Well then you missed the series of posts (the last few) that begin with:
“Well, I know that I said I would be back in a few months after learning more, but that will not be necessary. I have already learned enough to complete my analysis of Configurations and Amplitudes.
So today I wrote up a brief response based on what I currently understand about Double Slit and Half Silvered Mirror Experiments. Here it is in several posts.
What’s the matter?”
BTW, the post I was talking about was 13 sentences. I don’t know which one you are referring to. Anyways, try to respond to content not style. See if you can exterminate any of my posts, Bugmaster. I welcome it, as I’m here to learn, not defend some sort of belief system.
Your posts are very hard to read in this cascading thread format. If you formatted them as a top-level Discussion article, they’d be easier to absorb.
Your writing is rambling and disorganized. If you organized your words into blocks of several paragraphs each, with proper headings that follow a logical outline, then your point would be easier to grasp.
Your tone in general is very aggressive. You keep saying stuff like “do this !” and “don’t do that !”, but you’re not the boss of me. There’s nothing wrong with an aggressive tone per se, but it’s much easier to swallow when it’s backed up by some unimpeachable reasoning and evidence—of which you offer very little. Well, perhaps you do offer some, but I didn’t see it, because your posts are so hard to read (as per the previous two bullet points).
Thanx, Bugmaster for splainin your thumbs. It is appreciated. The cascading thread format is not my choice, I much prefer SMF over the blog post style, but that’s what we have to work with. You post and I respond, hence cascading posts.
My writing has been consistent throughout and very organized, which you would know had you taken the time to read them. It took all the posts up until today to get folks to discuss my primary concern (from post one) defining key terms, because it is other members trying to divert the subject matter which is the experiment is flawed because the key terms are not defined or are inconsistent.
The aggressive tone is partially my style but partially stems from others accusing me of being a troll, thumbing me without explanation and refusing to stay on topic. No one has offered a single challenge to my content.
I do not know what you are referring to when you say that I am telling you to do this or not do that, but would like to point out that I was told by one member that I just don’t get it, and that I needed to read such and such if I was going to get any further discussion. I have complied with these demands and have read through dozens of EY’s posts. In fact, you’ll notice that I used quite a bit of his own words to illustrate some of the things that am trying to get across.
In stead of dealing with the issues that I have brought up, I get posts like the ones you are making dealing with style not content. It is your choice to read or not read what I am saying. I am not tied emotionally into the outcome at all, I came to learn about the half-silver mirror experiment and how it is related to SR, GR and QM. I originally thot this was a physics forum because of the topic. Now here you are telling me “You’re not the boss of me” and at the same time telling me how to compose my posts, so that you will read them. How about some counterarguments instead?
OK, I answered every single post addressed to me. I have done this since the beginning nearly one month ago. I have been honest, open and direct. I have tried to understand the community and I have done my best to respond with as much detail as needed to answer the issues raised.
No one has responded in kind. Therefore, Monday I will be back. If anyone needs clarification on anything that I have said, I will respond. Be prepared to answer my questions and address the issues I have raised by relating it directly to the OP (configurations & amplitudes). Otherwise I am done with this thread.
NOTE: the primary issue is defining the key terms related to the OP and dealing with the propagation of light as a particle/wave.
Well then you missed the series of posts (the last few) that begin with:
“Well, I know that I said I would be back in a few months after learning more, but that will not be necessary. I have already learned enough to complete my analysis of Configurations and Amplitudes.
So today I wrote up a brief response based on what I currently understand about Double Slit and Half Silvered Mirror Experiments. Here it is in several posts.
What’s the matter?”
BTW, the post I was talking about was 13 sentences. I don’t know which one you are referring to. Anyways, try to respond to content not style. See if you can exterminate any of my posts, Bugmaster. I welcome it, as I’m here to learn, not defend some sort of belief system.
Once again, I downvoted you because:
Your posts are very hard to read in this cascading thread format. If you formatted them as a top-level Discussion article, they’d be easier to absorb.
Your writing is rambling and disorganized. If you organized your words into blocks of several paragraphs each, with proper headings that follow a logical outline, then your point would be easier to grasp.
Your tone in general is very aggressive. You keep saying stuff like “do this !” and “don’t do that !”, but you’re not the boss of me. There’s nothing wrong with an aggressive tone per se, but it’s much easier to swallow when it’s backed up by some unimpeachable reasoning and evidence—of which you offer very little. Well, perhaps you do offer some, but I didn’t see it, because your posts are so hard to read (as per the previous two bullet points).
Thanx, Bugmaster for splainin your thumbs. It is appreciated. The cascading thread format is not my choice, I much prefer SMF over the blog post style, but that’s what we have to work with. You post and I respond, hence cascading posts.
My writing has been consistent throughout and very organized, which you would know had you taken the time to read them. It took all the posts up until today to get folks to discuss my primary concern (from post one) defining key terms, because it is other members trying to divert the subject matter which is the experiment is flawed because the key terms are not defined or are inconsistent.
The aggressive tone is partially my style but partially stems from others accusing me of being a troll, thumbing me without explanation and refusing to stay on topic. No one has offered a single challenge to my content.
I do not know what you are referring to when you say that I am telling you to do this or not do that, but would like to point out that I was told by one member that I just don’t get it, and that I needed to read such and such if I was going to get any further discussion. I have complied with these demands and have read through dozens of EY’s posts. In fact, you’ll notice that I used quite a bit of his own words to illustrate some of the things that am trying to get across.
In stead of dealing with the issues that I have brought up, I get posts like the ones you are making dealing with style not content. It is your choice to read or not read what I am saying. I am not tied emotionally into the outcome at all, I came to learn about the half-silver mirror experiment and how it is related to SR, GR and QM. I originally thot this was a physics forum because of the topic. Now here you are telling me “You’re not the boss of me” and at the same time telling me how to compose my posts, so that you will read them. How about some counterarguments instead?
OK, I answered every single post addressed to me. I have done this since the beginning nearly one month ago. I have been honest, open and direct. I have tried to understand the community and I have done my best to respond with as much detail as needed to answer the issues raised.
No one has responded in kind. Therefore, Monday I will be back. If anyone needs clarification on anything that I have said, I will respond. Be prepared to answer my questions and address the issues I have raised by relating it directly to the OP (configurations & amplitudes). Otherwise I am done with this thread.
NOTE: the primary issue is defining the key terms related to the OP and dealing with the propagation of light as a particle/wave.