[edit]
I suggest reading the final section of this post first before typing a reply. Only replies of a particular kind will be entertained.
[/edit]
A genuine person would naturally ASK first about my level of expertise and then tailor a response to suit - but not you!
Actually that is something I regularly do with people but from experience when I ask people such as yourself about their level of knowledge they don't like it or assert it isn't relevant.
The answer is no. I never claimed to understand all the mathematical machinery of GR, but you disingenuously pitched your responses as though I was somehow sufficiently expert
Actually my responses were pitched at the level of someone who has taken an introductory course in GR.
Now that you have clearly stated you do not understand it I can therefore conclude you are unfamiliar with the more subtle issues of how to define mass and energy precisely within general relativity, thus showing why you failed to appreciate the motivation behind my request you define specifically what you meant and why the Newtonian perspective given in the link you then provided was insufficient, despite you saying it was enough.
So a worthless 'offer' and you knew it.
No, not at all. If you have a valid position it doesn't matter whether you're an expert or not, competent or not. All that matters is whether you can make your case properly. Given you are now being open about the shortcomings of what you understand and what you're been presenting it isn't
my fault you haven't got a good enough case to present to a journal. Similarly it means you haven't presented a good enough case for your position
and you know it.
My claim is simply to have an insight on the implications of stress as source term. As manifest in that simple gedanken experiment you utterly refuse to deal with!
You have insight into the specifics of the stress energy tensor but you don't know how to do much, if anything, with tensors? Quite....
The idea was real experts could look at it and either accept there is a real issue with stress in GR, or calmly and honestly provide a detailed explanation of how and why it all works out 'normally' in the given scenario.
If you find the responses from people here not to your liking then please find another place, no one is preventing you asking other people.
Something you have utterly refused to do! Given your now confessed abyssmal ignorance of nature of stress in GR, clearly you are no expert and that explains in part your continued evasion.
Please link to a post of mine where I said I am an 'expert' in general relativity. I know particular things about general relativity and I'd say I'm in the top 1% of the population for it but then so would anyone who has ever done a GR course since such a group is less than 1% of the population anyway. Within said group I'd say I'm pretty decent. I have passed various courses in GR and GR related topics, up to and including distinctions at graduate level, as well as having a PhD in the specifics of deformations to particular curved space-times but the domain of GR is vast and no one knows all of it. Am I an expert in even the domain my thesis was written in? Nope, having met the sorts of people who
are experts in the domain I know I do not come close to most of them. Am I the worst? Nope.
And your use of the word 'abyssmal' is what Wikipedia would term a 'weasel word', an unnecessary and often inappropriate adjective or description based on personal bias. Do I have some experience working directly with the stress-energy tensor? Yes. Has it any relevance to the stuff I did during my PhD? Not directly. As such that puts the last time I worked directly with the field equations at 8 years ago. Considering I haven't recently thumbed through a GR textbook I'd say I'm not too rusty and despite your many predictions implying likely behaviour to the contrary, I have no issue saying so. Instead I have used what knowledge I can immediately recall and implement to address your query in alternative ways. There is more than one way to skin a cat, the fact your point can be addressed in a way not directly aligned with your preconceptions doesn't bother me at all.
And I repeat, it is valid and proper to test any theory/theorem/principle by way of specific example. Einstein was famous for doing that - using gedanken experiments to arrive at SR and beginnings of GR. And that process is now just so much old hat - is it?
Where did I say otherwise? In fact I specifically agreed with you. Funny how you keep calling me disingenuous but you have no problem trying to make it seem like I'm disagreeing with points you've made
despite explicitly saying I agree with them!
You demand to be treated in a particular way and yet time and again show you aren't worthy of the necessary level of respect.
And yes you are afraid since you have continually evaded my question on nature of stress as source term. Beginning in #1 and culminating in my call for clarification in #18 of your pitiful 'iffy' and 'sort of' one-line response that finally came in #16. And since you have continued to evade, with finally in #24 the sole exception of an embarrassing admission that I shall come to.
I responded in multiple ways. I asked you for clarification and you provided what you don't realise is itself a very 'iffy' definition. The concept of passive mass is simple enough within Newtonian gravity but you have yet to provide a sound definition within general relativity.
