Comments on physics and maths content and moderation

Ego couldn't let that one go, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've said it a few times, Tach. When (or rather if) you mature, you'll make a fine contributor to this forum one day...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None of those web quotes cite when and where Einstein said or wrote that and so are not evidence that he said or wrote it but only that some people think he said or wrote that. So you haven't answered question #1.
You haven't been able to support the saying with fact-based reasoning, and are directly contradicted by RJ Beery's assertion in post #26, and so you haven't even begun to demonstrate that any qualified expert actual has a basis to make the claim in post #19.

Moreover, you have ignored question #2, which asks that if we accept your proposition in post #19, how is it the least bit useful for the topic of this thread -- how is it prescriptive instead of merely descriptive (which I contest under a principle of logic that is prescriptive. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens, "Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud" Slate (October 20, 2003) )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

rpenner, I do not understand your position.
Do you agree or not "More the knowledge lesser the Ego, lesser the knowledge, more the Ego" ?
For me it is enough simply replied, "I do not agree", what I assume about you, but maybe I'm wrong.

p.s. I do not understand the connection with Mother Teresa.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't understand big fight over theories. Mods don't want crank theories or comments in here. They have pseudo section, you post over there. Mods follow you there and give you hard time, you quit posting crank or get together with others like yourself and make offer to buy Sciforums, after you own it, then you geld all the moderators and run the show as you see fit, no?

 

So it's all about who is moderator.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...can-moderate&p=2828765&viewfull=1#post2828765

Yes I know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...can-moderate&p=2830234&viewfull=1#post2830234

 

What has the past/elsewhere got to do with a case which stands on its own?

In this instance Farsight posted something self-explanatory about distinction between space and spacetime. Instead of finding fault and explaining why, you just made a personal 'drive-by- based on past baggage. Then prom piled on with his contribution of malice and personal disparagement.

YOU ARE MODS for pity's sake, not kindergarten children. Have some sense! Either tackle the scientific points he made or leave it alone. Why come into it with PREJUDICIAL personal remarks and leave, so skewing the discussion for others who wish to pursue the scientific points on their own terms and ideas with Farsight and others? You keep looking and acting like people with preconclusionary mind-sets based on past baggage/ego rather than scientists/mods.


Amd my comment was about YOU and PROM as MODS interfering with free polite science discourse between others. That is a different kettle of fish from what YOU and PROM have been doing that I highlighted because you don't seem to understand that YOUR transgressions/complaints are from bias AS mods. See the difference between me pointing out about your behaviour and you pointing to others behaviour as 'drive-by mods' WITHOUT scientific JUSTIFICATION of any sort?


So, you ARE a kindergarten kid after all. Else why would you say something like: "Don't like it here? Leave.

So your solution to someone pointing out where YOU are being an ass-mod is to taunt the messenger and ask HIM to leave? What kind of scientific stance is that? Why should a legitimate complainant about YOU breaking the site/debate rules (both as mod and member) be made to leave? Is that the crooked sheriff tactic I see before me? Why should a decent law-abiding community be held to ransom by a crooked sheriff abusing his power, and be forced to leave if he doesn't like what a mod/member is doing to ruin his community? Any self-respecting member of a community will stand up for what's right. Else where are we? Just a kindergarten site?


And what's with your absurd 'rationale' for why this complaint is 'allowed' if you were such tyrants/censors? Can't you see that my complaints are LEGITIMATE by the evidence of YOUR and prom's posts? Can't you see that your usual "tell it by PM" cop-out 'recommendation' will no longer be possible because I have proved it DOES NOT WORK. That is why you can't sweep it under the carpet anymore. Precisely BECAUSE I have had no choice but to RISK/SUFFER 'bans' in order to make it PUBLIC in the open forum, you CANNOT DO what you absurdly suggest WITHOUT merely providing further proof of what I have pointed out. So your, "we could do anything if we really were so terrible, but we haven't' rationale does not work when your hands have been tied by this highlighting of your mod/scientist/debater failings as already documented. The fact that you HAVE been getting away with all sorts of unconscionable/personal agenda stuff against ordinary members is ipso facto proof that you TRIED, but now are being hamstrung from getting away with it again (as documented) by my and others OPEN FORUM conversation which you cannot be now made to 'disappear' without the you/prom/site becoming truly ridiculous. Nothing on the internet can be made to disappear so easily as you seem to think/want in that absurd 'rationalisation' of yours there.

You and some others seem to think you own the place and the science, else you wouldn't act like you have done. People have DIFFERENT views, that is what makes for DISCUSSION. That is what science demands, since the science and the discussion is not yet 'settled' and complete. So why intrude into a discussion where you have no immediate cause to, unless you wish to use (abuse) your mod position and your preconclusionary-minded prejudices to treat ALL non-orthodox discussion/perspectives as WRONG just because the challenges are 'inconvenient' to 'orthodoxy'. Unless orthodoxy can withstand incessant challenge then it is NOT settled OR complete....and probably misleading. Hence the debates go on, new perspctives are encountered as we learn more and more about the 'vacuum' and 'particles' and universal phenomena at large and small scales.

Simply abusing one's mod/authority powers/system to brush the problems under the carpet is not doing any good for anybody, let alone the science which must advance at some point to the next level beyond 'orthodoxy'. That is what free science discourse, without skewing the conversation, is all about. That is why this and many other sites should be in existence for, and not for personal bullies and ego-trippers preconcluding and skewing like mad while pretending to be scientists who care about science instead of kindergarten kids.


If only you can see what is being highlighted here, and just try to better balance your ego with your duties/actions here, then we won't be having this conversation again as far as I am concerned.

Cheers!

 

People complain when they feel wronged. The semantics of it at that point are irrelevant.

