How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

[Zero999]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.

But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

No. There will be no red shift in that example, because the mirrors are stationary.

[IanB]

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.

Nothing said by Zero999 implied that. Try reading it again.

[aetherist]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.
But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

No. There will be no red shift in that example, because the mirrors are stationary.

So, u are saying that reflexion off a mirror loozes energy if the mirror is going, & gains energy if the mirror is coming, & is neutral if the mirror is stationary – ok i am ok with that – but i wouldn’t be surprised if empirical evidence said that a little bit of energy was lost with every reflexion (ie unless the mirror had a small coming). And of course no glass would be allowed.
But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

[Halcyon]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.

I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

[Zero999]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.
But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

No. There will be no red shift in that example, because the mirrors are stationary.

So, u are saying that reflexion off a mirror loozes energy if the mirror is going, & gains energy if the mirror is coming, & is neutral if the mirror is stationary – ok i am ok with that – but i wouldn’t be surprised if empirical evidence said that a little bit of energy was lost with every reflexion (ie unless the mirror had a small coming). And of course no glass would be allowed.

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

[aetherist]

And yes, at this on topic, or at least just as on topic as the rest of this thread, since the topic seems to be a sort of general insanity.

Luckily we all can now use the ChatGPT to generate these scientific dialogues..

Speak of the devil:
The relationship between electrons and photons in an antenna is complex and involves the interaction of electric and magnetic fields.

In an antenna, an alternating current flows through the wire, generating an alternating electric field. This alternating electric field then accelerates the electrons within the antenna, causing them to collide with neighboring atoms and generating a flow of electrons. This flow of electrons can be thought of as an electric current.

The motion of the electrons in the electric current also generates a magnetic field that alternates in synchrony with the electric field. The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields results in the generation of electromagnetic waves, which are photons in the form of radio waves.

In summary, the alternating current in an antenna generates an alternating electric field that accelerates electrons and creates an electric current. The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields generated by this current then results in the emission of electromagnetic waves, or photons, in the form of radio waves.

"In summary, the alternating current in an antenna generates an alternating electric field that accelerates electrons and creates an electric current. "
………….. This says that an AC current creates an AC current – so, nothing gained – so, we can delete this whole line.
"The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields generated by this current then results in the emission of electromagnetic waves, or photons, in the form of radio waves."
………….. This says that electric & magnetic fields create em waves… in the form of radio waves – correct – (but the reference to photons is wrong). So, ChatCPT can appear to be smarter than many of the members of this forum.

[aetherist]

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

In that case then u agree with what i said – ie that a bit of energy is lost from the photon(s) in all 3 kinds of  reflexions (even if that bit of loss is retained by the system).
In which case u agree that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

Yes – in aether theory the relative velocity of the source of the photons & the mirror sort of trumps the individual absolute velocities in the aether (ie their aetherwinds) – hence in the lab the aetherwind can be ignored for many experiments.

[aetherist]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

[Halcyon]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELECTON ELECTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

[aetherist]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELECTON ELECTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

Ok --  i will pitch -- u bat – in electron electricity how duz insulation slow the speed of electricity from 3c/3 for bare Cu to 2c/3 for insulated Cu?

[Halcyon]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELECTON ELECTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

Ok --  i will pitch -- u bat – in electron electricity how duz insulation slow the speed of electricity from 3c/3 for bare Cu to 2c/3 for insulated Cu?

No idea, because this isn't my area of expertise. All I need to do is look up your misspelling of both words to know you are talking made-up bollocks. Not to mention your misspelling of common, everyday words and garbage grammar.

[aetherist]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

Ok --  i will pitch -- u bat – in electron electricity how duz insulation slow the speed of electricity from 3c/3 for bare Cu to 2c/3 for insulated Cu?

Insulation does not slow down the speed of electricity in a conductor. The speed of electricity in a conductor is determined by its electrical conductivity and the density of its electrons. The speed of electricity in a vacuum, which is the speed of light, is approximately 3 x 10^8 m/s (300 million meters per second). The speed of electricity in a conductor is typically slower than this, but the specific speed depends on the conductivity of the material. Insulation, which is a non-conductive material, simply helps to prevent electricity from flowing through it and potentially shorting out the conductor. - ChatGPT

I think its doing pretty good actually considering it grasped what you were saying, fixed your spelling mistakes and then answered the question.

I might ask it to do my laundry too.

Of course there is also the infamous Veritasium video:


Then the update:

Why did u link to Veritasium -- he (& others) says that electric energy is not carried by the electrons in a wire -- hence in that sense he & i agree.
And, i insist that the speed of electricity is 2c/3 when the Cu is insulated.

[aetherist]

William Beaty -- Electrical Engineer 35yrs, electrostatics hobbyist, Amasci siteUpdated Mon

A Veritasium video said that a light bulb with the wires a light second away from the battery will light up in 1/c seconds if the light bulb and the battery were a meter apart. Doesn't the light bulb physically require electrons to pass through it?

