# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: force limit =  (Read 2300 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### force limit =
« on: 16/06/2015 18:48:00 »
Fl=mc˛

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''

« Last Edit: 16/06/2015 19:11:01 by Thebox »

#### jerrygg38

• Hero Member
• Posts: 781
• Thanked: 27 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #1 on: 16/06/2015 22:56:51 »
Your force equation is an energy. I do not know what you are trying to present.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #2 on: 17/06/2015 03:58:35 »
Quote from: Thebox
Fl=mc˛

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''
None of that makes any sense. TB - Please listen to what I'm about to write and always remember it because its the most important thing you'll ever need to know when writing about physics. When you write down and equation you need to state what its all about. Merely writing down a mathematical expression means nothing to us. For example; you wrote Fl=mc˛. If instead you wrote E = mc˛ and didn't say anything then its typical to assume that everyone knows what it is due to the popularity of the expression. But when you write Fl=mc˛ all bets are off because we don't know what FI is and as such the right hand side can't b e assumed to mean anything. If it is supposed to be energy then why didn't you write down E = Fl. In any case we don't know what F is and we don't know what l is. You have to define your terms.

Then when you said "added model -" again this is meaningless as is what followed that.

Please explain step by step what it all meant and even more important, at least for me, explain why you think that everyone would know what you meant by it all?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #3 on: 17/06/2015 18:17:06 »
Quote from: Thebox
Fl=mc˛

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''
None of that makes any sense. TB - Please listen to what I'm about to write and always remember it because its the most important thing you'll ever need to know when writing about physics. When you write down and equation you need to state what its all about. Merely writing down a mathematical expression means nothing to us. For example; you wrote Fl=mc˛. If instead you wrote E = mc˛ and didn't say anything then its typical to assume that everyone knows what it is due to the popularity of the expression. But when you write Fl=mc˛ all bets are off because we don't know what FI is and as such the right hand side can't b e assumed to mean anything. If it is supposed to be energy then why didn't you write down E = Fl. In any case we don't know what F is and we don't know what l is. You have to define your terms.

Then when you said "added model -" again this is meaningless as is what followed that.

Please explain step by step what it all meant and even more important, at least for me, explain why you think that everyone would know what you meant by it all?

My title explains what Fl means,  force limit .
I am simply saying that mc˛ does not equal energy it equals force.
If I recall correctly E=mc˛ explained in relativity shows a single Photon making surface contact at ''c'' with the sides of a box.   The force of impact accelerates the box.
A Photon is more likely to be absorbed by the box or pass through it.
but in either instant it is force and not energy.
Hence the maximum limit of force is mc˛,
« Last Edit: 17/06/2015 18:19:17 by Thebox »

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #4 on: 17/06/2015 21:59:52 »
Quote from: Thebox
My title explains what Fl means,  force limit .
That was anything but clear.

Quote from: Thebox
I am simply saying that mc˛ does not equal energy it equals force.
You're extremely wrong. There's no reason to make such an assertion and every reason to think otherwise. I know since I've used that expression countless times and have derived it too.

Quote from: Thebox
If I recall correctly E=mc˛ explained in relativity shows a single Photon making surface contact at ''c'' with the sides of a box.   The force of impact accelerates the box.
That's incorrect. In Einstein's first derivation he had a object emit radiation of equal amounts in opposite directions in the rest frame of the object. The object had to remain at rest in that frame otherwise momentum wouldn't be conserved. In any case that is merely one way to arrive at that expression. There are plenty of other ways.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4696
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #5 on: 18/06/2015 07:59:06 »
You really need to understand dimensional analysis before proposing or discussing any physical principle.

http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE1400/Section5/dimensional_analysis.htm
is a neat summary that will introduce you to the way big boys talk about science.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #6 on: 18/06/2015 18:45:00 »
You really need to understand dimensional analysis before proposing or discussing any physical principle.

http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE1400/Section5/dimensional_analysis.htm
is a neat summary that will introduce you to the way big boys talk about science.

