Why do most people find science boring?

[krash661]

Who is this mystical azo? As a member of this forum I have not found it. A modern swearword?

what a joke, attempting to manipulate much ?

 

[iceaura]

If we start from the Newtonian concept, there are two notions of time, one fundamental (absolute time) and one observable (human attempts to measure it, approximate).
- - - - -
The fundamental time is a coordinate time.

It looks like you are confusing yourself with some misleading vocabulary - drop this "absolute" and "fundamental" stuff, label your concepts with more neutral terms.

 

[Write4U]

If we start from the Newtonian concept, there are two notions of time, one fundamental (absolute time) and one observable (human attempts to measure it, approximate).

The observable time is, clearly, clock time (proper time).

I disagree with the assertion of "proper time". I'll accept clock time depending on the accuracy of the clock. But that still does not prove that the clock time existed before the clock started counting, the same as in the case of a Ceasium atom, before the atom started oscillating.

The fundamental time is a coordinate time. But the equations of GR do not allow to identify it, so, it does not play any role in physics of GR.

Again this only proves that the universal coordinates cause a universal timeframe, spacetime. But take away the space coordinates and what is left? Time does not, cannot exist independent of something to measure.

Time is not fundamental, it is an emergent result of duration of measuring coordinates or physical change, but it is dependent on the speed of measurement.

As to time being irrelevant in GR, what is the duration of a single instant of time? What is time dilation contraction? Seems to me time is inextricably connected and emerges with the function of E=Mc^2 in a permissive condition. Again, IMO, there is no such thing as measuring time (duration) itself when there is nothing to measure. That is why GR does not address time directly, but as an emerging measurement of GR functions. One can say that "c" is a fundamental (limiting) restriction of spacetime allowing for "c" to be used in measurements, but even here the photon must travel at C before any time of duration can be measured.
The arbitrary establishment of duration (time) always comes after the measurement of an event or geometry, NEVER BEFORE.

The mathematics of space are fundamental, but without the mathematical functions (coordinates or chronological change) of the universe, the concept of time would be useless.

 

[Write4U]

If we start from the Newtonian concept, there are two notions of time, one fundamental (absolute time) and one observable (human attempts to measure it, approximate).

The observable time is, clearly, clock time (proper time).

I disagree, the observable time is not proper Time, but the measurement of the mechanical function of the clock itself, which does not prove anything about time itself, other than that it emerges as a result of measuring the clock's oscillations. Without the clock functioning, time for that function would not exist.

The fundamental time is a coordinate time. But the equations of GR do not allow to identify it, so, it does not play any role in physics of GR.[/QUOTE]

Well, that is debatable, what is time dilation, contraction?
But to your point, GR does not need time to be valid, but it does demand arbitrary time (frames) as exist by the relative position of the observer (measurer). Again, nothing points to a fundamental separate dimension of time. Can we measure the time of time?

Fundamentally there is only a metaphysical permissive condition allowing for a chronology of events within a regular coordinate system. The measurement of the duration of this chronology we have named "time", IMO.

p.s. wasn't sure if the previous had posted, so rephrased it in this post. I hope it is sufficiently different to avoid deletion.

p.p.s. From a science advisor in another forum;

The rate of time is whatever a clock measures it to be. And it's just not possible to compare a clock at one rate of expansion to a clock at another rate of expansion.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-space-expansion-affect-the-rate-of-time.822950/

So, the question arises if time itself has a fundamental countable value, or if it is wholly dependent on local conditions.

 

[brucep]

I disagree, the observable time is not proper Time, but the measurement of the mechanical function of the clock itself, which does not prove anything about time itself, other than that it emerges as a result of measuring the clock's oscillations. Without the clock functioning, time for that function would not exist.

The fundamental time is a coordinate time. But the equations of GR do not allow to identify it, so, it does not play any role in physics of GR.

Well, that is debatable, what is time dilation, contraction?
But to your point, GR does not need time to be valid, but it does demand arbitrary time (frames) as exist by the relative position of the observer (measurer). Again, nothing points to a fundamental separate dimension of time. Can we measure the time of time?

