Comments on physics and maths content and moderation

No they aren't, przyk. Yes the formalism of Minkowski is developed by analogy with geometry in normal space, no problem with that. But a great many people really do confuse space and spacetime, and the internet is littered with this confusion. As an example, see the NASA gravity probe B article. Articles like this give the impression of motion through the spacetime around the Earth, and that's wrong. The issue isn't limited with popular-science either. See this Baez article where Baez and Bunn correctly say:

"Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial."

He's also right to refer to a ball, wherein the curved arc of a thrown ball depends on how fast you throw it. But then he says this:

"The point is that while the ball moves a short distance in space, it moves an enormous distance in time, since one second equals about 300,000 kilometers in units where c=1."

Remember what we were talking about on the time thread? Just as there is no motion through spacetime, there's no motion through time either. On the next page Baez and Bunn say this:

"The components Tαβ of this matrix say how much momentum in the α direction is flowing in the β direction through a given point of spacetime..."

Flowing through spacetime? No, the issue isn't some mere analogy przyk. It runs like lettering in a stick of candy rock throughout the modern teaching of general relativity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good post, RC. Thanks for standing up for free speech and civil discourse.

Neverfly: would you care to point out where I've posted hogwash, misinformation, and bad science? Don't you get it yet? That's what I stand against.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How intellectually dishonest of you. Do not recall this post, where it was pointed out to you that Einstein refers to the 4 dimensional spacetime manifold as "space"? The whole thread is worth a read for anyone who thinks farsight knows hat he's talking about too. Allow me to reproduce the relevant part of the post:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, that's hateful.

What exactly do you do for a living if I may ask?

 

Your quotes don't support your case. Yes, people like Baez use language like "motion" in the context of spacetime. No, that doesn't mean they misunderstand it.

In the normal Newtonian space + time view, "motion" refers to an object's changing position in space with respect to time. When we describe trajectories, we normally express the position as a function of time: time is treated as an independent variable and position is treated as a dependent variable. Then you have all the usual kinematic definitions: velocity refers to the rate with which position changes with respect to time, and so on. There are explicit analogues to all of this in the Minkowski spacetime formalism. In the spacetime view, trajectories (worldlines) are parameterised in terms of proper time, which is the independent parameter, and both space and time are treated as dependent parameters. This means you can talk about a sort of "motion" in spacetime, if you understand this as referring to the change of both position and time with respect to proper time. The four-velocity formalises this analogy. The time component of the four-velocity (the "rate of advance through time", if you will), isn't completely trivial by the way: it's the relativistic time dilation factor which is not in general just equal to 1.

If you want to argue that "motion" should specifically only be used when referring to changing position over time, because that's what the Newtonian definition says, then fine, but then you're just being a terminology nazi rather than really saying something new about spacetime or anyone's understanding of it.


Incidentally, regarding your Einstein quotations from between 1911-1915, keep in mind these are all from before the final publication of general relativity, when he was still developing the theory. I believe Einstein is documented as having had some confusion with regard to coordinate independence during this period. Also, searching for "inhomogenous vacuum" is going to get you a lot of hits from quantum field theory, which has nothing specifically to do with general relativity.

 

I collect a pension and enjoy life.

 

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. Alphanumeric said I make this stuff up, and I gave some material to demonstrate that I don't. Einstein made it clear that space was not "empty", and the ten components of the metric tensor concern energy density, flux, pressure, and shear stress. See for example this web page by A G Polnarev. Only flux is associated with time, and that there's no motion through spacetime, so this flux is of necessity in space. I'm not talking gibberish.

Beer w/Straw: I fear more and more members of the public are beginning to share MotorDaddy's opinion.

 

Farsight's knowledge, or rather complete lack of, about the difference between space and space-time has been well documented. Stating such things, particularly when the documentation is an 'argument' with a moderator, is well without the bounds of reasonable responses.

You and he have both shown you don't respond to scientific explanations. You both make claims you're wanting to do science or discuss science but you don't, don't really. You want to wax lyrical about things you don't understand, to try to appear competent at things you are not. Personally I consider that behaviour considerably worse than someone calling you on it. This constant delusion of competency and attempts to excuse yourselves and each other for your wilful ignorance is abhorrent. Don't like being called a hypocrite? Or a hack? Stop being one.

But your constant whining on multiple forums is fine, right? Sure.

