How does a person lose expert status?

[md65536]

re. How does a person get expert status?

On 4/3/2012 at 2:45 AM, hypervalent_iodine said:

Essentially, if you make enough quality posts and staff notices you, someone will nominate you in the super top secret Res Experts forum. If staff can reach a consensus and the person in question agrees to supply food (read: cookies and cheese nips), then Cap'n bestows upon them the powers befitting their newly acquired title.

Does the same process apply to losing status, or is it permanently applied with no possible further consideration?

Say for example an expert is consistently posting pseudoscience, specifically of the type "Use of misleading language -- Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline," in a way that misinforms readers. Is it appropriate to "report" such posts as pseudoscience? Or is there a better way to call staff attention to the behaviour? Or is it allowed that resident experts can consistently reply to questions in the mainstream science forums with pseudoscience?

 

[swansont]

It’s never come up. 

If someone went off the rails there would probably be a wellness check by other staff and we’d discuss the situation. Only then would we consider depositing their body in a shallow grave in the woods.

[md65536]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s never come up.

It's come up for me repeatedly. Is there anything I can do about it?

Are posts made by experts noticed by other experts? I assume occasional errors are noticed and ignored as inconsequential? I've gotten into several arguments with an expert but don't remember another expert ever weighing in on either side. Are such arguments not noticed?

It feels like gaslighting because it suggests the possibility that other experts have seen the posts and ignore them because they agree with them, and that I'm the one who doesn't understand the basics.

I don't suppose it would be useful or appropriate to post examples here?

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, md65536 said:

It's come up for me repeatedly. Is there anything I can do about it?

Are posts made by experts noticed by other experts? I assume occasional errors are noticed and ignored as inconsequential? I've gotten into several arguments with an expert but don't remember another expert ever weighing in on either side. Are such arguments not noticed?

It feels like gaslighting because it suggests the possibility that other experts have seen the posts and ignore them because they agree with them, and that I'm the one who doesn't understand the basics.

I don't suppose it would be useful or appropriate to post examples here?

You have examples of a resident expert repeatedly posting pseudoscience? (Not just errors, that everyone makes and are often corrected when pointed out, and not mere communication errors or points of esoteric minutiae)

[md65536]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have examples of a resident expert repeatedly posting pseudoscience? (Not just errors, that everyone makes and are often corrected when pointed out, and not mere communication errors or points of esoteric minutiae)

Yes, and there's evidence that they're not just common errors because when they're pointed out, not only are they not acknowledged or corrected, but they're repeated or supported with tangential arguments.

[swansont]

Just now, md65536 said:

Yes, and there's evidence that they're not just common errors because when they're pointed out, not only are they not acknowledged or corrected, but they're repeated or supported with tangential arguments.

I’d need to see examples, because if you can support an argument it doesn’t sound like pseudoscience. And you make no mention of the support for your position.

The thing is, every scientist is/can be wrong about some things. We do have misconceptions, and they can become entrenched. But that doesn’t make it pseudoscience; that’s a much higher bar.

[md65536]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

I’d need to see examples, because if you can support an argument it doesn’t sound like pseudoscience. And you make no mention of the support for your position.

The examples are misinformation about basic concepts, where at least twice I've supported my position with the first line of a wikipedia entry.

Is it appropriate to link to examples in this thread, or should such issues generally be handled with private messages?

[TheVat]

As an onlooker, I am baffled as to how the OP can be answered without specific examples.  And also, somewhat less useful perhaps, rubbing my hands together and cackling gleefully at the prospect of an expert being wrong.  

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

The examples are misinformation about basic concepts, where at least twice I've supported my position with the first line of a wikipedia entry.

Is it appropriate to link to examples in this thread, or should such issues generally be handled with private messages?

If we’re talking about issues of fact, and basic concepts, you can post them here.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, md65536 said:

Is there anything I can do about it?

Accept the possibility that it is you who are mistaken. Or, start your own private forum and post there

[StringJunky]

I've seen pretty much every member argue with each other, one way or the other, over the years, on matters of science. I think anyone would be called out if they were consistently saying unscientific things. In a nutshell, I think the peer review outlook is pretty good here. Maybe not as strict as somewhere like Physics Forums, but that's not for everyone, including me.

Edited July 28 by StringJunky

[md65536]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

As an onlooker, I am baffled as to how the OP can be answered without specific examples.  And also, somewhat less useful perhaps, rubbing my hands together and cackling gleefully at the prospect of an expert being wrong.  

Then I just want to say, I don't do this gleefully. Early on getting interested in science, I'd search on the internet, and put huge stock in expert information, and I see others now doing it and being told they don't understand, and are then told nonsense that is not possible to understand. I think it can affect a person's approach to science for years if they're new and can't distinguish pseudoscience when they're told it's expert knowledge.