The complaint I see here is not whether the science is sound- it's about bias.

What happens if one like Farsight, who usually posts hogwash, posts something insightful?

Prometheus and AlphaNumeric have been hearing basic B.S. long enough to get fed up with it. They don't want to deal with it and can anyone blame them?
I think not.
I think the complaints are valid, that a bias happens because of human fallibility. I also think it's a tough spot to hold the Mods accountable simply because a poster such as Farsight has pushed and pushed and pushed some more, for so long, spreading misinformation and bad science. If the mods are accountable, so are we and posters like Farsight. Farsight helped heavily in creating that bias.

As scientists, that bias is improper. Nothing can change that. The beauty of science is to ask "how" and "why." Without these questions we'd be content with religion or even absolute nonsense.
For example, George Kremmerer, recently asked why Hot Water Freezes Faster Than Cold.
Well, it's a good question; sometimes, hot water does freeze faster than cold. And no-one is really sure why this sometimes happens. Kremmerer also said that astrological ideas are part of how the "Dropa disks" were technologically used by the ancients to move heavy objects, make stone malleable or shine light.
As scientists, should Kremmerers usual bad science prevent us from answering a legitimate question? He probably has a motive for asking it. A motive to create confusion as he tries to convince others that his unsupported claims have merit. Even so, a scientists still has to look at hot water freezing faster than cold and say, "That's a good question. Why does it do that? How can we find out?" and not get lured into the trap. To laugh at it or discount or insult or threaten the person that asks right away is a bias. It's wrong.
But think too of how often that apparent innocence has been used as a despicable tactic to fool people.
I place a lot of blame on those that use the traps and the low tactics of deceit and confusion.

 

Gotta wonder how long you're going to be allowed to continue this troll. You contribute nothing to the discussion and constantly whine about being mistreated by moderators or anybody who knows you're full of shit.

Cheers

 

Now now, don't be like that. The wonder is that you decided to troll a thread which prometheus started for discussion of these matters.

Gotta wonder how long before prometheus will act to give you a 'little holiday' for trolling and insulting in HIS thread with a silly 'drive-by' empty post like that.

I hope prometheus waits until you have answered the legitimate scientific question you keep avoiding in the CMB photons thread!

The other wonder is what would your 'drive-by' comments have been if it was a 'crank' who was avoiding like you are doing?

Double standard, brucep? That is what this thread is all about. People like you giving the site a bad reputation for just that very thing we are discussing.

Grow up and and stop wasting bandwidth with your empty posts; and go answer the question over at the CMB thread and be done with it. Else you haven't a leg to stand on in this thread to be any judge of who "is full of sh!t" as you say.

 

You're the troll. You're the one who contributes nothing to the conversation. You should leave and go to the forum: UselessHatefulPeople.com.

 

So did God tell you to say that to me. Maybe the aliens you've been talking to are part of 'The Neighbors' cast?

 

I gotta say that it's interesting how putting RealityCheck on ignore makes threads more readable.

 

You and your little buddy AlexG have time to waste trolling and insulting here in PROM's thread, but by all means AVOID actually answering a legitimate scientific question about YOUR claim in the CMB Photons thread. Grow up.

 

Some people just complain. Could just be the nature of things.

I was handing out work evaluations one year. A young man who did not get along with me personally, began to complain almost immediately and refused to sign.., which would lead to a meeting in my boss's office. He stomped out of my office almost red in the face angry.., only to return maybe five minutes later to say, "This is a good evaluation!" He signed.

We all sometime react to what we expect, before we know the reality of a situation. Some people seem to make a habit of it.

 

This can be true and it's a good example of when people complain out of turn. But what happens when someone complains and it's valid? What happens when it is valid and they get the brush off anyway?
Differentiating between valid and invalid complaints can be a real headache. Often times, perceptions and opinions play a stronger role than the facts. The really hard part is not brushing off a complaint, no matter how strong the initial urge may be.
The red faced young man brushed off the evaluation too soon.
One can just as easily jump to a conclusion and brush off a complaint without really hearing it.

 

And some people have legitimate complaint, as in the case which led to this thread.

Or are you going to be so facetious still as to pretend that ALL complaints in ALL of history of humanity are spurious?

Stop rationalizing to facetiousness something that is VERY serious for science and humanity. Leave your 'pretty stories' out of it. Stick to the FACTS and the PROBLEM highlighted and the SOLUTION indicated. This is not a subject for trivialization or disingenuous banter to distract from the point just because it makes you 'uncomfortable' to face it squarely.

Be more constructive rather than mealy mouthed about the real mod/troll problem, and stop pretending it doesn't exist AS HIGHLIGHTED ALREADY more than once. Thanks.

 

I started laughing when I read that.

 

We can IGNORE some bloggers! How do you do that? That just makes my day!

 

Can we get a SMITE button? I wish we had one of those. I've seen SMITE buttons on another blog (with lots of nice people)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. What good is a SMITE button on a blog with all nice people. But if we had that here? Ooohhh!!!:yay:

 

What I said above about the distinction between space and spacetime is correct. Prometheus doesn't understand this distinction, and dismisses it as gibberish. He hasn't schooled me on space-time curvature. The information comes from sources such as Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address:

"...the recognition of the fact that “empty space” in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic..."

There's plenty more one can find in the original material:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²)
1912 : On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.
1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.
1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.

One can also find material on arXiv and elsewhere. I'm not some "my theory" guy who makes things up and cannot justify them. People like RC know this, they can read my posts and follow my links. And I'm afraid they will not concur with your assertions. However I suspect they will concur with Feynman:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

They can see that your post above is inaccurate, carping, abusive, and threatening. Try not to make posts like that. All you do is hand me the moral high ground and diminish yourself in the eyes of other posters. Set aside the emotion and stick with the physics.