Farsight is skewed discussion, since he doesn't know any of the science, hasn't learnt any of the science and is deluded in his belief he's got some deep insight. This goes beyond the nonsense of people like Mazula, where it's "I've got my own ideas and I'll tell you them" to "I claim I understand the mainstream and I'll tell you it". Farsight doesn't. Neither do you. Unfortunately neither do most people, a fact I find very very depressing and it's part of the reason I put so much time into forums, to try to help people who want to listen. Farsight doesn't want to listen. Clearly neither do you.

I love how I have an ego for pointing out Farsight is ignorant of science, a fact I've proven time and again, as have many other people. Tell me, how would you describe Farsight? He has nothing to show for his claims, is demonstrably ignorant of science and yet he believes his work is worth 4 Nobel Prizes and he's a world expert in electromagnetism. That's delusional, not to mention massively egotistical! And you complain about my ego?

I will quite happily say I was a mediocre string theorist. I met tons of people better than me. I'm a fairly decent researcher, a good but not great mathematician, on the scale of professional mathematicians. However, that puts me ahead of 99% of people, demonstrably. That's a fact, a demonstrable fact. Farsight claims he's ahead of EVERYONE, a claim proven to be false by quite some way. So when you start throwing stones look a little closer to home

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Free? Please show me where you have a right to post here.

Pointing out Farsight is ignorant of science is actually something I'd expect every honest person to do. I just don't sugar coat it, he's had enough chances to present his case and he's failed every one of them.

When he can show he's more than a deluded hack I'll consider him more than a deluded hack. Until then I'm going on empirical evidence.

You'll find that's the response from most moderators on most forums if you don't like the forum. Just like you have no intrinsic right to post, you have no requirement to post.

you make it sound like this is our first rodeo together? Oh please.

Sorry, where did I say my response to you was 'scientific'? This shows how you sling around words without any regard for their relevance, just like you did with 'stalking'. My response to you was my opinion. I am a person, as well as a scientist, I have opinions and views which are entirely aside from science. Now, as I said, if all you and Farsight ever posted was proper science perhaps all our interactions would just be scientific but your posts are almost never science, even qualitative science. I don't think either of you know what actual science is. I come here to discuss science in an informal way, which includes putting opinions and non-science stuff into posts. If I wanted to talk science, nothing but science, I'd have to go find scientists. Aside from a tiny minority here there aren't any scientists here. And none of them I can talk to about my work because I no longer work in the academic community and I have NDA conditions to meet.

If you don't want people giving non-science comments then you're once again being a hypocrite, since you're more than willing to post non-science stuff. The post I'm replying to, for instance. Just because I happen to be a scientist and a moderator doesn't mean I'm unable or disallowed from posting non-science stuff. I really hope you're just being deliberately obtuse, that you aren't really this daft.

Well done on showing the kind of person you are but utterly misrepresenting what I said. Made to leave? No one is making you leave. I said if you don't like it then you have the option of leaving. Reminding you of an option doesn't mean I'm forcing you to take it.

I can see you're not really interested in an honest discussion, just like you aren't interested in honest science, so further parsing of your post is a waste of time. Thanks for showing all you want is a soap box to yell from. And you call me a kindergarten child.....

 

The thread on inflation shows otherwise. And it isn't the only one. Remember our discussion about curl and the electromagnetic field? Yet another misunderstanding you had (and probably still have) because you don't understand the details, only the superficial analogies someone else has provided you.

Oh look, rather than doing anything with any details, Farsight reaches for a wordy explanations someone else gave, decades ago, on science he doesn't understand. This is all you're capable of. It's why I tell you to learn the details, to stop doing nothing but qualitative arm waving. You don't understand the mathematics pertaining to those quotes. so you can only assume you understand how those statements fit into the details. And yet despite you showing you don't know the details, are regularly mistaken about them, claim you're a world expert in things you cannot do, you are hypocritical enough to tell people to learn more and bring up things like.....

So I'm mistaken and fooling myself about something I have a demonstrable capability in but you, someone who cannot pass any kind of test on electromagnetism, whose work is devoid of all details, considers numerology results 'amazing' and who is functionally enumerate for any kind of relevant science yet claimed to be a world expert and worthy of multiple Nobel Prizes isn't fooling yourself? This is why you're a joke.