 

Alright, here's the first example:

On 7/27/2024 at 8:32 AM, Mordred said:

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term reference frame. A worldline connects two reference frames. A reference frame can be inertial or non inertial. 

ALice has one reference frame Bob has his own reference frame. The worldine is the transition between Alice and Bob's reference frames. The choice of coordinate systems does not change this detail due to invariance of coordinate choice. That is a fundamental principle of the Einstein field equations. 

Ds^2 is the separation  distance between the two events Alice and Bob. Ds^2 is not a reference frame but the spacetime path.

Every event (observer, emitter ) is it's own reference frame. The coordinate choice doesn't alter that detail 

A confused or incomplete use of the word "worldline". Are they referring to an object that they fail to mention?

Inconsistent statements about Alice and Bob. Claiming an event has its own reference frame indicates a lack of understanding of the basics of events.

Claiming the spacetime interval is a distance and a path, not even getting the dimensions right.

In one single reply, this demonstrates a pattern of using established terms to mean whatever else they want to, which is pseudoscience.

I ask for a reference for this information but didn't get one. I asked how the use of "worldline" could possibly be consistent with the normal use, and got this:

15 hours ago, Mordred said:

The null geodesic aka worldline is a field treatment under GR the interaction is readily described by the perturbation  tensor h_{\mu\nu} which acts upon the metric.

Is this word salad? It certainly has nothing to do with a transition between reference frames originally described. If it was designed to be confusing use of jargon to avoid supporting or correcting the original statement, it worked.

 

Here's the previous misuse of terms (rapidity and boost) that I called out: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133833-why-lorentz-relativity-is-true-and-einstein-relativity-is-false/?do=findComment&comment=1264941

Quote

Acceleration is easily handled in both SR and GR. It's simply a type of boost called rapidity.

Discussed in thread: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133837-is-rapidity-a-measure-of-acceleration/

 

In the above threads, there are often pages of equations posted without citation, that use the same terms correctly and identically to what can be found elsewhere but are unrelated to the question being asked. This is another form of pseudoscience, mixing in real science to give an air of legitimacy to previous false and only tangentially related statements.

 

The misunderstanding of so many established terms in relativity in just 2 posts demonstrates a level of understanding that is less than "expert." The pattern of attempting to argue and confuse instead of admitting or correcting mistakes demonstrates being intentionally misleading. The constant posting of content identical to that which can be found elsewhere, but does not answer the question being asked, shows a lack of understanding of the topic.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Accept the possibility that it is you who are mistaken. Or, start your own private forum and post there

Please tell me that you think all the examples I posted are reasonable expert statements and I'll accept I'm mistaken and give up on this site.

[iNow]

Do you need a snickers?

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

A confused or incomplete use of the word "worldline". Are they referring to an object that they fail to mention?

When someone posts a thread on a topic, it’s OK to assume they have the requisite background knowledge to discuss the topic. No need to reinvent the wheel.

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

Inconsistent statements about Alice and Bob.

“ALice has one reference frame Bob has his own reference frame” is inconsistent? Inconsistent with what?

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

Claiming an event has its own reference frame indicates a lack of understanding of the basics of events.

Um, no.

Events do have their own reference frame. 

 

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

Claiming the spacetime interval is a distance and a path, not even getting the dimensions right.

That’s not claimed, nor are dimensions given

I don’t see where “spacetime interval” is mentioned at all

 

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

In one single reply, this demonstrates a pattern of using established terms to mean whatever else they want to, which is pseudoscience.

One post can’t establish a pattern, and you haven’t shown what you’re claiming.

43 minutes ago, md65536 said:

I ask for a reference for this information but didn't get one. I asked how the use of "worldline" could possibly be consistent with the normal use, and got this:

Is this word salad? It certainly has nothing to do with a transition between reference frames originally described. If it was designed to be confusing use of jargon to avoid supporting or correcting the original statement, it worked.

Sounds like you asked for clarification, but are complaining that it didn’t tie back some earlier point, but there’s no reason that that needs to happen.

[Mordred]

The null geodesic aka worldline is a field treatment under GR the interaction is readily described by the perturbation  tensor h_{\mu\nu} which acts upon the metric.

 

Lets put the relationship in terms of the metric tensor.

\[g_{\mu\nu}{x^i}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}x^i\] this is the weak field limit as applied to SR as well as the discussion under way where this comes up. For extremely small perturbations described by the equation v<<c the perturbation will only depend on the spatial components. For relativistic you obviously apply the relevant boosts and rotations however the perturbation now applies both the spatial and time components. 

However in terms of a null geodesics the \(\tau=0\) and \(ds^2=0\) so we can no longer use the time component nor the spatial components. Instead we must use an affine parameter \(x^\mu (p)\)

so from the above a slow moving particle 

\[\frac{dx^i}{d\tau}<<\frac{dx^0}{d\tau}\]

i = (1,2,3) the geodesic equation in this case is

\[\frac{ds^2x^i}{dt^2}=\frac{c^2}{2}\frac{\partial h_{tt}}{\partial x^i}\]

gravitational potential

\[\frac{dx^2\vec{x}}{dt^2}=-\vec{\nabla}\phi(\vec{x})\]

\[g_{tt}=-1-2\phi /c^2\]

coordinate time and proper time then becomes

\[d\tau=\sqrt{-g_{tt}}dt=\sqrt{1+2\phi/c^2}dt\]

however as mentioned for a null geodesic you require an affine connections described by an affine parameter. I won't go through the full scale solutions via the Christoffels etc those are in textbooks...

however applying the affine parameter as well as the Christoffel symbol \(x^\mu (p)\) and Christoffel \(\Gamma\) you get the null geodesic equation that describes the worldline.

\[\frac{d^2x^\mu}{dp^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{k\lambda}\frac{dx^k}{dp}\frac{dx^\lambda}{dp}=0\]

 

That is how the perturbation gets applied there is no crackpottery there, as this can be found in nearly every GR textbook in one fashion or another

 

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

The null geodesic aka worldline is a field treatment under GR the interaction is readily described by the perturbation  tensor h_{\mu\nu} which acts upon the metric.

 

Lets put the relationship in terms of the metric tensor.

 

gμνxi=ημν+hμνxi

this is the weak field limit as applied to SR as well as the discussion under way where this comes up. For extremely small perturbations described by the equation v<<c the perturbation will only depend on the spatial components. For relativistic you obviously apply the relevant boosts and rotations however the perturbation now applies both the spatial and time components. 

 

However in terms of a null geodesics the τ=0 and ds2=0 so we can no longer use the time component nor the spatial components. Instead we must use an affine parameter xμ(p)

so from the above a slow moving particle 

 

dxidτ<<dx0dτ

 

i = (1,2,3) the geodesic equation in this case is

 

ds2xidt2=c22∂htt∂xi

 

gravitational potential

 

dx2x⃗ dt2=−∇⃗ ϕ(x⃗ )

 

 

gtt=−1−2ϕ/c2

 

coordinate time and proper time then becomes

 

dτ=−gtt−−−−√dt=1+2ϕ/c2−−−−−−−−√dt

 

however as mentioned for a null geodesic you require an affine connections described by an affine parameter. I won't go through the full scale solutions via the Christoffels etc those are in textbooks...

however applying the affine parameter as well as the Christoffel symbol xμ(p) and Christoffel Γ you get the null geodesic equation that describes the worldline.

 

d2xμdp2+Γμkλdxkdpdxλdp=0

 

 

That is how the perturbation gets applied there is no crackpottery there, as this can be found in nearly every GR textbook in one fashion or another

 

It looks like to me that it is not possible to relate every single detail and at certain level, like yours, there needs to be a minimum of knowledge on the part of the questioner that needs to be assumed they have. 

[Mordred]

47 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It looks like to me that it is not possible to relate every single detail and at certain level, like yours, there needs to be a minimum of knowledge on the part of the questioner that needs to be assumed they have. 

correct in the case of the OP on the topic of PG coordinates I would assume he is already is familiar with the relations I just posted. I'm still feeling out how much of the mathematics he has looked at. 

Particularly to PG coordinates where the line element (worldline ) is as follows

\[ds^2=-dT^2+(dr+\sqrt{rs/dT)}^2+r^2(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta\phi^2)\]

in order to properly apply this metric those geodesic relations have a different time component than Minkowskii. He will also need the Hubble function a for lifting the coordinate singularity to get to the interior metric.

\[r=a(T)\bar{a}\]

 

[md65536]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

When someone posts a thread on a topic, it’s OK to assume they have the requisite background knowledge to discuss the topic. No need to reinvent the wheel.

"The worldine is the transition between Alice and Bob's reference frames." is not re-inventing the wheel, it's reinventing the stick and calling it a wheel. I asked for clarification and didn't get it (or, I don't understand it). Does "The worldine is the transition between Alice and Bob's reference frames." make sense to you as a description of the established meaning of "worldline"?

