TrappedLight

 

Indeed. There is a tendency for people to think their posts are crystal clear, but we have the bias of understanding our own subtext, context and thought process. The proof is when someone else reads it, and if they are confused by what you wrote, you don't get to say that they are not.

Yes that is correct, that is why if you don't understand something, you simply ask. You shouldn't neg rep someone just because you don't understand something. The real breaking down of contact is when the poster doesn't ask!

That's such an ungrateful attitude. None of us here are made to participate here, but there should be a certain level of respect for those who do.

Also, going back to another post, when someone said ''who am I to judge,'' well right back at you at all. Who are you to judge?

 

What "correct" means is open to debate, but in looking at the posts where you've gotten reputation awarded, I think it was clearly appropriate in virtually every case. More than half come from you being abusive or insulting towards other people. What is your idea of the "correct" way to reward such behavior?

My attitude has been extremely mild. I once replied to bignose, one incident where I might be called rude. But that's all. I honestly don't recall any other case, only that my posts on occasions have been misinterpreted, but hey that's life.

I'll plug in some hypothetical values later.

Who are YOU to decide ...

I am not stupid, I see good quality posts and can recognize them. I cannot force anyone to like a post, but to say my posts don't warrant good rep would be disingenuous because I know better. Most would know better.

Really?

If we don't do the investigation on which the luminosity depends, does it get brighter or duller?

 

More realistically, perhaps you would like to offer some idea of how much light you actually get from some example system.

It could calculate the lumonisity of quasars possibly, or a large charge which is accelerating the vicinity of a massively warped space and time. The luminosity will certainly get brighter from the source.

Mmm yes but no one has outwardly called me a crank on this site. I'd certainly give some of the posters here a run for their money when it comes to physics. But my posts are almost never rewarded correctly, which suggests to me the system is abused in some type or manner.

I negated the rep point.

 

Your post in the quoted thread, was in clear violation of rule 1: Be civil. You IMHO deservedly garnered the negative reputation for failing to remain civil to fellow posters.

I call a spade a spade. If you feel hurt from my comment, go post in another thread. Truth hurts.

 

 

 

 

Do you really expect to recieve positive feedback, or wonder why you've recieved negative feedback with comments like the above?

Notice someone neg repped the post which pear positively repped?

And you really expect me to think anything else?

And that other comment was after I had been extremely patient with a poster and they were still wasting my time!

I think sometimes posters use the neg rep instead of actually replying to a post they don't like.

With a forum full of posters who clearly have the mentality of children, this is to be expected I suppose.

 

The neg rep was me! I felt your replies were unhelpful, dismissive, and not very friendly.

I am sorry if my posts came across unfriendly, I have no opinion about you either way.

Yes it seems like it isn't a perfect system, if not unfair as well. I don't think it is a particularly notable feature of the site either, it entices favouritism it seems.

I wouldn't be as bold to suggest it should be done away with; that would be a big thing to ask of all posters who have been working on this rep system for many years.

I think the idea is that the site is meritocracy so e.g. you can see the validity of someone's scientific statements, otherwise anyone could post anything and it might not be so clear what is valid logically or scientifically. I think in general that's a good thing.

 

However, I have seen neg rep get used in a kind of ugly way during disagreements and arguments. Also positive rep is often given for witty comments rather than scientific know-how. So it's not a perfect system.

 

I try not to judge people solely on their rep but a neg score might give me pause to consider carefully what someone has said. Likewise I won't take for granted something said by a poster with a high score. Presumably most people here do the same.

 

And don't worry you are still in the neutral zone and look I'll give you a +1 for a good question

Fair do's. Then why is it all tallied up in our profile? Assuming that you neg a post concerning the validity of scientific content, then what is it's purpose in the profile of people? Reflecting on myself, someone could go into my profile and assume off-hand I am a terrible contributor to the site and personally I don't think that is true. I might not be the best poster but I do give my cents worth when due.

Why do they even exist? Do you not think it is a bit unfair that posters can be biased in their opinions of posters here and so they find themselves negging these people, just because they don't like what they have said?

Surely negging posts only paints a picture in someone's profile whether they can be trusted. I think out of all the posters, I make good contributions but I never get positive reps.

So what is the deal with system?

