How does a person lose expert status?

[Mordred]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

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.

A forum label certainly doesn't alter anything career wise nor does it affect any of my physics credentials.  Nor will it prevent me from continuing to answer any threads that involve GR/SR.  

 Quite frankly I have never seen Md65336 ever answer any questions involving relativity beyond Minkowskii. For example there hasn't been any effort on his part to help in the PG thread.  He questioned my post yet when shown the perturbation tensor being applied doesn't even acknowledge it. 

As a point of example anyone that knows how the EFE works knows that you have the metric tensor and the perturbation tensor which acts upon the metric tensor. So should have recognized the statement that md65336 posted in this thread as having validity by recognizing how 

\[h_{\mu\nu}\] Gets applied it's one of the more commonly used tensors in GR treatments and is also used in renormalization procedures.

Nor has any error in any mathematics I have ever posted has been shown erroneous by md65336. So the issue is largely how something is verbally described and not how the mathematics itself directly applies.

 

Edited July 29 by Mordred

[swansont]

9 hours ago, md65536 said:

"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"?

it’s not offered as a definition; as I said, you assume certain knowledge on the part of the thread originator. The context of the statement was in response to a claim about reference frames - “A worldline cannot be associated with two different reference frames”

The issue is whether the statement is correct or not. An answer to a post is not expected to be a tutorial on the topic.

It certainly does not rise to the level of pseudoscience

 

9 hours ago, md65536 said:

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

You removed some context (observers, emitters) from this, but: an object explodes. An observer can be in the same frame as it (i.e. it is something that can be thought of being at rest) so it has its own frame.

[iNow]

It seems unlikely to me that any changes to member labels nor expert status will be made as a result of this thread, a thread which appears to be a backdoor attempt to argue the same topic already being actively addressed in another thread here.

Perhaps this one is ready to be locked so the topic itself can be addressed in one single place (since the thread topic/subject has been answered here).

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Nor has any error in any mathematics I have ever posted has been shown erroneous by md65336. So the issue is largely how something is verbally described and not how the mathematics itself directly applies.

 

Yes, although I'm not sufficiently competent myself, I appreciate that verbosity is no substitute for mathematical descriptions.

[swansont]

I agree that this isn’t going to affect anything. Points of fact can be discussed in their own threads.

I don’t know what axe there is to grind here, but that’s what this feels like. “Is this word salad?” smacks of argument by personal incredulity. If it was, one should be able to point out why. If you don’t know, it means you don’t have sufficient knowledge to tell.

Labeling it as pseudoscience is similar - you should be able to show that it is, and nothing close to that has happened