Split: SDN Rules, Culture, and Moderation Habits

[Praeothmin]

I came here because it had been alluded that the SDN board is organized along lines of group think and that everyone must hold positions similar to Mike Wong's or be harassed out the door. I felt it was a mischaracterization, considering I myself am far and away from Mike Wong's point of view on many, many issues and I am neither harassed nor ignored/stifled.

Well I believe that the consensus here is that the problem comes mostly from the ST vs SW board, where it is more obvious.
I don't think it is as much a case of following Mike Wong's thinking, but rather that ST is nothing compared to SW in every technological way.

I intend to, and shall wrap this up. Regardless of events, I do appreciate your time.

Why would you leave?
Regardless of your disagreement in how SDN is viewed here, you debate well and would have much to offer as far as counter arguments in the SW vs ST threads.
Plus, you're very polite... :)

[Keiran]

I'm sure nobody's going to be surprised by the fact that I have a desire to defend myself here... I'll try to stay on topic and try to avoid continuing the debate on Federation sensor techniques in this thread. (If another thread is started, I'll probably join in on that, of course.)

(Gravity travels at light speed, of course, but Mad doesn't seem to have mentioned that; a lot of people overlook that.)

That was covered elsewhere in the thread (and mostly by other posters, so I didn't feel the need to reiterate it more than necessary). For what it's worth, AVOGARDO's response was this:

Therefore it must be concluded that they have the technical abilitiy to acclereate gravitons far above lightspeed.

And they must have the ability to detect gravitons, which aren't acclereated above lightspeed, superluminal, because they hoped to detect the response from the Crystalline Entity while it was up to five lightyears away.

Besides which, he was speaking of velocity, and Mad, in his word problem, is asking for mass. Sidetrack much?

Actually, that's wrong. We were discussing calculating mass. From the original thread:

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

One starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to port. Another starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to starboard. You gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard. Both ships are stationary relative to you.

What are the masses of the two ships?

He specifically said "you can calculate mass via its gravitation," so I'm not seeing any sidetrack here.

Now, the word problem was supposed to show the inherent issues with using gravimeters, because my earlier posts describing more realistic situations didn't seem to get the point across:

If your gravimeter is sensitive enough to pick up a starship, then the presence of unaccounted for starships (or if they were expected to be there but aren't) in orbit or on a planet will have a huge effect on your results.

My main point being that the limitations of gravimeters make them problematic for being the primary method of measuring mass. (And especially for calculating the masses of other starships at long range.)

As AVOGARDO mentioned, reading the thread in SDN's Parting Shots subforum would be a good idea to try and get context. It simply wasn't possible for me to provide full context in my response.

Mad then goes on to accuse AVOGARDO of "lying" in saying this:

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

This is a lie? He's saying that he will accept speculation from an expert who explains his reasons... and then says that he didn't say "only" as Mad claims, but "even." A perfectly honest statement to all intents and appearances

I never claimed that was the dishonest part. That came when he said this:

And I have said, that >> I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects. <<

And you claim, that I have said, that I >> will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons. <<

Look at his first post then look at his defense. He's saying that he won't accept speculation from an engineer. I think we can agree that it's safe to assume that anyone less qualified than an engineer would also be out. (Otherwise the specific exclusion of engineers would be illogical.)

Then he insinuates that he was being inclusive, instead of exclusive, despite the fact that he excluded engineers and anyone with less qualifications than them.

No, I'm afraid I don't even see how the cited rules would lead to a ban if applied appropriately.

What about the lie in regards to what he said previously about his knowledge of gravitons? His refusal to provide evidence for his claim on the radio telescope?

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'm sure nobody's going to be surprised by the fact that I have a desire to defend myself here... I'll try to stay on topic and try to avoid continuing the debate on Federation sensor techniques in this thread. (If another thread is started, I'll probably join in on that, of course.)

(Gravity travels at light speed, of course, but Mad doesn't seem to have mentioned that; a lot of people overlook that.)

That was covered elsewhere in the thread (and mostly by other posters, so I didn't feel the need to reiterate it more than necessary). For what it's worth, AVOGARDO's response was this:

Therefore it must be concluded that they have the technical abilitiy to acclereate gravitons far above lightspeed.

And they must have the ability to detect gravitons, which aren't acclereated above lightspeed, superluminal, because they hoped to detect the response from the Crystalline Entity while it was up to five lightyears away.