Fundamentally there is only a metaphysical permissive condition allowing for a chronology of events within a regular coordinate system. The measurement of the duration of this chronology we have named "time", IMO.

p.s. wasn't sure if the previous had posted, so rephrased it in this post. I hope it is sufficiently different to avoid deletion.

p.p.s. From a science advisor in another forum;

So, the question arises if time itself has a fundamental countable value, or if it is wholly dependent on local conditions.[/QUOTE]
The time coordinate you measure on your wristwatch is the proper time. In the local proper frame [the frame you're walking around in] the time coordinate is the proper time coordinate. How we model the time coordinate is how it's most useful. With your wristwatch you could choose a digital time coordinate or the classical time face. To realize time dilation you need 2 different local proper frame time coordinates. Then you find the ratio between these two local proper time coordinates. The time component is the first component of the metric. In a moment I'll add a link with technical details on how it's modeled to get the ratio for 2 proper time coordinates. Gravitational time dilation. It's the dilation component which is always present since relative velocity can be 0.
So clocks can have a limit on accuracy but no bearing on the passage of time. They make a measurement. Thinking they do have a bearing on the passage of time is denying the physics of relativity.
Pick Chapter 2 Curving
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html
Page 31, sample problem 3, Shining Upward. One interesting thing is the period of a clock associated with the emission of the light, the local proper time, is the same as the period of the light when viewed from remote coordinates. The redshift.

 

[Write4U]

W4U,
Well, that is debatable, what is time dilation, contraction?
But to your point, GR does not need time to be valid, but it does demand arbitrary time (frames) as exist by the relative position of the observer (measurer). Again, nothing points to a fundamental separate dimension of time. Can we measure the time of time?

Fundamentally there is only a metaphysical permissive condition allowing for a chronology of events within a regular coordinate system. The measurement of the duration of this chronology we have named "time", IMO.

p.s. wasn't sure if the previous had posted, so rephrased it in this post. I hope it is sufficiently different to avoid deletion.

p.p.s. From a science advisor in another forum;

So, the question arises if time itself has a fundamental countable value, or if it is wholly dependent on local conditions.

The time coordinate you measure on your wristwatch is the proper time. In the local proper frame [the frame you're walking around in] the time coordinate is the proper time coordinate. How we model the time coordinate is how it's most useful. With your wristwatch you could choose a digital time coordinate or the classical time face. To realize time dilation you need 2 different local proper frame time coordinates. Then you find the ratio between these two local proper time coordinates. The time component is the first component of the metric. In a moment I'll add a link with technical details on how it's modeled to get the ratio for 2 proper time coordinates. Gravitational time dilation. It's the dilation component which is always present since relative velocity can be 0.
So clocks can have a limit on accuracy but no bearing on the passage of time. They make a measurement. Thinking they do have a bearing on the passage of time is denying the physics of relativity.
Pick Chapter 2 Curving
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html
Page 31, sample problem 3, Shining Upward. One interesting thing is the period of a clock associated with the emission of the light, the local proper time, is the same as the period of the light when viewed from remote coordinates. The redshift.

Yes, I agree, clocks do not measure anything but the duration of a chronology of changes. Even the measurement itself takes (creates) time relative to the speed of measurement. We can speak of coordinate time, but as you said that too is entirely relative and dependent on local conditions.

I have yet to see an equation proving that time exists separate from space (which is a coordinate system).

Time itself cannot be measured as an absolute, it is wholly dependent on the chronology of dynamic events.

As I mentioned before, if we could measure the duration of quantum events, then we would have a firm basis for assigning a proper value to time, as that appears to be an absolute (universal costant) lower limit to dynamic change, just as "c" is the absolute upper limit of speed, which we can measure and conclude that "c" is also universal constant. But we cannot measure quantum with any accuracy ever. The uncertainty effect prevents any simultaneous measureent of speed and position, which would yield us the smallest increment of time "used" during a quantum event.

But again, all this assumes an action within spacetime and does not prove a separate plenum where time can exist without the dynamic function of space itself. Outside of space there is no time, there is nothing to measure.

No matter how we look at it, without dynamic space it comes down to a fundamental metaphysical "permissive condition" which allows for measurable (mathematical) change (except at quantum level), the duration of which can be arbitrarily measured in many increments of time, depending on our frame of reference.

But what is the intrinsic value of a single instant of time? It has none, because the creation of time is wholly dependent on the duration of the measurement between coordinates or of the chronology of change itself.

