You must have some kind of, nagging psychological disability if you think the way you go about ''correcting'' peoples mistakes is an honest, humble approach.
Firstly I didn't say humble. It is honest though, else I'd be a lot more pleasant to you.
And I hardly think you're in a position to be implying people have psychological issues given what your actions, repeated and consistent, say about you.
If someone stopped making endemic mistakes starting from tomorrow, they would not be human alphanumeric. But you think yourself justified to stand there and ask someone not to make them, otherwise you come into a thread, derail it royally and then expect some kind of feedback, from an otherwise uncivil, catagorically crap attitude-filled post, which is condescending in an attempt to disgrace any kind of credibility from that poster.
I'm trying to tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or you're really that bad at understanding basic concepts. You do a similar thing when comparing small mistakes people (including myself) occasionally make compared to your systematic and concerted mistakes. In each case you fail to realise the
vast gulf between normal behaviour and your own.
The level of errors and the frequency with which you make them are the issue, given you general claim to understand the material of which you speak. Dropping factors of 2, referencing the wrong term in an equation, forgetting a second order correction. Those are small slip ups which anyone, even an expert, will make from time to time. Not knowing a potential is a function of q and not $$\dot{q}$$ while presenting yourself as familiar with Lagrangian mechanics, including its application to QFT via the Dirac equation, is
utterly different.
I seriously don't get how you can not grasp this, yet you seem to struggle with it so. Is it a deliberate thing or do you simply not understand? Perhaps an analogy is in order.....
Suppose someone claimed to speak English competently.
I claim to speak English to a decent level. Despite being fluent in English I will occasionally say things which are not grammatically correct, such as "It's over by there". If I'm typing I might make typos or drop a punctuation mark here or there. However, no one would be able to reasonably claim from a post like this one that I'm not fluent in English, even with a typo here and there. However, if I constructed sentences in the manner of a native German speaker but just changed each German word into its English version then it would become obvious. Phrases like "I went to the cinema" would instead be written as "I to the cinema went". If all of my sentences were constructed in that manner then although Firefox spell checker wouldn't pick anything up as misspelt it would none-the-less be clear to anyone who speaks English that I'm actually understanding what I'm saying, I don't really understand English. I would make excuses for the occasional sentence, everybody makes spoonerisms or jumbles words occasionally, but if every time I posted a lengthy post 80% of it had this 'signature' of being mistranslated it would be compelling evidence I didn't speak English properly. You are the physics/maths version of that. You aren't making the occasional typo, as anyone does from time to time, you're
consistently spouting gibberish.
I'm not the only person to think it. Most of the physics & maths regulars have made comments to you about it, particularly all of us with formal physics or maths educations. It's the reason you're not allowed in that forum at the moment,
we don't want you in there until you can learn to behave (the parent/child thing I mentioned in my last post).
So your repeated attempts to pass off your
consistent and systemic errors as normal background typos or mistakes are just daft. It's
demonstrable that you're doing much more than just posting a few typos. I
have demonstrated it.
No, this is not about you trying to ''point out problems'' when someone makes one. You are bent on bringing up the past, in your uncivil approaches which half the time have ****-all to do with the post at hand, it is just another way for you to bring someone down.
I mention things which are relevant. In the last week you've shown you are so unfamiliar with Lagrangians you don't know potentials aren't functions of $$\dot{q}$$. Since this is
required knowledge for the Dirac equation and its place in QFT it provides evidence for the non-physicists that your claims about understanding it are undermined. You've also discussed with James space-time intervals and actions, which you again mangled. Coupled with the fact this week you've explained more about your current place in the education system it's relevant to mention how you claimed to be covering
more advanced GR in your
community college several years ago.
If you want to wash all that away then just be honest, put your hands up and say "Yeah, I was lying back then. I've learnt from that mistake and I'll not do that any more". It's the thing with lying, you generate a web of lies which eventually you contradict. The person who'll benefit most from you learning to be honest is
you.
There are tonnes and tonnes of different approaches you could take. But no. Not one single second passes by were you would think ''mmm I might change my attitude a little bit towards the person''
You mean you deserve the benefit of the doubt? Sorry, I ran out of that 3 years and a dozen of your sock puppets ago. Like I have said to you, you're
exactly where you were 4 or 5 years ago when we first crossed paths. Clearly if you plan to do anything with your life which is physics related you need a kick in the arse. Your habit of perpetual lying shouldn't be indulged. On other websites, like TSR, where you're indulged somewhat you just keep spewing out nonsense, going nowhere. If you want to post nonsense here expect to have it pointed out.
If it were clear you were being more realistic then I'd be a lot nicer. With some people it's possible to tell where in their education they are from the questions they ask. The questions then evolve as time goes on in a predictable way. If that pattern were to be seen in your posts you'd get not only a nicer response from me but from others too. Instead you have this incessant need to talk about conciousness and quantum mechanics and post mathematics you don't understand.