Besides which, he was speaking of velocity, and Mad, in his word problem, is asking for mass. Sidetrack much?

Actually, that's wrong. We were discussing calculating mass. From the original thread:

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method. But If you have the distance through other sensor systems, you can calculate the mass via its gravitation.

One starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to port. Another starship of unknown configuration is sitting 100 kilometers away from you directly to starboard. You gravimeters are reading .002 m/s^2 to starboard. Both ships are stationary relative to you.

What are the masses of the two ships?

He specifically said "you can calculate mass via its gravitation," so I'm not seeing any sidetrack here.

The sidetrack happens in getting from here:

If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying. Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.

Your discussion of the thread opens by showing AVOGARDO talking about velocity measurements, and proceeds to outline the digression from there to talking about mass.

As I said, I don't see how that constitutes a "broken record." There's clearly non-repetitive discourse between the two of you to go by your account of that.

I never claimed that was the dishonest part. That came when he said this:

And I have said, that >> I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects. <<

And you claim, that I have said, that I >> will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons. <<

Look at his first post then look at his defense. He's saying that he won't accept speculation from an engineer. I think we can agree that it's safe to assume that anyone less qualified than an engineer would also be out. (Otherwise the specific exclusion of engineers would be illogical.)

Then he insinuates that he was being inclusive, instead of exclusive, despite the fact that he excluded engineers and anyone with less qualifications than them.

As a matter of simple fact, there are very many people who are more qualified than an engineer, but less qualified than a physicist specializing in gravitation.

While you may justly speculate as to whether or not any of this wide assortment of individuals (e.g., persons with bachelor's or master's degrees in physics rather than engineering, laboratory assistants, mathematicians studying differential geometry, undergraduate students who have been involved in gravitation-related research projects, etc) would be acceptable to AVOGARDO, your claim that he is necessarily lying falls flat.

What about the lie in regards to what he said previously about his knowledge of gravitons?

The talk about the "demeanor of gravitons" reads to me like a series of poor translations. From the exchange given, the only thing that seems clear is that he is having a great deal of trouble with English and making mistakes.

His refusal to provide evidence for his claim on the radio telescope?

A loose and not particularly important specific phrase he almost certainly was pulling out of some poorly remembered class or study time.

He should have pointed you to the online Encarta rather than the home page of a particular radio telescope.

There, you would have read in English that:

The energy radio telescopes receive from distant sources is extraordinarily weak, less than the energy released when a snowflake hits the ground.

The heat that moves when a snowflake hits the ground at ~0.1 m/s is, incidentally, about seven orders of magnitude less than the heat it pulls in from its surroundings when it melts. With the distance to Mars being eight orders of magnitude more than the diameter of a typical radio telescope, it's still a bit off.

You could, however, definitely detect the energy scale of snowflake-melting-on-the-Moon, of course, but one from Mars would probably get lost in the noise.

[Alyeska]

Trekkies seems to comprise almost entirely of Alyeska and a few others who think just like him. Many people at SB.com have derided Alyeska's moderation style regarding ST vs SW in the Vs. forum. I've talked to over a dozen people myself who think this way of him. In fact Alyeska's biasness was one of the main reasons he lost his mod status, something he pretty much admitted himself.

Lying is unbecoming. What you failed to mention is that I got laid off from SB.com the same time half a dozen other mods from several of the forums got laid off. Of course that hasn't stopped you about spinning the truth in a different light. And of course I never said any such thing. I dare you to even provide quotes to back up your claim.

Are you fucking serious? Do you not remember this post of yours at all?

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showpost. ... ostcount=1

Passing on the torch
The VS forum has a long history with SB.com. In effect it was the first forum that SB.com ever had. Johan created movies solely for the purpose of VS spacebattles and everyone wanted to debate the subject. Times have changed and the paradigm has shifted more then once.

In the last few years the general consensus is that the VS forum had started to suffer a rot. The reasons were many and varied, they were also heavily debated. Last summer I was given the opportunity to help change things and I was tasked with cleaning up the VS forum. Some agreed, some didn't. Either way, the VS forum has changed significantly, and most saw it for the better. As the VS forum changed, the methods of moderating it had to change. I was unwilling or unable to change with it. My time as a VS forum mod has passed. This is rather evident in the last month or so from a few high level disagreements I've had with the rest of the administration.

