A question is not a claim

[GeneralDadmission]

Alas, then. You shouldn't be speculating without knowledge of the basics. No model, no thread.

 

Can you please stop locking my threads swansont? I haven't provided them to answer your questions or demands. Have I some obligation to you to provide you with a finished product? I can't see how. Try allowing the person who has genuinely given my questions time and feedback enough respect that you allow room for him to answer my questions. You obviously can't interpret language that eludes you as anything but an attempt to impress you so I genuinely believe you are an obstruction to my progress.

 

Your presumption that I don't have basic knowledge is prepostorous. I have a fair understanding of the basics and what I have been seeking to understand is how to analyse the exercise I developed to apply it within physics formulae. I assume I will make progress here just with the references Mordred has supplied. When I get time spent on that I may have further questions for him. He made the point that studying the history of physics is important for understanding it's progress. This I agree with because I have gained more from this practice than by deconstructing formulae. This was a factor of the nature of the exercise I was absorbed in. This is at a stage of progress in which I can begin asking more specific questions.

 

So question 1 to this thread is could you stop locking my threads swansont? If the answer is no I'll just have to ask mordred questions privately and assume everyone else bar Mordred and ajb have little aptitude for analysing a question they don't have a direct formulae to.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Firstly, swansont is certainly not the only person to have closed one of your threads. Secondly, even if he was, so what? He was acting as a staff member when doing so and as such, you can assume the closures were sanctioned by other staff members as well.

You have a habit of making posts that do not make sense. It seems that part of it is because you choose to make up non-standard definitions to terms that already have definitions and expect everyone to follow along. The other half, IMO, is because you do not appear to know what you're talking about and you're too busy skipping ahead to the next chapter before you've figured out the basic stuff. Now, being wrong is not against the rules and members here are normally happy to help out, but it does become a problem when you refuse to help yourself and continue to post nonsense. If you have specific questions, ask them and stop trying to attach your ideas to them until you are sure you actually understand the fundamentals.

[Klaynos]

You don't ask questions though. You make assertions sometimes with questions tacked on but often they're just assertions that people correct or ask for evidence for.

 

Speculations has special rules to allow a usefl discussion to happen within a sciencesk framework. Continue to break the rules and threads will get closed.

 

Questions on mainstream science should be asked in the science fora not speculations. You need to make sure you're asking questions though.

 

This thread shouldn't be in speculations so I'm moving it.

[John Cuthber]

The tread title isn't really true. This question,

"So question 1 to this thread is could you stop locking my threads swansont? ",

for example makes the tacit statement that Swansont is the one locking posts.

So questions sometimes are statements.

Also, since the decision to close a thread is made by a team of mods, the idea that he's the one closing them is wrong too.

 

But, as has been pointed out already, you seem not to have grasped the basics...

[GeneralDadmission]

You don't ask questions though. You make assertions sometimes with questions tacked on but often they're just assertions that people correct or ask for evidence for.

 

Speculations has special rules to allow a usefl discussion to happen within a sciencesk framework. Continue to break the rules and threads will get closed.

 

Questions on mainstream science should be asked in the science fora not speculations. You need to make sure you're asking questions though.

 

This thread shouldn't be in speculations so I'm moving it.

 

I don't intend to make assertions. It is difficult to avoid because I am more familiar with the exercise I developed than the specific physics required to interpret it. Mordred has pointed out that this is largely lepton and associated particle physics. Basically I'm starting from here to learn the specific maths I've been trying to define. When I can identify a question I ask but mostly I've had to rely on descriptions to get pointed in the right directions.

The tread title isn't really true. This question,

"So question 1 to this thread is could you stop locking my threads swansont? ",

for example makes the tacit statement that Swansont is the one locking posts.

So questions sometimes are statements.

Also, since the decision to close a thread is made by a team of mods, the idea that he's the one closing them is wrong too.

 

But, as has been pointed out already, you seem not to have grasped the basics...

 

The basics I don't seem to have grasped are your preferences and requirements here. Assuming I don't understand physics basics because I have had difficulty finding methods to describe my exercise to make progress with it, is drawing a long bow you haven't any experience with. I don't come from formal physics training and therefore have my own language habits. That is as much as you can contend with any verifiability. Stop being a bunch of fascist elitist tools.

