User talk:Friendly neighbour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Space for your comments

Feel free to comment even (or especially) if you are Jeff Merkey, Gadugi or Waya sahoni (or even all three at the same time). Friendly neighbour 17:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Account to Block

I really think the admins are going to react to this account in the same way as they did to your previous one. You shouldn't create an account solely for the purpose of stalking another user, even a user who is violating their ban. — MediaMangler 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This account is not meant to stalk anyone but to focus the attention of the admins on blatant violations of a user ban. BTW, this account has not yet touched any page owned by any incarnation of Jeff Merkey. I only announced the change of my account because of the banned name on a page where User:Waya sahoni wanted me banned because of exposing him as banned User:Gadugi. Is it really stalking? BTW, I announced it on one talk page and in a few minutes I have you on my back. Congratulations on fast work. Now maybe you'll concentrate on users banned because of what they wrote, not because of the name they used. Or maybe not. I can dream, can't I? Friendly neighbour 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Chill! You will find my account listed on User:Waya sahoni. I didn't get there by ignoring his behavior. As for my "fast work", if you check the talk page at your old account, you will see that it was actually slow work. I happened to be editing a comment for your talk page almost simultaneously with your block. Only after I saved that edit did I see your announcement on a page that I have on my watchlist. — MediaMangler 18:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Could you give me your definition of stalking? I'm not aware of any that I did. Please check my history under both account names User:Sue me Jeff and User:Friendly neighbour. Except of the first user name (stupid I admit) chosen very quickly and impossible to change later (as far as I know), I did not break knowingly any Wikipedia rules. Adding a warning against a suspected socket puppet (taken from the Wikipedia pages and meant to be used on the suspected user's page!) can't be against the rules, can it? I would prefer to know your opinion before I try to revert the warning on Waya sahoni's page. If I am not allowed to do so, who can and whom can I ask person to do something against blatant violations of Wikipedia rules. Friendly neighbour 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The definition used by the admins is what should concern you, not mine. I'm pretty much a newbie here myself. Merkey has claimed that my own user page indicates that I'm stalking him. I certainly don't think that is true and I hope the admins agree. I've been involved in fighting other vandals besides Merkey. — MediaMangler 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
So you basically say that you have no idea why you had inserted a section named "Another Account to Block" to my talk page? OK, thank you very much for your effort. Friendly neighbour 18:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erm

Whoever you are, could you please stop this. Getting yourself banned for stalking The Toadlicking One is only encouraging him. You know what he's like. If he thinks anyone, particularly someone in a nominal position of authority, is on his side on subject X then , he takes that to mean they agree with him on everything he says. Witness Gadugi's fervent asslicking of Jimbo Wales, for example. If you start *forcing* admin types to act in favour of Jeff, you're just making things more difficult for the rest of us. --Aim Here 00:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thestic evolution and personal attacks

First of all i was way outta line, for that i apologize. I read some comment you made, went on to your userpage on which the christian box and the big bang box sprung immeditaley into my eye. Now, reivisting the page and seeing them all and for what the are (some humorously) - i should have read the first one instead "this user is harmless" and skipped my venting. You most certainly are not a pseudo-scientist or a creationist, i will just delete my post as it has no merit. As for the "benedict" remark, i fully stand to that (forgot to sign). I am just pointing out interesting connections, and let each on his own decide whether he finds them worthy to follow up or not. As science isn`t all done by computers there is always a political component to every and each "single page of science" that will ever be eternalized in history. Nonetheless how is it even possible to have believes based on anything but science as a scientist? (serious question and not meant offending in any way, seriously not!)Slicky 15:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LQG Preons

I came back to fix the preon link and seen you had already done it. thanks. I figured out it wasn't picking up the plural form. there you see, the preons make a comeback. I remeber you saying there hadn't been a preon article in years. Best Wishes. Will314159 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] preon

hi freindly i made an edit on the preon entry. i basically ported over your LQG entry. have a look-see. Best Wishes Will314159 22:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your "work" on LQG

See User:Sdedeo#Wikipedia_and_the_problem_of_expert_knowledge. Sdedeo (tips) 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this fight has absolutely ruined my day

I'm sorry, this fight has absolutely ruined my day. I have never had such a bad time talking about physics in my life. I am completely depressed and am almost in tears. I bear much of the responsibility for this given my uncollegial tone. I would never talk to colleagues like this. It just got out of hand, and I am sorry for it.

While I really don't want to continue as part of the wikipedia project anymore, you guys -- for all that I think your beliefs about Lorentz violation and loop quantum gravity are incorrect -- seem like nice people. I have presented, as far as I am able, arguments to support my edit. Both you guys (and I'm going to guess we're all guys here) have read them, as I have read what you have written.

I would like to suggest we let this matter drop. In addition, I would like to suggest that we delete the entire discussion we have had to this point. Nobody other than us is going to read through it, and interspersed with actual physics talk is just a huge amount of bile, most of which is due to me and which is really upsetting me now. I have edited my User page to remove all discussion of this. Please let me know if you agree with this by signing your name on the LQG talk page. The third person to sign should go ahead and delete (or archive, if you really must.)