I am not so short sighted that I couldn't see what was comming. My time was comming to and end. Rather then desperately cling to something and hold on to the bitter end, I find it better to bow out.

The VS forum needs new blood yet again. Someone who is known for his integrity, his inteligence. A veteran of many years in the VS forum and about as uncontroversial as they come.

Everyone should welcome Skyzeta, the newest VS forum mod. He should do an excelent job and I hope that everyone here gives him the respect that he truly deserves.

I myself will not be going away entirely. I am going to retain duties in the Tech Debate forum, but my time with the VS debates has concluded.

Anyways, lets give Skyzeta a warm welcome.

I resigned that position. The admins never asked me to leave that position nor did they ever bring up that issue. I left on my own accord.

[Keiran]

The sidetrack happens in getting from here:

If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying. Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.

Your discussion of the thread opens by showing AVOGARDO talking about velocity measurements, and proceeds to outline the digression from there to talking about mass.

The subject was measuring mass via gravity. The measurement of velocity was a sidetrack from the main point. Let's go to earlier in the conversation:

I have never claimed, that such a sensor could do wonders. But it would be able to detect gravitation. If you have a fleet from which you knows nothing, you can at least tell how much mass its has.

Not even that. You'd have to already know its distance and velocity before you can determine its mass.

See above.
If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying. Furthermore there could be a kind of Doppler effect in the gravitons.

The "See above" was presumably about using other sensors in conjunction with gravimeters.

And, wait, did he just say "you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation"? What is "this" in reference to? It's either distance or mass.

No, even those ideal circumstances wouldn't help. If you don't know what its velocity is (and what are the chances that it'd be constant?), then you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly.

No, if you assume that velocity and mass are constant, than you could calculate with the increasing gravitation the velocity.

[...]

I never said, that you could get a distance with this method.

It should be noted that his claim does imply that distance can be acquired from this method, though. If you have mass (and the acceleration due to gravity reading the gravimeter would give, which is a given in this problem), then acquiring the velocity is trivial.

And getting velocity but not distance via gravimeters is impressive. I wonder how he expected that to be done without getting the distance also?

As a matter of simple fact, there are very many people who are more qualified than an engineer, but less qualified than a physicist specializing in gravitation.

While you may justly speculate as to whether or not any of this wide assortment of individuals (e.g., persons with bachelor's or master's degrees in physics rather than engineering, laboratory assistants, mathematicians studying differential geometry, undergraduate students who have been involved in gravitation-related research projects, etc) would be acceptable to AVOGARDO, your claim that he is necessarily lying falls flat.

Disregarding the hyperbole, would not the term "astrophysicist" apply loosely to them considering the depth of research required? (And why would an engineer designing sensors be excluded?)

He also said this "person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject" (emphasis mine). If the person must be an "accepted expert," then "astrophysicist" would definitely apply.

The talk about the "demeanor of gravitons" reads to me like a series of poor translations. From the exchange given, the only thing that seems clear is that he is having a great deal of trouble with English and making mistakes.

So he goes from saying he doesn't know about something to saying he does?

A loose and not particularly important specific phrase he almost certainly was pulling out of some poorly remembered class or study time.

Perhaps, especially since he claimed it was common knowledge. (However, the fact that he called his mistake a deliberate "joke" or "oxymoron" instead of owning up to it was poor form.)

Still, it was wrong and he didn't provide evidence but wouldn't back down for quite a number of posts. He was using what could be called a myth to help him conclude that "a sensor system in 400 years is far more advanced."

If he did provide the link you gave, then the evidence could then be used to show that his claim was false. Instead, he was condescending:

The abilities of such a telescope are commonly known. Nevertheless, I have given you a telephon number and a website. You can look for yourself. I don't think, that I must take your hands and lead you through this website like a small child in a kindergarten.

(The site, of course, did not substantiate his claim.)

Him not providing evidence for a claim he was using (when that evidence was requested) in his debate, and refusing to back down, was a rules violation.

[Jedi Master Spock]

The subject was measuring mass via gravity. The measurement of velocity was a sidetrack from the main point. Let's go to earlier in the conversation:

Interesting, but side-tracking roundabout through velocity still isn't simple repetition.

And, wait, did he just say "you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation"? What is "this" in reference to? It's either distance or mass.

Syntactically, velocity would appear to be the right choice.