Time does not exist by itself, it emerges as a by-product of chronological (coordinate) change, and only within the universe as we know it, IMHO.

 

[Schmelzer]

what a joke, attempting to manipulate much ?

So you can name me "azo", whatever this means, without giving explanations what this means. By symmetry, I will name you Schizo. Sounds equally nice, not?

 

[Schmelzer]

I disagree with the assertion of "proper time". I'll accept clock time depending on the accuracy of the clock. But that still does not prove that the clock time existed before the clock started counting, the same as in the case of a Ceasium atom, before the atom started oscillating.

"Clock time" simply means the "time" as measured by clocks. It does not depend on the particular type of the clock, but depends on the velocity of the clock and the gravitational field at the position of the clock.

Again this only proves that the universal coordinates cause a universal timeframe, spacetime. But take away the space coordinates and what is left? Time does not, cannot exist independent of something to measure.

Sorry, but this is positivism. If we cannot measure something, it does not exist. And, sorry, relative to space and time positivism is simply stupid, nothing in the world changes if we have no possibilities to measure it accurately. As if space and time would go away if you sit in a boat on the ocean without GPS and a clock.

Time is not fundamental, it is an emergent result of duration of measuring coordinates or physical change, but it is dependent on the speed of measurement.

Whatever coordinates you use, clock time will always depend on the speed of the clocks. This is simply the GR formula for clock time $$\tau = \int\sqrt{g_{00} + g_{0i}v^i + g_{ij}v^iv^j} dx^0$$, which holds for whatevery coordinate time $$x^0$$ you choose.
The equations of GR are not formulated in clock time $$\tau$$, but in coordinate time.

Newtonian time is, instead, fundamental, the physical equations depend on it, but it one can measure it accurately is open, and clarified from the start, from the definitions, that the measure of time accessible to humans would not be true time, but only apparent time. Given the Keplerian solutions as well as solutions for a rotating body, it is clear that the astronomical year and day are nice ways to approximately measure time, but they are clearly not accurat in general.

As to time being irrelevant in GR, what is the duration of a single instant of time? What is time dilation contraction? Seems to me time is inextricably connected and emerges with the function of E=Mc^2 in a permissive condition. Again, IMO, there is no such thing as measuring time (duration) itself when there is nothing to measure.

At Newtonian time it was quite clear that time is a meaningful notion even if you don't have a clock. Even people without clocks have developed, by the way, languages which make fundamental differences between what has happened in the past, is happening now and will happen in future. Positivism is what happened in the philosophy of science at a time than philosophy in general was going insane and totalitarian, and in important aspects followed this general insanity.

That is why GR does not address time directly, but as an emerging measurement of GR functions. .... The arbitrary establishment of duration (time) always comes after the measurement of an event or geometry, NEVER BEFORE.

GR handels only clock time, it does not handle at all Newtonian true time, but even denies (in some interpretations) its existence.

The mathematics of space are fundamental, but without the mathematical functions (coordinates or chronological change) of the universe, the concept of time would be useless.

The concept of time is certainly not useless without accurate time measurements, else it would not have been used in almost all human languages, even if the time measurement for them, restricted to expectations of day time, was clearly insufficient to justify its use in human disputes. "He has started to beat me, I have only defended myself" is clearly a meaningful human statement, even if the human accuracy of time measurement, based on the position of the Sun, if used at all, was clearly insufficient to prove such a claim.

 

[brucep]

Yes, I agree, clocks do not measure anything but the duration of a chronology of changes. Even the measurement itself takes (creates) time relative to the speed of measurement. We can speak of coordinate time, but as you said that too is entirely relative and dependent on local conditions.

I have yet to see an equation proving that time exists separate from space (which is a coordinate system).

Time itself cannot be measured as an absolute, it is wholly dependent on the chronology of dynamic events.

As I mentioned before, if we could measure the duration of quantum events, then we would have a firm basis for assigning a proper value to time, as that appears to be an absolute (universal costant) lower limit to dynamic change, just as "c" is the absolute upper limit of speed, which we can measure and conclude that "c" is also universal constant. But we cannot measure quantum with any accuracy ever. The uncertainty effect prevents any simultaneous measureent of speed and position, which would yield us the smallest increment of time "used" during a quantum event.