Edit: “Z Y” changed his mind, agrees with me, getting the same numbers I did: Aha, Electroboom also agrees, getting the same numbers:
.
So, electrical engineers can figure it out, while physicists believe that signals can travel inside solid copper at approximately c velocity. (Doesn’t happen. Physics actually says that 100% of the electrical energy travels only in empty space outside the wires. Within the copper, the speed of light is roughly ten meters per second, and this low V causes the skin-effect. So, don’t look at Feynman Lectures or at Purcell physics, instead look at JD Kraus’ book “Electromagnetics.”)
Note that Veritasium’s video is COUNTERINTUITIVE, intended to embarrass even some of the experts (the many who never had their grade-school “lies” get debunked later. Some “experts” incorrectly think that electrical energy travels inside wires. Veritasium points this out. )
So, even experts who SHOULD know better, still angrily insist that electrical energy flows *inside* solid copper. Nope. Doesn’t. In physics class, perhaps they were sick that day, and missed it during college coursework? Or, their textbook didn’t get into Maxwell’s equations regarding waveguides (coax cables, etc.)
Note well that anything moving at c through solid copper would generate x-rays at least, or perhaps fusion explosions. In circuits, electrical energy can move at c because it “leapfrogs” between electrons on the surface of wires. The energy travels as EM flows in space, located entirely outside the metal surface, but firmly guided by the moving charges.
Maxwell and Heaviside say that the amount of electrical energy inside any copper wire is zero, and 100% of “wattage” is in the fields.[1] We’ve known this for about 120 years, so it should only surprise people who never had college physics.
What’s the “for dummies” rule of thumb?
Just tell yourself that, inside capacitors, 100% of the energy is in the e-field, not inside the metal plates. And in coils, 100% of the energy is in the b-field, not circulating inside the wires. The same also applies to all circuits, since even a simple circuit is a combination of 1-turn inductor and 2-plate capacitor: a loop of current, plus two adjacent wires with opposite surface-charge.
However, even with the truth being well known, it’s absolutely NOT taught in high school …and even then, only taught to a portion of the physicists and engineers.
The rest of the population, when they first hear about it, will “see red” and start arguing and getting personal …unknowingly attacking Maxwell, and sneeringly rejecting a century of very conventional RF engineering. Their wrong beliefs are painful to watch, embarrassing. They thought they were ridiculing Veritasium, when actually they were ridiculing their own textbooks on Electrodynamics, which apparently they’d since forgotten.
So, Veritasium is correct, and the ones who insist that the energy flows *inside* the copper are trapped in embarrassing childhood misconceptions they should have lost during their undergrad sci/eng courses. (How will they ever live it down? Hee!)
Here’s the key to everything: transmission lines are not RF-only devices. After all, the physics for transmission lines has no lower bound on frequency! The physics/math applies equally well to DC as to GHz waves. 2-wire lines turn out to be a weird type of waveguide, where we can reduce the frequency all the way down to zero, yet the wave-energy is still outside the wires, and guided by the wires.
The key again: coax cables (etc.) employ the same math and physics at GHz as they do at 60Hz, and at DC. Wires are waveguides, ALL wires are waveguides, regardless of frequency. Hint: inside solid copper the speed of light is quite low: roughly tens of M/S. In circuits, the axial-directed EM energy is entirely flowing 100% outside the wires, and also the energy-flow outside the wires is the cause if of skin-effect, and crosstalk, as well as explaining the operation of capacitors and transformers (where the same occurs, and the EM energy is located entirely outside the metal parts.)
Actually, all this answers a question I had as a kid. Microwaves flow through huge damn rectangular hollow waveguides. But they also go right through extremely narrow coaxial cable, less than a hundredth of a wavelength! HOOWWWW?!! It’s because in 2-wire lines, the fields compress themselves down if the lines come together, and there is no lower bound to this process, as long as the two lines don’t touch each other.

[aetherist]

William Beatty (Quora).
Is the speed of electricity in a wire (signal speed) related to the speed of light (a function of the permeability and permittivity of space) or the speed of sound (based on nearest neighbor interactions of electrons)?
 
Signals on wires aren’t a “nearest neighbor” phenomenon. Instead, when electrons move, they create altered EM fields and altered attraction/repulsion forces. These forces are experienced by distant electrons in the wire, not just by the close neighbors in adjacent atoms. Next, those distant electrons are, again, moved by those long-range EM field-forces …which then send out new fields, which affect even more distant electrons in the wire.
In other words, the vibrations of one electron can “leapfrog” across large distances and pass over immense numbers of electrons. If electrons are like a chain, then the “yank” isn’t going from link to link, instead it’s an EM wave which ripples through the space outside the links, yet is guided by the row of links (the column of mobile electrons in the wire surface.)
This effect, plus the extremely low mass of electrons, leads to signal-velocities closely approaching lightspeed. And, since these fields DON’T travel inside the metal of the wires …if we place some ferrite or some plastic insulation just outside the wires, the “leapfrogging fields” must pass through that material, and this has an enormous effect on the speed of the signals

[1] In wires the current usually propagates slightly slower than light in a vacuum, going slower than “c”. This happens whenever the wire is encased in plastic, not in vacuum. The plastic insulation slows down the waves of current …much like the glass in a prism slows down the light waves passing through it.
The electrical waves will propagate at 2/3 of “c,” or even slower, depending on the type of plastic.
 Search for… “velocity factor” in cables

[aetherist]

I don't know the answer.

But I do know that reading your text is extremely painful.

Therefore I am awarding you the Nobel Prize, in Confusion and Pain.

That wordage is William Beatty's.

[Halcyon]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

[aetherist]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY.

[AVGresponding]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELECTON ELECTICITY.

No, in fact we are all waiting for you to produce one piece of evidence to support your claims. The existence of trillions of dollars of industry that uses the accepted model is what contradicts your ideas.

[Halcyon]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELECTON ELECTICITY.

I guess the fact that it's not a real thing and doesn't exist should be the major giveaway? A simple Google search will tell you that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it in red, capital letters, it doesn't make it a thing. Based on this reason alone, I suspect you are just trolling the forum.

[aetherist]

The main evidence is that ELEKTON ELEKTICITY immediately accounts for the speed of ELEKTICITY  on an insulated Cu being 2c/3 km/s, & on a bare wire 3c/3.
William Beatty & Veritasium would i suppose blame the 2c/3 on the insulation affecting the em energy field outside the Cu (albeit in their own 2 different ways).
Veritasium might say that the insulation affects the Poynting em Field which carries the energy. However, how could a thin layer of plastic on the Cu affect the speed of the Poynting field when the field has a volume of over say 1000 times the volume of the plastic.
Funny, clearly from the first Veritasium youtube Veritasium duznt have a clue that insulation on his Cu slows his electricity. He shows us his Cu cables that are clearly insulated, & then he says that the speed of electricity is 3c/3 along the Cu.
William Beatty reckons that the electrons in the Cu carry the energy, & that the electrons produce an em field that jumps out of the Cu & then leapfrogs many atoms ahead, & then dives back into the Cu.  And Beatty might say that the insulation affects the speed of the jumping em field.  Anyhow, Beatty duznt ever invoke the Poynting Field as far  as i know.
Both Veritasium & Beatty are clearly wrong.

[Halcyon]

I'd love to know, what makes you think you're let in on some kind of exclusive secret that no other scientist or physicist on Earth isn't aware of? Doesn't that make you stop and ponder the truth?

[Zero999]

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

In that case then u agree with what i said – ie that a bit of energy is lost from the photon(s) in all 3 kinds of  reflexions (even if that bit of loss is retained by the system).
In which case u agree that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

Yes – in aether theory the relative velocity of the source of the photons & the mirror sort of trumps the individual absolute velocities in the aether (ie their aetherwinds) – hence in the lab the aetherwind can be ignored for many experiments.

I repeat. No energy is lost, because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The tiny bit of radiation absorbed by the mirrors is not lost, but converted into heat. I know full well I'm being pedantic. It's fine to talk about energy losses for practical purposes, but in this case it's important to note that the energy doesn't just disappear.

I don't know the answer.

But I do know that reading your text is extremely painful.

Therefore I am awarding you the Nobel Prize, in Confusion and Pain.

That wordage is William Beatty's.

The fact that you've suddenly jumped to another topic completely out of the scope of the current one under discussion multiple times is because I suspect that you have Hebephrenic schizophrenia and that your subcouncious is trying to make us aware of this fact. I know exactly what you are going through I've been through it myself. Many years ago I was doing it all of the time.

Quite often references and admiration of nautical themes is a symptom of Schitzophrenia. I myself love the works of a well known Captain known as Jean Luc Picard.

I suggest that you try out an antipsychotic medication.

I don't know what your background is, but it's not possible to reliably diagnose someone over the Internet. I suggest he sees a doctor for referral to a psychiatrist, rather than relying on the opinion of some random person on the Internet.

[PlainName]

While I agree that it is highly unreliable to diagnose someone across the internet I don't understand this argument.

Could be seen to be an ad hominem attack. The intention may good, but would you be happy discussing your personal issues with your doctor on a TikTok video (silly question, judging from brief exposure to the medium)?

I think the proper thing to do if you have a real concern is to PM them. I appreciate that being used to public posting one doesn't immediately think of a PM in response to something (fallen foul of this myself), but it's what you should do if you're going to suggest something like this.

Of course, you're perfectly free to point out that his reality is pretty skewed and he should be writing long equations on the padded walls of his cell, but that would be an undisguised attack rather than a diagnosis

[Zero999]

Don't take medical advice from the Internet, is a standard disclaimer. It was not intended as a personal attack.

[PlainName]

I also question the logic of mentioning being timid and talking to him in a PM while also mentioning padded cells.

That was a 'for example'. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

And, of course, I should probably have sent that to you via PM. No-one is perfect