It should be noted that his claim does imply that distance can be acquired from this method, though. If you have mass (and the acceleration due to gravity reading the gravimeter would give, which is a given in this problem), then acquiring the velocity is trivial.

Correct. If you have finely enough tuned gravimeters, or graviton detectors, coupled with sufficient computation, you can determine mass, distance, and velocity.

And getting velocity but not distance via gravimeters is impressive. I wonder how he expected that to be done without getting the distance also?

It's a dependency expression. With a single gravity meter, you have two variables (dg/dt and g) determining three unknowns (m, v, and x), which means that you only need an independent determination of one to get the other two in this simplified case.

Disregarding the hyperbole, would not the term "astrophysicist" apply loosely to them considering the depth of research required? (And why would an engineer designing sensors be excluded?)

He also said this "person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject" (emphasis mine). If the person must be an "accepted expert," then "astrophysicist" would definitely apply.

The problem is the hyperbole, and the hyperbole is probably why he reacted so strongly. "Astrophysicist" definitely qualifies, but they aren't the only possible expert.

There are very few engineers involved in designing gravimetric sensors, to say the least, so that would not be a very likely expert to stumble upon the scene.

It's quite simple in terms of determinate fact. He made a statement; you blew it out of proportion; he called you on it. The only dishonesty involved there was your exaggeration in the first place.

So he goes from saying he doesn't know about something to saying he does?

From saying he made a mistake to saying he made two mistakes and didn't really mean for it to be taken that way.

Perhaps, especially since he claimed it was common knowledge. (However, the fact that he called his mistake a deliberate "joke" or "oxymoron" instead of owning up to it was poor form.)

Frankly, I thought it was common knowledge that radio telescopes detect and successfully resolve extraordinarily minute quantity of energies with high resolution - and depending on the precise snowflake, the amount of background radio noise, and the radio telescope involved, it's not too far from dead accurate.

If he did provide the link you gave, then the evidence could then be used to show that his claim was false.

For the purpose of hyperbole - as I said, noise is a problem for radio telescopes, and since you weren't concerned with the precise numbers - Mars or Moon, does it really matter? - the claim was quite good enough for the purposes of the argument at hand.

(Under ideal circumstances, we could build a nice radio telescope behind a superb filter and pick up the radio version of a snowflake melting on Mars, of course.)

Instead, he was condescending:
(The site, of course, did not substantiate his claim.)

Actually, it does talk about the specific capabilities of that particular array in some detail - from which you could have gathered the capabilities of the radio telescope and much ado about its fantastic resolution. You have to dig deep through the site, and it's hard to find the right bits if you don't understand German well enough to figure out how to navigate the site. Rude of him, yes, and condescending; however, he did provide you with a website containing evidence to substantiate what he was talking about.

That sort of rude behavior would not be tolerated here, but AFAIK, SDN rules don't disallow condescending rudeness, nor did you invoke it in your explanation.

[Who is like God arbour]

Maybe this thread should be split again twice.

One thread "Was Alyeska biased and unfair?" or "Is Aleyska a pro-Trek debater?" or something similar
and
one thread "Was the ban of AVOGARDO at SDN justified" or "Was the ban of AVOGARDO at SDN arbitrariness" or something similar.

The outcome of these new threads can be recapitulatory posted here again.

This post can be erased after it was readed by the appropriate administrator, regardless if the suggestion is fulfilled or not. I don't want a response to this suggestion.

[Keiran]

Interesting, but side-tracking roundabout through velocity still isn't simple repetition.

True, my example posts probably weren't the best. But tell me this (near the end of the thread) doesn't sound familiar:

If there would be another source of gravitation, it would sum up to a lightly changed pull. The pull of a source of gravitation would increase, the more its source get near to you (or you to it.) Thus you can determine the velocity throug the increasing force of the pull, if you assume, that the source doesn't change its own mass.

Sounds a lot like this?

If the ship is travelling to you with a constant velocity, you can calculate this with the increasing gravitation, unless you think, it would loss its own mass while it is flying.

This is a scenario I had already proven false much earlier: "you don't know if it's a big object moving slowly or a small object moving quickly." You need more information than what he gives in the scenario.

Correct. If you have finely enough tuned gravimeters, or graviton detectors, coupled with sufficient computation, you can determine mass, distance, and velocity.

