Aethelwulf

Posts
395 
Joined

Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Aethelwulf


The first quantum field theory principle? And who said you that biology has been reduced to quantum field theory?
But you have not cited even one simple problem.
Barbour has not eliminated time t from physics, he has only eliminated dt from some simple equations. The above equation continue depending upon time t, although it is not explicitly written.
Local time does not have to be confused with global time. Physicists use different symbols when both are to met in the same equation.
Maxwell equations are not Galilean relativistic equations.
Time was never a "numerical parameter" in Newtonian theory.
Special relativity does not shuffle space and time but maintain both physically different. Neither it says that spacetime is 'timeless'.
A metric is not a space. Neither time is "one imaginary space dimension". The trick to use "iT" instead "t" was an earlier trick to made that some formulae look more symmetrical in a 4D formalism. It is unneeded and pretty abandoned today in classical relativity.
Quantum field theory is build over a quantum Minkowski spacetime.
The timeline of the cosmological evolution of universe predicted by relativity has been tested in the radiation era.
Spacetime events do not take place in time but in spacetime.
He tried, but he has not advanced in that program.
You have invented this quote. He never said what you put within "".
General relativity contains true time evolution and this fact is emphasized in the 3+1 formalism designed to deal with dynamical situations.
The term "arrow of time" used in physics has a radically different meaning than you pretend. It of course does not mean that time looks as an arrow.
When the field equations are properly quantized we obtain something similar to what string theory obtains.
The analogy with the Schrodinger equation is only based in visual analogies because people uses symbols that other people uses. [math]\Psi>[/math] is not a wavefunction, not even close. The classical limit does not give general relativity. And Everett Many Worlds is nonsense, as has been shown.
The no conservation of energy in GR has nothing to do with cosmological expansion.
Oh Juan... do you really wanna do this...
... as you wish. Hold on.
''Local time does not have to be confused with global time. Physicists use different symbols when both are to met in the same equation.''
Who says it is? I am going through over several different concepts of time, I explained this from the very beginning.
Is this not you reading again?
''Maxwell equations are not Galilean relativistic equations.''
I never said that. I said it started off with Galilean relativistic equations... am I suprised to say, you have read me backwards? Maybe this is your problem you generally read things backwards maybe?
''Time was never a "numerical parameter" in Newtonian theory.''
Yes it was. Time was always a numerical parameter.. It still is today with some theories.
''Special relativity does not shuffle space and time but maintain both physically different. Neither it says that spacetime is 'timeless'.''
General Relativity does. When have you ever heard of diffeomorphism invariance within the context of special relativity?
And yes, special relativity does not say the universe is timeless. I can't help but feel you are trolling, I have already explained in my OP that the GR EFE equations when quantized lead to the WDW equation .you KNOW this, we have explained this many times now.
''A metric is not a space. Neither time is "one imaginary space dimension". The trick to use "iT" instead "t" was an earlier trick to made that some formulae look more symmetrical in a 4D formalism. It is unneeded and pretty abandoned today in classical relativity.''
I said, the Minkowski metric is a four dimensional spacetime. What is your problem with this statement exactly?
''Quantum field theory is build over a quantum Minkowski spacetime.''
I don't see your point. All I said was that time is not fundamental in a quantum field argument. This is true in the context of high energy physics and the beginning of big bang  the region we hope to unify physics.
''The timeline of the cosmological evolution of universe predicted by relativity has been tested in the radiation era.''
There is no timeline, not in the sense of moving clocks. Well done, you have managed to show me you understand nothing of what I am saying, not that I am really all that surprised.
''Spacetime events do not take place in time but in spacetime.''
Absolute utter jibberish.
''You have invented this quote. He never said what you put within "".
Just because you haven't seen it, I make it up yes?
Your logic doesn't surprise me.
''General relativity contains true time evolution and this fact is emphasized in the 3+1 formalism designed to deal with dynamical situations.''
Wrong
http://fqxi.org/data/essaycontestfiles/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf
Read the abstract.
''The term "arrow of time" used in physics has a radically different meaning than you pretend. It of course does not mean that time looks as an arrow.''
Actually, the definition is some direction in time. There is no such direction since time geometrical.
