Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Dishonest Moderation on Space, Time, and the Universe

Dishonest Moderation on Space, Time, and the Universe

Postby BuleriaChk » Sun Mar 12, 2017 7:54 pm

I joined that forum a couple of years ago, and began posting as I was learning QFT, since I had a different perspective (that has really come together now that I understand Pauli and Pauli...


I had been also very interested in the Proof of Fermat's Theorem using vectors to establish independence of integer variables a and b, in the relation B(a,b) = c^n = (a+b)^n using the Binomial expansion for n>2, in which for Fermat"s expression to be true, rem(a,b,n) would have to be 0 (where everything in Rem(a,b,n) is everything in the expansion that is not a^n or b^n.

The viability of the two dimensions involves using the relativistic unit circle to characterize independent bases for fields in two dimensions (of which the integers are special cases - the Binomial Expansion is valid for positive real numbers as well.

(This means that the analysis is also a proof of Gödel's Theorem, since Fermat's exparession is actually a metric for a Presburger arithmetic (that doesn't include multiplicative products like ab or powers thereof), and so is incomplete w.r.t. Peano's axioms. If the Binomial Expansion holds for n>2, then there will always be multiplicative products.

(For n=2, one must use (a+ib)(a-ib) = a^2 + b^2 (Pythogorean triple) or a "dot" b = 0 which eliminates interactive products like ab (or (a^p)(b^q) in rem(a,b,n) for n >2

(I have a number of pdf's available, if anyone would like to discuss this approach).

Tom apparently owns the forum, but the two active moderators, "Grapes" and "Neverfly" are Village Idiots, who have little knowledge of any math or physics more than a high school level (if that), but are bent on defending their limited and misleading perspectives as "main stream" mathematics without even answering or considering elements in my proof. They howl "nonsense" like donkeys if one even suggests a foundation in linear system theory, or the idea that STR might actually be relevant.

I now have been banned from posting even in my own threads on that forum; I repeatedly asked the moderators to refrain of bloating my threads with spam (at least Grapes tries infrequently to understand, but Neverfly just posts either fanboy messages or quotes from popular science with no equations whatever.)

I hope this forum will be better and I will gain some intelligent responses to my perspective. I have a BA in math/philosophy with grad work in physics and EE. (The philosophy was heavy on logic - Godel, Russell, Wittgenstein, et. al.) and years at think tanks during SDI (Santa Barbara Research, and General Research)

I am continuing to add addenda to my core pdf's as I gain more insight, and am trying to get a fair hearing at Math/Physics at UCSB (I even told them I'd buy the beer and pizza, but so far no response. I soldier on, though...)

If they haven't removed my threads on that forum, they are there under the same name I use here, BuleriaChk. I posted a lot of the technical info and background before they shut me down; I am quite furious, although there were only four in the Peanut Gallery that were responding any more - if you go over there, read my Ignore List in my signature).

With the hope of a better world here,
Best Regards,

BuleriaChk "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:59 pm


Re: Dishonest Moderation on Space, Time, and the Universe

Postby JohnDuffield » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:45 pm

Commiserations, BuleriaChk. This sort of issue seems to be endemic. In my experience a significant number of physics moderators are "custodians of ignorance". Their own knowledge is scant, they dismiss anything they don't know about as non-mainstream, and they are abusive to boot. You will not find any such issues here. But you may find it's rather quiet.
Site Admin
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 5:01 pm

Re: Dishonest Moderation on Space, Time, and the Universe

Postby BuleriaChk » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:11 pm

Thanks for your reply. I welcome technical discussion; I am learning as I go along, and think I FINALLY understand relativity and the Dirac matrices.
So in my pdf's I try to write signposts so others can make the journey and I can find out if some of my signposts might be still pointing the wrong way....
In my discussions, Wikipedia is an easily accessible resource, even if (rarely) misleading on occasion. I find it invaluable...

They have opened up my thread again, so I can post there, but there are only 4 Village Idiots (I call them the Peanut Gallery) in their echo chamber; the two moderators have the perspective you list above.
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 7:59 pm

Return to Physics Politics, Funding, and News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests