# What gives with rat avatar? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2019, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-with-rat-avatar/828612 "2019-01-29T10:19:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 34
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-with-rat-avatar/828612/34 "2019-03-01T18:12:44Z")
I don’t know how to delete my account on here, But thanks for this pit. While I am sad that the dope has reduced to a level where “fighting ignorance” isn’t the main goal, and moderators admit that they aren’t willing to help people learn why they are wrong there are resources to do so. I have had a lot of success in both learning and helping others out here, I recommend that you pose you questions there if you want accurate answers. > **[Physics Stack Exchange](https://physics.stackexchange.com/)** > > Q&A for active researchers, academics and students of physics If you enjoy getting in arguments where people ignore domain specific meanings of definitions, and will bitch when they set up un-true scenarios which they will pit you if you reject their flawed ideas (like the kinetic energy not being preserved or that once interacting particles are a thermodynamic system) have fun on here. As you can see on here, people not comprehending basic concepts like “representation errors” between decimal and binary is worthless. Unfortunately it appears that due to attrition of message boards in general, people who still post have been reduced to those who prefer to win and not learn. I was in error in just not walking away, and ignoring faults with septimus’ post that lead to this pitting. It is obvious that _not giving up_ and just letting misinformation flow is the acceptable thing here. FYI septimus, the “statistical” formula in entropy can only be used when the system is large enough to _simplify_ and ignore phase space. I hope you dig into that portion but that as it will help explain there. I apologize that the fact I wouldn’t accept your flawed setup, because of the flaw, some how made it impossible for you to rephrase in a different way. I want to thank the people who reached out to me in support for trying to fight ignorance. But don’t take Chonos’ claims as being valid without examination. As an example: > [@mass or matter](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-or-matter/822787/10): > > **Mass is a measure of matter.** They’re not completely synonymous (you wouldn’t say “I’m made out of mass”, or “my matter is 80 kg”), but they’re close enough concepts that swapping the words won’t lead to any confusion. > > As for the c^2, we use a system of units where we have different units for space and time (meters and seconds, for instance). If we used the same units for both, then c would just equal 1, and so we could just say that E = m (or for a moving object, E^2 = m^2 + p^2). > > But (typically) we don’t use those units. And so energy and mass have different units, too. Specifically, energy has units of mass times speed squared. So, in such a system of units, it would be not only wrong but nonsensical to say that “E = mc”, or “E = mc^3”, or whatever. Under the Standard model mass is not an intrinsic property of fundamental particles. In relativity, mass and energy are two different ways of describing one physical quantity. Another place I have interacted with Chronos is in the definition of weight and mass, which under _modern physics_ has a specific defined term. In relativity, the _equivalence principle_ is the \*foundational concept \* that underlies **the entire theory**. \*Gravitational weight and mass \*are two different ways of describing one underlying physical quantity in the theory of General relitivity. While I am absolutely certain that in several cases I have been in error or have miscommunicated my claims and ideas, Matter and mass **are not the same in modern physics**. While he was talking about math this quote applies: “Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things.” - Henri Poincare The definition of “matter” is domain specific and the context matters. As an example under relativity, mass is not an additive quantity but in classic physics, chemistry or the pop-physics that seems to pervade Chronos’ world it is. Under relativity “Matter” is **sometimes** considered as anything that contributes to the energy–momentum of a system, which includes light, but the same is not so in chemistry, classic physics etc… I am also to tired to try and fight this high school style popularity contest, but _pot meet kettle_ > [@Chronos](#): > > Lately, I haven’t even found myself with the energy to post the flat “you’re wrong” statements. Which I suppose is irresponsible of me: Someone who’s not familiar with your body of work or with the subject matter might easily mistake your encyclopedic level of misunderstanding with actual knowledge. For their sake, even if not for yours, I really ought to continue telling you that you’re wrong. Chronos is not answering questions based on _rigour_ but based on his flawed and naive misunderstanding of the importance of context on meanings and is randomly combining concepts in a way that describes ignorance of the core concepts and not some _esoteric_ bit of knowledge. While there will always be oversimplifications and mistakes when trying to convey ideas that really require math to understand, which is admittedly where Chronos mostly goes off the rail, it is his instance to not move past his flawed intuitions that I have found problematic in the past. I get he wins the popularity contest, but there is no “fighting ignorance” happening here, he is simply regretting myths and pop-science and directly contradicting the theories he cites as an authority. Thanks for the time and interactions that most have you have provided, and really do appreciate the things I have learned and the views that I would never have heard without this site but I just need to move forward to other corners of the Internet where I can help others and learn myself. I don’t take much joy in talking past each other and it appears that even if I add qualifiers to every freaking post that people assume I am anti-Metric or… I am to tired to keep going on but appreciate so many others posters efforts. I actually joined this site reluctantly due to the prodding of an ex-girlfriend do to my passion of sharing and learning but it is quite clear it no longer has that utility for me anymore. I asked for cites typically because I wanted to find out where I may be in error, as learning is just as important to me as sharing but being “right” or “winning” was low on my list of priorities. If you are passionate about learning take the claims of those like Chronos who quite clearly care more about being perceived as “smart” or “right” over the truth. He has a lot to share and can be valuable in your pursuit but as he admitted above isn’t dedicated to sharing the _correct_ information as currently best described by science, but providing what h_e personally views as correct_. I apologize if my efforts to combat that made it appear I am in the same camp, but I have been quick to admit I was in error when people provided me with information in the past on here or to correct errors. Review his posts and see if he ever does the same. Chronos and septimus in the posts linked ignored my refusal to accept their un-cited claims, and I do apologize for not just taking Chronos’ “I don’t give a shit” stance when basic particle kinematics and basic math errors were denied. My intentions were to not _spread ignorance_ but apparently popularity is more important than facts on the site now. I wish you all luck in life and in your search for knowledge. _(If a mod is willing feel free to disable my account, and thank you for all of your hard work in the past)_ --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-gives-with-rat-avatar/828612)._