''When the field equations are properly quantized we obtain something similar to what string theory obtains''
You just like to sound smart I think. String theory obtains practically anything it wishes. It would, I hope, obtain the same quantization rules as Einsteins equations, or it would be bunk as a mathematical theory.
''The analogy with the Schrodinger equation is only based in visual analogies because people uses symbols that other people uses. is not a wavefunction, not even close. The classical limit does not give general relativity. And Everett Many Worlds is nonsense, as has been shown.''
Of course it is a wave function. This is why many worlds was created. A generic wave function ahs a infinite amount of possible solutions. However the wave function can have at least one minimum and may have several maxima or minima. This is what a parallel universe is, a complicated potential with many solutions to your wave function. If there are people treating it not as a wave function, then it surely isn't parallel universe theory.
''The no conservation of energy in GR has nothing to do with cosmological expansion.''
That's my theory. I made that up. It's my pet belief of a possible theory.
So well done. I am not impressed one bit.
Oh and Juan, if you do reply to this, and I don't reply. Keep in mind that I have actually asked for the mods to disable my account here.
Ok?
1 
... concerning suggestions comments and support, isn't it also open to feedback?
0 
Today I followed an ad hoc derivation of Schrodinger's equation. I confirmed what I long knew, i.e. that a wave function of the form
[math]\psi(x, t) = Ae^{i(kx  \omega t)}[/math]
is a solution to both Schrodinger's equation and the wave equations. Are you familiar with such a derivation?
I think I do.
0 
Thought I would explain why I behaved so... frivolously a week ago.
I intentionally did it. I was sick that people could get away with some of the most foul comments and so I wondered how long it would be before I got a ban if I dished out some foul comments myself.
Did it work? Yes it did. I even served my time. But what gets me is that the culprits before me never got a ban, only polite warnings.
Anyway. I don't think I will be spending as much time here after today, something I decided during my little break. Which I am sure, will make some of you all the great deal happier.
0 
Please don't put words into my mouth. I never said any such thing.
I second this... not once have I ever said a particle ''is just a wave''.
I actually said a particle is both a wave and a particle, I even gave a demonstration of this saying that a particle hits the detector screen as a dot, proving it was a particle... I am getting really sick of Juan.
0 
Can i infer from this that you do not think that the universe has some existence independent of the observer? I'm not sure I know how to express this but I am going to try.
Your assertion, to me at lease, seems to violate the general principles of relativity, from your point of view I can see a universal time, it's now everywhere, no past, no future, just now. Time obviously passes at different rates for different observes so how could there be a now any place but behind your eyes?
Your idea would also seem to wipe away the past as though it is immaterial, My thoughts on this is that it's more likely the entire past and present exist but the future is similar to an uncollapsed wave function, something we have not measured yet and our consciousnesses, our awareness is limited to the present, memories of the past and guesses about the future. I think it's possible that awareness is simply our brains measurement of the future as it happens and it's quite possible we exist at every point along that life line and always will...
No, to think a past exists which flows into the future is completely wrong, within the context of relativity and the context of physics as well.
Actually, relativity is on my side. Einstein is on my side. He was well aware that physics admitted that the past and future did not really exist, they were only stubborn illusions.
I am absolutely darned sure the universe has an existence outside of any proverbial observer, but that's not the point. The point is that the experience of a past is completely subjective. I can sit here and remember an event which happened two minutes ago, for instance. However, I remember that event in the present, there is no special meaning physically that this event is still happening, which is my entire point. The past is not happening now, it did happen. That does not mean it can be viewed as a real ''physical thing''. The only physical significance the world has are things which happen now.
Let me quote Lee Smolin, he is right
''All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment.''
1 
The past is observable in what sense, what... because we measure light now reaching us? Light doesn't even travel in time according to relativity. In fact, let us consider relativity and worldlines. Wordlines are actually static in relativity. What does this tell you about the nature of any past or future?
Einstein: ''for those who believe in physics know that the past and future are only stubbornly persistent illusions''
I mean, even outside of our most respected theorist and theory (Einstein and relativity), the past does not hold any significance physically. The past did happen. It happened in its own present moment or as you might call it, frame of time. But that is over now, there is nothing to it. Just because we sit here and now, in this present frame of existence does not give us any justification to ask the question
''Does the past exist''???