If you seriously think someone can read up on physics for 20 years and not comprehend the basics you can only have issues with conceit. Seriously!

I've found a couple of questions from the material Mordred has supplied. When I have a few more I'll start a thread entirely question presented.

Edited March 12, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[Klaynos]

One of the problems here is your keep referring to your exercise, which from what I can gather is something about dark matter or inflation, it's difficult to tell. You'll find people much more useful if you try and ask short concise questions about some aspect of physics.

 

 

It can easily take more than 10 years of formal study to even start adding new understanding to physics. Let's look at a note everyday example. If your car broke down and you called a mechanic. He turns up on a push bike with a paying pot with a brush sticking out of it on the back. When you ask him where his tools are he just hops from leg to leg shouting about his new way of fixing cars and proceeds to lick your ties would you accept his bill for fixing the car without trying to start it? Would you even leave him to work on your car or would you try and figure out what he knows about cars first?

[swansont]

Can you please stop locking my threads swansont?

I will stop locking your threads when you start following the rules. I don't think that cause-and-effect is particularly complicated.

 

Have I some obligation to you to provide you with a finished product? I can't see how.

Finished? No. But you can't plop down a chunk of marble and tell me it's a statue of an elephant, or will be once I chisel away all of the things that don't look like an elephant.

 

If you read the speculations guidelines you would have an idea of what is expected of you.

 

Stop being a bunch of fascist elitist tools.

If you are going to visit science-land, you need to speak the language. It's not reasonable for the rest of us to all learn yours.

[Greg H.]

I don't come from formal physics training and therefore have my own language habits. That is as much as you can contend with any verifiability. Stop being a bunch of fascist elitist tools.

First off, insulting people - never a good way to garner a positive outlook on your statement, no matter what it is. You automatically color their reactions. While I understand your frustration (sometimes I find myself having to google unfamiliar terms - not being a physicist myself), the fact is it's on you to insure you're being clear when you communicate.

 

Also, insiting people use the correct scientific terminology when discussing science isn't being elitist - it's insuring that everyone involved in the discussion knows what you mean. In a field like physics where terms often have very narrow and precise meanings, using the wrong term can completely change the idea you're trying to communicate to your audience.

 

The people here have been, and continue to be, very helpful and informative, even to a science amatuer like myself. Perhaps, instead of assuming they're trying to shut you out or shout you down, you need to assume they're trying to help you better explain yourself and your idea, so they can offer their own insights on that without having to wade through a lot of non-standard terms.

 

If, on the other hand, you just want to soapbox and spout your ideas in your own way, without regard for the rest of the scientific community, I suggest you get a blog.

Edited March 12, 2015 by Greg H.

[Phi for All]

In Speculations, many people want to jump ahead of their own knowledge, because they see something in the distance that makes some sort of intuitive sense. But without the right knowledge, trying to make those leaps leaves you on shaky ground. That's why we make sure each step is sound before making the next. It's all about being able to trust your conclusions.

 

Imagine you arrive in Paris, and let's assume you've never been there before, and don't speak French. You want to visit the Eiffel Tower and you can plainly see it in the distance. You aim your car in that direction and start driving. Bur you're not a Parisian, you don't know the language or the thousand little details that can help you navigate most efficiently to your goal, so you keep getting blocked because you insist that your way will get you there.

 

You may not have studied the map, but you have some natives who're willing to share their time and knowledge with you. I think you have to ask yourself, do you want to navigate on your own, or do you want to visit the Eiffel Tower?

[swansont]

I feel compelled to point out that the premise of this thread (from the title) is a farce. Regarding the thread in question, and ignoring the dubious specifics of the content,

 

"length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion" is a claim, not a question

"Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons" is a claim, not a question.

"The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron." is a claim, not a question

"pauli exclusion defines symmetry breaking and is summarised as the equation F=ma." is a claim, not a question

"E=mc2 defines a rest FoR to provide mass relativity." is a claim, not a question

 

That's just in the first two substantive posts in the thread. How does one possibly conclude that you were not making assertions? That you may have been asking questions based on these assertions does not make them disappear. There's no point in trying to answer a question based on a faulty premise, much less a pile of them.

 

 

(That you also claim "I haven't speculated." is a separate issue, but given that these statements are a mix of wrong and out-and-out nonsense, AFAICT the only way you can be right is to assert that this is so obviously fiction that it doesn't count as speculation, for speculation is assumed to be nonfiction.)