But again, all this assumes an action within spacetime and does not prove a separate plenum where time can exist without the dynamic function of space itself. Outside of space there is no time, there is nothing to measure.

No matter how we look at it, without dynamic space it comes down to a fundamental metaphysical "permissive condition" which allows for measurable (mathematical) change (except at quantum level), the duration of which can be arbitrarily measured in many increments of time, depending on our frame of reference.

But what is the intrinsic value of a single instant of time? It has none, because the creation of time is wholly dependent on the duration of the measurement between coordinates or of the chronology of change itself.

Time does not exist by itself, it emerges as a by-product of chronological (coordinate) change, and only within the universe as we know it, IMHO.

"Clock time" simply means the "time" as measured by clocks. It does not depend on the particular type of the clock, but depends on the velocity of the clock and the gravitational field at the position of the clock.

Sorry, but this is positivism. If we cannot measure something, it does not exist. And, sorry, relative to space and time positivism is simply stupid, nothing in the world changes if we have no possibilities to measure it accurately. As if space and time would go away if you sit in a boat on the ocean without GPS and a clock.

Whatever coordinates you use, clock time will always depend on the speed of the clocks. This is simply the GR formula for clock time $$\tau = \int\sqrt{g_{00} + g_{0i}v^i + g_{ij}v^iv^j} dx^0$$, which holds for whatevery coordinate time $$x^0$$ you choose.
The equations of GR are not formulated in clock time $$\tau$$, but in coordinate time.

Newtonian time is, instead, fundamental, the physical equations depend on it, but it one can measure it accurately is open, and clarified from the start, from the definitions, that the measure of time accessible to humans would not be true time, but only apparent time. Given the Keplerian solutions as well as solutions for a rotating body, it is clear that the astronomical year and day are nice ways to approximately measure time, but they are clearly not accurat in general.

At Newtonian time it was quite clear that time is a meaningful notion even if you don't have a clock. Even people without clocks have developed, by the way, languages which make fundamental differences between what has happened in the past, is happening now and will happen in future. Positivism is what happened in the philosophy of science at a time than philosophy in general was going insane and totalitarian, and in important aspects followed this general insanity.

GR handels only clock time, it does not handle at all Newtonian true time, but even denies (in some interpretations) its existence.

The concept of time is certainly not useless without accurate time measurements, else it would not have been used in almost all human languages, even if the time measurement for them, restricted to expectations of day time, was clearly insufficient to justify its use in human disputes. "He has started to beat me, I have only defended myself" is clearly a meaningful human statement, even if the human accuracy of time measurement, based on the position of the Sun, if used at all, was clearly insufficient to prove such a claim.$$$$

$$$$
Newtonian True Time. LOL.$$$$

 

[Schmelzer]

Well, that is debatable, what is time dilation, contraction?

It is the name some human beings have given to the formula
$$\tau = \int \sqrt{g_{00}(x,t) + g_{oi}v^i+g_{ij}v^iv^j}dt$$, where x are coordinates for space and t for time.

These humans may use these coordinates even without having a possibility to measure them. In the same way as shipwrecked people may use navigational maps even without having devices to measure their position on these maps.

Again, nothing points to a fundamental separate dimension of time. Can we measure the time of time?

Basic human experience points to a fundamental time dimension which is different from space dimensions. We cannot travel back in time to correct our past errors. This impossibility seems more fundamental than the impossibility to measure time accurately. This is a quite natural hypothesis, because inabilities to measure something accurately are usual, appear everywhere, and we have already several experiences where such inabilities to measure something accurately have been solved by technical and scientific progress, while nothing suggests that we have any chance to hope that scientific progress will allow us to change our past.

Of course, I know that GR allows for wormholes and other things with causal loops where this would be possible. So, you may question my last claim. But this is something which already depends on the interpretation of the Einstein equations you prefer. If you follow the mainstream spacetime interpreation, ok, then you may hope for time travel. If you prefer my interpretation, these solutions are simply physically meaningless.

 

[Schmelzer]

Newtonian True Time. LOL.

If you don't know that Newton has distingushed two notions of time, you can continue to show your illiteracy in this way. Feel free to think that Newtonian concepts of time play no role at all, but if one refers to Newtonian time, one has to clarify which of the two notions Newton has used one means. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html for information about Newton's concepts of space and time.

