Proton's personal language crusade--shall we all agree to change how we talk?

[proton]

If there's no discussion, stop insisting there is one.

Huh? I said I won't be dragged into a debate and most of the posts here are designed to do so. I never claimed anything else.

Regardless, I don't quite see how you would be in any position to give any moderator "advice" on how to run threads.

If you don't care what people want then ignore the suggestion. Simple. If the forum prohibits posters from making suggestions then it should be in the forum rules. When I see it there I will stop making suggestions.

I do recommend you make your point already ...

I made my point before this thread was started.

and stop insisting you're the only person in the world who knows physics the way physics is supposed to be.

What a silly thing to say. I never made such a claim. I can't fathom how someone could jump to such an obviously false conclusion. Only an extremely arrogant person would think such a thing. In fact I've only argued that I will explain physics in a way that I think works best. Please pay closer attention to what you're reading.

 

I have to admit that most of my resposes were to correct false accusations made against me. I find it hard not to correct someone who says something about what I've posted/said or will post/say that is not true.

[mooeypoo]

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch.

 

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open.

 

Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open.

 

If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy.

 

All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track.

 

This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

[proton]

The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, ..

Since Martin started this thread, what position are you claiming that he failed to support?

 

I do agree, however, that Martin failed to prove that I want to change the way people use terminology.

[insane_alien]

Since Martin started this thread, what position are you claiming that he failed to support?

 

I do agree, however, that Martin failed to prove that I want to change the way people use terminology.

 

Martin deemed you posts to be offtopic enough to warrant their own thread. your posts start off the thread and are the sole reason for this threads existance, not that it matters as within 24 hours it will no longer be active and as such, slightly more useful.

[proton]

.. within 24 hours it will no longer be active and as such, slightly more useful.

 

It should have been locked a long time ago. In fact it never should have started. Especially not in this forum since the subject matter in the first post is neither pseudoscience or speculation. One can hardly claim that subject matter in the American Journal of Physics can fit into those categories.

 

It was hardly off-topic either since I was correcting the misinformation posted by Klaynos.

[Klaynos]

Since Martin started this thread, what position are you claiming that he failed to support?

 

I do agree, however, that Martin failed to prove that I want to change the way people use terminology.

 

You are quoting and questioning the text of a standard reply posted when a thread is put on suicide watch.

[GutZ]

dude! purple text = bad.

 

pT=b

 

also

 

(bT) + (pT) = vb

[Klaynos]

I resent your claim that I posted misinformation. We've had this discussion before Pete, you make few friends continually making comments like that.

 

I was commenting to an apparently new member as to why cameron was saying things in such a way. And why most of the forum members choose to post in that way.

[proton]

dude! purple text = bad.

 

pT=b

 

also

 

(bT) + (pT) = vb

Thanks GutZ. I'm quite aware of that. I know that it was a standard message. I was expressing my displeasure at the existance of this thread. It was created on two premises (1) that I have a crusade and (2) that I want to change how people talk. Both premises are wrong. I really only made (or wanted to make) two points in this thread and have succesfully argued them (1) I'd rather leave than have the way I choose to explain physics censored and (2) I never have and never will be anything but 100% clear as to what any term I use means. The use of rel-mass was something I posted in another thread and I don't see that it's useful to repeat myself. I also choose not to argue about the usefulness of the concept since its clearly a matter of taste and arguing about it is like arguing about whether red or blue is the nicer color. How this affects how I use the term momentum in the future is now making me wonder. I never gave that much thought until I came up with that example.

 

I resent your claim that I posted misinformation.

I appolgize if you were offended. That wasn't my intention. The term misinformation is defined as inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. Perhaps you prefer another phrasing, e.g. what klaynos posted is emperically incorrect etc. This is a well known fact and is expressed in the journal articles written by the people who are trying to ban the concept. In fact one of the reasons they keep writing these articles is because physicists still use it. Not only physicists by chemists and astronomers etc use it too.

 

This is getting sillier by the second.

 

Fact - Whatever is posted in this thread after this post I hereby promise you will go unread. If I read anymore false assertions about what I have or will post I will not be happy and might feel inclinded to correct them - again!

 

Proton - out.

Edited July 4, 2009 by proton

[mooeypoo]

No, the thread was created to hold your posts from *another* thread. Posts that were deemed off topic, and so were split up, in accordance to the rules of the forum.This method was picked instead of flat out deleting the threads and/or issuing an infraction for off-topic subjects.

 

In short, proton, you began a slightly off topic discussion in a thread, and Martin thought it should go on in another thread.

 

If you didn't mean it to be a separate discussion, then you're more than welcome to drop the subject. People have continued this debate in the current thread to solve the problem that arose in the original thread. That problem was offtopic. It's either solving it here or not solving it at all.

 

Since we are a community forum, people assumed you would be willing to solve the miscommunication problem.

 

This problem seems to persist, though, in some of the other threads you participate in. I really think you should stop stomping your feet in the ground claiming there's no problem and instead spend a bit of time trying to figure out why people complain that you're not being understood.

 

It is a general rule in public speaking and debating, that if your audience has misunderstood you, the problem lies in your method of argument. Whether you think you have a problem or not, the bottom line is that people (and quite a number of them) think your methodology is a bit lacking. This thread was meant to solve the problem. If you insist on ignoring it, you're (sadly) bound to make it worse.

 

You can go ahead and claim I'm out to get you, or that I don't know physics, or science, or whatever else you think you know best, but that will not change the fact that you are being asked to cooperate on this subject, and actively choose not to.

 

 

 

~moo

[swansont]

This is another example of a poor arguement. You'r claim that I don't use clear definitions is bogus. You would never be able to find a post where the definition of any term I used was not 100% clear. I can't help it if this simple fact is not getting across to you.

 

Ah, the irony. If something is not getting across, it isn't 100% clear.

 

And that's one of the issues. The poster doesn't get to decide if the explanation is 100% clear. That can only be determined by the comprehension of audience.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Cosmology and Astronomy and Physics PhDs, who deal with these terms, definitions and highly technical papers on a daily basis have told you this, along with others who are "just" knowledgeable in physics.

 

In the context of the thread, though, I think this isn't so important — it's not the use within technical papers that's at issue. The literature is chock full of nomenclature that scientists understand and lay people don't. What's important to me (and to others who discuss this point) is the effect on people who aren't up to the level of deciphering those papers. Which include most of the people that show up here to ask questions about relativity.

 

For example, they say that a photon has mass because of E=mc^2, and then start into some of the other equations, and come to erroneous conclusions. And then they get frustrated because they have to keep track of a term that has more than one meaning, and they don't know enough to be able to decipher the context. They get confused. And that's what we're trying to avoid.

[mooeypoo]

Good point, swansont. I meant something a bit different, but I accept the point you're making completely.