The notion of different types of mass, such as gravitational and inertial, is something I've seen discussed in a GR context but not the notion of passive mass. The notion, IMO, seems somewhat unnecessary or ad hoc within GR as the field equations take care of everything. The influence one object has on another is not give some kind of direct interaction as might be seen from Newtonian gravity but rather they both create a warped space-time and each moves according to that warping, such as along trajectories defined by the geodesic equation. Each object has no need to know what else contributed to the warping, only what the warping is. If you wish to try to shoe horn in concepts whose original definitions are heavily based on Newtonian concepts then fine but there's plenty of examples in GR where that can become a nightmare, as illustrated by the plethora of different mass definitions within GR.
Two lies in one! Firstly, I never claimed A-wal was banned - by you or anyone. Either back up that lie by citing me saying such, or retract. A futile request since you response is always just to invent some 'issue' that supposedly calls for me to 'retract' in turn.
Second - it was YOU that claimed A-wal was banned! This verbatim from your #12:
Likely a Freudian slip on your part. I did some easy checking. He is still listed as member to this day!:
http://www.sciforums.com/memberlist.php?ltr=A&pp=50&sort=username&order=asc
Join date shown as 03-03-13. Now check the ban list, which is in date descending order:
http://www.sciforums.com/banlist.php
A-wal NEVER appears there over the entire span of his still existent membership.
So you lied twice. Or would you rather portray this as merely gross incompetence coupled with recklessness on your part - an administrator who is supposed to know the ins-and-outs of this place like the back of one's hand?! And to have minimally checked before making such a false assertion. Feeling good about yourself?
And lastly on the A-wal matter. His threads have not vanished - another lie. But you or presumably some good buddy had managed to remove all means to find them through any publicly available method at SF. By luck perhaps I had saved the URL's:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133852-Can-Anyone-Answer-These-Black-Hole-Problems
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133851-Relativity-Made-Simple
Take note - in future you or whoever will need to be more thorough and actually physically remove the threads themselves!
My comments about A-wal were in response to your implication/accusation/whatever that something dodgy had occurred in regards to him and his interactions with myself, such as posts no longer being there. This occurs when someone is banned in a particular way, thus I concluded he had been banned. Did I check? No. Do I care he can still post? No.
You imply a conspiracy and that I and/or others on the moderating team have done something to cover up his posts. Ask yourself this, if I'd been involved in such an activity why did I mistakenly conclude from your comments he was banned? Wouldn't I know if he was or not? If I wished to cover up his posts why not just ban him and have the forum auto-delete all of his posts? That'd ensure complete and utter removal of any interactions between him and myself from the forum. And do you think if I wished to cover up something involving his posts I'd
forget to remove his posts? The reason none of that occurred is because the conspiracy you're implying didn't/doesn't exist. This is typical of paranoid conspiracy theorising, ignoring how the most basic of facts contradict the proposed conspiracy.
And where did I say I know 'the ins and outs of this place like the back of my hand'. I am
not an administrator, I am a moderator, I only have the power to modify this sub-forum and the astronomy one. And recently, as anyone who spends much time here will have noticed, I've not been around much due to
massive work commitments. As such I've missed a considerable amount of the comings and goings on the site.
So all of this 'feeling good about yourself?' stuff is implying deception where none exists. You really do seem to struggle with the notion that someone like myself is able to have disagreements with people and just not go into some ego driven spiral of vengeance and conspiracy. I have no problem getting things wrong, I do not pretend to be all knowing or an expect in
anything. Hacks often mistake my higher than average level of knowledge for particular domains of science and mathematics as delusions of omniscience. Compared to most I know a lot but then I've spent more than a decade doing maths and physics beyond the legally required level here in the UK so one would certainly hope that to be the case.
Oh and by the way, the ban list doesn't show if someone has been banned and then reinstated, it shows only those who are currently banned. If A-wal were to have been banned for say a week for some reason and that week had passed his name is automatically removed from the ban list when the account is unlocked.
because I recognize your provocative style and intent.
Wow, there's some hypocrisy if ever I saw it.
So, instead of specifically censuring the two irresponsible thread wreckers and simply removing those posts - the proper thing to do, you instead used that in part as excuse to close it.
Closed with a suggestion to start afresh with a post which addresses some of the requests people had made.