If it were a once off I'd be inclined to let it slide. Initially when someone posts something very mathematically don't jump on them as hard as I could. For example
this thread from recently. Quite an advanced topic and though I had suspicions from early on I gave him a chance to discuss them, explain himself and the like. However, if he were to return with half a dozen similar threads in the space of a month with similar dubiously justified claims I'd be less lenient, as happened with Magneto. Initially I had to get a handle on him, wondering if he was just saying things he wasn't too sure about but then it became clear he was
asserting demonstrably false things.
Eventually it comes down to me illustrating that if you're going to post nonsense phrased in high level buzzwords and LaTeX then expect to be called on it. I don't know how long it takes for you to compose those sorts of posts, lifting equations and watching and rewatching sections of YouTube videos, but I knock my replies out off the top of my head in one sitting so I imagine it's quicker for me to reply than you to compose.
especially now that you have became a mod. But no.
My actions before and after becoming a moderator are generally within the guidelines. I don't call you obscene names, I don't call your mother's actions into question, I don't swear at you (unlike yourself, who swears at people a lot), I go through your "Here's a load of complicated physics I claim to understand" posts and I list the mistakes and explain why they are mistakes. If the mistakes warrant it I then comment about how there's evidence you're misrepresenting yourself because your mistakes, repeated and frequent, contradict your claims about your knowledge and/or education.
Yes, I call you a hack and dishonest but it isn't a one line response, it's at the end of lengthy posts where I have laid out the
reasons I'm stating such things.
As it happens since I got moderator powers I've resisted using them on a number of occasions, including on you.
And here we go again... ''I will not let you pass off work which is not your own.''
I am so glad you have raised this little snag. Because, I am under the impression I have NEVER DONE SUCH A THING. You have misinterpreted or intentionally distorted the meaning of a post I have created. You went as SO FAR to target me for posts which contained equations which you then said I am doing the next best thing to Plaigarism, that is, basically spewing textbook equations. THAT IS VERY DISHONEST OF YOU since I can trace COUNTLESS POSTS in which you, Guest (probably), Rpenner, Prometheus and whole list of other attendees at this place who have over the years spewed standard equations which have NEVER BEEN CITED. In fact I gave an excellent case not too long ago were Rpenner had a whole list of equations in one post. He admitted that some of them were his, but not all of them.
Again, this is something you've had explained to you in the past. Are you deliberately obtuse or do you just not get it? I'll explain again.
Let's consider a specific example,
this thread involving, for the most part, you, James and myself. On the first page you post a lot of equations, including in response to some questions James asks you. After the initial few exchanges you also
post a link to a YouTube video, saying you got this stuff from there. Now if someone watches the video they'll notice that the equations you've been giving are
precisely what Susskind writes down, except in a few instances where you miscopy them. Now this is the
fundamental point I'm talking about.
Let's consider a concrete example, say the expression for a Lagrangian you give. It's wrong. I'll quote what you said for context, the bold bit is the question James asks.
''What is a Lagrangian density? Please explain.''
I will need to use some math here.
We may have a Langrangian
$$L = \int dx [\frac{\dot{\phi}^2}{2} - \frac{\dot{\phi_{x}}^2}{2}]$$
This would be the canonical momentum in respect to $$\phi$$.
The second term is wrong, it should be $$\frac{\phi_{x}^2}{2}]$$. This follows immediately from the fact you're writing down $$\frac{1}{2}\partial^{\mu}\phi\partial_{\mu}\phi$$. You not only miscopied Susskind (see YouTube video at 9:36), you didn't realise the mistake, despite the mistake being very very obvious given you're writing down something which appears in
all such quantum field theories, which you were presenting yourself as sufficiently familiar with to be 'schooling' James on the details.
Furthermore you assert what you've written down is a canonical momentum. It isn't, it's just the Lagrangian. However, 9 minutes into the YouTube video Susskind talks about canonical momentum and points at the Lagrangian you quote. You made a mistake, a huge one which shows you don't understand anything about this stuff, but worse it's clear from the video
why you made that mistake. You were just verbatim parroting Susskind. And you don't even answer James's question, despite it being answered by Susskind in a manner which is not quite "This is a Lagrangian density". He points at it regularly. He points at it when he says "field momentum" at 9:40~9:41, it's the thing
inside the integral for the Lagrangian!
Then there's the question I asked you. I asked you to explain how T-U being invariant under $$t \to t+\epsilon$$ implies T+U is too. You
state it as if it follows immediately. It doesn't. I asked you to explain why it requires a little more work, though if you know the answer it's 2 or 3 lines of LaTeX. Unfortunately for you Susskind clearly states (21:20) it isn't an immediately implication and involves a more complicated approach which he wasn't reproduce. The answer is one
fundamental to quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, relativity, pretty much any area of advanced physics. But you cannot answer because Susskind didn't answer.
