You made a point sometime back of keeping right out of that kind of arena - only physics/math. Well in appears you now declare your allegiance to what imo is the absurd official 9-11 conspiracy theory. Is that a fair conclusion? I do understand a decreasing majority probably still believe it, but unless one has done a lot of research including into that fielded by 'dissenting opinions', it might pay to restrain judgement.
My two old friends!!!
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
- Status
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
So it's OK to badmouth somebody, as long as you don't use their (nick)name? That's a weird set of morals you got there.
I'm not comparing it to the OP; please re-check the quote associated with that statement.
In this thread alone, we've touched on five (!) of your conspiracy theories:
1) GR
2) ID
3) 9/11
4) People organizing behind your back (the very bit of yours I quoted here).
5) People in power messing with your email notifications.
As far as I can tell, you consider me part of/involved with at least 1 and 4, and perhaps 5. So can you honestly say that if I told you what I claimed to be the truth, you would believe me? I think we both know the answer to that.
You didn't have a coherent problem description, and I admitted that put it out of my league, yes.
I never claimed otherwise?
But with enough identifiable information for people to figure out who you were talking about. Again, that's a weird set of morals you got there.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
If you note carefully, you'll see I have done no such thing.
But I guess you consider me part of (3) now as well.
No, that is not a fair conclusion of yours, because it's not in evidence.
As I have done.
Badmouthing? Feel free to link to the relevant SF posts on that issue, and explain how I was being unfair.
To imply i have designated any of 1-5, apart from maybe 3, as 'conspiracy theories' is ludicrous. I have never done so. 5 is btw a simple fact - notification should be automatic but it has of late mysteriously failed for me. Oh - just got a notification now! Nice to have reactivation.
Your characterization, not mine. Again - feel free to link here to the respective thread & posts.
Nonsense - no such identifiable info is given in my earlier postings here. OTOH - once I was banned, certain SFN individuals were free to spray me with generic charges they never personally leveled when I could have responded. Go check if you doubt. And I would really prefer not to keep this pot stirred.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Don't be disingenuous; you know what I'm talking about, because it's literally what we are talking about right now.
To imply that I implied that is ludicrous as well.
It may be a fact that there's issues with your email notifications; that's not the issue. It's the claim that somebody is actively doing it.
I know you refuse to accept it; that's the reason I stopped taking you seriously.
If you can't remember what I'm talking about, then there's no sense in digging it back up. I'll just jot down this datapoint, and move on.
Stop being intellectually dishonest; I clearly wasn't talking about your behavior here.
I actually stopped paying attention from the moment you were banned; I have no interest in people's victory dances when the other party can't defend themselves.
Me too, but how can I be sure you won't go to some other forum and badmouth me, again? You accuse Paddoboy of this, but, as I said: pot, kettle.
I can assure you that once he blew his gasket and was permanently banned, his name was never again mentioned...certainly not by me and nobody else I am aware of. If he claims different, he is a liar.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
I guess he got his wish then: the pot was no longer being stirred over there. I think I'm going to grant him his wish over here too: he's clearly not going to apologize for badmouthing me (or even acknowledge that he did that), and now that I've expressed my opinion on it, let's move on. Another day, another datapoint to jot down.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?do=findComment&comment=1101689 ban notice itself - generic charge - 'spamming the forum with nonsense.'
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...tream-science/?do=findComment&comment=1101707 - 2nd line, 2nd para named specifically, but dammed generically with high sounding waffle.
paddoboy's '2 cents worth' last post there is imo clearly alluding principally to me though avoiding naming explicitly.
That thread was afaik started a short while - certainly well inside of 24hrs - after my ban.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...ing-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101815
Which references back to:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...ing-radiation/?do=findComment&comment=1101770
Someone here is indeed lying or at best sadly mistaken.
Now do the decent thing and finally piss off for good!