And then had the audacity to declare that if I at all protested this heavy-handed autocratic response of thread lock
Heavy handed would have been a deletion. Closing a thread, after more than a day and a page of off topic posts, and suggesting a new one start up if the original post returns and wishes to continue is not a 'heavy-handed autocratic response'. You're not the first person to have such a thing happen but you are the first to make such a massive issue of it and imply an attempt to shut down discussion.
Like I said, if I'm so 'itching' to implement some kind of cover up then why didn't I do just that? Why not delete/ban all relevant posts/parties? Why allow this thread, which is now more about moderating actions than physics and thus should be in the 'open government' section? You have repeatedly said/insinuated I'm itching/desperate to do all these kinds of moderator power abusing and yet I haven't. Of the options open to me in regards to your original thread
both "remove all off topic posts" and "close due to too high a fraction of off topic posts and a large delay in the OP returning" options are valid. Given you felt this to be a 'heavy-handed autocratic response' then the forum rules state you should take it up with admin over in the 'open government' forum. That is what it is for. But I've not sliced this thread up into pieces and moved (or deleted) the resultant new thread because I'm fine talking about it here if that is what you wished.
I was to be labeled 'a paranoid conspiracy hack and doesn't deserve any discussion anyway'.
Nice quote mining. Let's look at the
full sentence : "
Of course if he interprets this closer as somehow a "OMG, you're a heretic!! We must shut him up!" then he's a paranoid conspiracy hack and doesn't deserve any discussion anyway. ". The first half of the sentence qualifies the second half, yet you only quoted the second half. Once again you show you are not above behaviour you complain about in others, ie misrepresentation.
The first half of the sentence (and the post as a whole) clearly states why the thread is being closed and makes it very clear further discussion is fine, even suggesting how to help such discussion move more smoothly. The final sentence was to
pre-empt any insinuations from yourself that you are receiving here the same treatment you claim you experienced elsewhere. The post makes it clear the subject is not off limits. Rather it makes it clear that if the original poster, ie you, were to take a common type of moderator action as somehow an attempt to shut down discussion then said poster, ie you, is very much mistaken and would have to be of a particular mentality which makes discussion pointless as said poster, ie you, would show himself to be more about causing a scene than causing a discussion. And here we are, seeing that despite this pre-emptive comment you
do imply some kind of 'shut them up!' conspiracy is going on.
You could have raised an issue about the thread closer if you wished, the post doesn't make it automatic such actions would label you a 'paranoid conspiracy hack'. For example, you could have PM'd me or started a thread in open forum asking something along the lines of "My thread was closed before I had a chance to response on the grounds of too much off topic discussion and a lack of response from me. I'm unhappy with this action and would prefer it is a moderator could remove the off topic posts and then reopen it, rather than I start a new thread". That's a civil way to query moderator actions and would have almost certainly been done upon request. Since such an action on your part wouldn't be insinuating there's some kind of "
OMG, you're a heretic!! We must shut him up!" motivation behind the thread closure the first half of the sentence, the qualifier, would mean the second half of the sentence, the labelling, wouldn't apply.
However, since you have shown you do think there are ulterior motives going on, including in regards to A-wal, you have met the conditions of the first half of the sentence, the qualifier. You didn't have to but you did.
Ultra-trolling behavior - specifically designed to incite an angry response at such utter autocratic unreasonableness.
It wouldn't incite an angry response from someone who
didn't think there's something dubious going on. It was pointing out that if someone views the action, an action which has been done many times before elsewhere without complaint, as anything other than 'forum tidying' then their ability to evaluate situations and actions would be severely compromised, as it would imply an overly paranoid point of view. There were clear grounds for closing the thread (though, as I've explained, this was not the only course of action) and so viewing the action as anything other than that was questionable, to say the least.
Which would give you the intended excuse to then ban. But naturally you won't admit to that calculated intent - ever.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You see intent where none exists. You assert desires others supposedly have without justification.
I'm now wondering if
you are trying to be deliberately provocative. You have repeatedly asserted things about my supposed intentions for which you have no evidence and which are not consistent with actions I have taken or actions I could take but haven't. That in itself is enough to give you an infraction warning. There's enough in this thread to give you several. The catch 22 I have is that if I don't give you one you can continue to escalate this unfounded rhetoric and if I give you one you'll just say "Ah ha! I knew it!".
As you made such slurs in public, it was fitting and proper to address them in public - not by way of some invisible PM!
Then you could have used the open government forum or contacted an administrator.