You might want to pay more attention to comments like "or have you suppressed some indices/subscripts?".

missed it. I was in a rush yesterday when I read that comment.

However I thought the difference was obvious since I was dealing with the ratio of wavelengths which were written differently.

That's such an immature thing to do negging a post timo.

Get a life.

 

Since it was a pretty mundane application of the rules, a better tack might be to familiarize yourself with them and follow them upon your return.

No I changed my mind. I am not going to go away. I don't need to blow off steam, none of that, and I know I wasn't in the wrong.

You're are both mistaken. You should read up on the gravitational redshift for a metric here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift It is written exactly how I have given it, except I have written it for the charged metric case, but it uses all the same arguments as a Schwarzschild case.

...surely this action is within my own best interests.

I have had the most ridiculous enforcement of ''mod rules'' so I assume it might be best for me to lie low.

The real reason why I have posted this, is that if anyone wishes to conduct a game of chess with me, I will find your message here. In the meanwhile, keep well and I will see you all in a couple of weeks.

Keep well!

bla bla bla

You talk a load of rubbish clear in the text. You have admitted you have no idea about the situation, thus, no reason why any of us should accept your objections.

I never said no knowledge, anywhere.

I could be really unkind right now... not my forte though.

Just leave it. You obviously don't have any capacity to the argument. You admitted it yourself.

I'd like to know when someone claims to have enough knowledge about a subject, while simultaneously admitting no knowledge on the same subject.

Sounds like hope physics.

I have enough knowledge say, about classical physics. But often my knowledge fails in light of models which are very advanced. Like string theory, for instance.

TL, I appreciate the offer, but the reality is that this was the first chess related activity I've done in at least 5 years. I am out of practice, and really wasn't enjoying it anymore. I enjoyed this little blast from the past, but really I just clicked on the link and the thread out of curiosity. I hove other interests that are consuming more of my time these days.

Well, it is completely friendly as all my games are with my opponent, if you change your mind, you know where I am and I know a good site in which we can play.

I will again admit, I don't know much about it.

Yet you attempt to ignore this line of science, at least a ''perspective.'' Truth is you actually don't have one, since you admit you have no knowledge on the subject, yes?

Again, strong gravity and QCD are nowhere near the same scale, so its not really a matter of one replacing the other or making better predictions. Strong gravity is not noticeable at nuclear scales, and the energies of Planck scale make QCD unworkable,

Yes, it's scale is nuclear, but it's scale is the origin of the nuclear force, a slight difference to what you are saying, but your idea is correct. The scales are completely different. BigNose somehow believed that the atomic scale can easily answer if strong gravity exists, I did mention very early on that the probing of atomic scale is different to the gravity particle scale, which is very much within the origin of the strong and electroweak forces.

But we are actually talking about high energy physics in which all the forces unify to supply the origin of the other deviations.

I'm pretty sure imatfaal mean cancel in the sense of 2/2=1 or [latex]\frac{5x}{5x} = 1[/latex] or [latex]\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}=1[/latex].

 

Yes, what I said was that it comes to unity only when there is a zero redshift.

[latex]F = \frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2 c^5} \frac{\dot{a}_{g}^{2}}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{1 -\sqrt{ 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}

[/latex]

 

 

 

[latex]F = \frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2 c^5} \frac{\dot{a}_{g}^{2}}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}[/latex]

 

I have expanded your 2nd denominator

 

 

[latex]\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}[/latex]

 

I cannot see the difference between the top and the bottom - why wouldn't they just cancel? or have you suppressed some indecies/subscripts?

 

 

seems that it would just simplify to a zero-point jerk!

Dimensionally, yes, they cancel, just like a metric is cancelled on itself by a length divided by a length [math]\frac{r}{r_s}[/math]. As Julian Barbour says, ''the only real physical quantities in physics are those which are dimensionless.''

Anyway, what we have is a general case in the metric. What we really have is

[math]z = \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 -\frac{2GM}{rc^2}})} - 1 = \frac{\lambda - \lambda_0}{\lambda}[/math]

You simply reconfigure the equation to express the appropriate redshift since [math]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0}[/math] is in fact unity when the redshift is zero. You may represent this important ratio as the rewritten metric in terms of the vacuum energy.

Why don't you challenge me, I am very competitive as well, but I enjoy a civilized game.