There's more to it than just that, given that each gravimeter is going to lump everything within detection range into one vector. You'll have a bunch of possible gravity well combinations that could match your readings, and the problem becomes trying to figure out which range of possibilities is close enough and which ranges to ignore.

The problem is the hyperbole, and the hyperbole is probably why he reacted so strongly. "Astrophysicist" definitely qualifies, but they aren't the only possible expert.

There are very few engineers involved in designing gravimetric sensors, to say the least, so that would not be a very likely expert to stumble upon the scene.

It's quite simple in terms of determinate fact. He made a statement; you blew it out of proportion; he called you on it. The only dishonesty involved there was your exaggeration in the first place.

Hyperbole is not dishonesty, especially when the term "astrophysicist" can be used to describe a "scientist" who is an "accepted expert" on gravitons. (Somehow, I don't think undergrads count as accepted experts.)

My issue with what he said was the construct of "I'll also accept speculation from someone knowledgeable, but he must be a scientist and an accepted expert on gravitons, and he must not be an engineer" is nonsense if accepted at face value. The fact that he went into detail on requirements and made an exclusionary clause is very telling.

In fact, check this post out:

If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation.

A claim is no explanation and no argument.

He wants something that has been proven, or has solid evidence behind it. Not speculation. He then made another post immediately after:

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.

That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.

An engineer would not be such an expert.

But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

From this context, it's clear that "even" does not refer to including people (as he claimed it did in his later reply), but the only kind of person he'll accept speculation from: a "scientist" who is an "accepted expert" on gravitons.

From saying he made a mistake to saying he made two mistakes and didn't really mean for it to be taken that way.

He never said he made a second mistake. His response on being called on the inconsistency was this:

No, I had difficulties to unterstand you. Maybe, if you quote something, you should do it in a way that you are understandable.

So his story changed to "I didn't understand" when the contradiction was called out.

Also, what I had asked him was very understandable and I quoted him, using the same wording and phrasing he used, so as to be as understandable to him as possible.

Frankly, I thought it was common knowledge that radio telescopes detect and successfully resolve extraordinarily minute quantity of energies with high resolution - and depending on the precise snowflake, the amount of background radio noise, and the radio telescope involved, it's not too far from dead accurate.

Actually, he's way off. (As was your estimation. Check your math: intensity is reduced by the square of distance.)

A 3E-6 kg snowflake melting would absorb about 1 J.

With Mars being, at closest, 56,000,000,000 m, the reduced intensity would be 2.5E-23 J/m^2. The Effelsberg antenna's aperture is 7,854 m^2, so the reduction in energy received (assuming the energy radiated would have reached the antenna in the first place) by the antenna would be 2.0E-19 J.

That's nowhere near comparable to the energy of a snowflake hitting the ground. (1.5E-8 J or so by your estimate of 0.1 m/s.)

(A snowflake melting on the moon would show as a difference of 4E-15 J to the telescope, also not comparable to a snowflake hitting the ground.)

For the purpose of hyperbole - as I said, noise is a problem for radio telescopes, and since you weren't concerned with the precise numbers - Mars or Moon, does it really matter? - the claim was quite good enough for the purposes of the argument at hand.

He was using it as evidence for his claim. It was fallacious. And considering the differences between a radio telescope and a gravimeter, he's still way off.

Actually, it does talk about the specific capabilities of that particular array in some detail - from which you could have gathered the capabilities of the radio telescope and much ado about its fantastic resolution. You have to dig deep through the site, and it's hard to find the right bits if you don't understand German well enough to figure out how to navigate the site. Rude of him, yes, and condescending; however, he did provide you with a website containing evidence to substantiate what he was talking about.

The burden of proof was not on us to calculate the answer for him.

That sort of rude behavior would not be tolerated here, but AFAIK, SDN rules don't disallow condescending rudeness, nor did you invoke it in your explanation.

That's right, it's not against the rules. But when that's the attitude of someone who is breaking the rules, the Senate is not likely to be lenient.

[Who is like God arbour]

Please consider the context, in which "speculation" is used. I have not said, that Darth Wong, Mad or Surlethe have to be such a scientist. It would have been enough, if they would have shown me the speculation from such scientist [Argumentum ab Authoritate] and the reasons for its speculation.

You can't constantly second guess the existing facts just because there might be more there.

If you have three facts and don't know a fourth fact, you don't second guess the known facts.
If there is a fourth fact, you haven't considered, your conclusion could be wrong. Thats one reason, why there are paradigm shifts in natural science.