And the embarrassing contrast is now back for all to see - those two A-wal threads that, against all your expectations, I had saved URL's of, are back to haunt you. I can freely cite attitudes and responses in them, and contrast to how you have dealt with me. An amazing contrast indeed. You close threads because of 'terrible presentation' and 'bad attitudes'? Just check out those lengthy A-wal threads! Which although arranged to be unfindable, are still physically there and were never closed. Ace hypocrite!!
So the great string theorist and GR 'expert' AlphaNumeric
Yet more misrepresentations from you. Where did I claim to be 'great' or an 'expert' in either? I'm competent in parts of them. I'm more familiar with them than most but that isn't 'great' or 'expert'. In fact I've said in the past the opposite, that I was closer to the bottom than the top of people within my research community for string theory.
This, yet again, is a comment from you worthy of an infraction.
frankly admits, finally, that he doesn't know the answer to my simple question - 'does passive mass increase'? I had put it far more precisely than just that, but we all know the full context to that question, and this admission is telling!
You continually berate me for my ignorance of basics of GR, yet yourself now admitting to being stupefyingly ignorant of the most basic properties of stress in stress-energy tensor!!
Yet more 'weasel words'. And you again distort things. I showed clearly I could do a number of things within GR which pertained to the issue at hand. Compare that to yourself, who cannot do even the tensor calculus necessary to understand the specifics of the field equations. Using what knowledge I do have to address situations outside of previous experience is hardly something I'm ashamed of.
Well tell you what AN, may I suggest you do some careful reading of just one Q&A passage here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_...simple_examples_of_mass_in_general_relativity
Specifically, the fourth example there, beginning with "Imagine that we have a solid pressure vessel enclosing an ideal gas."
It's merely a brief coverage of one topic dealt with in that article by Ehlers et. al that I cited much earlier in that closed thread. Once you have digested it - maybe the penny will drop. Just maybe you will then acknowledge that your single line answer in #16 I cited in #18
is way off the mark. That answer was, in so many words, claiming pressure contributes only indirectly, via the energy-density term - the first diagonal in the stress-energy tensor.
Dead wrong! The 9 stress terms in tensor are completely separate to the energy-density term. Contribution to mass - active, passive, inertial, from stress-induced elastic/hydraulic/pneumatic energy is fully subsumed in the one energy-density term. But you have shown total ignorance of that fact.
Notice how your link explicitly mentions the Komar mass, something I've previously brought up in regards to the problem of defining mass within general relativity. Notice how the section makes it clear that the answer is dependent upon the definition of mass. Specifically it says
One might also ask about the answers to this question if one assumed that one were asking about the mass as it is defined in special relativity rather than the Komar mass". It explicitly says that if we defined mass differently then further complications occur. It explicitly highlights the problem with a non-isolated system, which is precisely what the question of what is causing the pressure brought up by myself and others was about. When you were asked to give your definition of passive mass you didn't provide anything of that kind of definition, instead reaching for a Newtonian based concept.
And where did I say anything about the energy-density term? I talked about the components of T but in regards to the field equations implying local energy-momentum conservation $$T^{ab}_{\quad;b}=0$$.
Your foolish comments about 'pressure magically coming from somewhere' made earlier re my 'disk-brake' scenario was disingenuous tripe.
Other than the fact the question of whether a system is isolated or not (ie something external influencing it) is precisely the issue brought up in regards to the differing definitions of mass given in that link you just gave to Wikipedia. Other than how the pressure vessel example in your link explicitly highlights the importance of distinguishing between considering the gas and considering the gas
and the thing holding it under pressure, ie the vessel, which again pertains to points raised by Rpenner and myself.
Yeah, other than that
Nevertheless, that little gedanken experiment does imo expose something truly 'magical' about character of stress as it is portrayed in GR. If and as you realize that, admit it, then maybe something useful can happen. But I doubt it, given your continual penchant of responding with a wall of trolling accusations. And occasionally recapitulated standard 'proofs' that imo 'disk-brake' scenario strongly calls into question.
In your opinion. And if your example calls into question GR's point of view why did you link to that wiki page, thus trying to use the GR point of view to make your case?
