Insults and character assassination

Announcements and discussion about the operation of this forum.
Din
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Insults and character assassination

Post by Din » Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:47 pm

Hi
I feel that this forum is no place for continual insults and character assassination. If a question has been asked, the question must be answered, not deflected by insults. If this forum is a valid place for discussions of holography from both a technical and non-technical perspective, then, when a technical statement is made, and a technical question has been asked, one expects a technical answer. Not bombast and insults.

BobH
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:26 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by BobH » Tue Dec 07, 2021 10:50 am

Din wrote:
Mon Dec 06, 2021 2:47 pm
If a question has been asked, the question must be answered, not deflected by insults.
"(not the polarisation, which is a vector, as R. Rallison has published, and some holographers believe so fervently that they attempt to silence genuine criticism based on the literature of the subject, like some politicians we all know!)"

"Despite the statements published by R. Rallison and believed by some holographers who seem not to know the difference between a vector and a scalar, this is a scalar expression."

"Perhaps you could explain to Mr Pratheep, who asked the question, how you actually conduct the experiment, assuming you know this."

"Simply saying "Use a spectrometer" and adding no further details is a little like intellectual strutting."

"I think Mr Pratheep needs a little more than intellectual posing for the fan base."

"Whatever you did, or did not do at, Digilens, without details of method and/or a reference and/or some theory, the 'spectrometer method' seems of no value to Mr Pratheep."

"for most applications, emulsion depth to an error of 10% or even more is acceptable and that may be the reason for the Digilens result, assuming there was one."

"I suspect that Hess didn't actually do anything besides pressing buttons on a piece of equipment he didn't understand"

And here he is trying to accuse me of racism: "(is he also a troll, I wonder, because he's of Indian origin as well?)" No, asshole. You're a troll because you're sick in the head and probably drunk when responding.

All this off-topic crap in just a single thread. All directed at me personally. That's why this troll has been booted off all holography forums (though allowed back on here for who knows why). He should be banned from here again, and permanently. He is a good part of the reason others have left this forum.

lobaz
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by lobaz » Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:07 pm

Come on, guys. Both of you are very valuable members of the forum.
If I got a dollar each time I see something I consider silly, I'd be a millionaire.

Din
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by Din » Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:33 pm

lobaz wrote:
Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:07 pm
Come on, guys. Both of you are very valuable members of the forum.
If I got a dollar each time I see something I consider silly, I'd be a millionaire.
The point is that if you see something silly, you should have the freedom to say that it's silly without being attacked by foul language, accusations, incorrect statements, name-calling and outright false statements such as that "this troll has been booted off all holography forums ", which is not true. No one, no one, should feel intimidated for speaking out about silly statements. No one, no one, should be afraid of being silenced for opposing the "standard narrative" (I think you may understand this more than most, Lobaz). All my life I've stood out for truth, facts that can be proven or referenced, and pointed out misinformation and disinformation. If you make a statement, you need to justify the statement with references, a theoretical justification or experimental data. Hess hates because he's complicit in misinformation, he does not understand the need for checking his statements. For pointing out misinformation, he calls me a "Troll". If Hess, or anyone else, disagrees with me, calling me names and attacking me is no more than many political regimes have practiced. I'm open to debate, not hatred.

Bob Hess hates because I think Rallison is wrong about certain statements he made. It's provable that he was wrong. But, the "standard narrative" of display holographers is that Rallison has attained a god-like status, he cannot- I stress, Cannot - be wrong about anything. Hess has accused me of "dragging his name through the mud". if a disagreement about a published statement is seen as an "attack" against the author, almost all - all - of literary criticism will be under shroud of fear because of people like Hess. Under the "Hess rule", you cannot attack or criticise any published work that Hess "believes in" without a blistering attack made with foul language. I didn't know Rallison, I met him only for a few minutes, but, his published statements are not accurate - and it can be proved. But, Hess attacks, demeans, makes hateful comments with foul language because I point out that his "god" is wrong. No one, no one, should be silenced with foul language for an opinion. This is the basis of Free Speech - something Hess does not seem to like.

Another bone of contention is that I do not agree that all these new 3D display systems are "not holograms" (Oh! How they hate it when I ask a simple question: why not). Again, a point of view can be debated, but not attacked. My feeling is that the word has changed, like all words change over time. Only the old cannot accept change.

I don't think it will end here. I think Hess will continue with foul language. But, as far as I'm concerned, as long as I'm able, I'll try to help people with technical knowledge, despite Hess, I'll try to help people overcome technical issues and I'll explain technical concepts as far as I'm able. The question is, under the blistering attack by Hess, can I continue here. This is a question for John.

If John decides to ban me, it's his decision. But, I hope that decision is made taking all the facts of the situation at hand. Hess hates, it's as simple as that. He'll once more come out with a string of accusations about "troll", about how I've been "banned" (not true), and more nasty commentaries. If we allow hateful opinions to deny and suppress free speech - the ability to allow disagreement - then it's the end of an era I grew up trying to prevent, as a physicist and as a somewhat ineffectual philosopher.

BobH
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:26 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by BobH » Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:36 am

"Hess hates because he's complicit in misinformation, he does not understand the need for checking his statements. For pointing out misinformation, he calls me a "Troll".

Wrong. Why is it that there are only pronlems with YOU. Nobody else, just YOU? Why is it that there has been no conflicts in any of the other forums after you were banned from them?

"Bob Hess hates because I think Rallison is wrong about certain statements he made. It's provable that he was wrong."

This troll is 100% wrong about the dependance of DE on the polarization of the reconstruction light for a hologram. Just because he never saw it he doesn't believe it. His interpretation of the math is incorrect. He can't prove anything he says without resorting to his gobbledygook pronouncements that nobody, nobody ever acknowledges or responds to in kind. Nobody checks his math because nobody really cares what he says and just lets it pass with the rest of his voluminous, pity-party garbage.

I will demonstrate the polarization dependance to anyone. It's especially obvious with Covestro materials. Anyone. I'll send a hologram to you, to measure the Fresnel reflections, the absorption, the 0th order, and the diffracted light in both polarizations. I'll send you a half waveplate, a clean-up polarizer, and a meter if you need it. All to shut this jealous, unemployable, glory hound (who never mentions Joy who obviously does all the work) the fuck up.

"I'll try to help people overcome technical issues "

Always posted with paragraph after unnecessary rambling paragraph loaded with off-topic deflections, and statements made with none of the ridiculous requirements he demands of those he trolls like this one: " At Triple take, we did have to get a DCG hologram in the ~5 nm,". Prove it.

"Hess hates, it's as simple as that."

Wrong again. "Hess" is sick and tired of YOU. Your constant pity-party. Your constant interjection of what Joy, a highly skilled and competent holographer for whom I have great respect did while self employed with you without getting credit for the work. Your total inability to say "I got it wrong", and constant changing of topics when confronted with it. And I'm sick and tired of your predictable resort to calling people "racist" when you're backed into a corner.

The "Emulsion Thickness" thread is a great example of your trolling. I suggested a simple solution. You could have just let it be but you chose to troll me with your derailment of the thread by mentioning your polarization issue, and taking it into a discussion of DE vs thickness when all that was asked for is a method of measurement of the thickness. You want arguement. You try to incite it in many of your responses. THAT's a "troll", and it's highly disruptive.

This forum will be better without you, as are all the others.

Din
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by Din » Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:41 pm

BobH wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:36 am
"Hess hates because he's complicit in misinformation, he does not understand the need for checking his statements. For pointing out misinformation, he calls me a "Troll".
"Bob Hess hates because I think Rallison is wrong about certain statements he made. It's provable that he was wrong."

This troll is 100% wrong about the dependance of DE on the polarization of the reconstruction light for a hologram. Just because he never saw it he doesn't believe it. His interpretation of the math is incorrect. He can't prove anything he says without resorting to his gobbledygook pronouncements that nobody, nobody ever acknowledges or responds to in kind. Nobody checks his math because nobody really cares what he says and just lets it pass with the rest of his voluminous, pity-party garbage.

I will demonstrate the polarization dependance to anyone. It's especially obvious with Covestro materials. Anyone. I'll send a hologram to you, to measure the Fresnel reflections, the absorption, the 0th order, and the diffracted light in both polarizations. I'll send you a half waveplate, a clean-up polarizer, and a meter if you need it. All to shut this jealous, unemployable, glory hound (who never mentions Joy who obviously does all the work) the fuck up.
The dependence on holographic efficiency of polarisation is impossible, simply because the efficiency of a hologram must be based on an intrinsic property of the recording. It cannot depend on any external factors post hoc. The efficiency of the hologram is defined as:

η = power out of recording material/power into recording material = I(out)/I(in)

This is the standard definition of the efficiency of any physical system. Thus, if the recording material were to emit power based on any external parameters, then the material must somehow determine the state of the external influence, ie the material must somehow 'reach out' to the reconstruction, determine it's polarisation state, and then determine the power output based on that state. There is no mechanism by which the material can "reach out" like this. However, any polarisation effects due to reflections or transmissions on any medium before the light enters the recording may affect the light entering the material, but the efficiency is based on light entering the medium after any reflections etc. I think anyone here with technical knowledge will attest to this.There is also the observation that a holographic material that is not illuminated still has an intrinsic efficiency, regardless of being illuminated. Both the physics and the mathematics of holography state no effect on the efficiency due to polarisation effects. This idea of external influences on efficiency seems to show a lack of understanding of physical systems and their mathematical description.

Therefore, if "His interpretation of the math is incorrect." then Hess must give an alternate interpretation to the mathematics in the literature. All the literature indicates a scalar expression for the efficiency, based on modulation, thickness etc. There is no literature that posits a vector formulation for efficiency. The efficiency of the hologram is not based on the position of the reconstruction on the Poincare sphere. I'm still waiting for these 'many books'.

BobH wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:36 am
"I'll try to help people overcome technical issues "

Always posted with paragraph after unnecessary rambling paragraph loaded with off-topic deflections, and statements made with none of the ridiculous requirements he demands of those he trolls like this one: " At Triple take, we did have to get a DCG hologram in the ~5 nm,". Prove it.
Here, the FWHM is about ~5nm. This was for R&L optics based in Philadelphia for an underwater LIDAR system. I calculated the necessary thickness and the necessary index modulation. I then determined the DCG formulation to get the calculated modulation. Joy set up the table, and i recorded the hologram. She never liked the actual exposure :D , so I had to calculate the exposure and expose accordingly.
amber2.jpg
amber2.jpg (92.72 KiB) Viewed 1324 times

BobH wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:36 am
"Hess hates, it's as simple as that."

Wrong again. "Hess" is sick and tired of YOU. Your constant pity-party. Your constant interjection of what Joy, a highly skilled and competent holographer for whom I have great respect did while self employed with you without getting credit for the work. Your total inability to say "I got it wrong", and constant changing of topics when confronted with it. And I'm sick and tired of your predictable resort to calling people "racist" when you're backed into a corner.
Joy has always got the credit for what she did. In Triple Take, I was the theoretician, doing all the calculations, while Joy was the engineer. She will confirm that we worked together. You can always ask Stephen Hart, since he worked with us for many years, whether Joy was an integral part of Triple Take. It's perhaps a sign of your misunderstanding of this, among other things, that Joy did "all the work" while I, apparently, did nothing. When Jody Burns wanted some advice on lens placement a few years ago, I told him that Joy was the best person to ask. So, I don't know where you get the idea that Joy never got any credit.
BobH wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:36 am
The "Emulsion Thickness" thread is a great example of your trolling. I suggested a simple solution.
A 'suggestion' without detail has little meaning. The solution may be a 'thought experiment', never actually carried out. Without details and interpretation of the results, this 'simple solution' may not be viable.

BobH
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:26 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by BobH » Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:46 pm

Din wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:41 pm

Here, the FWHM is about ~5nm. This was for R&L optics based in Philadelphia for an underwater LIDAR system. I calculated the necessary thickness and the necessary index modulation. I then determined the DCG formulation to get the calculated modulation. Joy set up the table, and i recorded the hologram. She never liked the actual exposure :D , so I had to calculate the exposure and expose accordingly.
amber2.jpg

That doesn't look like 5nm FWHM to me. :roll:

Din
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by Din » Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:55 pm

BobH wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:46 pm

That doesn't look like 5nm FWHM to me. :roll:
You do understand the symbol ~, I assume. It means to within an order or so. It's a mathematical term. In this case, it's within 25%, thus justifying the symbol ~. People like me that actually went to college speak like this.

BobH
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:26 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by BobH » Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:22 pm

I see about 13nm FWHM on that graph. You're a liar too.

Din
Posts: 333
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Insults and character assassination

Post by Din » Wed Dec 08, 2021 6:51 pm

Oh No! It's not 5nm! It's...not...5...nm!!! Call the FBI! Call MI5! Let loose the dogs of war! Car 54, where are you!

First you try to set my wife of 25 years against me, despite never having been married yourself, or, to the best of my knowledge had any significant other. Then you impugn my education with a Bachelor's and 3 Master's degrees in physics and mathematics, while you stopped your education at...what...grade school? Now, we're quibbling over 5nm?

In the end, does your hate run so deep? In the end, have you no decency?

Locked