This is not just a one-off error, but a repeated source of confusion for others as well. For example in a thread talking about different engines on a single train:

On 12/10/2022 at 5:59 AM, Mordred said:

Proper time would follow the wordline between engines so you still have the same problem

reply:

On 12/10/2022 at 10:41 AM, Lorentz Jr said:

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. First of all, it's "world", not "word"; and second, the world line for any one (small) object doesn't follow anything except that object.

It is either merely confusing to the point of nonsense, or it is evidence of a non-expert misunderstanding of the term and the concepts being discussed.

 

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Events do have their own reference frame.

Can you explain what you mean by this? If you're correct then the Alice and Bob statements are consistent.

For example, say "lightning striking the front of a moving train" is a typical event in SR examples. What is the reference frame of that event?

I asked google and the first result is from https://www.physics.udel.edu/~jim/PHYS309_16F/Class Notes/Class_2.pdf "Events are not tied to any individual reference frames. Events are measured by observers who do belong to particular inertial reference frames." I think that's correct.

 

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Lets put the relationship in terms of the metric tensor.

[...]

Did you write out the post yourself or copy it from somewhere without attribution? Do you understand that what you wrote does not explain, clarify, or relate to the statement "The worldine is the transition between Alice and Bob's reference frames."?

[Mordred]

now were bringing up a different thread ? on a different discussion ? what is your reply to mathematics I just posted ? please link the threads in question 

I sincerely hope at some point in time you will defend your accusations with some relevant mathematical arguments 

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[md65536]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

now were bringing up a different thread ? on a different discussion ? what is your reply to mathematics I just posted ? please link the threads in question 

Yes, to show that your non-expert lack of knowledge on the topic spans multiple threads.

My reply to your mathematics is, 'Did you write out the post yourself or copy it from somewhere without attribution? Do you understand that what you wrote does not explain, clarify, or relate to the statement "The worldine is the transition between Alice and Bob's reference frames."?'

The quotes link to the threads. There should be an arrow icon in the top right corner of the box.

[Mordred]

You know so something I'm not going to bother Believe what you like take the Resident expert label for all that it matters of the record one can have expertise in a particular field of physics without being an expert in another..

 I' not about to sit here and defend my position over the course of my membership on this forum to you because you disagree with how I understand relativity as opposed to how you understand it. Quite frankly I posted you dozens of references over the course of our discussions in my defense and you typically ignored them. In particular with our discussions on rapidity... 

In case you haven't figured it out I don't cone to forums to defend my expertise I come to forums to help others.

I don't particularly care if you consider me an expert or not.

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[md65536]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You know so something I'm not going to bother Believe what you like take the Resident expert label for all that it matters of the record one can have expertise in a particular field of physics without being an expert in another..

 I' not about to sit here and defend my position over the course of my membership on this forum to you because you disagree with how I understand relativity as opposed to how you understand it. Quite frankly I posted you dozens of references over the course of our discussions in my defense and you typically ignored them. In particular with our discussions on rapidity... 

Yes thank you for renouncing the label. What field of physics do you have expertise in? It would be a lot less confusing if the "expert" label showed what specific expertise you have because a lot of replies you've made do seem to be appropriately labelled "expert", just not I believe the ones I've mentioned. It would be vastly different to myself and others to be discussing relativity with an expert in some other field of physics vs. discussing it with an expert in relativity, especially when we disagree on something. It causes great self-doubt and confusion to disagree with an expert, even when all external evidence shows they're wrong.

The problem isn't how you understand relativity, it is how you mislead others on the parts you misunderstand, resist corrections, and use the "expert" label as an indicator of authority.

I didn't ignore your references on rapidity, I replied to everything I thought was relevant, and I figured in the end we came to an agreement about the topic.

 

[Mordred]

Whatever you wish to believe quite frankly I've never seen you look at relativity beyond Minkoskii. As such I certainly don't find your opinion of my understanding of relativity as an expert opinion from yourself.

As I mentioned I have no interest in defending myself because you don't agree with my understanding of relativity.

 

Have a good nightl

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[md65536]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

You know so something I'm not going to bother Believe what you like take the Resident expert label for all that it matters of the record one can have expertise in a particular field of physics without being an expert in another..

swansont, I'd be much more comfortable having the expert label that's on every post show the specific field of expertise, rather than removing it completely. Can that be done? Thanks!

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, md65536 said:

swansont, I'd be much more comfortable having the expert label that's on every post show the specific field of expertise, rather than removing it completely. Can that be done? Thanks!

Why make a big deal out of it? I see the title as someone who is RELATIVELY knowledgeable on  one or more of the 3 main branches compared to the sites general readership. I think you are nitpicking. Careers or degrees  aren't made or lost on this forum. Someone doing a degree will not rely on one source.