This harkens back to something previously raised, the need to test and retest models. We test models by doing experiments. Since we're not doing an experiment here we're purely within the realms of the model of gravity that is general relativity. What precisely are you considering 'magical' and what is being brought into question? Your wiki link points at some GR result, it doesn't illustrate anything 'magical', it illustrates GR can model such a scenario. Thought experiments are used in at least 2 ways to call into question a model : a sequence of logical properties of a model which lead to a conclusion qualitatively inconsistent with reality and two alternative ways to describe the same hypothetical scenario to see if different results are obtained. We're talking about the latter.
Can you show that within general relativity your disk brake example behaves in a way contradictory to general relativity? That's what is required. Nothing about that wiki link shows anything 'magical', it shows GR has a way of addressing such systems. You have not shown the standard proofs do not apply to the disk brake case. As your own link shows, pressure terms contribute to the Komar mass of pressured systems and by how much depends on the definition of what the system in question is. Seriously, what is magical? That the pressured vessel example includes pressure terms? That more than a single component of the stress-energy tensor contributes to mass?
Notice nowhere in your wiki link does it mention 'passive mass'. The notion is not relevant to the question of what the masses of the gas or pressure vessel are. All that mattered was a precise formal definition of the quantity in question, in this case the Komar mass. I repeatedly mentioned the Komar mass in previous posts and asked you for a quantitative definition, highlighting how mass is a slippery concept in GR. If you had said "I want the Komar mass of ...." then it would have been much more straight forward as you'd have given a proper definition, one valid within general relativity, and discussion about its relationship to the stress-energy tensor could have followed. Instead you use a Newtonian concept. I was honest enough to say I'm unfamiliar with 'passive mass'
within general relativity. Your link illustrates why that is not unsurprising, GR handles things differently, instead dealing with other, rigorously defined, notions of mass. As my repeated mentioning of it illustrates I'd heard of the Komar mass. I also knew it depends on the stress-energy tensor in a non-trivial manner. But given
your admitted lack of knowledge about this sort of stuff in GR you couldn't properly define what was of interest. Now I don't claim to know all about the Komar mass but I know enough to be able to do (and to have done) basic calculations with it, including showing that $$K_{ab} \equiv 2T_{ab}-Tg_{ab}$$ is such that $$K_{00} = \rho + 3P$$ when $$T_{ab} = (P+\rho)u_{a}u_{b} + P g_{ab}$$ in an orthonormal frame (ie a convenient one). This then feeds into the Komar mass in a nice way. In fact I just checked the lecture notes I made years ago and indeed
exactly that calculation is done within them, showing how the Komar mass indeed gives the Schwarzchild metric black hole mass as the M in the $$1-\frac{2GM}{r}$$ metric coefficients. It involves a Killing vector in the 0 component, ie $$X = \partial_{t}$$, another thing I mentioned previously but which you didn't understand.
By your own links there are multiple definitions of mass in GR. By your own links different definitions require different amounts of information. By your own links the definitions do not refer to such things always as 'passive mass'. By your own link your definition of 'passive mass' was Newtonian, not relativistic. By your own links the quantities you were interested in pertained to the Komar mass, something I'd repeatedly mentioned and am familiar with. I doubt any of this will cause you to stop with your 'weasel words' and repeated "The great string theorist and GR 'expect' AlphaNumeric" misrepresentations but at least others can see the situation. For them I'll be a bit more specific, to show the precise sequence of steps in regards to the mass definition and how it isn't surprising in the least how the stress-energy momentum contributes more than just $$T_{00}$$ :
