1. ## Area54

Senior Members

6

696

2. ## John Cuthber

Resident Experts

5

14720

3. ## iNow

Senior Members

3

17963

4. ## dimreepr

Senior Members

3

4942

## Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/09/17 in all areas

1. 3 points

## Mass shooting Las Vegas, Oct. 2. 2017

Video games are far more popular in Japan than the US. Japan had I think two total people killed by guns all last year. Probably more than that will be shot in the US between the time when I began this reply and the time when I hit submit. Likewise, Australia as a culture has the same gruff trailblazing independent strains we have in the US. They pick fights and have brawls and easily do so more than we do. Same result as Japan, though. Next to zero gun deaths. There’s no need to invent reasons here. No need for pretend explanations or unfounded speculation or any mental gymnastics. We’re not more violent than other nations. We don’t play more video games or watch more movies, violent or otherwise. We’re no more predisposed to murder than others. The US is different in only one relevant way from peer nations: Firearm availability.
2. 2 points

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

I'll answer your question: I havn't a bloody clue, OK? Now let me add some further comments....when we (the forum) suddenly has a newbie popping in asking a question with obviously a giant ego to feed, and when that newbie when requested for clarification of his questions by not one, but many reputable members, who are known as credentialed authorities in the discipline being discussed, answers with total arrogance and dismissal of those clarifications and requests, then in my mind that newbie needs to take a backward step, have a disprin, and a good lay down and start thinking as to why so many knowledgable members are making there requests. Otherwise other members observing such egotistical arrogant behavour from that newbie, will just dismiss him as another f$%#^&$# troll that science forums such as this seem to attract. I hope that helps.
3. 2 points

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

What makes you think you're right?
4. 1 point

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

In all fairness, the OP has reached his newcomer temporary post limit and stated that he cannot answer at the moment. (We have seen this before). He also said (several times) that he would answer questions about his wording and hypothesis My only other post here was to take him at his word and ask a simple polite question about one particular aspect of this. I await the response with interest, when he is allowed to post this response.
5. 1 point

6. 1 point

## A slightly different version of General Relativity

"A slightly different version of General Relativity" So, that's slightly different from the one that gives the right answers...
7. 1 point

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

Go on then. No one is stopping you. Reported for trolling
8. 1 point

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

Please explain whast you mean by the expression
9. 1 point

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

If you have had to say it more than once, it's clear that you should, indeed, clarify your post.
10. 1 point

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

Well, it is true that there were no words in your post that cannotbe found in a dictionary, the combination of some of those words is unusual in physics. Consider, as an example, your phrase " convergent counter-spatial centripetal charge". If this were a common, or even occassional physics phrase, then we might expect to find some examples on Google Scholar. But there are none. What about dropping one word: "counter-spatial centripetal charge"? No luck. Finally, when we get down to "centripetal charge" Google scholar returns three hits. That's 3 hits. In contrast, if we choose a phrase like centripetal acceleration we get 18,500 hits. That's eighteen thousand five hundred. If physicists are not using such phrases and you are discussing physics, perhaps you should try a change of terminology. If you think it is sufficient to let other terms "speak for themselves" then you haven't been paying attention to the way science has been reported for the last century or two. I thought I might try and throw you a life-line, so I looked for your phrase on DuckDuckGo. Success! Four, that's 4, hits! The trouble is they were all made by you. You might want to take the advice of swansont, a practicing physicist - use the language of the science correctly.
11. 1 point

## Statistics in the land of the Leprachaun

Sadly, lotteries are a tax on the poor.
12. 1 point

## Breathing, inhaling hydrogen

Reminded me of this http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/hydrogenbeer.asp
13. 1 point

## Statistics in the land of the Leprachaun

I've always thought of lotteries as a voluntary tax on the overly optimistic.
14. 1 point