Thank you for the great link Alan, can you tell me please what is the dimension of space itself ?

based on infinite

and based on finite,

any answer to the second one of finite, I will assume a flat earth theory.

Because the fact is that ''dimensions'' are arbitrary , a shape is simply what we want to call it, but it is not meaningful.

And sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.

« Last Edit: 18/06/2015 18:51:27 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #7 on: 18/06/2015 21:00:05 »

That's incorrect. In Einstein's first derivation he had a object emit radiation of equal amounts in opposite directions in the rest frame of the object. The object had to remain at rest in that frame otherwise momentum wouldn't be conserved. In any case that is merely one way to arrive at that expression. There are plenty of other ways.

Isotropic energy  from the observer is emitted that follows the inverse square law and degrades in strength at distance, circumference expansion spreading the intensity making it to become ''thinner'', and a weaker intensity.  The energy becomes so redshifted , matter vanishes beyond observation unable to reflect light in a spectrum we can observe.
I miss the context of how this is related to E=mc˛?
No object remains at rest , every object is in motion, momentum P=Ke, because gravity does the opposite of Ke, and gravity drains Ke from an object.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2015 21:01:51 by Thebox »

#### chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1867
• Thanked: 143 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #8 on: 19/06/2015 05:33:17 »

Because the fact is that ''dimensions'' are arbitrary , a shape is simply what we want to call it, but it is not meaningful.

And sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.

dimensional analysis is VERY relevant to this thread. when we refer to dimensions here, it's not just 2D vs 3D, it's the "units" that are associated with any number presented in an equation.

m*c2 has units of kg*m2*s–2, which happens to be units of energy (1 J = 1 kg*m2*s–2)

that's why it makes sense to say the formula provides an energy.

force has units (dimensions) of kg*m*s–2, so you need to somehow lose a factor of distance (m) in your formula for it to refer to a force.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3905
• Thanked: 52 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #9 on: 19/06/2015 08:48:09 »
You can sometimes derive equivalent values from equations but the units are wrong. This renders the results invalid. I would urge anyone interested in physics to understand dimensional analysis before making any assumptions. You cannot understand the significance of the values obtained by an equation unless you understand the units involved and why they are used.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #10 on: 19/06/2015 10:09:43 »
Quote from: Thebox
Thank you for the great link Alan, can you tell me please what is the dimension of space itself ?
You're kidding, right? Everyone knows that the dimension of space is 3. Do you know why? It's because it takes exactly three numbers to specify where a point is in space.

Quote from: Thebox
any answer to the second one of finite, I will assume a flat earth theory.
You're quite wrong on that. You don't seem to know that there are two different meanings of the term dimension. See:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimensions
Quote
1 a  (1) :  measure in one direction; specifically :  one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time  (2) :  one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space) <the surface of a sphere has two dimensions>; also :  a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property <the three dimensions of momentum>  (3) :  the number of elements in a basis of a vector space
....

3:  any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based; also :  the power of such a unit

Now see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dimensional_analysis
Quote
Dimensional analysis

In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their fundamental dimensions (such as length, mass, time, and electric charge) and units of measure (such as miles vs. kilometers, or pounds vs. kilograms vs. grams) and tracking these dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. Converting from one dimensional unit to another is often somewhat complex.
Let's do a dimensional analysis on Newton's second law, i.e. F = ma. Force has dimensions of Nektons where 1 Newton is defined as 1 kg*m/s2. This follows from the following facts: Mass has units of kilograms, which we express as [kg]. Acceleration has units of meters per second squared, which we express as [m/s2 it therefore follows that

F = ma = [kg][m/s2]

That's what dimensional analysis is all about.

Quote from: Thebox
And sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.
It came from the fact that Fl = mc2 is dimensionally incorrect. The left side has dimensions of Newton's, i.e. kg*m/s2, whereas the right hand side has dimensions of mass times velocity squared over time squared, i.e. [kg][m2]/[s2. Your equation therefore reads

kg*m/s2 = [kg][m2]/[s2]

which is incorrect. Then again you never really defined what Fl = "force limit" is supposed to mean. Somehow, somewhere you got the idea that you can write down math equations and have them mean something. In your case you wrote

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''

The statement 1kg at ''c'' has no meaning. And there is no such thing as "impact force maximum limit". There is no bound of the magnitude of any force. What is it that you claim that the dimensions of "Fl" are?

What really bothers me about the threads that you've been starting lately is that it makes it appear as if you've fallen back into your old routine. I really thought that we were making progress with you but I can see how wrong I was. Not only are you full of yourself but you appear to be grabbing symbols or formulas at random and combining them with total lack of logic as you have done here. There is a complete lack of logic in your posts. E.g.
Quote
Fl=mc˛

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''
has no meaning whatsoever. I'm very very disturbed by the way you're sliding back to your old ways.
« Last Edit: 19/06/2015 10:16:06 by PmbPhy »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #11 on: 20/06/2015 09:54:04 »
Quote from: Thebox
Thank you for the great link Alan, can you tell me please what is the dimension of space itself ?
You're kidding, right? Everyone knows that the dimension of space is 3. Do you know why? It's because it takes exactly three numbers to specify where a point is in space.

Quote from: Thebox
any answer to the second one of finite, I will assume a flat earth theory.
You're quite wrong on that. You don't seem to know that there are two different meanings of the term dimension. See:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimensions
Quote
1 a  (1) :  measure in one direction; specifically :  one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time  (2) :  one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (as an aggregate of points in real or abstract space) <the surface of a sphere has two dimensions>; also :  a parameter or coordinate variable assigned to such a property <the three dimensions of momentum>  (3) :  the number of elements in a basis of a vector space
....

3:  any of the fundamental units (as of mass, length, or time) on which a derived unit is based; also :  the power of such a unit

Now see: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Dimensional_analysis
Quote
Dimensional analysis

In engineering and science, dimensional analysis is the analysis of the relationships between different physical quantities by identifying their fundamental dimensions (such as length, mass, time, and electric charge) and units of measure (such as miles vs. kilometers, or pounds vs. kilograms vs. grams) and tracking these dimensions as calculations or comparisons are performed. Converting from one dimensional unit to another is often somewhat complex.
Let's do a dimensional analysis on Newton's second law, i.e. F = ma. Force has dimensions of Nektons where 1 Newton is defined as 1 kg*m/s2. This follows from the following facts: Mass has units of kilograms, which we express as [kg]. Acceleration has units of meters per second squared, which we express as [m/s2 it therefore follows that

F = ma = [kg][m/s2]

That's what dimensional analysis is all about.

Quote from: Thebox
And sorry Alan i do not know where that came from relevant to thread.
It came from the fact that Fl = mc2 is dimensionally incorrect. The left side has dimensions of Newton's, i.e. kg*m/s2, whereas the right hand side has dimensions of mass times velocity squared over time squared, i.e. [kg][m2]/[s2. Your equation therefore reads

kg*m/s2 = [kg][m2]/[s2]

which is incorrect. Then again you never really defined what Fl = "force limit" is supposed to mean. Somehow, somewhere you got the idea that you can write down math equations and have them mean something. In your case you wrote

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''

The statement 1kg at ''c'' has no meaning. And there is no such thing as "impact force maximum limit". There is no bound of the magnitude of any force. What is it that you claim that the dimensions of "Fl" are?

What really bothers me about the threads that you've been starting lately is that it makes it appear as if you've fallen back into your old routine. I really thought that we were making progress with you but I can see how wrong I was. Not only are you full of yourself but you appear to be grabbing symbols or formulas at random and combining them with total lack of logic as you have done here. There is a complete lack of logic in your posts. E.g.
Quote
Fl=mc˛

1kg at ''c'' >>>>>>>>>>>impact force maximum limit<<<<<<<<<<<1kg at ''c''
has no meaning whatsoever. I'm very very disturbed by the way you're sliding back to your old ways.
I am not slipping into any ways, I have not changed from day one, I am practising and your answers always learn me new things.  I am getting better and better by learning more.

1kg represents a mass, mass colliding into mass equals a force at any speed, hence F=ma, and F=impact of two masses, Energy is not related to force, although an impact produces energy, energy is a product of force , energy is in matter, energy is in space, a single particle in void still has energy, m=E,

E=?

Energy has nothing to do with speed, energy exists without speed so c is irrelevant.

And also not a single science forum has explained what E=mc˛ is even relevant to, in nuclear process the deuterium reacts with the plutonium producing E.  E=reaction no speed involved.

My ears are not death . I listen and learn, I am objective, but if science isn't making sense to me, then there is simply something up with it.

d= ∞ from any dependent observation, isotropic in nature, a length of  ∞ we define with units of measurement, we dimensional   ∞ , a box in space is no different to an horoscope and shapes of stars.

« Last Edit: 20/06/2015 10:01:37 by Thebox »

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1906
• Thanked: 122 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #12 on: 20/06/2015 10:35:29 »

I am not slipping into any ways, I have not changed from day one, I am practising and your answers always learn me new things.  I am getting better and better by learning more.

........., m=E,
Well, you haven't learnt about units and dimensional analysis if you think m=E

Energy has nothing to do with speed ....

So, you are saying kinetic energy does not exist! That's illogical.

When  PmbPhy says you are slipping into your old ways, he probably means this stringing together of irrational groups of formula and concepts resulting in meaningless and incomprehensible posts.

Come on, you are capable of much better than this.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #13 on: 20/06/2015 11:49:30 »
Quote from: Thebox
Energy is not related to force,...
Wrong. In fact a large number of physics textbooks define energy as the ability to do work where work is force times distance. If you do work on an object then its kinetic energy will increase. The same work is proportional to the change in kinetic energy. This means that the sum of kinetic and potential energy is a constant of motion. But it's all hinged on force.

Quote from: Thebox
... energy is a product of force....
What? First you claim that energy is not related to force and now you say that energy is a product of force. Why are you contradicting yourself?

Quote from: Thebox
... energy is in space ....
Wrong. Energy is not in space. If there is a field in space then there is an energy density in that field. That's about it.

Quote from: Thebox
, a single particle in void still has energy, m=E,
Wrong. That expression is dimensionally incorrect and wrong anyway. While E = m2 has a very special meaning E = m has no meaning. The dimensions of each side are [J] = [kg] which is wrong since [J] = [kg][m2][s2]

Quote from: Thebox
Energy has nothing to do with speed, energy exists without speed so c is irrelevant.
Wrong. First off the dimensions of energy are in joules [J] which is the same as [m2][s2] which clearly shows that energy is related to speed, at least in some cases. E.g. a particle that has a non-zero speed has energy, kinetic energy to be exact.

To understand where the c in E = mc2 came from you'll have to follow the derivation of that expression. It's on my website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm

That c comes from two places. One is from the Doppler equation where the quantityappears and the other is in the electromagnetic radiation, in the form of photons, emitted from the object in the derivation. The photons have momentum given by

Quote from: Thebox
And also not a single science forum has explained what E=mc˛ is even relevant to, in nuclear process the deuterium reacts with the plutonium producing E.  E=reaction no speed involved.
Just because not a single science forum has explained that it doesn't mean anything. I can explain anything related to it that you'd need to know.

Quote from: Thebox
My ears are not death . I listen and learn, I am objective, but if science isn't making sense to me, then there is simply something up with it.
But you're not listening. You're making outrageously wrong claims as if you actually know what you're talking about. You're constantly claiming things that are wrong as if they were right. When something doesn't make sense to you then you blame science and not your understanding of it. The later is your worst problem and that's what makes you anything but objective.