In fact, you can ask that question naively, but most of us actually get to the answer quite quickly with a little thought.
Going back to your light example, these are ''sending signals'' from the beginning of time. These signals are not to be mistaken to mean ''the past is existing now'' just because we can observe the past in this manner. You obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. The past is long gone .Light travelling almost untainted will continue these messaged for as long as it takes, but they don't exactly travel through time as we comfortably sit in the present moment. We are not stationary observers either. Everything moves along in the present time.
Here is something for you to think about, if I really did exist in the past, then I would see multiple frame of my existence receding from me as I move my arm. But I don't. I see one arm, and it is always attached to me and it is always associated to the here and now... the past is nothing but a memory and a figment of my imagination, or as Einstein said, a complete illusion. Everything is fixed in the present moment. Even events which are time dilated, are still fixed in the present moment.
I just liked his post by accident lol
0 
This below is a very rough spacetime diagram:
The past is the low half of the diagram, the future is the half upper part. The present is the bold horizontal line.
The observable universe (that is "everything") lies on the diagonals of the diagram.
The present bold line is empty, only the red dot, yourself, belongs to the present.
The future is empty, i.e. it is not observable. One could argue that the future does not "exist" since it is not observable.
The universe lies in the past: everything except yourself is in the past.
The past is observable in what sense, what... because we measure light now reaching us? Light doesn't even travel in time according to relativity. In fact, let us consider relativity and worldlines. Wordlines are actually static in relativity. What does this tell you about the nature of any past or future?
Einstein: ''for those who believe in physics know that the past and future are only stubbornly persistent illusions''
I mean, even outside of our most respected theorist and theory (Einstein and relativity), the past does not hold any significance physically. The past did happen. It happened in its own present moment or as you might call it, frame of time. But that is over now, there is nothing to it. Just because we sit here and now, in this present frame of existence does not give us any justification to ask the question
''Does the past exist''???
In fact, you can ask that question naively, but most of us actually get to the answer quite quickly with a little thought.
Going back to your light example, these are ''sending signals'' from the beginning of time. These signals are not to be mistaken to mean ''the past is existing now'' just because we can observe the past in this manner. You obviously don't have a clue of what you are talking about. The past is long gone .Light travelling almost untainted will continue these messaged for as long as it takes, but they don't exactly travel through time as we comfortably sit in the present moment. We are not stationary observers either. Everything moves along in the present time.
1 
Sure that mammoths did exist in the past and sure that a new gadget will exist the next year.
But do they exist ''now''?
Surely even you, of all people are not going to contend they hold physical significance ''now''.
Some of you I understand have no training in any idea's of physics, but what I am telling you is a basic fact or even, principle of experience. So, do things in the past exist? No they do not.
The real question should be, do things in the past exist ''now''? Not, if they ''have'' existed... The past tense of the word is highly misused and abused by people here at this forum. They often come here proclaiming things like the past and future are real things, when in the context of physics, and even basic experience, they are not real and certainly don't exist now. You can even measure it in your own living room. Drop a ball from your hand. Tell me the state of that ball when it falls to floor. Does it have a past? No it doesn't.
The reason is simple, any ''past'' state is a true illusion. Nothing exists ''in the past''. You can say however that when a ball falls on a floor, it once rested in your hand in a previous ''present state''. But neither the past or the experience of it having a past is a true physical state.
It stands to reason.
Now, just because our ''minds'' remember a state does not mean that it exists, no less, than reading about a mammoth that exists in your book which read about ''now''. Nothing exists outside the present moment, it's a matter of fact.
The past, when the mammoth existed, did not happen in the past, it happened in the present. Think about it.
The past doesn't exist now, no more than the future will exist now. Only the now exists because it is the ''now'' which is what we call the ''present moment''.
1 
I think you are wrong.
I maintain my post.
You justify your post with explanations, and then I will correct you with my own justifications.
Just a word of advice before you do... please understand the words you post, always happen in a present moment... nothing you have said is really existing in the past. Only your experience of it.
0 
No, what I am saying is the people 'members" here are using other members profile to answer my questions I know this already. Yes I know people have jobs and at times others needs to continue a "forum's" responses because their are way to many members here.
BUT I take things literally and take advice from those whom told me " let others know you are not a scientist."
