An honest mistake? Alphanumeric, you try and put other people down for mistakes, but you seem to think it justified that any you make are honest while no one elses are? Yes you are a drama queen and no, I did not make lengthly mistakes. Making lengtly posts to make a rebuttal of (which you do all the time) does not contitute a lengthly mistake. My mistake(s) one or two, were not at all lengthly. Anyone going back to the post were I corrected them will see this for themselves.
Even you said it yourself --- you ''explained at length,''does not mean my mistake was lenghtly. Take the matrix example. I copied the alpha matrix and forgot to change the compartment. Instead of saying my numbers were wrong in it, you went out your way to post a superfluous load of information.
How many times do you need this explained to you? There's a difference between making an accidental slip up on something you know compared to completely mangling something you are copying from elsewhere and passing off as your own understanding. I did the former once, you did the latter for ..... years. I didn't say your mistakes were lengthy, I said my posts explaining the proper physics was lengthy, ie I demonstrated a working understanding, something you have utterly failed to do. The other reason my posts correcting you are lengthy is that you make lots of mistakes. Repeatedly. Every time you post a post with lots of mathematics my responses are very long because I can go line by line pointing out error after error. Like here or here or here or here or here or here. And that's just a sample from 2 recent threads. The error I made was somewhere in one of those posts, in a post where I demonstrated I understand this mathematical physics. Clearly I know frequency is not a vector, it was an innocent mistake. However, your repeated and compounded mistakes demonstrate your errors weren't innocent, you completely misrepresent your knowledge. So this continued "Oh you make mistakes too!" thing is yet another attempt to avoid facing up to your dishonesty. I'm not misrepresenting myself. I'm not holding you to a standard I don't hold myself or anyone else to. I'm not being hypocritical because I'm not being dishonest about my knowledge, you are. I give you plenty of opportunities to step up to demonstrate understanding. I even comment "You've written something incorrectly there...." to give you a chance but you usually fail to spot your mistakes because you don't understand the equations you've copied from somewhere. No, as the links I just posted show, you did a lot more than that. It's really a bad sign if you have to lie to me about conversations I've had with you.
And how did I not demonstrate a working understanding of the physics? You give me such little credit, you are actually failing to point out that I knew were the error lay. You went onto a massive speil which was totally not required!!!! A simple, your matrix is wrong, check your entries would have sufficed. But oh no, you go into long-winded explanations of why it doesn't work, which does not mean I made any terrible misunderstanding, only that my matrix had been copied from the alpha matrix and had not been checked. This don't mean I did not understand what was wrong. In fact I even found the error! Best part is, you didn't even seem to realize it was only the beta matrix which had an error. When you first said this, you said the alpha and beta matrices were incorrect. Well, actually, it was only the beta matrix that was incorrect, for the same reasons as I have explained loads of time's now. That is what you call an honest mistake. You tried to dress it in all sorts of dishonest acts, as per usually. I made an accidental slip up by not changing the entires in the alpha matrix. I would have if it hadn't slipped my mind... god knows why I hadn't. Maybe I went to make a cup of tea when I copied it, came back and not realized, continued without changing it. But if mine was not an honest mistake, then niether was yours!
And why the fuck are you mentioning the energy thread here? I know you are trying to make a point AN, but for the word ''go'' I told even James himself not to take the equation seriously. THAT I FIND DISHONEST FROM YOU!
Also, you're a bit stupid sometimes. You choose, in the second link, work which you have royally messed up. Why choose that? omega is not a vector, it is a scalar. It is energy. Yea, an honest mistake you say. More like you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about when you were writing it. That much is clear.
