An Evening of Speculation.

Of course it is. You made a statement that AlphaNumeric's posts would not make anyone here think any less of you. In short, his statements would not alter anyone's opinion. You were wrong. That's not dogma: that's logic.

That is seriously pathetic. Alpha has shown himself to be, in thread after thread, not only knowledgeable, but adept at conveying that knowledge. Your silly attack on him merely highlights your own limitations.

I am not 'standing in his corner'. He is well able to look after himself. I thought to give you some insight as to how foolish you appear to the average poster here. You choose to deny this to yourself. It leaves no one else fooled.

I think in this thread Alpha suggested you were able to, on occassion, construct something of a measured argument. I see no evidence for that - he seems to be wrong on that one. So, you join my very short list of posters on Ignore. Goodbye.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People will make up their own minds. I've yet to see anyone come out of the woodwork in your defence though.

I can't prove no, because I don't know who you are in real life. That doesn't mean I can't present evidence, as my responses to your posts have done. You have gotten something basic wrong in pretty much every thread you've stated something to do with maths or physics. You got division by 2 mixed up with taking a square root for god sake! I'd be unimpressed if a 13 year old did that, never mind someone who claims to have studied quantum mechanics and vector calculus in the past and who 'investigates' spinors!

Every time I've gone through your nonsense you've had the opportunity to retort. You never do.

This is a post, is it not? It contains a fair amount of tex. This is another. Lengthy posts which spawned lots of replies.

Why you've come out with that response I don't know. Besides, is that the best you've got, calling me a 'ignorant thick son of a bitch' because you misconstrue something I said about threads vs posts? What about all the physics and maths I've said? Can't you find something at fault there to respond to instead? Looks like you can't so you're scraping the barrel for something to insult me for.

I told Terry its a bit stupid for him to insult me when he asks me for help. You're calling me an 'ignorant thick son of a bitch' and yet I slap down all your attempts at physics and maths. What does that say about you?

If we're doing the whole "OMG that sentence construction is wrong!!" thing then you mean to say "passed between me and him", else you imply something passed between you alone and likewise with me. You need 2 people to pass something between.

Anyway, what has passed between you and me? We don't communicate via PM, so anything which has passed between you and me is something Ol could have read. Unless perhaps you're accidentally referring to your previous accounts here, which did involve a lot of PMs back and fore.

And yet you call someone an 'ignorant thick son of a bitch' for supposedly mixing up 'thread' and 'post'? If that's what you do for such a minor thing what would you call someone who claims to investigate quantum field theory but doesn't know the difference between division by 2 and taking a square root? I dread to think.... Fortunately you don't need to post said insult as it applies to you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've provided plenty of evidence you don't know the topics of which you speak. You claimed to be 'trying to remember basic stuff' yet you inexplicably mentioned irrelevant things, as if you were copying and pasting. You claim to have 'investigated' the Dirac equation yet you don't know about Pauli matrices, which also happen to be essential to an understanding of entanglement, which your lengthy post supposedly deriving some result about entanglement and the Dirac equation completely failed to mention in any way. Or how you claim to have not done spherical coordinates yet you've got work which can rederive Gauss's theorem.

Of course its possible you are just extremely bad at explaining yourself, that you have a very bad memory for the finer details of things and you really have studied these things. Or you could just be a massive liar. I've given you every opportunity to step up and demonstrate you aren't. Doesn't need to be an algebra-fest, people like Guest or Ben or Cpt demonstrate they are knowledgeable without having to produce masses of mathematics but they also don't avoid it when its necessary. You run from every, every, post where you're asked to demonstrate any actual understanding on topics you bring up and claim you've done work on.

How many times have I tried to engage you in detailed discussion? All of which you've walked away from. I have nothing to hide, I'm happy to talk about the specifics of the Dirac equation (to the limits of my knowledge, obviously) or entanglement. Hell, I'll be perfectly honest and admit that until about 3 months ago I had very little experience with entanglement in quantum mechanics, I'd always worked on other things. Now I'm confident enough on it to be willing to talk about minor research level details with someone if they wish. If you were willing to have an honest discussion I'd be happy to have one. Honest being the major thing.

You say its all opinionated and dogmatic but the only reason you haven't been completely nailed to the mast is because you walk away every time it becomes clear you've bitten off more than you can chew. Then you complain when people say "Looks to me like you don't know what you're talking about." Someone who says that to me on a topic I do know about typically get laughed at and then their arse handed to them. I don't run from such people, I confront them as its no effort to kick my posts up a few gears and get into the details. If you knew the things you profess to you'd be able to do it too. You'd only need to do it once or twice, then people would know. Instead you spend more time whining about how no one takes you seriously then it would take the demonstrate you are serious.

A few threads he's started recently in the physics section are clearly attempts to talk about high level stuff but he's got the sense to ask a question, not post a pet theory, so at least then people will talk to him about the topic without slapping him silly.

I don't delude myself into thinking my general attitude to large numbers of posters doesn't do me any favours. I sometimes wonder just how close to the line I skim, perhaps the moderators would prefer it if I did tone it down a bit? Or maybe my habit of hitting the hack beehive with a stick is sufficiently entertaining to make up for my blunt style? There's a group of people here I am jovial with and a group I'm vitriolic with, with little in between. I find qualitative discussion of high level stuff enjoyable and I like helping people who don't grasp something I do when they honestly want to learn. I just don't think hacks should be pandered to and in the long run if I can get someone to realise they are wasting their time on nonsense then great. I imagine I'd help more people if I was nicer to everyone but it'd be less fun if I went all smiles and hugs with every hack and nut who comes my way.