I will admit to to taking one liberty regretted in hindsight - depicting your avatar. Given the topic - that seemed at the time a fitting point of interest. Sorry if that much so offended you, but I do not at all retract the part about obfuscation. Again, link to relevant SF posts if you wish to argue otherwise. I suggest instead closing this chapter now.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
At this point, I agree with Q-reeus (although I would phrase it more decently). Paddoboy, there's nothing to win here in this thread anymore. You've made your points, things were laid out in the open, and people have shown their true(r) colors. Readers can reach their own conclusions. As important as fighting the good fight may be, walking away when you are victorious (even if it doesn't feel that way), is even more vital.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
If you think that's the part that upset me, you are lacking even more social skills than I thought.
I know. You've made that clear in this thread already. It's OK, it's who you are.
What would be the goal? We both know the truth, even if it doesn't match.
I've already jotted down the datapoint, so I concur. There's nothing to gain here anymore.
Did you find that here?....... I was prompted to follow some of the links and was VERY interested to read this one, which you referred to in one of your discussions on these other forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/misconceptions-virtual-particles/
This chimes very well with the article about virtual particles by Prof Strassler that I have often had recourse to. I note is is written by Arnold Neumaier, maths prof at Vienna, so he will know what he is talking about. I'm going to save the link.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=77012.msg575788#msg575788
I have that link opened the past day or so. It does look interesting but I haven't managed to read hardly any of it yet.
It is true that these "virtual particles" are real head scratchers. Pleased to anticipate that there may be a simple mathematical explanation for them once the territory is covered.
Do you think there is any analogy between them and complex numbers?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No I found it on Science Forums dot Net (SFN). But thanks, this is clearly another in the same series by the same author! And looks equally useful.
Oddly enough, this "Flummoxed" character, on the nude science thread is one I have encountered elsewhere. He's not a crank, but has some funny/wrong ideas on a few things.
I don't think an analogy with complex numbers helps, since these are all wavelike phenomena anyway, so complex numbers are intrinsic to the mathematics in any case. (Think AC theory for example).
As Strassler explains it, in QFT, particles (real ones) are modelled as disturbances in the EM field. Virtual particles are another kind of disturbance in the EM field, that has some mathematics in common with real particles, (esp. associated with a thing I know nothing about, called a Green's function.) But he says it is unfortunate in retrospect that the term "virtual particle" was ever employed for them, as it has unwittingly led to all kinds of pop science misrepresentations.
But I know next to nothing about QFT. We didn't need it for the QM of atoms and molecules, which is what one deals with in chemistry.
Agreed totally! As another commented such bile like behaviour by him needed to be highlighted as I did. ps: If you check out the links he gave that "supposedly" show how members over at SFN continually berated him after his banning, it becoames quite obvious how paranoia can also be added to his list of other qualities that you have already highlighted. Seeya, and keep up the good work!
Just for good measure, a few more, even later posts I had missed in #29:
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101717
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101739
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101962
I had no idea at the time that Tim88 (known to me by his real name), who had emailed me out of the blue shortly before my ban, was on that forum. An interesting coincidence. Unfortunately he was reticent to post my detailed reasoning for updated pov there. Whatever, over now.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101717
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101739
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic...be-such-dense/?do=findComment&comment=1101962
I had no idea at the time that Tim88 (known to me by his real name), who had emailed me out of the blue shortly before my ban, was on that forum. An interesting coincidence. Unfortunately he was reticent to post my detailed reasoning for updated pov there. Whatever, over now.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Good.
Not so good; this is still stirring the pot, if only a little...
I consider this paranoia a natural result of the same mindset that leads to conspiratorial thinking in the first place. I'm not surprised.
Thanks, you too!
---
Oh look, Q-reeus continues to stir the pot too! Paddoboy, this is your chance to be the greater man. If you feel the need to respond to Q-reeus' post, ONLY point out how he is now the one continuing to stir the pot, even though he explicitly stated multiple times he wanted this to stop. And that's it. Do NOT respond to the content of the post (as this would make you complicit in his pot stirring), merely respond by pointing out his hypocrisy, and walk away.
At first I thought you a straight shooter with a fair amount of integrity. Not anymore. Thin skinned and petty minded.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
I know you have to think of me in that way. It's OK.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
(I see this "et pet" follow has bitten the dust now as well: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?do=findComment&comment=1105319 )
- Status