He tipped his hand with that "paradigm shift" bullshit. He's an anti-science moron.
Science improves its theories. The "paradigm shift" is nothing more than resentful bullshit promoted by Thomas Kuhn because he couldn't silence criticism of his ideas (even though that criticism rather ironically disproved his own case about the monolithic nature of science).

I haven't ever heard of a Thomas Kuhn and I don't know what he says.
But it is bullshit to claim, that I'm an anti-science moron.
Science does nothing. It is a concept. This concept has a given purpose: to gain knowledge and explain the world.
Scientist try to improves their theories.
For this they use among other things mathematic which is no science but a tool. A mathematical calculation, which is made error-free is a proof. There is no room for doubts or new facts. Another question would be, if the sum reflect reality.
Every scientist should be open-minded and constantly questions its own findings and that of its colleagues. He and its colleagues are only human and they can made mistakes.
If a scientist deliberately made a mistake or forge tests or try to prevent that new findings, which contradict his own findings and could be a danger to his reputation, get known, he is in this instant no scientist. He try to thwart the purpose of science.
That doesn't degrade science as a concept.
But your own behaviour disqualify you as scientist.
You are only someone, who has learned a lot and use your knowledge about procedures, which scientist uses too. In other words, you know a lot and can calculate a lot. But that doesn't made you a scientist.
You don't search trueness.
If you would, you would answer my questions and would deal with my arguments on a scientifical level.
But the only thing you do is ranting like moron, who has no arguments.

You know, I'm getting tired of the way you casually step around points and act as though you've answered them. I'm also getting tired of the way that your English gets WORSE as you have increasing trouble answering points, and I'm starting to suspect that your posts (which are approaching the point of being totally unreadable) are deliberately obfuscated in an attempt to disguise your total inability to understand the concepts under discussion.

The fact is that you clearly have no idea how any of the underlying science works, so you just make up bullshit as you go along and pretend that those who have far more knowledge than you shouldn't throw that in your face because science could be completely wrong.

Again, you haven't answered one single question and you have not made an attempt to make a own suggestion, which could explain the mentioned incidents.
As long as you don't do this, I have to assume, that you have no arguments but are a too pride to admit it.
[...]

[...] and act as though you've answered them. [...]

Please name a point, which I have allegedly not answered.
[...]

[...] pretend that [...] science could be completely wrong.

Don't you get it?
Science can't be wrong. Science is a concept.
The world can't be wrong.
Only findings could be wrong. Only scientists could make errors, unintentional and intentional too.
But as far as I know, in this discussion I have not doubt some findings.
I have not doubt scientifical theories.
Show me, where I have allegedly said, that a scientifical theory could be wrong to show, that my explanaition would be possible.
I have merely used the holes in the scientifical understanding of today.
And there are holes. [Especially regarding gravitation]
Sure, it could be possible, that new findings have created a new understanding and some of these holes are closed.
But than, you could tell me of these new findings and how these creat a new understanding of the world.
But you don't do this. You don't explain me my mistakes. You don't even show me, where are my mistakes.
All you do is ranting.

I have merely used the holes in the scientifical understanding of today. And there are holes. [Especially regarding gravitation]

Care to specifically and with careful detail elucidate these holes for us?

Care to specifically and with careful detail elucidate these holes for us?

You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles?
Do you ask me for an explaination, where our best scientists still don't have such an explanation?
Or do you deny, that there are many things about gravitation and graviton particles, which today isn't explainable.
If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation. A claim is no explanation and no argument.
[...]
I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.
That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.
An engineer would not be such an expert.
But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

You do know, that there are many open questions concerning gravitation and graviton particles?

Don't adduce a question when you have failed to answer a standing one.

Do you ask me for an explaination, where our best scientists still don't have such an explanation?

Are you illiterate? Of course I asked you for an explanation of your argument. You make the claim; you substantiate it.

Or do you deny, that there are many things about gravitation and graviton particles, which today isn't explainable.

I don't know what those things might be. Do you possess the expertise to instruct me?

If you claim, that I have ignored or overlooked a scientifical explanation, an explanation which is proved or evidenced and not only a speculation, you have to name it and have to explain, where my thoughts, as I have tried to explain these, infringe such an scientifical explanation. A claim is no explanation and no argument.