\edit

And no doubt some would like me to make shorter posts but I type quickly and like to explain myself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will give him his credit, but only when it's due. I've never said he is not knowledgeable, however, that does not cease to point out that he's a flamboyant fool for distorted information.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Where have I 'distorted information'. I haven't lied about my knowledge or work, you have. And every time I've gone through your crap I've asked you direct questions so you can retort what I said or stand up for yourself. You never do. And yet you claim I'm distorting things.

You post lots of crap, have it pointed out and then rather than say "Okay, I should explained myself better. What I meant was......" you just say "You're mean!" and then go to post another thread of crap. After a while people stop giving you the benefit of the doubt because you never stand up to any criticism and all you do is complain people are mean.

Come on, I'm happy to have an alpha rules discussion with you on entanglement or the Dirac equation, provided you state before hand that you'll respond to direct questions and explain anything you're asked to. That's something I'm happy to agree to, I have nothing to hide. If at any point either of us are deemed to be bullshitting then the thread gets locked. Hell, I'll agree to suspended for a week if I'm deemed to be bullshitting. How about you?

I keep giving you opportunities to retort my criticisms and all you ever do is say "He's mean and he's wrong" but you never give examples, you never respond to specific criticisms. As various interjecters have demonstrated,l the general view seems to be that no one thinks you know the topics of which you speak, you're just copy/editing other people's work or just making shit up. If you claim I'm wrong justify yourself.

 

Where? You have gone about saying I have lied about crudentials, when I have never claimed anything of the such. Now, just recently, in this thread maybe, you have now spurted out another lie concerning I have supposed to have written lengthy essays at a time, a flat out fabrication of the truth.

As I said, grow up.

 

You've never claimed specifically to have crEdentials but you've claimed to previously have done Hilbert spaces, vector calculus, examined the Dirac equation, dabbled in electromagnetism etc All of these are beyond the level of compulsory education in any country so you're implying at some point you've studied university level material, which you're trying to 'remember'.

Clearly this is not the case so either you are lying about the stuff you've done in the past or you're seriously deluded about what the level of your understanding is.

If you have no credentials then what precisely have you done to warrant your claim you've 'investigated' the Dirac equation? There's a great deal of material which a university would consider required knowledge before allowing a student to study quantum field theory. You thus are claiming you do have familiarity with at least degree level material. Whether or not you claim to have done it in a formal educational system or not the fact remains you claim you've done it. That is what I say you're lying about, so stop paraphrasing me to the point of lying or start paying attention.

No, I said you'd written many length posts, like those relating to the Dirac equation or electromagnetism or entanglement. All of them were clearly attempts to try to convince people you did work or are capable of doing work in those areas.

Again, can you please pay attention to what I say. If you already are then stop being daft enough to paraphrase me incorrectly to me.

 

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104636

You're such a ******* liar.

 

Did you not see the quotation marks? That was in reference to the fact your posts are presented as if you're doing the same kind of methodical step by step work seen in papers, ie you want to present those posts are 'good science' on an advanced topic but they fall a long way short.

Once again you're so desperate to take a pot shot at me that you have to sink to misinterpreting things, seeing as you can't (and despite repeated request won't) respond to any of my posts where I point out a slew of mistakes you make. Terry doesn't claim to have published papers, he just writes lengthy things for himself and occasionally links people to them. You write lengthy things, post them here and then when they get blown apart for making mistakes a child would be embarrassed about rather than respond to those criticisms you do as you're doing now and complain about some imaginary slight you've suffered because you fail to understand what people have said to you.

How many times do I need to say I was clearly referring to your 'essays' on the Dirac equation, electromagnetism and entanglement. All of them are nonsense, all of them make basic mistakes, all of them show you are lying about the material you claim to have done in the past. Now are you going to respond to that or are you going to continue wailing against some strawman you have constructed?

 

You are a liar. Qoutation marks or not, you are a liar.

 

Are you working on the same principle as Terry, that if you mindlessly repeat something enough time then it'll suddenly become true? I have never said you write papers, I said you write lengthy posts which you present as some sort of methodical work. How many times do you need this explained to you? It was explained in post 12 of this thread, so why you keep going on and misconstruing things I don't know.

My point is that you try to present your incoherent copy/edits as logical, accurate science. You post things which you use to try to convince people you're capable (and actively doing) advanced maths or physics. In all cases you've been demonstrated to be repeatedly incorrect, algebraically or factually, and that by spuriously mentioning things it gives the distinct impression you're copying from something you don't understand and trying to mask that by editing it slightly.

And no matter how many times you call me a liar its clear that other people have reached the same conclusion about you. Screaming "OMG you're a liar!!" isn't going to make such criticisms go away. I give you plenty of opportunity to enter informed honest discussion, I even put on the table the suggestion that if either of us are caught BS'ing in said discussion we get suspended for a week. You're starting 'alpha threads' because you know you'll get slated otherwise.

The fact you always run from an honest offer, yelling "You're mean, you're a liar!!" says it all. If you have nothing to hide you'd have a little more to back up your position than cowardice and indignation about someone questioning you.

 

Hell has no fury - Like a women scorned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Science is a bitch.

What would a free man do?


We could always settle this argument like gentlemen and scientists.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here is the diagram of the experiment, which I have asked to carry out at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge.

In your professional 'opinion' does it work?

A simple Yes or No?


Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

Light in, Light out.