Quote from: Thebox
d= ∞ from any dependent observation...
Here's another mistake that you keep making no matter how many times I correct you. Writing down a mathematical expression without clearly defining your terms results in something meaningless. And yet once again you've treated ∞ as if it was a number by using it in a mathematical equality. The only time that it makes sense to do that is when the equality is a limit and not an algebraic expression.

I'm very disappointed in you.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #14 on: 20/06/2015 11:50:36 »
Quote from: Colin2B
When  PmbPhy says you are slipping into your old ways, he probably means this stringing together of irrational groups of formula and concepts resulting in meaningless and incomprehensible posts.
Yup. That's exactly what I meant.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #15 on: 21/06/2015 06:19:43 »
Quote from: Colin2B
When  PmbPhy says you are slipping into your old ways, he probably means this stringing together of irrational groups of formula and concepts resulting in meaningless and incomprehensible posts.
Yup. That's exactly what I meant.

I am simply writing the expressions instead of words, and expressing it as I see it.

Distance is an infinite measurement

d=∞

I miss the point where my expression is wrong?

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #16 on: 21/06/2015 07:36:19 »
Quote from: Thebox
I am simply writing the expressions instead of words, and expressing it as I see it.
See it from where? Let me explain this yet once again. Although I don't know why you'd listen to me this time when you haven't yet. Without giving both at the same time you end up posting things that can't be understood by anybody except you.

So why don't you explain to us what it is that you're seeing when you say "as I see it"?

Quote from: Thebox
Distance is an infinite measurement

d=∞
See? This is yet another example of nonsense. First of all you didn't say what this distance means. Is it the distance between the Earth and the Moon? The distance from Boston to Tucson? From here to the Andromeda Galaxy? What? In the second place why do you keep doing something that I keep telling you is meaningless? You simply CANNOT meaningfully assign ∞ to a variable such as the "distance d"? There's no such thing as "distance is an infinite measure." Where do you get this crap from? When are you going to start listening to us and start posting something meaningful?

By the way. I've given you PLENTY of time to get with it and start sending me a statement of what you were able to do each day as far as your reading assignments. Not only have you not done that but you've completely failed to even acknowledge that I gave you that assignment. I've made every effort so far to work with you and you've failed at all of them. Therefore your suspension from my forum is now changed to you being banned.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3153
• Thanked: 44 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #17 on: 21/06/2015 08:03:06 »
Quote from: Thebox
I am simply writing the expressions instead of words, and expressing it as I see it.
See it from where? Let me explain this yet once again. Although I don't know why you'd listen to me this time when you haven't yet. Without giving both at the same time you end up posting things that can't be understood by anybody except you.

So why don't you explain to us what it is that you're seeing when you say "as I see it"?

Quote from: Thebox
Distance is an infinite measurement

d=∞
See? This is yet another example of nonsense. First of all you didn't say what this distance means. Is it the distance between the Earth and the Moon? The distance from Boston to Tucson? From here to the Andromeda Galaxy? What? In the second place why do you keep doing something that I keep telling you is meaningless? You simply CANNOT meaningfully assign ∞ to a variable such as the "distance d"? There's no such thing as "distance is an infinite measure." Where do you get this crap from? When are you going to start listening to us and start posting something meaningful?

By the way. I've given you PLENTY of time to get with it and start sending me a statement of what you were able to do each day as far as your reading assignments. Not only have you not done that but you've completely failed to even acknowledge that I gave you that assignment. I've made every effort so far to work with you and you've failed at all of them. Therefore your suspension from my forum is now changed to you being banned.

I visualise everything now including maths representing something, and replacing words with maths.

distance is the space between two points but distance is also the infinite space with no points that a measurement of would just keep going and going for infinite space-time. hence d=infinite

Banned, my apologies Pete, I need to interact.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #18 on: 21/06/2015 12:55:28 »
Quote from: Thebox
I visualise everything now including maths representing something, and replacing words with maths.
It's a shame that you lack the ability to grasp what I've been trying to explain to you. For example; If I posted the equation

what does it mean? Why did I post it and what am I trying to tell you and everyone else who reads this post?