## Looking at the Spacetime Uncertainty Relation as an Approach to Unify Gravity

Thats much better, now you have your outer products and the complex conjugates to satisfy the Born rule. Its not entirely accurate to state probability amplitude squared. Its more accurate to describe the Born rule as the amplitude times its own complex conjugate. As we are involving density matrixes. The outer product giving the tensor product of two tensors, which gives us a means to the Kronecker Delta connection. The inner product of two vectors returns a scalar quantity. This was why I wanted greater detail on the outer products. You now have that above. I will look over the above in more detail probably have time tomorrow. You have the tools for the Kronecker delta, but you will need Levi-Cevita connections for curved spacetime. $|\psi_i><\psi_i|=P_m$ you have the projector operator (more complete above )now use this to get your identity. The sum over all projectors of a space is your identity. Once you have the identity you under any basis you have the completeness equation $\sum_i=|v_i><v_i|=\mathbb{I}$ (closure relation) More correctly under QM the resolution of identity $\sum_i=|i><i|=\mathbb{I}$
15. 1 point

## Banned/Suspended Users

scherado has been banned for multiple instances of rule-breaking in his quest to become the Troll King. We apologize that his interruption in the normal rational discourse was all noise and no signal whatsoever. Roger Dynamic Motion has been banned, NOT for incessant hijacking and almost daily irrationality, but for failing to respond to requests for clarity, EVER. Discussion requires that we express our ideas so others can understand. We wish him good luck with his ideas, whatever they were supposed to be.
16. 1 point

## Where does gravity (most likely) come from?

I thought it was an improvement.
17. 1 point

## My soon to be wife knows about my fierce obsession with mastering pick up...

Hire a small team of psychologists. Have them conduct a study of your method, then submit a report on it to your fiance that explains your method is bullshit and you are a fantasist. This should solve the problem one way or another.
18. 1 point

## Breathing, inhaling hydrogen

That would be a start. Citing them (directly) would be good too. If you can show that the hydrogen actually stays in the "hydrogen infused water", rather than diffusing straight out. I will be interested.
19. 1 point

## Famous member catchphrases

You should raise the matter in a thread where discussion of the phrase is relevant and not pollute Silvestru's lighthearted thread. Silvestru, my apologies for adding to the pollution.
20. 1 point

## Famous member catchphrases

Definitely some of my best work.
21. 1 point

22. 1 point

## Famous member catchphrases

The banned users thread has some great put downs ...
23. 1 point

## Postulates for Future Mathematics

Often people who do not understand mathematics look at a math text and it looks like non-sense. Unfortunately, a few then decide that if they write non-sense, it is mathematics!
24. 1 point

## MM experiment null result is not an accurate claim

On this point I am with Michaeltannoury. There didn't seem to be any ambiguity in his OP about authorship.
25. 1 point

26. 0 points

## So you think you know EM? Explain this!

No one is especially interested in your riddles. If you have something as genuinely novel and interesting as you claim then lay it out for us. Contrary to your assertion your terminology obfuscates rather than clarifies. If you don't wish to accept that and don't wish to have your ideas considered then that is your choice. As far as I can see there is only one in this thread.
27. 0 points

## My soon to be wife knows about my fierce obsession with mastering pick up...

I came here because science is always best. I obsessed over "the mystery method" and "the game" and "rules of the game" "the layguide" Neuro-linguistic programming, all of it. I decided I would master it all when I was 14 and by 23 I mastered it all. I taught a class on the mystery method to over 100 guys with notebooks and pencils and questions. She knows all of this and, with every new girl she hears about, she always believes that I'm cheating or that I have ulterior motives. I can't blame her, I did it to myself, but it's been years since then. I'm not a cheater. How do I settle this once and for all?
28. -1 points

## Psychic Phenomena- a decent walkthrough

I, personally, am well aware that Psychic phenomena exists and that there are, in fact, real psychics out there. If you do not believe then there is no need to participate in this discussion as it would be an impasse. Here is my questionnaire to see if you're qualified to be a part of this conversation. Do you believe that the mind is physical? (Are you a materialist?) If so, do you believe that the mind works just as the brain appears? (Neural networks, connections, etc.) If so, do you believe that information is reducible to changes in our environment? If so, do you believe that these changes in our environment are what determines the structure of the brain (barring the genome)? If so, do you believe that our knowledge is a subcomponent of the structure of the brain? If so, do you believe that knowledge is small, maybe even particulate? If so, do you believe that knowledge can exist outside of your, and others, heads? If so, do you believe in quantum mechanics? I believe that this is a nice qualifying questionnaire for the discussion that may be to come...
29. -1 points