Sdedeo (tips) 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loop quantum gravity

Dear "Friendly Neighbor",

thanks for your message on my talk page. I am convinced that I have followed the recent discussions on the loop quantum gravity pages carefully enough to know that you were an important but not the only person who caused the troubles to Sdedeo.

Your opinions that the Lorentz invariance not only can be broken but even should be broken in realistic theories indicate that it could be extremely hard to make any reasonable discussions with you because the people who deny the basic results of special relativity simply are cranks, whether or not you and the author(s) of the two "papers" you cite are one of them.

The Lorentz invariance has been proven for 100 years in many high-precision experiment, no violation is known as of 2006, and every realistic theory must have an explanation for this symmetry whose hypothetical breaking must be extremely tiny. Also, all discrete approaches to quantum gravity are guaranteed to break the Lorentz invariance and this breaking can never be suppressed by a small parameter. Please don't view this comment of mine as a challenge for new discussions because I certainly don't want to participate in such further discusssions.

Also, I think it is annoying that you are monitoring personal talk pages for discussions that are not your business.

Best regards Lubos --Lumidek 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lorentz violation

Dear Friendly neighbor,

you probably enjoy these problematic discussions on your talk page, so let's move it here. The paper of Jacobson et al. doesn't say anything that would be too irritating for physicists.

Of course that people study possible violation of Lorentz symmetry - parameterized by explicit LV terms (Glashow Coleman type of stuff) or spontaneous violation such as B-field in string theory that also breaks the rotational symmetry. I don't think that this is a terribly well motivated modification of the theories, but it is definitely a physically plausible one that satisfies basic consistency rules.

But in both of these cases, the Lorentz violation is an addition to a Lorentz symmetric theory that can be sent to zero.

In physics of quantum gravity, more rigorously, the Lorentz local symmetry can't really be spontaneously broken because it is a part of the local diffeomorphism symmetry which is a gauge symmetry and gauge symmetries can't ever be broken. The symmetry is just realized non-linearly which essentially means that the operators are dressed with the B-field etc.

I am just saying that a theory with local degrees of freedom and discrete spacetime inevitably breaks the Lorentz symmetry "maximally", and can't be used as a good starting point that preserves the Lorentz symmetry.

The Oriti Livine paper doesn't discuss loop quantum gravity but a toy model in 3D. 3D gravity has no local degrees of freedom. It's a theory of a topological nature. In topological theories, of course, my argument breaks down. Vafa et al. quantum foam is the best example of a discrete spacetime in a topological setup - A-model. In a non-topological theory, this can't work. A discrete vacuum inevitably has an entropy density - just like any kind of aether - and the entropy density is the time-component of a four-vector that breaks the Lorentz symmetry. For quantum gravity, the entropy density from a Planckian aether is Planckian, giving rise to the maximum possible Lorentz violation.

I feel that you are just confused by the politeness of most physicists who wouldn't publish explicit papers saying that these discrete models are wrong - because of their suppression of symmetries and other reasons. But be sure that the reason why people don't work on these things as much as they work e.g. on string theories is that they believe that they don't lead to realistic or interesting physics.

Best Lubos --Lumidek 01:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Proto-Germanic language, Proto-Greek language and Proto-Indo-Iranian language

F:You reverted me on all three articles adding again that the languages are "reconstructed" and "hypothetical". None of them is reconstructed.

N: Look up the definition.

  • F: The usage of the word reflect probably your poor grasp of English (I do not believe you claim they are actually reconstructed). Also, none of them is actually [[hypothetical. They are defined as the (last) common ancestors of the relevant language groups. Unless you claim the language groups are not related, you cannot say the ancestor is hypothetical. It's assumed and largely unknown but not hypothetical. There must have been a common ancestor if we believe the langiuage are related. If you know you are related to somebody your common ancestor may be unknown but (s)he is not hypothetical. Do you agree?
  • N: no . I hope added highlight is self explanatory. You should recognize facts and concepts. The protolanguage words are marked in linguistic community by * to make it clear that those words are not recorded. Are only conceptually reconstructed forms.
  • N: Also look at you logic:
  • F: There must have been a common ancestor if we believe the language are related.
  • N: “Hypothesis A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon or reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. Hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". Scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. “< unless we find it out in recorded form proto-words are *
  • F: I changed all three definitions removing your adjectives and adding - as a compromise - the word "assumed". I compared our usage with two other English language encyclopedias (Brittanica and Encarta). One of them never adds any adjectives to descriptions of proto languages, the other sometimes adds "assumed" but most of the time does not. Therefore, let it be assumed - as a compromise I can reluctantly stand.
  • I am worried that I need to spend hours researching your edits only to learn the are based or nothing (which I suspected from the very beginning).
  • N: ) i spend a yers.

Please help us all and do your research yourself before editing. Also try to spellcheck your edits, especially those on the article pages.

Again, if you choose to respond, do it here and not on my Talk page. And please, do not delete warnings from your Talk page - this is not believed by the Wikipedia community to be polite. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

N: thanks for firm standing on your believes. Plz read yourself. It is hard to argue and perhaps not ethical to discuss believes but it is you who approaching subject by un-scientific way. Nasz 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/i/User_talk%7EFriendly_neighbour_ecb8.html"