Quote from: Thebox
distance is the space between two points..
At least you got that part right.

Quote from: Thebox
... but distance is also the infinite space with no points ...
WRONG. You're clearly confusing the distance between two points in space with space itself. You're going to keep making mistakes until you stop being so arrogant and claiming that you know what you're talking about. Every time you make a statement that isn't a question you're making a claim that what you wrote is correct. But there is hardly a post where you actually post something that is correct. You then argue that you're right and that's what's keeping you ignorant.

Quote from: Thebox
that a measurement of would just keep going and going for infinite space-time. hence d=infinite
Why aren't you listening to me when I tell you that you can't use "infinite" in an equality? You're certainly not blind and I can't imagine that you're that stupid. So what is it?

Suppose we have a box in the xy-plane of a Cartesian coordinate system. The area of the box is A = LW where L = length and W = width. Let's now let that box not be a box at all but the entire xy-plane. We can do this by letting the box become infinite in size. Does that mean that A = infinite? No. It doesn't. It means that we have to write it as follows

Lim(L->∞, W->∞) LW = ∞

This is the only time where you can use ∞ in an expression where the equality sign is used. This is because there is nothing being assigned a value. Do you FINALLY understand this now? And if you weren't so lazy and wised up and listened to me then you'd have come to learn this when I finally taught you enough math to start learning calculus. But you just don't have what it takes and you keep using excuses to justify your not doing the work.

Quote from: Thebox
Banned, my apologies Pete, I need to interact.
I seriously doubt that you're sorry, TB. I gave you every opportunity to get with the program and learn physics from the class I'm teaching but you were too lazy to read even a few pages in the text I assigned you. You were even far too lazy to send me a report each and every day to tell me what you were able to read that day, whether it was an entire chapter of the assigned physics text or nothing at all. I had to see that because I had to establish a metric to help me determine what you're capable of doing.

And you knew I required that and you intentionally ignored me. I informed you on Sat Jun 13, 2015 9:22 am that you are required to send me an PM everyday to tell me what you did that day. And you ignored me for a long time. You even refused to acknowledge that I sent the PM, as if I was too stupid to know that you were intentionally ducking your responsibility to me. And you did have a responsibility to me since you agreed to the terms I set for joining my forum. So I sent you the following e-mail on Jun 06/17/15 4:50 PM saying
Quote
You didn't respond to that PM but I'm holding you to it. I haven't received anything from you since that date and that's not a good sign. It tells me that you're not taking me seriously. Therefore I suspended you. The suspension will only last until you finish this assignment and you can figure out how you'll be able to fit your classwork into your life. Then I'll lift the suspension and we'll pick up where we left off. meanwhile there's no reason why you can't learn the same way we're doing here and ask questions in e-mail or in the TNS forum.
Since you're continuing to be so extremely rude by refusing to respond to my messages you were banned not only for that but for violating our contract.

So now you claim that you need to interact. That's nonsense. The very purpose of letting you join my forum was so that you'd be allowed to interact with the most well educated members of this forum who accepted membership to my forum. You could have just as easily interacted with people in my forum as you do in others. But even more, posting in my forum didn't prevent you from posting in other forums.

Would you like to take a guess at how many people tell me how frustrating, ignorant, arrogant and full of yourself that they say you are?

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #19 on: 21/06/2015 13:34:57 »
Quote from: Thebox
Banned, my apologies Pete, I need to interact.
One of the reasons that contributed to your being banned was that you were being very rude to me by ignoring all of my messages regarding sending me a metric about what work you did each day. Don't you understand how rude it is to ignore someone's e-mail and PMs? Especially when you agreed to work the program that I set up for you and that included communicating with me. You failed on all accounts and for no good reason.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: force limit =
« Reply #19 on: 21/06/2015 13:34:57 »