Dirac Sea

You're actually begging me nearly to answer you. I never realized you looked so forward to our little rendezvous.
I know you'd like to think people give two shits about you and your nonsense but I don't. I asked you direct questions because I know if you aren't repeatedly asked you'll just move onto another thread and spout a different pile of crap. Your behaviour and replies are predictable, I'm just trying to pre-empt you jumping to another thread and starting all this again (and undoubtedly not justifying anything you say).

Anyway, I will cut to chase. I read your post again to rephresh my memory, and alas, I am still reminded to why I keep ignoring you. Until you work on those communicational skills, more truthful questions and less decieving tactics, like ''sock puppet allegations,'' I will not be part of it.
Refresh is spelt with an f.

And what a surprise, you come up with a pathetic excuse about why you won't defend a single thing you said. I guess its self fulfilling : you post crap, people say its crap, you say "That's mean" and then you use that as an excuse not to reply to anything anyone says to you.

like ''sock puppet allegations,'' I will not be part of it.
You just happen to share all of his idiosyncrasies, right down to the misspelling of things like 'rephresh' and 'decieve'.

Use Firefox, it has built in spell checking. It won't help you with bullshit physics though.
 
Your claims are unsubtantiated.....


I didn’t make a claim :rolleyes:; I asked a question regarding a coincidence and commented on a claim made by (supposedly) someone else.

Isn’t it a coincidence that your misunderstanding of the English language and inability to apply basic logical analysis is also remarkably similar to Reiku?

(That’s also a question, not a claim.)
 
I didn’t make a claim :rolleyes:; I asked a question regarding a coincidence and commented on a claim made by (supposedly) someone else.

Isn’t it a coincidence that your misunderstanding of the English language and inability to apply basic logical analysis is also remarkably similar to Reiku?

(That’s also a question, not a claim.)

Coincidences, in the real world, happen all the time.

Are you a mystic? If not, you have to have a bad eye. I've read some of his posts. While I do not share many of his contentions, did you ever notice he never uses capitol ''I's'' in his sentences.

I do.

p.s. This is all done, yet, on another hangover. Best part is, I can see my blood vessels in my eyes pulsating.
 

Guess what, here's another coincidence.

I've been here not too long, but I've seen one poster saying how incredibly drunk they are, and the other one apologizing for a thread they made because they were drunk.

Here's a conspiracy: They must be all the same person, including me.



What a joke. I certainly wouldn't hire you to be a PI.
 
But I'd like to know what I've lied about.
Was the great many of posts of mine where I point out your mistakes, contradictions and flat out lies too subtle?

Even in this thread you haven't retorted any of my criticisms, you only come out with "I'm too hungover to bother", as if that's an excuse for the fact when you can be bothered to type lengthy posts you just post shit.
 
But I'd like to know what I've lied about.
Oh, come on! You've been caught numerous time with the lie stick so far up your botty it's come out of the top of your skull.

In this very thread you've made the ridiculous claim that your mangled "content" posts are not copied, but it is painfully obvious that you cannot have originated any of the (and I use the term very loosely) math in those posts, nor even be reciting from memory: You've demonstrated many times that you fail at understanding math I would consider prerequisite to even begin learning the prerequisite math for the physics involved. The hilarious comedy of errors that AN pulled apart demonstrates the point perfectly, and puts that lie (sadly, one of many) to shame.
 
Links. Proof.
Who precisely are you trying to fool here? You know full well you've been corrected on huge numbers of things, had your utter lack of grasp at even basic terminology pointed out again and again, had inconsistencies in your claims exposed and your lack of understanding on the topics you start threads on demonstrated.

In this thread you talk about the Dirac equation yet you don't know what Pauli matrices are. No one learns quantum mechanics and don't know about the Pauli matrices. You've a thread on electromagnetism yet you don't know what the cross product is, despite it being in Maxwell's equations! You mention your 'work' on EM can lead to Gauss's law yet you don't know anything about polar coordinates. You don't know what 'covariant' means despite it being used in electromagnetism and vector calculus. You claim you've done your own 'work' in quantum mechanics yet you don't know the meaning of 'Hilbert space'. You don't know the difference between a state and an operator, you don't know what entanglement means despite you writing a lengthy post supposedly deriving some result, in which you also demonstrate you don't know the definition of a linear combination when you see it. You claim you're trying to 'remember the basic stuff' yet your 'work' inexplicably includes buzzwords relating to irrelevant and utterly unrelated things like 'superspace', suggesting you copy/edited someone else's work. You have even failed to distinguish between vectors and scalars.

And in all those cases you've failed to retort any criticisms, you just avoid responding or try to change the subject, only to pop up with another thread of crap later on. You've now realised that your posts get ripped to shreds with such scathing comments that you are starting all your threads under the 'alpha rules' so as to be able to run to a moderator if you feel someone is being mean. If you could actually stand up for your claims and present reason and justification for them you'd not need to do that as people wouldn't be exasperated reading another pile of waffle from you as you desperately try to convince yourself you're not an abject failure in physics (as you're certainly not convincing anyone else!).

You're so quick to judge, I've never lied about fuck all.
How is months of this nonsense 'quick'? How many times have I asked you to justify your claims? How many opportunities have you had to provide some semblance of logic and rigour to your claims? In all cases you've failed to step up and demonstrate you have any understanding of the topics you start threads on.

How about another chance? Explain, precisely, why you mentioned superspace here. Why do you have a state multiplied by zero not equal to zero? Why does a post on entanglement contain nothing on entanglement? Why do you think your final expression is a 'result'?

Come on, if you're so outraged at being called a liar and a fraud demonstrate you know about things you post about. You seem to have the time to write lengthy posts and yet never have the time to respond to any comments which point out mistakes. Or you're too hungover. :rolleyes:
 
Alphanumeric, grow up for gods sake.
Giving you another opportunity to demonstrate that's something to your claims means I need to 'grow up'?

As usual you complain that people don't take you seriously but when you're given the opportunity to step up you refuse to do so. I think you need to look a little closer to home first. You are whining people think you're a liar and yet you're refusing to do anything to retort anything anyone says and then you continue to post threads in precisely the same style. You post a threat, someone points out the kind of flawed approach you have, you whine and then post another thread with the same flaws and problems.

And you're surprised people think you're a fraud?!

Its not necessary to demonstrate line by line algebraic workings for people to think "He seems to know what he's talking about". Relatively few of the posts by myself, Prometheus, Guest, Ben, Cpt etc are more maths than words yet we view one another as competent and informed on a variety of topics. And when anyone does probe our knowledge a little deeper, either out of genuine inquiry or to see if we're full of nonsense, we can demonstrate we know the details. None of us post the details of our research, yet ironically we get accused of being show offs from people who do post their pet theories (often pet theories about theories of everything :rolleyes: ).

There's a book called 'Bad Science' by Ben Goldacre in which he recalls the comments of someone who challenged Gillian McKeith about her scientific credentials. In it the person comments that its a standard tactic for those who fake or lie about their scientific qualifications to throw hissy fits when challenged. In comparison if someone said to him "You're not a doctor!" he wouldn't sue or whine, he'd laugh in their face. It's like Kent Hovind claiming to have a PhD yet the 'college' he got it from won't allow anyone to read it, yet any legit PhD should be freely accessible. Hell, I had to sign a form and provide copies to say I agree for mine to be available from the British Library, I couldn't hide it even if I wanted.

So even if you don't want to step up and answer simple direct relevant questions in this thread bear what I said in mind for any future thread you might want to start. Whining when someone challenges you is the antithesis of good scientific practice. I've learnt a great deal from sentences which begin "Your idea is incorrect because...." and you'll not find a single competent scientist who hasn't.
 
So first you don't want to hear what I have to say because you think I'm such an arrogant arse you'd put me on ignore and decided to leave and now you want my comments? No doubt if I don't say what you want to hear you'll not what to listen.

Yes, you want someone to strengthen your self delusion, as if you're seen to be using technical words then maybe someone will think you actually understand them.

Sure you did.... The fact you don't know any calculus, you can't do basic algebra, you don't understand tensors and you have repeatedly mixed up vector and scalar expressions demonstrates you didn't understand 'some matrix analysis'.

Two particles is a pair. They are paired with one another, not two other particles.

Let's see your working/thoughts involving the Pauli matrices. Don't arm wave, I previously asked you to provide the details of your 'thoughts' and explained why superficial work is not going to get very far or lead to anything concrete. Demonstrate, quantitatively, clearly and explicitly using the things you've mentioned, why four particles are needed. What precisely needs to be 'satisfied'?

Let me make that clear, I don't want you to answer with a paragraph of arm waving, I want you to show, using algebra, how you arrived as your conclusion. You mentioned Pauli spin matrices so I want to see precisely what you've done in terms of them. You brought them up and now I want you to put your maths where your mouth is.

You appear not to know what 'virtual' means as you've just used it in an incorrect manner.

Justify that claim. And like I just said, don't just spout some wordy bullshit, I'm not going to facilitate you deluding yourself into thinking you're doing science by allowing you to just spout buzzwords, I want you to back up your claims and justify your 'hypotheses'. Clearly you want to be involved in discussions which use lots of technical words and I firmly think its because you want to be seen to be talking about high level stuff in order to appear like you know and understand high level stuff. If you actually know high level stuff you shouldn't be needing to just do arm waving, you should be able to provide copious amounts of quantitative workings and if you can't do that and you just spout arm waving nonsense then don't whine when you get bitch slapped for spouting crap.

Understand me??

And how in any way does that link to your 'hypothesis' about four particles being entangled?

I don't for a nanosecond think you can do anything quantitative relating to those things, as your other threads on attempting to do mathematics have demonstrated repeatedly. If you think I'm wrong demonstrate as much, show that you aren't just desperately trying to convince people (yourself most of all) that you can do these things by dropping buzzwords left, right and centre. You do that and I'll play nice. If you come back with absolutely nothing to justify your claims and nothing that demonstrates your supposed understanding of Pauli matrices, matrix algebra and the Dirac equation then don't be surprised when people think you're just blow smoke out your backside.

Your grace is lacking. You should get in touch with your feminine side. I don't know the root of your hostility, but something in your past must have created it. No offense Brother human.
 
Back
Top