When I admit this and say I may be wrong, or I do not know how to explain this, these members "using other's profiles" tell me they do not understand " anything" I say, call me a kid, tell me I may be trolling and etc...
Its their avoidance to say:
"Science at this time in our evolution, does not know how to create something like this, or we just do not know how to answer your question at this time because science does not know the answer.
They should tell the truth, scientist are the BRAIN'S OF THIS WORLD, we look up to them. They should act like thinkers with solutions, not people whom are concerned with the human ego and a great public status, thats government and religion!
No, anyone could join, what I am saying is that members should not use other members profiles and or avatars to follow up on threads from either yesterday, or an hour ago or etc...
Or at lease, have something in common with the members profiles they are using, lots of ""Schizophrenia""" here!
Reminds me of corruption, fakeness and politics....... Sickening!
No, its people "using" other people's member profiles.... I think you know what I am talking about....
Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
0 
So based on your post after this one, why do you say it is as if the light were embedded in spacetime? It sounds as if you are saying the light is just going along for the ride as space expands, as opposed to having more space to travel through.
It sounds like he's been influenced by the Aether Drag Hypothesis, which is of course, not supported at all.
So based on your post after this one, why do you say it is as if the light were embedded in spacetime? It sounds as if you are saying the light is just going along for the ride as space expands, as opposed to having more space to travel through.
There is a special case mind you where the vacuum in the observable universe is expanding faster than light... which literally drags matter and light along with it. But I doubt that is what he is talking about.
0 
Welcome back!
An estranged welcoming from someone who I thought disliked me.
0 
In fact... I'd argue there is no beginning of time. Not in your relativistic sense. In fact, i'd argue time was emergent... Or as I called it in my own independent research, induced, but both mean relatively the same thing.
0 
Q. Do things exist?
A. Yes, things exist. (the universe exists)
Q. Do things exist in the past?
A. Yes, things around me exist in the past. The more away from me things are, the more in the past they are. Everything I can observe is in my past.
Q. Do things exist in the present?
A. Yes. Actually, only one "thing" exist in the present, and that "thing" is myself.
Q. Do things exist in the future?
A. tricky question. The future is not observable, so the answer should be "No". But the future is relative: we are in the future of Napoleon, and we exist, so the answer should be "yes".
What's the problem?
Do things exist, of course they do.
Do things exist in the past, no they certainly do not. Refer back whether things exist to find your answer.
Do things exist in the present, they certainly do, in fact, only things can exist within the present.
Do things exist in the future, no they certainly do not, because we never experience the future. We only experience things in the present.
That's what is wrong.
0 
Shine on... shine on harvest moon, up in the sky...
I envisioned Mr Miyagi here.
0 
Oh.
We are not a byproduct of the BB?
Not a direct byproduct, no. Yes, all energy came from the BB, but many processes happened since then and the production of planetoids.
0 
Wait a moment.
The material the Earth is made of was also created in the Big Bang. So, this material has also traveled billions of Light Years. And so, what we are looking at very far away, at the edge of the observable universe, is our creation as well (and not only the birth of very distant stars & galaxies).
What are you talking about?
The material of the earth was not exactly made at big bang and has travelled billions of light years. It was created from some supergiant star which most likely went supernova, many years after big bang.
0 
Time is the continuous sequence of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.(wiki)
We perceive time through events we see. Hence as soon as the "light" from those events reaches our eyes, we see them happening and changing. Where there is light, there is time. And we know that gravity distorts time. More the gravity, time slows down and less gravity, time speeds up. This is why inside a black hole , it is assumed that there is no time since the gravity is immense. Thus the union of time and gravity gives rise to the dimension of time( according to me). Time is something we're confined under. We cannot imagine a world beyond time. We are incapable of perceiving the VOID.
interesting thought:
Of these three divisions of time [past, present, and future], then how can two, the past and the future, be, when the past no longer is and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time but eternity. If, therefore, the present time is time only by reason of the fact that it moves on to become the past, how can we say that even the present is, when the reason why it is that it is not to be? In other words, we cannot rightly say that time is, except by reason of its impending state of not being. – St. Augustine; The Confessions, Book XI
There are too many ''no it's not'' to actually cover here... so just an overall ''No it's not'' will do.
Only the answers you have given can be out of a lack of understanding of modern theoretical and experimental physics.
