You're being given an opportunity... you can either take it or squander it. Your choice.

 

The beta matrix thing right?

Well, alphanumeric qouted me with that matrix. I told the truth.

To save latex time, you simply copy one matrix down and you change the entries. I simply did not change the entries for it when writing the beta matrix. That was a mistake, but not the kind you are elaborating on.

Go, check it for yourself! Even alphanumeric, I am sure, would not deny that is what happened.

 

Besides... I don't want to blow my own trumpet, but I have a good mind on me, I am full of idea's. People want to read my stuff. Why would people simply ignore me? If I was intentionally telling them crap, I'd understand that motivation.

 

Indeed, behavior like that makes me wonder if a simple IP-based ban is not possible... alas, I don't think these forums allow for that...

 

Firstly I pointed out the beta matrix was a fundamental problem and secondly do you really think being able to multiply 2x2 matrices, something taught to 17 year olds, means you can say "See, I can do the maths of the Dirac equation", a postgraduate level subject?

This is another problem you have, where you think if you can demonstrate any tiny mathematics ability then you've justified claiming to understand all related material. I'd expect every new undergrad in maths or physics to know how to multiply matrices, it's assumed knowledge. Yet the Dirac equation takes Cambridge 3+ years to get to.

You don't realise the gulf between what tiny little things you can actually do and a proper working understanding.

You don't accept errors, that's demonstrated many times. For example, your neutrino 'theory'. You posted sections of it many years ago on this forum and I pointed out many errors. Yet you continued posting it elsewhere and then here again with all the errors still there. No update, pretty much a direct copy and paste.

You don't realise how far from any kind of working understanding you have. I knew more about theoretical physics when I finished 6th form then you do right now. I'd read all the pop science books I could find. None of it helped at all in terms of a working understanding. Oh I was able to say "I've heard of that!" but I didn't know what to do with it. None of the mathematics you've ever shown you can do yourself is beyond 6th form.

Even if I accepted your 'half the time' comment that still means you make many many times more mistakes than anyone else.

For those who don't know he's referring to here. The exchange between Tach and I was perfectly polite and I even said sorry at the end for an honest mistake on my part. I explained initially I felt it was important to explain each step clearly because Fudge clearly wasn't getting it all immediately. I didn't try to 'bring Tach down', as Reiku is accusing me of. I was making sure everything was laid out as clear as possible for Fudge. I was being helpful. The fact you try to turn it around and accuse me of doing things I clearly did not due is completely ridiculous.

I know you want to think I treat everyone harshly, so you can convince yourself it isn't you but its me, but that demonstrably isn't the case. You need to learn to take some responsibility for yourself.

Notice how even the non-physicist people here aren't buying it from you? You can lie and misrepresent me but usually its enough to just link to the thread and they can see for themselves you're not being honest. When are you going to realise no one is buying it?

And you clearly didn't take on board anything I wrote previously.

'Thinks'? It's not a matter of "I think there's errors there", it's a matter of "I showed there's errors there". If my corrections weren't accurate then you should have responded to them.

This is your style, you avoid facing up to your many errors, trying to make excuses like "OMG, you made a small error therefore I get to ignore my half dozen huge ones!" and then play it as if you hardly made any mistakes. I'm sure people notice I make very lengthy posts when I reply to your essay threads. Why? Because there's loads to correct and explain. If you really listened to my explanations of your mistakes you'd actually learn something. Instead you ignore them and continue with the same mistakes.

I'm doing it so people can see that posting lots of equations and buzzwords doesn't mean you're doing physics. It's important to correct mistakes, purely on intellectual honesty grounds, but its also important to show that theoretical physics isn't just "Slap together something complicated looking and call it a theory". Too many lay persons get that impression, that it's all a con job with physicists making up random stuff and getting funding. No, there's methodology to the construction of actual physics. By trying to 'play physicist' and claiming you're doing something viable you can warp the views of people who come here expecting to read proper science discussions. If you have a pet theory then there's a forum for it. Posting BS in the non pseudo sections isn't going to fly.

Because I've shown so many times, over such a long period of time, that you don't know this stuff that there's sufficient evidence for my assertion you're a liar and a fraud that I'm going to point it out. When you then lie and behave dishonestly again then I'll point it out again.

You're like a criminal complaining in court his conviction record keeps being read out.

You obviously didn't read what I posted above. The errors you make aren't occasional slip ups, typos and the like, they are fundamental and systemic. The fact you try to pass your mistakes off in such a manner shows you're either knowingly dishonest or not very bright.

You claimed to be studying advanced GR in community college. That was a lie. Your neutrino 'theory' is based on Lagrangians but the extent of your knowledge is that YouTube video, so you misrepresented yourself. You claim to have been looking at quantum mechanics for several years yet you can't even state the normalisation condition properly. That's misrepresenting yourself. You claimed to have a paper accepted for publication, it wasn't. That was a misrepresentation. You claim to be knowledgeable in the Dirac equation but you lack all of the prerequisites for that.That is misrepresenting yourself.

Ah, we've reached that stage in the cycle where you declare you'd be better off off the forum. Next you'll proclaim "Fine, I'm leaving!", then you come back. Around and around we go.

Anyway, I'd reply to other posts but unfortunately I'm off to spend my Sunday volunteering for a charity. It's all that bullying I had as a child, its twisted me into a productive member of society.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh my fucking God, I feel victimised because I am corrected? WTF do you get this pish from?

I have said plenty occasions I don't care if someone corrects me. It is his ATTITUDE I don't agree with.

In fact, How can you deny it? Check his post at the top here: He said blatently he does not want to be nice to me. So basically, he's gonna continueb his shit attitude towards and you guys are gonna turn a blind eye, or basically, which is more to the point, just blame it all on me?

Nice going. Nice morals.