You complain about string theory's lack of working models of phenomena, ignoring the working models it has and ignoring how your own, supposedly Nobel Prize winning work, cannot model anything. You claim you're a world expert in electromagnetism yet you're too poor at maths to do anything with Maxwell's equations and make demonstrably false statements about the electromagnetic field. All of that makes your quoting of about how people can fool themselves the easiest laughable. You have wheeled it out multiple times and each and every time not applied it to yourself. How many more years of plugging your work, paying to try to get the attention of the mainstream community, whining on forums will it take before you realise it applies to you too? I have external confirmation I'm at least competent at various areas of science. There are things in space I've helped with. Even if I am partly fooling myself, I have demonstrated capabilities in the real world. You have failed at every turn. Hence why I comment about the irony and hypocrisy of these sorts of comments from you.

Threatening? How did I threaten anyone? As for accuracy I can back up what I said about your failures and my competency. You cannot back up your claims about your capabilities, you can only ignore the questions asked about the substance of your work, because it has none.

Like I said, I can justify my claims about my competency and demonstrate the hypocrisy and delusion of your claims.

I'm going to ask you the same question I've asked you for more than 5 years, which you have never answered beyond quoting someone else's numerology and which I'll now give you a warning if you fail to answer again, as per my discussion with RC and your repeated claim to what to stick with the science. Please give one, just one, real world phenomenon your work can accurately model. Provide the model your work outputs, along with it's derivation from clearly stated postulates. That's what science wants, the details. Something you have never provided. If you don't think this thread is the right place then I'll start a new thread in this forum where you can present your answer.

If you cannot provide an answer than you'll have failed to provide what you yourself want, to 'stick with the physics'. Quoting other people's work will not be sufficient, you must show your own work and show the details. A quantitative model which can be used to predict things is required. If you cannot provide this you're 'not even not even wrong', you'll have shown your work is not science. Have at it.

 

I beg to differ przyk.

No problem.

And proper time is something you measure on your clock. But look at a parallel-mirror light clock. There's no literal proper time flowing through the mirrors. It's light moving between the mirrors. All your clock does is "clock up" some regular cyclic motion through the space where you are, and gives you a cumulative display you call the time.

You can, but this "sort of motion" isn't motion at all. You're sitting there in space, not moving as far as we can tell. There's a parallel-mirror light-clock in front of you. The light is moving back and forth between the mirrors, and the reflections are counted and displayed as the time. We can drop the z dimension of space and draw a cube with x y and t axes, and plot your wordline in spacetime as a vertical line. I can plot a worldline for the light in your clock too. I can pick up this cube and examine it. I can see a vertical przyk-streak in it, just as I could see an angled red streak in the film block for my red ball. If I zoom in on the cube and focus on your light-clock worldline, I can make out a zigzag extending vertically up through the cube. But nothing is moving in the cube, everything is static. There's absolutely no sort of motion at all. Like I said on the time thread, the wrong language and the wrong figures of speech can cause huge problems.

Yes, it contributes to the misconception of moving through time or spacetime. And see wiki: "It is chosen in such a way that the velocity of light is a constant as measured in every inertial reference frame. We can clone our gedanken przyk and place him in a void at the centre of a massive body. He is weightless, he doesn't fall down, and he detects no local curvature of light. We can peer "into his frame" and see his light clock, with a little artistic licence we can even see the light in his light-clock moving back and forth. And we can see that it moves slower than the other pryzk's light. We can draw a wordline for the pryzk clone too, and one for his light-clock. To overcome any issues of simultaneity we could have started and finished our little gedanken experiment with both pryzks at the same place and time, and finished with both przyks at the same place at a later time. One of their worldlines is angled at the bottom, and angles back at the top because we moved him. But those worldlines are still static. We might talk of a four-vector, but the only actual motion is through space.

I'm no terminology Nazi I'm trying to explain this dreadful confusion between abstraction and reality. The map is not the territory. The map is spacetime, a mathematical space. The territory is real space with things moving through it. The reality that underlies the invariant Lorentz interval in a gravity-free scenario is a light-path length in space. If your clone sits still in free space, the x y and z terms are zero and the light in his clock moves back and forth repeatedly like this ||. If you take an out-and back trip your clock reading is reduced because the light in your clock zigzags in space like this /\/\/\. But when we examine the total light path lengths in the two clocks we find they're the same. The t has a negative on it because the macroscopic motion through space of comes at the cost of local motion in the clock:

\(ds^2 = -dt^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2\)

He said more of the same after the final publication. See Baez's website. I've referred to this before. It isn't written by Baez, but it's on his website so I presume he endorses it. Spot the problem:

"Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity..."

"Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

 

Alphanumeric I have to go, so in brief: please stick to the physics. As to your request, please note that I modelled the invariant Lorentz interval above. "My work" as you describe it explained why the existing Minkowski spacetime formalism is applicable, justifying the invariant interval by reference to observables rather than relying upon symmetry or the laws of physics. I'm not offering a quantitative model that is different to SR, I'm offering understanding. If you'd like to point out any flaws therein please feel free. Please don't try to use "I already have" as an excuse. It won't wash. People are on to you now. Time to up your game.

 

Proper time is the elapsed time for any time-like path through space-time. Thus it is a function of the geometric path and the end points chosen on that path. This geometric statement is often obscured when we write particular expressions with coordinates, but the geometric view forces invariance of the expression of proper time -- changes of coordinate systems do not change the proper time. Also, if you cut a path in N parts, the proper times of the whole path is the sum of the proper times of the N parts.

In any coordinate system, elapsed proper time is a function of the particular 1-dimensional path, \(\xi(\lambda)\) through spacetime from the event \(\xi(A)\) to \(\xi(B)\): \(\tau_{\xi}(A,B) = c^{-1} \int_A^B \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu} \frac{d\xi^{\mu}(\lambda)}{d\lambda} \frac{d\xi^{\nu}(\lambda)}{d\lambda} } d\lambda\)

In flat-spacetime in any inertial cartesian coordinate system, we can talk reasonably about the change of coordinates as the parameter \(\lambda\) is varied, and we can talk about coordinate velocity \(\vec{v}_{\tiny \xi}(\lambda) = \frac{ \frac{d\xi_x}{d \lambda} \hat{x} + \frac{d\xi_y}{d \lambda} \hat{y} + \frac{d\xi_z}{d \lambda} \hat{z} }{ \frac{d\xi_t}{d \lambda} }\) which gives these expressions: \(\tau_{\xi}(A,B) = c^{-1} \int_A^B \sqrt{c^2 \left(\frac{d \xi_t}{d\lambda}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{d\xi_x}{d\lambda}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{d\xi_y}{d\lambda}\right)^2 - \left(\frac{d\xi_z}{d\lambda}\right)^2 } d\lambda = \int_A^B \sqrt{1 - \left(c^{-1} \frac{d\xi_x}{d \xi_t} \right)^2 - \left(c^{-1} \frac{d\xi_y}{d \xi_t} \right)^2 - \left(c^{-1} \frac{d\xi_z}{d \xi_t} \right)^2 } \frac{d\xi_t}{d\lambda} d\lambda = \int_A^B \sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{\vec{v}_{\tiny \xi}(\lambda)}{c} \right)^2 } \frac{d\xi_t}{d\lambda} d\lambda\)

And in flat-spacetime in any inertial cartesian coordinate system, if we limit the path to be the inertial path between \(\xi(A)\) and \(\xi(B)\) then the coordinate velocity is constant \(\vec{v} = \frac{ (\xi_x(B) - \xi_x(A) ) \hat{x} + (\xi_y(B) - \xi_y(A) ) \hat{y} + (\xi_z(B) - \xi_z(A) ) \hat{z} }{ (\xi_t(B) - \xi_t(A) ) }\) and the above expressions simplify to: \(\tau_{\xi}(A,B) = \sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \right)^2 } \int_A^B \frac{d\xi_t}{d\lambda} d\lambda = \sqrt{1 - \left( \frac{\vec{v}}{c} \right)^2 } ( \xi_t(B) - \xi_t(A) ) = \sqrt{ \left( \xi_t(B) - \xi_t(A) \right)^2 - c^{-2} \left( \xi_x(B) - \xi_x(A) \right)^2 - c^{-2} \left( \xi_y(B) - \xi_y(A) \right)^2 - c^{-2} \left( \xi_z(B) - \xi_z(A) \right)^2 }\)

Or \(\tau(\xi(A),\xi(B)) = \sqrt{( \Delta_{\tiny AB\xi} t )^2 - c^{-2}( \Delta_{\tiny AB\xi} x )^2 - c^{-2}( \Delta_{\tiny AB\xi} y )^2 - c^{-2}( \Delta_{\tiny AB\xi} z )^2 }\)

Or colloquially \(\tau = \sqrt{( \Delta t )^2 - c^{-2}( \Delta x )^2 - c^{-2}( \Delta y )^2 - c^{-2}( \Delta z )^2 }\)

So proper time is not just the time one measures on one's clock, but a geometrical property of space time that one could in principle measure along any physically realizable trajectory through space-time. It is trajectory-dependent. Its definition does not depend on the existence of any particular type of clock.