No, it was a single slip up which didn't alter any of what I was correcting you on. You were still adding vectors and scalars, just rather than 2 vectors + scalar you have vector + 2 scalars. Obviously you didn't understand what I said or the depths of your mistakes. I think it would be a little silly for someone to claim I don't know how to Fourier transform or that the coefficient of t in the Fourier kernel is a scalar. The fact I discussed the Dirac equation at length, never mind having formal qualifications, research and a job pertaining to this stuff, demonstrates that it was an honest mistake. You, on the other hand, have none of those things and cannot discuss these things in any manner other than to copy/edit YouTube videos and other sources. Your discussion with James shows that. Ask yourself who you think you're convincing. Do you honestly think I don't know \(\omega\) is a scalar? Look at the thread where I made that slip up, it's got plenty of posts of mine where I discuss, in my own words off the top of my head, the specifics of the Dirac equation. I've been showing I have working understanding of this stuff for years. I have plenty of letters after my name because I can do this stuff. So attempting to portray it as if I don't know how to do Fourier transforms or work with the Dirac equation is just laughable. You're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. If you really want to stand up to my accusations you're a dishonest hack then why don't you ever answer direct questions I ask you? Why do you always run from them? You obviously have the time to reply to other people, people who you think you can deceive, so you don't have that as an excuse. It was clear from your discussion with James you were copying the equations Susskind wrote down. You even told me to watch the YouTube video you linked to and all of the equations you'd written down were there, right down to the poor notational conventions! It was clear from the discussion about matrix = number you were parroting Susskind again. You claimed to be knowledgeable in the Dirac equation but you don't know its motivation. You didn't even know basic properties of Lagrangians. That is how you demonstrate you don't have a working understanding. If you don't know potentials are not functions of \(\dot{q}\) then you've never worked with Lagrangians. So that means you've never done any workings with quantum field theory (which includes the Dirac equation) or general relativity, since they all start with such principles and move on. You undermine yourself because you don't know which areas of mathematical physics depend on which other areas. I wanted to make it clear to everyone else reading you had demonstrated you didn't understand a fundamental part of the Dirac equation, something which was essential to its construction. You just aren't getting it, are you? If you'd actually been working through the algebra yourself, rather than just copy/mangling it you'd have seen all these fundamental errors because none of the required behaviour of the equation would have worked. You also made serious errors about how the coefficients of the equation behave, a common error with people who don't understand matrix operations. You did a lot more than that. You do realise I linked to the posts right? People can read them for themselves and see I list a hell of a lot more errors than just that. And all of this simply from the fact you can't admit your knowledge is nowhere near where you attempt to portray it to be. Not knowing about Lagrangians shuts off pretty much all later undergraduate and postgraduate theoretical physics in some way, yet you claim to be knowledgeable in areas of both quantum field theory and general relativity. Your continued refusal to be honest about all of this does you no favours. Remember how you once claimed to be doing general relativity, specifically Riemannian curvature, at your pre-university community college? Can you at least admit that was a lie? It's clear it was, no pre-university college anywhere in the UK, including in Scotland, teaches such a thing. Of course you know that but at the time you simply flat out lied. Can you at least be mature enough to admit to that lie now? Clearly this discussion isn't going to go any further. People have the links to read themselves, they can see how all of the equations you posted for James were from the YouTube video, they can see the lengthy explanations and lists of your errors I give. Attempting to avoid facing up to pages of mistakes by saying "OMG, you're not perfect either!" is laughable but I guess that's all you can do, seeing as you're incapable of stepping up and answering simple relevant questions, seeing as Susskind doesn't provide you the answers in the video.
No, you're not getting it. Everyone can see you a hypocrite, that you have made a stupid mistake which you should reflect on. My mistake was just as innocent. In fact, anyone can read it for themselves. I don't need to prove anything. In fact, I did prove myself by correcting the mistake.
You use the singular 'mistake' when, as the links show, it was not an isolated case in the thread nor was the thread an isolated case. As I said, trying to put your systemic and fundamental errors on a par with a single slip up of mine is dishonest and laughable. And while you say "I don't need to prove anything" you obviously want to try to, desperately. Else you'd not have been making such threads for years and years.
Sorry... it is a BIG DEAL when your finished on it, because that is the way you like to shine the light on me.