There are too many ''no it's not'' to actually cover here... so just an overall ''No it's not'' will do.
Only the answers you have given can be out of a lack of understanding of modern theoretical and experimental physics.
As for st Augustine's quote... a bit outdated to be true. I did have a conversation with someone recently about this feeling of past becoming present and present becoming future. As I said to someone on another site
''
And yes, some might call the present moment a record of the past, or rather as you said, the period of time including a present moment. So one way to write this is by saying, the present [math]t_1[/math] is the past [math]t_0[/math] plus a time delay [math]\Delta t[/math] as
[math]t_1 = t_0 + \Delta t[/math]
abstractly this is ok. It makes sense to think of the present moment in this case as some present moment that once existed in the past and which then a small change in time led up to the present moment we recognize as ''now''. Just keep in mind, that the past [math]t_0[/math] can't have any physical relevance. I use past and future here as [math](t_0,t_1)[/math], notation may vary.
Using the above equation, one could argue the future [math]t_2[/math] is the present plus a change in time as
[math]t_2 = t_1 + \Delta t[/math]
But how does one make sense of the future in a physical sense? The future has not happened, and in fact, never happens. This is the paradox of our experience of time  all there is is the present moment nothing exists outside of it, nothing flows into the present moment or out of it.''
The easy solution to this, is to remember there is no flow to time. There is nothing which flows into or out of the present moment, and a present moment never is a ''true existing past.'' If it doesn't exist ''now'' it doesn't exist at all. Simple.
0 
Do you agree with the fact that Einstein introduced the curvature tensor taking it 0 to be legit?
When is it taken to be zero?
0 
It's great that you're so supportive of Aethelwulf. You both have a lot in common, including the same ISP. I'll bet you even wear the same size socks!
I actually don't know who this is. But I have a few idea's who it could be. I have over 600 friends on facebook and I even posted a link to my thread on my page. I can assure you this wasn't me. I've not been able to access this page in over a week.
Yep. You got him. Well done!
Well you'd be very wrong. Not the first time though, so I'll let you off.
So, in my absence, I have been doing more thinking into my theory but it involves math. Not may of you ever comment on math so I don't know if it is a waste of time.
First of all it seems best to explain why the term [math]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}}[/math] is important when describing world lines.
Consisder a simple spacetime interval as:
[math]d\tau^2 = dt^2  d\vec{x}^2[/math]
Where we have set [math]c=1[/math] in this case. You actually calculate the length of a worldline by taking into consideration the integral
[math]L(W) = \int_W d\tau[/math]
You can, it was shown to me a while ago now, that worldines can be written in terms of time by the chain rule. Doing so, you can rewrite the time derivatives as dots on your variables and can end up with
[math]L(W) = \int_{t_0}^{t_1} \sqrt{1  \dot{x}^2}\ dt[/math]
From here, you would calculate the Langrangian by simply multiplying mass into the equation, so we would have
[math]\mathcal{L} = M\sqrt{1  \dot{x}^2}[/math]
Now in my equation, we have been using the generalized velocity, and can be freely exchanged now to make the above equation into
[math]\mathcal{L}(\dot{q}\dot{q}) = M\sqrt{1  \dot{q}\dot{q}}[/math]
Now, the canonical momentum part in my equation can be written as
[math]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}} = \frac{M\dot{q}}{\sqrt{1  \dot{q}\dot{q}}}[/math]
This is relativistic and is incomporated as one can see, into the idea of worldlines. Now, in my equation, I decided to multiply the momentum with distance. Of course, this was just the quantum action [math]\hbar[/math], but ignoring that fact for now, we wish to calculate the distance really as a displacement of all the particles in the universe [math]d_i[/math] using Barbour's approach. Doing so, will require an integral.
Taking the integral of the equation, which ''cuts up'' or ''slices'' a worldline for a particle, then the distance will be small [math]\delta d[/math] for a particle which is the way elluded to in the OP for how to calculate displacement of particles instead of distance exactly.