If one is focused on literal truth, one should not use the metaphor of flowing time, since it is not literally in evidence and only approaches literality in hourglasses and water clocks.

Other types of clocks do not have moving parts. For example, muon decay behavior is predicated on a constant chance of decay (of the remaining particles) per unit time, leading to a chance of continued existence of \(e^{-k \tau}\), and similarly for neutrons and radioactive nuclei where the internal motions of the quarks/nucleons are not the time-keeping element.

Similarly, atomic clocks: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n12/full/nphys778.html

As gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong forces never depend on coordinates and respect only proper time and never coordinate time, this geometrical view (equivalent to assuming translational, rotational and local Lorentz symmetry) makes sense of spacetime in ways that trying to talk about space separate from time never does.

 

Your first post in this thread, the one precipitating splitting it (which happened after I posted, making this my first post "in this offshoot thread"), opened with:

Just because you have tried to obscure who you were trolling here does not mean you were successful. And certainly I am not the only one with a good memory around here.

And what part of this bit is anything other than, "You posted personal opinion egregiously inconsistent with the facts/posts in evidence so far in the relevant thread and now in this offshoot thread"?

If you are seriously going to try to complain about such behavior, perhaps you should take more care with your own posts first. Otherwise everyone simply takes from it that you are a hypocritical blowhard. And from what I hear, this sort of "crusade" has gotten you banned elsewhere. Care to continue pontificating on who has yet to learn?

This bit seems to be the only small fraction of your post that had anything to do with the original thread. But could not Farsight have asked for this himself? Who has appointed you the advocate of all things crank? This is exactly the soap box I mentioned, so my post very much was "consistent with the facts/posts in evidence so far in the relevant thread and now in this offshoot thread".

Sounds like the Dunning–Kruger effect. "Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding."-wiki

And yes, this is the crux of many of these problems, here and on many other skilled/knowledgeable forums.

 

You seem to think that mathematics is the reality. Please disabuse yourself of this mind-shackling notion you have somehow fallen into. And it has ever been thus that someone with different reality-based perspective seems 'ignorant' etc etc to someone who is under this silly impression that maths is the reality. When Einstein tried to bring a different reality perspective to inform the maths, he was ridiculed by the elitist parrots who 'knew' they were right and DIDN'T LISTEN to the reality perspective which should inform the maths. If you had been there at the beginning of Einstein's gedanken ponderings of the reality rather than just 'doing maths', you would be sounding just like you sound now....you assume others are 'ignorant' etc etc just because they don't play your maths games while the reality passes you by.

It's your ATTITUDE that is being questioned here.

It is THIS PRESENT INSTANCE (and not past/elsewhere) that led to THIS thread about YOUR ATTITUDE which interferes with your mod behaviour. It's not a HISTORICAL REVIEW, it's a HERE and NOW problem with mods acting like trolls with prejudiced minds that won't listen fairly to EVERY NEW post on its own merits rather than from kneejerking personal baggage.

Your comments and proms IN THIS CASE were PERSONAL and PREJUDICED and SKEWED the discussion and added nothing but POISON and MALICE to the discussion. A MOD should NOT do that. No excuses/rationalizations will make that acceptable in any way. Get it?

When MODS 'drive by' and take a cheap shot with no constructive substantiation whatsoever for their silliness, it IS stalking and trolling from personal prejudice/ego. It only takes ONE or TWO such drive-by's by MODS to skew the whole discussion and affect Farsight's contribution therein which was perfectly legitimate. Any other rationalization of your silly games is just as silly as your original post. Stop digging.

When will it get through that smug attitude of yours that you are a MOD? Any sort of MOD misbehaviour is more serious than an ordinary member's because they can get banned while mods rule and don't get banned. So it keeps setting a BAD example. Get it?

And when will it get through that it is THIS INSTANCE of YOUR and PROM's posts which is at issue. No generalizations and rationalizations can excuse you in THIS INSTANCE. Better to face it and just DO BETTER and remember you are a MOD and not an ordinary member. Just keep your personal baggage with people out of it, and just either substantiate any intervention or just keep out. That's the only solution to the problem highlighted (yet again) in THIS PRESENT instance. That's all it takes to solve this problem, a little more respect and less personal preconclusions affecting your 'reading' of every NEW post on its merits, irrespective of past/elsewhere baggage. OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My "soup" box? Oh, you mean "soap" box.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mate, having read innumerable personal/elitist/poisonous diatribes from you over the years here and elsewhere, it would be easy for me to treat you the way you treat some people. But I don't do that. I forgive and forget and try to stick to the science/courtesy and respect. Which is why I have been pointing out where you could do better as a mod and as an educator IF ONLY you would drop that elitist/hateful/personal baggage attitude which spoils it for everyone, including for yourself and for science discourse without fear or favour.

If I didn't care about you or the site or science I wouldn't be bothered to spend precious time bringing this up. It is an important stage in human social/science evolution that the INTERNET has ushered in. Let's not treat it so cavalierly or prejudicially and poisonously just for personal agendas. It's bigger than any one of us. Respect and tolerance in all areas of human interaction is crucial if we are to survive and advance both the society and the science. Petty personal power trips are counterproductive and the way of the tyrant, not the scientists (or at least it shouldn't be the way of the scientist). Just be cool and mod with caution rather than with anger/baggage, and everything will be fine, and there will be no need for 'concerned citizen' members to complain about this kind of unwarranted interference with the natural evolution of free and fair discourse.

I already pointed out in my previous post where that 'line' of argument won't wash. Did you not even read it?

So are you saying that just because the odds are stacked against one, one should NEVER stick up for what's right against all the odds?

Defeatist much? Human history shows where it is PRECISELY where one speaks up against all the odds that the most PROGRESS is made. Haven't you learned that lesson yet? It's happening even now around the globe. It is called sacrificing one's ccomfort zone for the greater good (in this instance it is for the greater good of Sciforums site/members, Science and Humanity).

All the rest is just more PERSONAL OPINION and rationalizations for INACTION and DEFEATISM and/or ELITISM COMPLACENCY. I for one am not having a bar of that "soup box" spiel of yours, mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More opinionated falsehoods and personal prejudiced reading of the history/facts in an attempt to paint and frame so that you can continue your preconclusionary attitude both as member and as mod. Not a good look, mate. That is the source of your problem. You know the solution. Do better.

How many times in history has the amateur/untrained/layman come to the rescue of the professional who was missing the crucial step/insight?

Your UNGRATEFUL, elitist and exclusionary disdain for ordinary member's of ALL sorts and backgrounds and contribution potential is AMAZING. This alone has now convinced me that you have no business being a MOD of anything but your personal blog where you can get on your "soup box" and put down most of the good people who make any community vibrant and diverse and greater than the sum of its disparate parts.

Unless you change that woefully counterproductive attitude. Where there's intelligence there's hope!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Farsight was unfairly treated there as here. For example, when I tried to read him fairly and point out where his take was consistent with some facts/observations of the phenomena, I was also CASTIGATED for being fairminded and not poisonously prejudiced, tarred with the same brush by those who should have known better!

These are DISCUSSION boards, not peer review journal. Even Einstein, if he was appearing on these boards and just presenting his "riding along with a lightbeam' perspective, would have YOU and other troll/mods hounding him out of town without fair listening and constructive assistance in developing that perspective for the greater good. You and other troll/mods seem to be NEGATIVITY and EGO personified (else probably you wouldn't BE seeking to be in such a position of 'power' which you could abuse at will and then blame the victim? I'll leave you to examine your own motives on that one!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

Have you ever heard of the law of CAUSE and EFFECT? When one is UNFAIRLY treated by one who abuses his power and position for capricious, drunken, illegal ends, does one take it lying down or does one speak up for what's right? You may be a coward and easily made to tow the line of ignominy; but some people do what is right for the greater good even though they suffer as a consequence.

And only in that ONE site has that state of injustice been so profoundly ingrained (one sole moderator, and that one demonstrably lied and framed and libeled and abused the power/rules to suit himself and his cronies 'just for the fun of it'....that was one of the rationalizations presented in defense of such unconscionably destructive behaviour....I kid you not!).

So your example about my complaints/ban from there is only more record for the justness of my stance when faced with such immature idiocy dressed up as 'authority' where "IF you don't like it then leave" is the cry of the tyrant!