 

[Write4U]

Schmelzer,
Sorry, but this is positivism. If we cannot measure something, it does not exist. And, sorry, relative to space and time positivism is simply stupid, nothing in the world changes if we have no possibilities to measure it accurately. As if space and time would go away if you sit in a boat on the ocean without GPS and a clock.

Garbage.
Well, not garbage, but not pertinent to the concept of time as a separate dimension APART from space.
I thought Einstein solved this old question long ago. Space and Time are inextriccably connected. One cannot exist without the other.

You do not understand the thrust of my argument at all. You keep referring to "space" in order to make your "time" arguments. Every example you give to prove the existence of time happens IN spacetime. I have no fundamental argument with any of that.
But take away space and what do you have? Time?

Answer these simple questions:
a) What came first, space or time, or was there an initial meta-physical timeless permissive condition that allowed for the creation of space and the "onset" of space/time?

b) Is time causal to change or is change causal to time?

(@ paddo, with "change" I mean the initial event of the BB, creating space and its associated timeframes)

c) Did time exist before space? If yes, I should like to hear how we could possibly count (measure) the time of time itself.

My conclusion is that spacetime is nestled in a fundamental, but unknowable timeless permissive condition.

Note: this concept is not in conflict with science, deism, or in a more obscure way, theism, IMO.

 

[Schmelzer]

I thought Einstein solved this old question long ago. Space and Time are inextriccably connected. One cannot exist without the other.

First, there was no old question about this, second, the idea that space and time are inextricably connected is part of the spacetime interpretation of relativity, thus, a metaphysical hypothesis, which is based only on a confusion of measurements with clocks and rulers with time and space, together with positivistic confusion which rejects everything unmeasurable even if its existence is so obvious as the existence of space and time.

You do not understand the thrust of my argument at all. You keep referring to "space" in order to make your "time" arguments. Every example you give to prove the existence of time happens IN spacetime. I have no fundamental argument with any of that.
But take away space and what do you have? Time?

Space and time, in the same way it was always considered as trivial and obvious.

Answer these simple questions:
a) What came first, space or time, or was there an initial meta-physical timeless permissive condition that allowed for the creation of space and the "onset" of space/time?

There was always space as well as time. At least there is no evidence for something different.

b) Is time causal to change or is change causal to time?

An IMHO meaningless question.

c) Did time exist before space? If yes, I should like to hear how we could possibly count (measure) the time of time itself.

A world with different spaces evolving in time would be imaginable, but I see no evidence for such science fiction ideas. But how to measure something in a world without space would be hard to describe even for scifi writers, completely independent on the simple fact that existence does not depend on measurability.

 

[Write4U]

First, there was no old question about this, second, the idea that space and time are inextricably connected is part of the spacetime interpretation of relativity, thus, a metaphysical hypothesis, which is based only on a confusion of measurements with clocks and rulers with time and space, together with positivistic confusion which rejects everything unmeasurable even if its existence is so obvious as the existence of space and time.

What? We had a confusion about time, but there was no old question about it? Are you mad?

In 1898, J. Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) suggested that intervals of time, as well as length, might be observer-dependent, and he even speculated (in 1904) that the speed of light might be an "unsurpassable limit".

and

None of these eminent physicists, however, put the whole story together. That was left to the young Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who already began approaching the problem in a new way at the age of sixteen (1895-6) when he wondered what it would be like to travel along with a light ray. By 1905 he had shown that FitzGerald and Lorentz's results followed from one simple but radical assumption: the laws of physics and the speed of light must be the same for all uniformly moving observers, regardless of their state of relative motion. For this to be true, space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers. (This is why moving objects appear to shrink, as suspected by FitzGerald and Lorentz, and why moving observers may measure time differently, as speculated by Poincaré.) Space and time are relative (i.e., they depend on the motion of the observer who measures them) — and light is more fundamental than either. This is the basis of Einstein's theory of special relativity ("special" refers to the restriction to uniform motion).

and

Einstein did not quite finish the job, however. Contrary to popular belief, he did not draw the conclusion that space and time could be seen as components of a single four-dimensional spacetime fabric. That insight came from Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who announced it in a 1908 colloquium with the dramatic words: "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".

https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html

Space and time, in the same way it was always considered as trivial and obvious.
There was always space as well as time. At least there is no evidence for something different.

