Sick of the blatent bias!!!!!!!!!

[Reiku]

Which is because they aren't, as was repeatedly explained to you. Simply denying it doesn't make it any less so.

I proved you wrong many times on that statement, it is a real literature!!!!!!

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
For these space-like event pairs with a positive squared spacetime interval (s2 > 0), the measurement of space-like separation is the proper distance: ...

:bugeye:

 

[Reiku]

Yeah, you didn't understand that, at all. The "up" and "down" directions he's illustrating using the pointer do not correspond to vectors in $$\text{R}^3$$.

What he stated is exactly what I stated. Whether he is talking about pointers or not, it is directly the same uses I have used it in reference to.

 

[funkstar]

For these space-like event pairs with a positive squared spacetime interval (s2 > 0), the measurement of space-like separation is the proper distance: ...

Pairs! Pairs! Goddamn pairs of spacetime events can be considered space-like or time-like separated. The events themselves cannot!

What is there not to understand, Reiku?

 

[funkstar]

What he stated is exactly what I stated. Whether he is talking about pointers or not, it is directly the same uses I have used it in reference to.

Wrong. Just... wrong.

 

[Reiku]

Pairs! Pairs! Goddamn pairs of spacetime events can be considered space-like or time-like separated. The events themselves cannot!

What is there not to understand, Reiku?

That was what was meant as well when I said it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're trolling!

 

[Reiku]

And even if you never thought this is what I meant, you should have still known what was being implied!!!!

 

[prometheus]

FWIW, this type of pissing contest is exactly the type of thing I was trying to avoid by deleting posts and locking threads (to be honest, I'd rather it appear here than in physics and maths). Also I am taking even more of a dislike to kwhilborn after he has accused me of editing posts when I have done no such thing. You can see if a mod has edited a post because you get a line that says "last edited by ... at ..." underneath it.

I also think it's worth reproducing the deleted post that has led to this here, unedited and in full, so everyone can see what a dishonest hack mister is being,

That was his definition. We know there is a difference because

$$< \psi_n | \psi_m > = 0$$

for orthogonality, and if perpendicular

$$< \psi_n | \psi_m > = 1$$

So there is a clear difference in the two!!!!

 

[Reiku]

How's exposing the original thread saying I am dishonest? Isn't thate exactly what I said when I opened this thread????

 

[kwhilborn]

@ prometheus,
Deletion of a post is censoring/editing by anybodies definition.

I am taking even more of a dislike to kwhilborn after he has accused me of editing posts

I could care why? Are you going to edit my posts as well?

 

[Reiku]

FWIW, this type of pissing contest is exactly the type of thing I was trying to avoid by deleting posts and locking threads (to be honest...)

I don't think you are honest.

Why not just have locked the thread? I mean, in theory that would have stopped any slanging matches as well.

 

[James R]

This is an official post from myself as Administrator.
==================================

First, the issue at hand:

This is crap. Which is why it was deleted.

Next.

Crap should be responded to and corrected, not deleted.

If crap takes over a thread, the thread may be closed.

If a poster repeatedly posts crap, then that poster is trolling and may be given an official warning or ban.

It is not up to moderators to delete posts they disagree with - even posts that contain incorrect information. Many people will post corrections to incorrect posts. It is not up to the moderators to decide what is right and wrong on the public forums. A moderator is, of course, always free to add his own posting pointing out exactly why something is crap.

He should be warned about this behaviour! It should be completely illegal here for a mod to modify posts willy-nilly to his liking.

This is correct. A moderator should rarely, if ever, edit a member's post. The only time that is justifiable is if there is a clear breach of a site rule, and in that case the edit should be clearly flagged and explained in the modified post itself.

We have an infraction and warning system in place to deal with most breaches of the rules without editing.

--------------

To Mister/Reiku:

prometheus's edit followed a series of blatantly incorrect posts from you, including this one:

Orthogonality and perpendicular have two different definitions in math. A case of something being orthogonal is when you consider the south pole and the north pole, both poles are orthogonal to each other. A case of something being perpendicular is when you take a 30 degree turn from a vertical line. The vertical line and the angle line are perpendicular to each other.

Here, you claim that one line at 30 degrees to another is perpendicular to the first line.

Now, there are two possibilities. Either you know this is wrong and you set out deliberately to deceive readers, or else you don't have a clue what the term "perpendicular" means.

In the first case, you are in breach of a site rule that prevents the deliberate posting of known falsehoods. In the second case, you ought never to have posted on a subject you know nothing about in the pretence that you had knowledge on the subject. Doing so amounts to trolling, which is another breach of the site rules.

The deleted post that you complain about in the opening post of this thread is in the same category. Either you deliberately posted lies, or you didn't know what you were talking about and you should never have posted on that topic in the first place.

Future behaviour of this kind from you will be regarded as trolling and you will be banned. Currently, you have 1 active infraction point, so your next ban will be 7 days.

 

[wlminex]

Mister:

Get used to how mods operate on Sciforum! If it doesn't 'fit' with their thinking processes, they take whatever actions they deem appropriate to ensure their POV!!

 

[James R]

Get used to how mods operate on Sciforum! If it doesn't 'fit' with their thinking processes, they take whatever actions they deem appropriate to ensure their POV!!

Obviously you didn't read what I just posted.

 

[wlminex]

JamesR:

". . . . obviously . . . . . . I did read your post . . . a more relevant question IS . . . did your mods read your post!

 

[MacGyver1968]

How is a sock from a previous banned member still here? Shouldn't he be banned like all the rest?

 

[kwhilborn]

Nice to see censorship is not the new norm. I enjoy this website.

 

[leopold]

FWIW, this type of pissing contest is exactly the type of thing I was trying to avoid by deleting posts and locking threads . . .

locking threads is one thing.
deleting posts is quite another.

the first can be seen as "all right, i've had enough", the second is outright blatant censorship.

i suggest moving the offending post intact instead.
the masses will soon know whether you were right or not.

you certainly don't want the name of "the mod that hides things".

edit:
isn't this what the new forum was created for?

 

[James R]

How is a sock from a previous banned member still here? Shouldn't he be banned like all the rest?

In this instance Mister/Reiku has been given another chance, in the hope that he has matured somewhat over the past couple of years.

If that turns out not to be the case after all, then he will no doubt find himself banned again before too long.

 

[AlexG]

If that turns out not to be the case after all, then he will no doubt find himself banned again before too long.

Promise?

 

[CptBork]

I think it would be a good idea to establish a "Pseudomathematics" subforum in the junk science section, and then garbage posts of that sort could be relocated as needed. Just a thought.