If you want to look at YOUR history over there, perhaps the POISON which you brought into discussions there may explain why you do so here, and as a mod here, it is doubly reprehensible for you to paint my reaction to INJUSTICE as somehow my fault for NOT taking it lying down the lying and drunken and irresponsible antics of a so-called sole moderator who when not absent is capricious and a liar and libeler for his own amusement and that of his cronies. You may be OK with such things because you were one of the ceronies, but don't think that the victims were laughing about all the damage you did to the site's reputatin and to the reputation of scientists and free and respectful science discourse.

The discourse is FREE if it is not beholden to cow-towing to tryrannical mindsets in control of the sites which purportedly exist FOR discussion and NOT blogging from a "soup box". Get that yet?


Mate, stop and think a bit about YOUR problem and stop blaming the victim. Cause and effect, remember? If you weren't the problem, I wouldn't be highlighting it and trying to get you to assist in a mutually satisfactory solution.

Come on, let's ALL do better. Less unnecessary vitriol/prejudice, and more co-operative science discourse irrespective of provenance. Reasonable?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers AN, all!

 

I merely named no names. Are you saying you KNOW who I was referring to?

And my highlighting your troll post which had no substantiation for your post was just that: highlighting your unsubstantiated opinion post for what it was. Precisely because it is that very sort of behaviour (in the two mods involved in this instance) which precipitated this discussion thread about that very subject/problem. Your post was self-evidently in keeping with what the problem being discussed involved. No need to pretend otherwise by turning it on the one who blew the whistle on it.

By the way, your opinion about me "trolling here" is not consistent with the posting record in the relevant thread and this one. Less of it please. Thankyou.

As pointed out above, your ill-conceived and even more poorly executed attempt to turn this on me has fizzled out in the face of the facts. Apply your time and intelligence to more honest endeavours. Word.

Given the tendency of tyranny/ego-mania, what do you think would have happened if Farsight HAD complained about it up-front before someone else noticed and highlighted it first? More unjustified blaming of the victim and banning perhaps?

It's all very well to sound so superior when YOU are not the TARGET but one of the cronies who enjoys the sport that is mod-troll antics which you apparently approve and excuse, isn't it? When you are 'safe' from that sort of antics, it's easy to be so cavalier about the victim's position BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL whatever he does, isn't it? Try walking a mile in the other person's shoes. Being the victim of such antics isn't all that fun. And who will stand up against injustice if not those who care about humanity and science without fear or favour?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And there we have it, the last recourse of the preconclusionary parrots all over the internet. Evasively and inanely trotting that out without having any idea of, or really caring anything at all about, the ACTUAL pros and cons of the problematic INSTANCE AT HAND (such this one which is now being discussed HERE in this thread).

You've wasted everybody's time very effectively. Have you any more empty and ill-informed and unsubstantiated opinions/trolls to post?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I kinda wonder when moderation is going to fix this nonsense. Really? RealityCheck enters threads then turns the thread into his own personal complaint soapbox. He's had so much 'bad' discourse with forum members that he feels the need to get some kind of revenge. He's trolling you, Prometheus, Syne, me, and others into more useless unscientific and 'bad' personal discourse with him. That's what he does.

 

Cause and Effect; you've heard of it? If there wasn't that CONTINUING mod-troll PROBLEM being highlighted again in this instance, we would not be having this thread discussion about it. You are only adding more evidence of the problem with that opinionated/troll post. Get it?

Now, why troll and opinionate here about your prejudicial reading of things instead of just getting back to the CMB Photons thread in Cosmology section and answer the legitimate scientific logical question indicated by your 'explanation' there?

 

He's well liked. What are you talking about?

Wrong! You're a troll and a very mean-spirited one at that.

No. That's what you do. You do not contribute anything positive to the discussion, only hostility.

 

RC is the biggest 'I'm a victim' troll on the internet.

 

You missed the fact that I stand up for others who have been unfairly treated by mod-trolls because of double standards and abuse of power. It's not about me, it's about what's right for free science discourse without fear or favour of prejudicial mods who also troll. You and brucep et al seem to enjoy helping make my case for me with your personally prejudicial and ill-informed troll posts like that, every time. Thanks!

PS: Well AlexG, now that you have further enhanced by that post your reputation for being the most ubiquitous prejudicial 'drive-by' troll-parrot on the internet, how about going over to the CMB Photons thread in the Cosmology section and helping brucep answer that question put to him? Or is malicious 'drive-by' troll-parroting the only thing you are good for?