The Komar mass is defined $$M_{K} = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{S^{2}|_{r=\infty}} \nabla_{a}X_{b}dS^{ab}$$. The integral is defined at asymptotic infinity over a sphere enclosing 'the entire universe'. Using Stoke's theorem $$M_{K} = -\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\Sigma} \nabla^{a}\nabla_{a}X_{b}d\Sigma^{b}$$. Since X is a Killing vector $$\nabla_{a}X^{a} = 0$$ since by definition $$\nabla_{a}X_{b} = -\nabla_{b}X_{a}$$ and by contraction with $$g^{ab}$$ we get $$\nabla_{a}X^{a} = 0$$. Killing vectors also satisfy $$\nabla^{a}\nabla_{a}X_{b} = -R_{bc}X^{c}$$ by virtue of the identity $$\nabla_{a}\nabla^{a}X_{b} + R^{a}_{bac}X^{c} + \nabla_{b}\nabla^{a}X_{a} = 0$$ which then becomes $$\nabla_{b}\nabla^{b} X_{a} + R_{ab}X^{b} = 0$$. We now consider the field equations $$R_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}R g_{ab} = 8\pi T_{ab}$$. Some rearranging gives $$R_{ab} = 8\pi \left( T_{ab} - \frac{1}{2}T g_{ab} \right)$$ and so we can combine all of these to give $$M_{K} = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{\Sigma} \left( 2T_{bc} - T g_{bc} \right) X^{b} d\Sigma^{c}$$. That's the origin of the term $$K_{ab} = 2T_{ab} - Tg_{ab}$$ I mentioned previously. $$T_{00} = \rho$$ is energy density and $$T_{ii} = P$$ is pressure, giving $$T_{ab} = (P+\rho)u_{a}u_{b} + P g_{ab}$$. If we're in the aforementioned convenient orthonormal frame then $$T_{ab} = \textrm{diag}(\rho,P,P,P)$$ so $$T = 3P-\rho$$ and giving $$K_{00} = 2T_{00}-Tg_{00} = \rho + 3P$$. All of this is standard bookwork but the label 'passive mass' is not used. Apparently 'the great string theorist and GR expert AlphaNumeric' has abysmal knowledge because Q doesn't know enough GR to be able to even refer to things in their standard ways or give good enough definitions, all the while thinking there's something 'magical' going on, as GR has a much more complicated notion of mass (or rather,
notions) than Newtonian gravity.
A pity though if AN just manages to totally shut out any rational discussion of the real core issue.
Remember, you started a thread complaining about me, after explicitly being asked to start a new thread with details so discussion could be made. If you'd been able to answer the questions I asked of you properly we could have spent the last page talking about the Komar mass and how it depends on the energy-momentum (stress-energy) tensor. Instead we get to hear all about the chip on your shoulder. Even if someone claims to be an 'expert' in a domain that isn't the same as claiming to know everything. Even very precise niche domains of science can be so fast no one can know it all and anyone who has done any science to a reasonable level will know and accept this.
You really cannot see how some people can be comfortable in their 'skin' enough to have no issue admitting mistakes or lack of knowledge, can you? Seriously, whatever issue you have with 'physics heavy hitters' you need to deal with it. If you really believe the nonsense you come out with, no seeing the dishonesty, misrepresentation and paranoia of your posts, I feel sorry for you.
You get this one last long post, as I had today off work so was willing to spend the time replying. Given the ever growing length of these back and fore posts further discussion about "I said... you said.... I said.... you said...." I'm not going to bother engaging you with. If you wish to 'talk shop' then Marcus looks like he's willing to indulge you, I've covered why the various insinuations about the dependency of certain mass definitions on stress-energy components is fully expected to be more elaborate than just the energy density term, why your 'passive mass' definitions were insufficient and how your wiki link is completely consistent and supportive of many things I've said, including my repeated mentioning of the Komar mass and various definitions of mass in GR.
If you wish to complain about the moderator action I undertook when I closed the previous thread then post a new thread in the open government forum. If you wish further engagement from me in regards to this 'magical' issue you mention then a new thread can be made, provided it includes a precise definition of the mass you're using and a demonstration using said algebraic definition that something is wrong with GR, ie it is inconsistent. As the Komar mass description in your own wiki link illustrates, precision is everything, consider that an illustration of the quantitative detail required for further discussion.
Further insinuation of there being an attempt to remove/silence/whatever A-wal will be given an infraction warning. As explained, I am not an admin so I cannot remove posts outside my designated forums. Furthermore there are automatic ways to remove all posts by a user, banned or not and A-wal is not banned. These all illustrate no attempt to scrub the forum has been made, contradicting your implications.
I'll leave this thread open, though if you or Marcus want your discussion to be moved to a new thread, free of the clutter here, then PM me.
Beyond that I'm going to call it a day. If you wish to go around The Internets declaring me an idiot or a liar or someone involved in elaborate forum conspiracies to remove discussions so be it. I'm happy for anyone else to read this post and see that I am familiar with the relevant concepts once it becomes clear what you're talking about, no thanks to your inability to provide definitions/terminology expected of the subject. The original moderator action, closing the thread after a day and more than a page of off topic replies while giving the option for a new thread, which prompted your complaints I stand by.