Yes, always is 13.82 billion years!? Its only trivial and obvious, but of course logically wrong.
Before the BB it must have been different! No space, no time, only permissiveness.

A world with different spaces evolving in time would be imaginable, but I see no evidence for such science fiction ideas. But how to measure something in a world without space would be hard to describe even for scifi writers, completely independent on the simple fact that existence does not depend on measurability.

Nice try, but no cigar. By that argument you cannot prove that time does exist without measurement. You are contradicting yourself in that last paragraph.

The point is that you have avoided all of my simple questions, because you cannot answer them coherently. And that is because the concept of time without space is incoherent.

Why do we not consider Mathematics a dimension? Everything in the universe is mathematically measurable, even time. Mathematics are also an inextricable result of space. It is because the mathematics emerge from the measurements; they are a coded description of results as observed in reality.
So it is with Time. Until there is something to measure, time does not exist. Time is just a tool for referencing the chronology of events. Just as Mathematics are a tool for referencing the speed and distance of the events. These are useful coded measurements for human purposes.

But does that qualify any of the parts of the mathematical spacetime configuration as a dimension in and of themselves. Only the whole of the parts, which we call dimensions, constitutes our reality. Individual parts, dimensions, are meaningless and cannot exist independently as dynamic conditions.

There is only permissiveness which allows for change (quantum events), from which all the dimensions (including time) emerge simultaneously as interdependent parts (aspects) of the chronological evolution (unfolding) of the universe and everything that's in it.

 

[Schmelzer]

What? We had a confusion about time, but there was no old question about it? Are you mad?

No, it is sufficient to look at your justifications, which starts with Poincare 1889, thus, two years after Larmor writes "... individual electrons describe corresponding parts of their orbits in times shorter for the [rest] system in the ratio :

". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation thus, this is part of the relativistic revolution in physics, and not old in this sense.

Yes, always is 13.82 billion years!? Its only trivial and obvious, but of course logically wrong.

Of course I do not subscribe to the funny idea that somehow space and time have been created 13.82 billion years ago. At this time, there have been conditions where GR becomes invalid, as can be seen from the fact that the GR solution becomes singular. That's all. What has happened before nobody knows, that's all.
By the way, the actual mainstream scenario for the evolution of the universe contains inflation, which is a very bad, misleading name for the effect that the speed of expansion become much slower if one goes back in time in the very early universe. If it has stopped completely or not is not clear, but it is clear that there was something which in principle could have prevented the singularity.

Before the BB it must have been different! No space, no time, only permissiveness.

Possibly a symmetrical big crunch. Possibly a more or less static, stable universe, which somehow became unstable 13.82 billion years ago. But such no space no time phantasies one should better leave to creationists.

You are contradicting yourself in that last paragraph.

No. Not everything which exists has to be observable.

The point is that you have avoided all of my simple questions, because you cannot answer them coherently. And that is because the concept of time without space is incoherent.

I couldn't care less. Time without a universe to evolve in time would be, of course, a quite meaningless idea, but who cares? I don't.

But in the standard common sense understanding time is simply a parameter of change. So, there exists some universe, defined by whatever set of possible states, one of them is the actual one, and this actual state changes. In time. Thus, we have a trajectory q(t) in the configuration "space" Q. Thus, some mathematical "space" is there, if one describes a changing state mathematically. But this has nothing to do with the relativistic concept of spacetime.

 

[krash661]

So you can name me "azo", whatever this means, without giving explanations what this means. By symmetry, I will name you Schizo. Sounds equally nice, not?

hilarious, again what a joke, attempting to manipulate much ?
agian... yeah... it's forsure you.

 

[Schmelzer]

hilarious, again what a joke, attempting to manipulate much ?

Can somebody else explain what "azo" schizo means?

 

[rpenner]

He's accusing you of being the same person who used the handle "azo" on physforum.com.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Nice, thanks. I missed that.

Do you still attempt to moderate there?

 

[Schmelzer]

He's accusing you of being the same person who used the handle "azo" on physforum.com.

LOL. Thank you for the info. On this forum I'm simply Ilja. Long time not been there.