What gives with rat avatar?

[Moderating]
septimus, when using the quote box to quote other posters, please do not insert editorial comments like “blah blah blah.”

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]

Who gives a rat’s avatar?

I’ve also observed what the OP is pitting. Can’t remember the thread well enough to cite, but I remember getting into a back and forth with rat avatar a while ago that left me convinced that he often interprets ideas bizarrely. Maybe we all do that from time to time, but when he does it he becomes argumentative. It’s almost like he’s reading a completely different post than the one you wrote and decides to go into attack mode. If this were to happen with someone I was close to in real life, that shit would be scary.

To be clear, I don’t just state “you’re wrong” because I think my moderator status lets me get away with it. I do it because it got way too tiring to point-by-point explain all of the mistakes in your posts, only for you to ignore all of my explanations and go off on some other completely irrelevant tangent which is also generally full of mistakes. Sometimes the tangents go out of my areas of expertise to the point where I don’t know what’s wrong with them, though my experiences with your posts in the areas I do know, as well as the responses from those who have expertise in those other areas, make it seem quite likely that they’re just as full of mistakes. The breadth of your lack of understanding is really quite remarkable: You’re capable of being wrong in subjects so esoteric that most folks have never even heard of them.

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.

Bravo.

I’ll be stealing that for future use.

It reads “ratava tar” So what?

:wink:

See post #10.

It’s OK, I chose the name for a reason. :slight_smile:

Did someone say something?

I beg your pardon.

It’s “is anyone else seeing a large blank space after the previous post?”

Interesting, I thought I was the only person here who had a problem with rat avatar’s posts, but the discussion above exactly mirrors my experience. rat avatar is the only poster on my ignore list. I added him a while ago. I got really tired of reading his endless lectures, which consist of a weird mix of true and relevant information, true but irrelevant information, and bizarre opinions and misunderstandings. I’ve also been quite irritated by his supercilious attitude, peppering his posts with snide comments on the reader’s intelligence; things like “here’s a paper, but you probably won’t be able to follow it”. (I’m not going to unignore him to find cites, but they’re probably not hard to find.) I think the last straw for me was his strident insistence that the metric system was fundamentally flawed because 1/10 is not exactly representable in binary (although he didn’t seem to mind that the English system has the same problem re. 1/12, 1/5280, 1/3, etc). SDMB has been more pleasant for me since I ignored him.

Man. I learned one shouldn’t cross Chronos today.

Hey, I’m slow, but I learned that years ago.

The sickest of burns.

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.

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:

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 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 he 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)

Just shut up and flounce already.

That’s rude! Can’t you see rat avatar is hurting? Try empathy for a change. Even if you have to fake it.

That seems to have hit on something a little painful, octopus. That sucks. Would you like to talk about it?

You don’t actually need a Moderator to do that. It’s a feature that any normal poster can do and I am happy to help.

I HEREBY DECLARE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DISABLED.

You’re welcome.

Bye, Felicia.

Was it the one about slavery not being that bad? His entire argument was based on his understanding of human nature, and he apparently neither knew nor cared that there had been actual, you lnow, accounts and scholarship. It was bizarre.