Poster quoting and responding to deleted message - Page 2

mugaliens · #31 (**permalink**) 01-May-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hillman

Hi all,

I am a newbie to BAUT but have previously used VBulletin at Physics Forums.
I actually have two questions.

The easy one is this: am I correct in understading that BAUT has only very limited support for mathematical formulas? If so, that is regretable since for example in threads on cosmological models in order to fix ideas it would be useful to be able to write out a line element and state intended range of coordinates, to avoid misunderstanding. If not, can someone provide a link to a tutorial on including math? And while we are at it, what about uploading small figures (e.g. diagrams to illustrate a geometric scenario)?

The thornier one is this:

My BAUT debut got off to a rocky start: I reconsidered and deleted my initial post shortly after posting it, basically because I decided on further reflection that my speaking up would probably not help much. I agree it is much better to not post than to post and then delete, but that's not the point here.
The point is that JimJast, one of the participants in that thread (see Einstein's universe), who is himself a BAUT newbie (or so I understand), apparently signed up for email notification of replies to his own posts, and consequently he apparently received by email my entire post. By the time he came back to BAUT the next day, due to a misunderstanding someone else had already reposted my deleted post and Jim (the moderator, not to be confused with JimJast) had deleted the repost. But then JimJast apparently used his "email notification" to repost my entire self-deleted post a -second- time! (And he seems to be claiming he is entitled to do so.) When I came back myself I therefore several posts quoting snippets from my self-deleted post, which placed me in an awkward position.

(I chose to post a second time to try to restore the missing context and then withdrew from the thread, which was my attempt to make the most of a bad situation. Alas, things have gotten even -more- confusing since then--- arghgh!--- but that's not the point here. BTW, I hope I have described events accurately but can't be sure since I'm so new here. And thanks again to Jim (the moderator) for trying to fix the mess, but unfortunately this seems to have proven impossible.)

So my question is: for future reference: am I correct in concluding that users who opt into email notification receive the entire text of all replies to their posts, so that the same situation could arise again? Is there any BAUT rule against user V reposting a post self-deleted by user U?

I hope it is clear that the problem here is that snippets quoted from a self-deleted ill-advised post can perhaps lead to even more confusion and/or vituperation than leaving up the original ill-advised post. As I said, clearly the original cause of this particular mess was that I posted in the first place, which I now regret even more than I did when I deleted the thing!

Two guidelines:

1. Be careful what you write. Take some time to review what you've written before you hit the Submit Reply button.

2. If you feel you've been unfairly slighted, don't violate the rules by slaming the dude/dudette in public. Just PM the mods (again, this is simply following the rules), and explain the situation.

If you're in the right, they'll take the appropriate action. If you're in the wrong, they'll let you know.

But I'll tell you this (if you haven't already heart it from either another poster or a mod), posting open-ended complaints such as this in a public thread isn't a very good idea, primarily because reviewing your last umpteen posts is a trivial manner. I can see them, see what else went on that you didn't mention, perhaps come to a totally different conclusion (as can the mods), and if there is any underhandedness...

...Yousa being banished! (Jar-Jar speak)

So, just follow the board rules and my initial advice (in line with the board rules).

Do that, and you'll enjoy this place! Violate it and you'll live to regret it.

- Mugs

JimJast · #32 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 12:05 PM

Chris,

I didn't get e-mail notification about your text. I read it in BAUT forum before it was deleted, so obviously I couldn't know that it will be deleted. Your assumption about my re-posting it isn't true. The guy who re-posted it confessed already,

Quote:

Originally Posted by CodeSlinger >
I subscribed to this thread in order to keep an eye on it. I got an email notification this morning that Chris Hillman had responded to this thread. But I don't see his post for some reason, so I'm reposting it below as it appeared in the notification I got.

you just didn't read the whole thread "Einstein's universe", for which I don't blame you since there isn't much there to read. Besides the thread has been terminated before its time for some unknown reason and also before reaching any conclusion.

I don't even have e-mail notifications. I keep BAUT out of my e-mails since I have enough spam to want to suplement it with e-mail notifications from BAUT. I hope it clarifies the misunderstanding.