[dimreepr]

The analogy that comes to my mind is, you’ve read the synopses of ‘Les Miserables’ and try to quote ‘Jean Valjean’.

[imatfaal]

The analogy that comes to my mind is, you’ve read the synopses of ‘Les Miserables’ and try to quote ‘Jean Valjean’.

 

Exactly. Or you have seen the film yet feel you can comment on the quality of the writing of the book

[GeneralDadmission]

I feel compelled to point out that the premise of this thread (from the title) is a farce. Regarding the thread in question, and ignoring the dubious specifics of the content,

 

"length contraction is mediated by the nucleon as regulation of electrons by pauli exclusion" is a claim, not a question

"Electrons provide valency and EM regulation through the characteristic's of photons and infer the Pauli exclusion restrictions placed on electrons by protons" is a claim, not a question.

"The oscillatory nature of neutrinos infer the restrictions present in the neutron." is a claim, not a question

"pauli exclusion defines symmetry breaking and is summarised as the equation F=ma." is a claim, not a question

"E=mc2 defines a rest FoR to provide mass relativity." is a claim, not a question

 

That's just in the first two substantive posts in the thread. How does one possibly conclude that you were not making assertions? That you may have been asking questions based on these assertions does not make them disappear. There's no point in trying to answer a question based on a faulty premise, much less a pile of them.

 

 

If I had put "Is" in front of those "claims", would you have provided more than "no" as disputory explanation? I attempt to summarise an area I am assessing to provide a statement to critically analyse. A simple 'no' is not critical analysis. If I have a deficit of anything in particular it is experience with concise critical analysis. This is what I seek here, to develop experience with the tools necessary to complete an exercise with the complexity of this level of physics. I have had minimal environment to develop my physics vocabulary. Just reading the language does not make it part of my vocabulary without first exercising it in regular conversations. Since I don't know anyone into physics to just practice the language with I have to pick it up in conversation here. Few people enter discussion on the topics I raise so I mostly get to practise patience.

 

 

 

(That you also claim "I haven't speculated." is a separate issue, but given that these statements are a mix of wrong and out-and-out nonsense, AFAICT the only way you can be right is to assert that this is so obviously fiction that it doesn't count as speculation, for speculation is assumed to be nonfiction.)

 

 

I have claimed "I didn't intend to speculate". I am only seeking to discuss the topics I am interested in. If you do not have time to provide direct analysis then why do you answer? You certainly have no authority on my intentions, motives or comprehension. Physics is a difficult language to learn that would make Hungarians jealous. To comprehend something I have to put what I read into my own words. I have no issue with being corrected constructively. You prefer to vulgarise my learning process and insult me with your assumptions. I haven't had time to learn the language well enough for you because life requires I keep the bills paid with my hands because I didn't get a fair crack at a formal education. I have spent a lot of time since my teen years educating myself. Your declarations are a farcicle justification for you being a moderator here. Stick to the subject you are qualified in. That isn't interpreting the efforts of a layman to put things he has read into his own words. You suck really bad at that and have no place making public insinuations about a persons wit.

Edited March 13, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[John Cuthber]

Are you here to put forward half-baked speculative ideas or to learn?

[GeneralDadmission]

Are you here to put forward half-baked speculative ideas or to learn?

 

I'm here to figure out which particular bit I should study next at any particular time. So far Mordred and ajb have done very well at providing a point or two to identify which particle I should be considering next or similar. I'm not here to throw my weight around, make conclusions about others or refuse to be constructively directed. I also have no particular obligation to justify myself. I do so to indicate that my language is not intended to be combative or even offering an alternative to standard theory. The model I described to mordred is not incompatible with being interpreted as a Higgs Field. I simply have not ruled out what is required to reach that conclusion as yet and that description summarises the basis of what I have to rule out at this point as simply as I can provide. You can continue missing the point that I wouldn't be on a forum if I wasn't seeking genuinely constructive consideration. Your question is a half-baked speculation you can answer for yourself. Why should I waste my time answering people with such conceited and patronising approaches to strangers?

When we grew up and went to school

There were certain teachers who would

Hurt the children in any way they could

By pouring their derision upon anything we did

And exposing every weakness

However carefully hidden by the kids

But in the town, it was well known

When they got home at night, their fat and

Psychopathic wives would thrash them

Within inches of their lives.

[ajb]

If I had put "Is" in front of those "claims", would you have provided more than "no" as disputory explanation? I attempt to summarise an area I am assessing to provide a statement to critically analyse. A simple 'no' is not critical analysis.

The problem is that if you just string some key words together to create a meaningless sentence then how on Earth can we really answer the 'question' other than with a simple 'no'?

 

You should try to ask direct questions. For example 'has length contraction got anything to do with the Pauli exclusion principle?' The short answer is 'no', but from there we could make it a bit clearer why the two are not directly related. Though that is difficult in the sense that how to you answer the question 'what has the Moon landings got to do with the price of tea in China?'

Edited March 13, 2015 by ajb

[GeneralDadmission]

The problem is that if you just string some key words together to create a meaningless sentence then how on Earth can we really answer the 'question' other than with a simple 'no'?

 

You should try to ask direct questions. For example 'has length contraction got anything to do with the Pauli exclusion principle?' The short answer is 'no', but from there we could make it a bit clearer why the two are not directly related. Though that is difficult in the sense that how to you answer the question 'what has the Moon landings got to do with the price of tea in China?'

 

The basic assumption I provided was that the context of how the two are not directly related defines how intimately related they ultimately are. I had not constructively identified this and provided a vague conclusion of my own. I'll work on presenting a question rather than a conclusion.

[swansont]

If I had put "Is" in front of those "claims", would you have provided more than "no" as disputory explanation?

Depends. ajb has already made the point that many of these claims make no sense, so if they were asked as questions, the only way to answer them is no. However, some of them would have fostered a detailed response, and I know this because they already did. Mordred, ajb and I replied in some detail, all telling you a little about the Pauli exclusion principle. And what was your response? Did you say "oh, tell me more! I want to learn about the Pauli exclusion principle"

No. You made more claims. You did not ask questions.

 

I have claimed "I didn't intend to speculate".

You also claimed "I haven't speculated" when complaining about why the thread was moved. That's a direct quote.

 

I am only seeking to discuss the topics I am interested in. If you do not have time to provide direct analysis then why do you answer? You certainly have no authority on my intentions, motives or comprehension.

I don't give a rat's ass about your motives (unless the topic happened to move into an area of questionable behavior, which it has not)

 

Physics is a difficult language to learn that would make Hungarians jealous. To comprehend something I have to put what I read into my own words. I have no issue with being corrected constructively. You prefer to vulgarise my learning process and insult me with your assumptions. I haven't had time to learn the language well enough for you because life requires I keep the bills paid with my hands because I didn't get a fair crack at a formal education. I have spent a lot of time since my teen years educating myself.

Yes, it is difficult. And you are trying to run before you know how to walk, or even crawl, and blaming everyone else for the problems you have encountered.

 

Your declarations are a farcicle justification for you being a moderator here. Stick to the subject you are qualified in. That isn't interpreting the efforts of a layman to put things he has read into his own words. You suck really bad at that and have no place making public insinuations about a persons wit.

You might notice that I'm not the only one pointing out that you are posting nonsense.

[GeneralDadmission]

 

I don't give a rat's ass about your motives (unless the topic happened to move into an area of questionable behavior, which it has not)

 

 

 

What do you think the purpose of this thread was apart from pointing out you don't give a rat's arse? It is probably well for you that you live a sheltered life. You shouldn't assume others do simply because you can't read between the lines of someones conversation well enough to address their questions rather than indulge in your prattish conclusions. Are you from a private school or something? You come across as the type of ignorant I try to avoid.

Edited March 13, 2015 by GeneralDadmission

[swansont]

What do you think the purpose of this thread was apart from pointing out you don't give a rat's arse?

 

I thought the purpose of this thread for you to whine about how you were being mistreated, joining the others who have done so, thinking that a lack of validation constitutes abuse, and that somehow the rules don't apply to them.

 

Was I wrong?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

thread locked.

 

GeneralDadmission. You will stop insulting other members right now. The staff will discuss your continued inability to accept criticism without resorting to personal insults; further sanctions may follow.

 

The rules of this forum are not hard to follow and we are intensely relaxed in most areas - but we insist on a scientific approach and we prohibit personal attacks