That is what I am referring to. You aren't claiming "I invented this method" or "I found this equation" but you are presenting what is almost a line for line reproduction of someone else's explanation as your own, right down to idiosyncratic notation. When you leave something out, it's clear the reason is because it's something Susskind skips over. When you make a mistake like the momentum thing it's clear from the video why. You aren't explaining something you understand, you're parroting mindlessly something someone else said.
And before you come out with (
again) "What about Rpenner or you!" we
understand the stuff we type. When I post the QED Lagrangian I don't have to copy it symbol by symbol from somewhere, I know it immediately. When someone asks me to explain something about the Dirac equation I don't have to Google for the words they use and try to find an explanation someone else has written, I write my own words. If you had said to James "Sorry but I don't really know the answer to your questions. I have been watching this YouTube video lecture and rather than just reproduce what it says just watch it for yourself" then there's not be a problem. Instead you just parroted it, trying to match words in James's questions to bits of the video.
That is what I mean when I say you just spew out equations from textbooks. There's nothing wrong with honestly explaining/discussing results other people have done. Passing off other people's explanations as your own understanding
is wrong and
is a form of plagiarism. It's clear that if someone claimed to be an expert in something and all their answers to questions were just copy and pastes from Wikipedia then it would be considered extremely dishonest. You're doing the same but from other sources. If you understood even a fraction of what you talked about in that thread you'd have answered James's questions quite differently. Again, it's the "German speaking English vs native English speaker" thing, it sticks out a mile.
Hopefully I won't have to explain this to you
again at a later date.
Even when I was accused by yourself of plaigarism, I came back to this place under a different moniker and proved to EVERYONE that, that specific work was mine. YOU FAILED to remove your BLATENT ACCUSATIONS which was arrogantly written in bold red moderator writing. You probably thought ''Yes! Finally, the post which proves he's a little cheat!'' Well it flew in your face
You mean
this thread and
this post on another forum?
As I just explained about your understanding of Lagrangians etc if the extent of your knowledge about them is that Susskind YouTube video then you cannot possibly be sufficiently familiar with Lagrangians in quantum field theory on a working level to have developed your own neutrino model. As such the stuff you posted
is a combination of equations you've mindlessly lifted from places and jammed together.
You obviously don't understand what you posted because it had loads of mistakes in. In fact, as I commented, some of those equations you'd previously posted when you were Reiku the first time and I'd corrected you on them then.
Years later and you were still posting the same error riddled stuff.
So yes, I stand by the statement that you were plagiarising because you have insufficient understanding of any of the relevant areas of physics to have actually constructed a working neutrino model yourself. As such you've at best just lifted equations from various places and mangled them together.
like a lot of things recently, like that mix up of your scalar and vector quantities, a rather embarrasing mistake I might add.
That's really the only thing you can come back with? I list loads and loads (many screens worth) of errors you made in a single thread, some of them highlighting fundamental misconceptions you have, and your reply is a single slip up. I demonstrably know frequency is a scalar, it was an honest mistake. You demonstrably
don't know about Lagrangians, actions, metrics and the Dirac equation.
Your continued attempt to somehow compare a single honest mistake of mine, which I have no problems saying was indeed a mistake, with your many threads (many
years) is dishonesty is really quite laughable. Who do you think you'll convince? You
recently tried to assert it was evidence I don't know 'what the **** I'm talking about'. Do you think, given my posts, anyone will believe I
don't know frequency is a scalar?
If you really understood this stuff you'd be able to answer my simple questions, not just throw laughable, desperate, insults.
in seperate threads you had stalked me to
I know its hard for you to believe but you aren't the centre of my universe.
failed to mention that you had only said there was a problem with the alpha and beta matrices, but if YOUR THEORY HAD BEEN TRUE I would never have noticed were the mistake had been made, proving I must have sat there and did the calculations.
Your matrices did not anticommute thus they could not have satisfied the requirements for the Dirac equation.
But sometimes I feel YOU COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT
I feel the same about you, particularly given I regularly explain myself at length and despite you quoting it you regularly ignore it and require the explanation again a short time later.
I actually think nowadays you spend more time on cranks than you do the real science.
I do 'the real science' 10~6 5 days a week (and some of my spare time too), my posting ratios here are not a reflection of how much crank vs proper stuff I do. I know forum posts are the totality of your scientific work but that isn't the case for all of us.
And you have a cheek to question ANYONE ON WHETHER THEY ARE GOING TO WASTE THEIR OWN LIVES DOING THE THINGS THEY DO, when obviously this attitude is a CRYSTAL CLEAR REFLECTION on yourself.