Remembering that
[math]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}} = \frac{M\dot{q}}{\sqrt{1  \dot{q}\dot{q}}}[/math]
then my equation
[math]\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}_i} d_i \nabla^2\psi = \dot{m}\psi[/math]
Can actually be rewritten (including the integral this time) as
[math]\int \dot{m}\psi\ dt = \int (\frac{M\dot{q}}{\sqrt{1  \dot{q}\dot{q}}}) \delta d_i \nabla^2\psi\ dt[/math]
So as you can see, the integral not only ''cuts'' up the worldline of a particle appropriately, but making the interval short enough will ensure that your distance is really just a very small displacement on a system of particles.
So, if the final equation is taken seriously, we actually have a type of relativistic mass flow equation which can describe the wordlines of each particle as a flow of mass in the universe. There is of course, not just one matter field in the universe, there are a few so one might change the mass sign for a matter field sign we can give as
[math]\int \dot{\Xi}\psi\ dt = \int (\frac{\Xi \dot{q}}{\sqrt{1  \dot{q}\dot{q}}}) \delta d_i \nabla^2\psi\ dt[/math]
Each slice of a worldline has something to say about this thing we might call ''the arrow of time.'' As explained in the OP, my investigations have led me to believe there is no such thing as an arrow of time, that time itself is not a continuous thing but rather momentary fleeting flashes of existence of beginnings and ends. This nature is expressed in it's fullest when you consider that the sliced worldline view has basically tried to sum up very small displacements of particles in any given instant of time. If you want to measure the entire worldline, you need to piece these instances together like a jigsaw puzzle. Again, the nature of quantum mechanics would begin to take place if you wanted to know more than simply the momentum of these particles, say if you tried to measure their positions as well, the uncertainty principle is bound to take effect.
Now assuming my approach has been ok, how would one describe the energy then of a single particle in context of the previous equation? The energy of a single particle can be thought of as
[math]E\psi = c^2 \int \dot{m} \psi\ dt[/math]
And perhaps even then, a simple Langrangian might have the form
[math]\mathcal{L} = (\frac{1}{2}\dot{r} \cdot \dot{r}\int \dot{m}\ dt  V)\psi[/math]
Now I am working on a covariant form for these equations. This will take some time but I am on my way to completing them.
0 
''In order to solve the problems of our observable universe, the Higgs boson "God particle", although problems in particle physics, but I must also give a positive interpretation, we must answer in the end it is the presence or absence not answer with a little bit ambiguous, and must make the affirmative choice between existence and nonexistence.<br style="fontsize: 13px; lineheight: 16px; backgroundcolor: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="fontsize: 13px; lineheight: 16px; backgroundcolor: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">Indeed, this is trouble for ourselves, you know, countless top scientists are to work for it, they pour cold water is simply reckless, arrogant, kick against the pricks behavior, you think you are! But as the discovery of the discoverer of the Zhou Jian’s law''
Is this supposed to be a joke?
0 
The mods work for free to help make this site as good as it is. I know from experience that the more someone volunteers to help the more they become the target of criticism. The mods are the ones using their best judgement, on their own time, to improve our experience. Again, I understand someone expressing their concerns, but given that the mods are not really making any life or death decisions, I think it behooves us all to back off a bit and cut them some slack.
Well, in that case, this isn't what this thread is about. This has nothing to do with ''moderators'' personally.
I don't think this is personal at all with them, just a few things about the way the site works. It's not their fault there are flaws in the system, question is, is whether the mods actually do something about it?
0 
Sorry, mate, but noting that your mother was once pregnant with you and using the term "knocked up" to say so is not equivalent to "verbally defiling peoples parents."
You don't have the right to talk about anyone's parents, unless you where trying to derail a thread. It's quite clear however, you were trying to get personal, in which case from now on, I will be treating my conversations with you very personally... especially when you talk about things as an open hypocrite.
!Moderator Note
The insults and attacks against other posters or members stop now! That goes for everyone  this thread will only be allowed to continue iff it does so in an amicable and calm manner.
Aethelwulf  direct insults at another member are completely unacceptable in any circumstance. Your actions in this thread and in others in the last few days are under active discussion by staff and administrators and it is possible that sanctions will follow without further notice; in any case please read this as your final warning that continued breaches of the rules will not be tolerated.
What have I said, that is this bad you needed to warn me?
1
Particle wave duality
in Quantum Theory
Posted
you are the one who said ''pmb and aethelwulf''.
Start admitting when you are wrong before it looks like you are blatantly lying.