Where have I claimed anything? I merely asked you to support the claim you made.

I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects.
That person would have to be a scientist and would have to research this subject and must be an accepted expert on this subject.
An engineer would not be such an expert.
But even this person would have to try to explain the reasons for its speculation.

I like how this moron who doesn't understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate, or even how to perform simple calculations wants us to believe his speculation is possible, yet he will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons.
Hey, AVOGARDO, here's another English word for you to learn: hypocrite. The definition can be found by looking in a mirror.

You have failed again to show me, where are my alleged mistakes. That would be necessary to evidence that I don't >> understand anything about gravity, science in general, logic, debate [...] <<.
And I have said, that >> I would even accept a speculation from someone, who is very well versed in these subjects. <<
And you claim, that I have said, that I >> will only accept any kind speculation from an astrophysicist who has done research specific to gravitons. <<
Therewith it is official: You are a liar and a fraud.

[Who is like God arbour]

He was using it as evidence for his claim. It was fallacious. And considering the differences between a radio telescope and a gravimeter, he's still way off.

No, I was not. I doesn't even know the exact German technical term, let alone the exact English term. It is something like an example. But it has not to be absolut correct. Its purpose is to convey an idea.

That's why I have said too:

OK, maybe that wasn't the cleverst rhetoric. I thought that someone with a brian would be able to understand it. I was wrong. Maybe I had better said, that the telescope is able to hear a cough from a flea on Mars.

That's why I didn't wanted to dicuss this stupid thing further and have written:

I WILL NOT ANSWER OTHER QUESTIONS TO THIS MELTING SNOWFLAKE ANY MORE.

This doesn't deal with the original problem.

Even the question, which abilities has a radio telescope from today has nothing to do with the underlying problem.

And I have already said, that I hasn't meant it the way, some of you have unterstand it. If you don't believe me, that's your problem. Than, I think, that I can't do anything to convince you anyway.

But it would show, that you have no real interesst in a serious discussion. If you would have, you would concentrate on the real topic and not a minor problem which doesn't contribute to the main-problem.

And if you think, that I have made a mistake, pleaso do so. I'm not perfect and if you think so, I can life with it. But would be one mistake enough to denigrate all my other arguments?

[Alyeska]

I was having a single discussion in this thread and it has been split three or four times now. I am not going to bounce between forums for a single discussion. A natural byproduct of a large thread is that it will develop several tangents. Some of these might be technically off topic to the forum, but they are directly tied to the thread. This thread is more then sufficient to house those discussions. Whomever split the discussions has a lot to learn about moderating a forum.

[Nonamer]

I was having a single discussion in this thread and it has been split three or four times now. I am not going to bounce between forums for a single discussion. A natural byproduct of a large thread is that it will develop several tangents. Some of these might be technically off topic to the forum, but they are directly tied to the thread. This thread is more then sufficient to house those discussions. Whomever split the discussions has a lot to learn about moderating a forum.

So I guess that back in the vs. board, when all the ST and SW threads that had major ICS-debate tangents were closed or had bannings in them, it was due to a person who really needed to learn about moderating a forum, right?

[Alyeska]

I was having a single discussion in this thread and it has been split three or four times now. I am not going to bounce between forums for a single discussion. A natural byproduct of a large thread is that it will develop several tangents. Some of these might be technically off topic to the forum, but they are directly tied to the thread. This thread is more then sufficient to house those discussions. Whomever split the discussions has a lot to learn about moderating a forum.

So I guess that back in the vs. board, when all the ST and SW threads that had major ICS-debate tangents were closed or had bannings in them, it was due to a person who really needed to learn about moderating a forum, right?

It is clear that your sole intention right now is to cause trouble.

[Nonamer]

I was having a single discussion in this thread and it has been split three or four times now. I am not going to bounce between forums for a single discussion. A natural byproduct of a large thread is that it will develop several tangents. Some of these might be technically off topic to the forum, but they are directly tied to the thread. This thread is more then sufficient to house those discussions. Whomever split the discussions has a lot to learn about moderating a forum.

So I guess that back in the vs. board, when all the ST and SW threads that had major ICS-debate tangents were closed or had bannings in them, it was due to a person who really needed to learn about moderating a forum, right?

It is clear that your sole intention right now is to cause trouble.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Alyeska]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

You jump on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the previous discussions just to fire off a barb at me. You don't see me attacking every little thing you say.