Actually my life is going very well. I love my job, I play sport 2 or 3 times a week with some great people, I've started taking art classes and I just bought my own home. I get paid to do what I love, that's something not a lot of people are lucky enough to get. I can
honestly say I'm enjoying my life many many times more than I was 4 years ago, when I went through a period where I felt I was spinning my wheels during my PhD with a less than great supervisor. My life has moved on very well.
I asked you about it because you have always given the impression you planned to go into physics. Mentions of one day getting a PhD or writing papers, that sort of thing. However, in the last 4 years you've moved no closer to that, hence why I ask what it is you're doing with yourself. If you don't plan to go into physics, fine, this wasting time doing nonsense here isn't hindering your progression through life. However, if you are planning to try to go into physics then your current approach
is hindering your progression. This isn't some insult or the like, it's
honest advice from someone who has done it. Unfortunately you seem to consider honest advice you don't want to hear as just insults.
I actually have a theory, that maybe you were bullied as a child, severely maybe, or maybe did not have the most pleasent of childhoods.
No, I had a very nice childhood. Wonderful parents, never had any family or money problems, school was easy, plenty of friends and socialising, the occasional girlfriend, single figure golf handicap. I can't think of anything I'd change personally.
Whatever the reason, you're an angry little man who seriously should think about some medication or something,
I don't suffer dishonest fools gladly. Most of them learn to either stop posting demonstrably nonsensical or flawed nonsense or to go to another forum. Magneto for instance. The ample amount of evidence you've given over the years that you are intellectually dishonest and have no intention of changing means I don't bother to sugar coat anything with you. I'm more than happy to help people who want to be helped or discuss advanced topics with lay persons (I liked the recent discussion with Capt Kren. on game theory for instance) in a perfectly pleasant way. But discussions with you aren't like that, that's no honest intention to learn.
BECAUSE SOMEONE AS NEGATIVE AS YOU, I FEEL STALKING MY EVERY MOVE is a clear sign you have deep issues. [/b]
Except many of the threads you post in I don't post in. Hell, I don't even read them. I just did a forum search for your name. Of the 25 most recent threads you've been in I've replied to 5 of them, one of them nothing to do with you (Pincho's thread).
When you post about physics you always aim at the advanced stuff, which happens to be my area of interest. If you were spouting nonsense chemistry I'd not take as much notice of you.
Oh, and that's another thing. Saying the alpha and beta matrices were wrong, was also an incorrect statement. Only the beta matrix was wrong, and it was wrong because I copied the latex for the alpha matrix and forgot to change the entries.
WHICH IS ALSO SOMETHING ELSE YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE, THEN TRY AND PASS IT OFF AS A MASSIVE ERROR BECAUSE YOU HAD PLENTY TO SAY ON IT, VERY DISHONEST.
*sigh* Again you attempt to grab onto
anything you can try to throw back, rather than just accepting corrections. And to do it you misrepresent me (which is ironic considering you complain I do that to you)
I explained to you how the pair of matrices didn't have the correct relations. I explained how you needed to correct one of them because you'd only considered their squares and not their mixing anticommutation properties. There's many representations of the Dirac matrices, something I've told you before. None of them can be the identity since it obviously doesn't anticommute with anything so that one was definitely wrong. The post where I explained this is
here. In it I said, and I quote,
If you want a proper representation of the Clifford algebra $$Cl_{1,1}$$ you can pick the following, for the signature (-+),
Notice how I phrase it. I give an
example of two matrices with the correct properties for that Clifford algebra. I'd already told you previously that there is no one specific form of the matrices, all that matters is the anticommutation relations. The essential fundamental property is that the matrices satisfy $$\alpha\beta+\beta\alpha=0$$, else you cannot get the wave equation from the Dirac equation. It's the whole reason matrices are used, not standard coefficients.
That was what you'd failed to show any understanding of, that was your big mistake. I didn't state "There exists no representation where one of your matrices could be correct" so your "OMGZ VERY DISHONEST!" response is itself a dishonest representation of what I said. I suppose I can't really blame you for thinking you'd got something you could throw at me, you probably don't even understand what I was talking about in regards to representations.
Again, rather than you responding with a thought out response at the time where you demonstrated a working understanding, you completely failed to show any understanding. Now, later, you grasp at anything you think you can throw at me, as if that's a substitute for demonstrating understanding. Post hoc failed insults only dig you deeper into the hole you're in. If you truly understand the subjects which you speak about then demonstrate working understanding
during the thread and over time you'll convince me and others you really do understand it, rather than just appearing the equation mangling parrot you appear as at the moment.
I suspect you'll not bother to read much of this rather lengthy post, though you might end up quoting it all as is your habit. It's lengthy because I can explain myself and provide justification for myself. If you could do likewise, rather than a scatter gun of increasingly hostile short posts, so you explain yourself rather than just act indignant that'd be super.