But while I'm writing to you I'd like to learn what is your opinion on conservation of energy. There are at least two possible points of view: (i), which I call Feynman's, since it is in his texts from which I learned physics, that energy (defined as a component of 4-momentum) and momentum (defined as the rest of 4-momentum) are conserved separately, and (ii), which I call Baez's (your friend who tried to explain it to me a few times but poor me didn't understand a bit), that only the whole 4-momentum is conserved and that Feynman's idea applies only to Newtonian physics. Which means, according to Baez, that in relativity energy (as defined before) and momentum (as defined before) are not separately conserved. Which one is true in your opinion? I hope that you see that both can't be true simultaneously.

geonuc · #33 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

...you just didn't read the whole thread "Einstein's universe", for which I don't blame you since there isn't much there to read. Besides the thread has been terminated before its time for some unknown reason and also before reaching any conclusion.

Einstein's Universe is an ATM thread. All ATM threads are locked after 31 days.

JimJast · #34 (**permalink**) 09-May-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geonuc

Einstein's Universe is an ATM thread. All ATM threads are locked after 31 days.

That's why. I just though I started it later than March 23. It is too bad that it is only 31 days since it takes about a month until people start coming up with sensible questions, while there is a lot of noise that people write just to kill time.

Actually I had one sensible question and I'm still working on the response since I still don't know how to solve analytically a seemingly simple diff. equ. (y"=y(sin(x)/x)^2) that the question leads to. But once it is solved some questions that I've never though of before might be answered and my already high confience in Einstein's universe might double

So I don't complain. Actually, I'm happy that I got to this forum and I was presented with this question. The answer might be the sixth reason why Einstein's universe is better explanation of observations than the Bi Bang.

Neverfly · #35 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 02:37 AM

Well, you can't drag the topic over in here JimJast.

I agree with you that your thread deserves a chance- Mostly because I'm evil and devlish and would like see someone demonstrate that you're wrong because I lack the mathematical ability to

Maybe you can PM a mod and check things out and try a new thread? Check with a Mod because generally, the forum seems to try to avoid repeat ATM's, but the Mods may decide you can take another stab at it.

JimJast · #36 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I agree with you that your thread deserves a chance- Mostly because I'm evil and devlish and would like see someone demonstrate that you're wrong because I lack the mathematical ability to

Maybe you can PM a mod and check things out and try a new thread? Check with a Mod because generally, the forum seems to try to avoid repeat ATM's, but the Mods may decide you can take another stab at it.

Thanks, Neverfly, I'll try to do just this if Chris Hillman fails to respond to the direct question that I put for him to consider. Or if he prefers Baez (mainstream) over Feynman (ATM).

Since I don't understand the mainsteam point of view (I don't understand the mechanism of converting the momentum into the energy) I am doomed to asking this until I find someone who understands the problem and explains it to me. Of course, as Landau once said, "those who don't understand the problem might have problems with explaining it". And I can't blame anyone for not understanding how momentum is converted into energy while I don't understand it myself. I just know that it is the mainstream opinion and Jonh Baez believes it is possible, he just doesn't want to bother with the explanation ("too repetitive" he told me when he baned me from sci.physics.reseach forum for asking such questions long time ago).

I hope that in this forum someone will be able to explain this problem of conversion of momentum into energy, depite that it is contrary to Feynman's opinion, documented by his texts, where he states explicitly that energy and momentum are conserved separately (and I don't think anyone can accuse Feynman of not understanding physics as good as John Baez). Why the astronomers subscribe to the non conservation of energy and agree only on conservation of the whole 4-momentum (i.e. whatever is missed in non conserved energy is taken from necessarily non conserved momentum since there is nothing else to make for conservation of 4-momentum)? That's why I keep asking the mainstream theorists what is the mechanism of this conversion that apparently Feynman missed.

John Jones · #37 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 06:23 PM

Quote:

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters

.

Huh?

01101001 · #38 (**permalink**) 10-May-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Jones

.

Huh?

John Jones, what? Are you curious about the error message? I don't get the vague context.

If I guess right: There is a minimum size for an article. It's probably one character, but I'm not sure. The forum software doesn't count quoted material nor signatures, just actual characters you have supplied. If there's not enough (again, probably less than 1) characters, you must increase what you provided.

===

JimJast, You're not dialoging with Chris Hillman, according to his last message of 2008, April 16th (I believe it was):

Quote:

Everyone, I regret to say I gotta go now, but I thank you all for your patience with me as I tried to outline some complicated issues in this thread. I apologize for any misunderstandings which might yet have to come to light had I stayed, which no doubt would have been due to overhasty "refactoring" of my old essays, poor choice of words, or others sins of commission on my part. I'd just like to say that in this thread I've received a much more civil response to my attempt to make some pointed but (I hope) fair and well-informed criticisms of Wikipedia. Good luck in all your expository endeavors and also to your efforts to counter the worst of the woo.

Second, a better place for you to advocate ATM would be in the ATM section, not here in About BAUT. Please?

JimJast · #39 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

JimJast, You're not dialoging with Chris Hillman, [...]

Too bad...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Second, a better place for you to advocate ATM would be in the ATM section, not here in About BAUT. Please?

Actually I'm not "advocating ATM" but just advocating regular physics, which violation by the mainstream theorists angried also Feynman. So I'm just trying to prevent guys mentioned by Feynman to get away with an assertion that the general relativity supports only 4-momentum conservation and not the energy and momentum conservation separately. The assertion is needed to support the hypothesis of expanding universe the astronomers insist on since if energy were strictly conserved, as Feynman says, it had to be admitted that there is no expansion. The regular general relativity (with conservation of energy) takes care of Hubble redshift through an interesting mechanism forced on the nature by its inability to create energy from nothing. The mechanism that the Big Bang theorist (being rather good mathematicians) might have known but didn't care to talk about it while astronomers insisted that the universe is expanding for sure. After all mathematicians are supposed to help the astronomers and not to ruin the results of their observations.

geonuc · #40 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

Actually I'm not "advocating ATM" but just advocating regular physics, which violation by the mainstream theorists angried also Feynman.

I think you're missing the larger point. The Einstein's Universe thread was closed by rule. If you want to continue the discussion, you must appeal to the mods, not carry on the conversation in this section of BAUT.

JimJast · #41 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geonuc

I think you're missing the larger point. The Einstein's Universe thread was closed by rule. If you want to continue the discussion, you must appeal to the mods, not carry on the conversation in this section of BAUT.

I don't continue the discussion of "Einstein's universe" but I respond to posts asking me questions related to the conservation of energy. Should I appeal to the mods every time someone asks me something whether I may reaspond? It seems ackward.

geonuc · #42 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

I don't continue the discussion of "Einstein's universe" but I respond to posts asking me questions related to the conservation of energy. Should I appeal to the mods every time someone asks me something whether I may reaspond? It seems ackward.

Please see your post #32. You initiated a discussion on the conservation of energy here in this About BAUT thread.

ToSeek · #43 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Jones

.

Quote:

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters

.

Huh?

Note that the board software doesn't include quoted material in the length count, so if you just quote something in your post without saying anything else about it, that will trigger this message.

antoniseb · #44 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

That's why. I just though I started it later than March 23. It is too bad that it is only 31 days since it takes about a month until people start coming up with sensible questions, while there is a lot of noise that people write just to kill time.

Can you look at the topic of this thread and honestly tell me you think your recent posts here are On Topic?

JimJast · #45 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geonuc

Please see your post #32. You initiated a discussion on the conservation of energy here in this About BAUT thread.

You're right. I initiated this one since I was responding to Chris in his thread (on topic) about his problem. I just got diverted by Chris accusing me about something I didn't do. So I thought that to clean his conscience he may respond to my quick question (requiring only "yes/no" answer) and this is how it all started

I admit it was wrong because it messes the forum and irony of the situation is that I came to About BAUT to propose a way to improve the organisation of forum by making it "more to the point" but got diverted.

JimJast · #46 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Can you look at the topic of this thread and honestly tell me you think your recent posts here are On Topic?

Of course not. I'll try do better...

antoniseb · #47 (**permalink**) 11-May-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimJast

Of course not. I'll try do better...

Thanks!

Vanamonde · #48 (**permalink**) 17-May-2008, 03:53 PM

I don't understand why you would want posts emailed to you. I have the default and get a link to the forum and I read it their. Saves a bit of bandwidth and avoids this issue. Why even allow posts to be emailed?

Just my two cents. Okay, make it a dime, with the devalued dollar and all.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes