On the Inevitable Imperfection of Moderators

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by exchemist, Jun 9, 2016.

  1. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,527
    Right? When a well-aimed epithet would do as well?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sweetpea likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Not if demonstrates to members his inherent integrity and commitment.
     
    exchemist and sweetpea like this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,078
    Yeah. Sometimes I lazily skim rpeener's posts to find out what others' are posting about.

    Like killing five birds with one stone. HOORAY!
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Agreed. No one is perfect, but rpenner is doing a good job.
    I'm rather disappointed that he does not like my style, but as I said, no one is perfect [

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] and that fault I can live with.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,198
    How ever will I manage to Carry On?? LOL comical

    (It's OK, I am apparently an early adopter. I put him on ignore just a little over a week ago.)
     
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,198
    Wow, Farsight, that is a metric buttload of miseduc... wait -
    That was in a single month????
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Now you know why my posts about his behavior and content had no patience.
     
  11. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    And to think rpenner does it all, including his math/physics equations, from a small screen tiny cell phone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No it wasn't. It wasn't miseducation at all. See for example this:

    May 9: Warning and Post: Einstein's Leiden lecture was not on the topic of the Lumineferous Aether. Posts moved. Please use existing PM to comment if desired., 2 posts moved

    Well guess what? I said this:

    That isn't the whole truth. Einstein described space as the aether of general relativity, see this dating from 1920.

    I didn't say anything about the "luminiferous" aether. I linked to Einstein's Leyden Address, which is entitled Ether and the Theory of Relativity. Read it. Einstein finished up saying this: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether".

    Rpenner's warning was totally unjustified. And he gives free reign to ad-hominem trolls.

    Would you like me to give you some more examples? Shall we take a look at this?

    May 31: Warning and Post: Fifth warning. Please don't misteach physics on the science subforums.., PM: Fifth warning. Please don't misteach physics on the science subforums., 10 warning points
     
  13. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Who called me a fraud? And for what? Come on, let's have it.
     
  14. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,044
    Some mod.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2016
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    OK, so now you are doing the same kind of lie by omission thing that you always do: your reply was to a statement about the luminiferous aether. You were specifically saying that it wasn't true that it was abandoned. This is despite the fact that Einstein explicitly abandons that type of aether theory in the very lecture that you cherry-pick from.

    Sure, a warning for you trying to teach your misunderstanding of tidal force. Indeed, you are specifically saying that light does not follow those geodesics that differ from others because of tidal differences. It is hard to understand how you could be more wrong.
     
  16. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I specifically said light doesn't "follow the curved spacetime". And it doesn't. So that's another unjustified warning from rpenner.
     
  17. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Again, you are selectively quoting, probably because you didn't fully read and understand the source that you tried to provide to back up your point. So, once again, you are making false statements.

    You are a fraud because you claim to be an expert in physics (in fact, you use the exact word, "expert" in some places), yet you gave up on trying to learn the relevant mathematics and you make basic mistakes in reading comprehension even when you try to limit your physics claims to textual analysis.
     
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,078
    It's kinda weird that... meh scroll down to post #105 from your May 9 link.

    Thought it was posted at an earlier date.
     
  20. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    A 0-point warning and the move of an off-topic post and it's reply by QuarkHead is looking fairly justified now, isn't it? Also, note that you did not ask for clarification of the warning via PM. (See forum rule G2.)

    Indeed, it calls into question what Farsight considers the theory of General Relativity to be when in different posts he has dismissed the role of geodesics for trajectories of material bodies and light. This is the type of trouble he gets in when he quote-mines antique documents which predate exact solutions of General Relativity. Einstein, using approximations to solutions, chose to use one particular method to calculate the deflection of sun-grazing starlight. Today, we can use geodesics of the Schwarzschild geometry, which is an exact solution assuming the Sun is surrounded by vacuum.

    Yes, quantum mechanics changed the meaning of "point particle" from what Newton and you would have it mean. These sorts of redefinitions are common when you change which physical theory you are using to describe the behavior of phenomena. So when in the face of modern understanding you nakedly assert on your self-proclaimed authority that “The electron is not a point particle.” you have to explain away the success of quantum electrodynamics, which does treat it as a point particle in the quantum sense. From earlier in that old thread:
    You have not acted like a scientific authority, thus no one will treat you like one.

    Status update: Number of people requesting access to the 5 above-listed PMs: 0
     
    Bells likes this.
  21. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,078
    I'll request it if both parties agree.

    AND, I don't get bored after two sentences.
     
  22. rpenner Fully Wired Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Farsight has already said he wants EVERYONE to have access to these. I will grant your access tomorrow unless Farsight changes his mind.
    But remember, Farsight's privacy is to be protected, so don't quote PMs outside of PMs.
     
  23. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,078
    I am wondering how that could play out if say, Farsight, wants to yackety-yak in his own words.

    But, I can be good. Being moved to tears by such sciforums drama.
     

Share This Page