physica

This is very dishonest. Lets look at the sentence you quoted: Now lets look at this in context: Now lets highlight the final part of what I've said: I'm making a point that it's hard to determine if she got the harassment because she's a woman or because she is lying, or because she is criticising the game industry. We can have a white male example who also got death threats because he criticised the game industry. Questioning why someone is receiving harassment is not defending it, especially when someone is claiming why to back up their point. You know this. I agree and if you actually read the rest of my paragraph instead of dishonestly quoting a snip you'd see that I say: Again more dishonesty. The fact that I say I'm not backing claim as the evidence is shoddy and I make the point that if I had this style we would be here all day trading tales shows your statement for what it is, a straw-man argument. This is a science forum personal tales and feelings are not good evidence you know this. Invoke a conspiracy theory is rich. All I am saying is that we need to actually look at the stats to see where the problem lies. You're the one twisting what I'm saying and employing personal tales. I don't doubt this is true, again you quote is missing what I'm saying. I'm making the point that because of this conducting research and collecting stats is hard. I've shown evidence and I've apologised when people have pointed out that I have put words in their mouth. You've given me anecdotal evidence, this post gives two examples where you have been dishonest when quoting me and you don't hold back when putting words in my mouth you even continue when I point it out. I agree but science has shown us again and again that we are terrible at seeing the bigger picture. People of different categories are discriminated against for different reasons in different situations. Putting a blanket term on it is a very religious way of looking at it. For instance if we look at these two studies: Cook, Phillip W. (1997). Abused Men: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence. Westport, CT: Praeger. pp. 43–91. ISBN 9780313356711. Jump up^ Grady, Ann (2002). "Female-on-Male Domestic Violence: Uncommon or Ignored?". In Hoyle, Carolyn; Young, Richard. New Visions of Crime Victims. Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. pp. 93–95. ISBN 9781841132808. it potentially sheds a light onto why domestic violence against males is under declared. When women called police due to domestic violence 41% of men were ordered out the house, 28% were threatened with arrest, 10% got arrested later and overall 15% ended up arrested. When a man called police due to domestic violence 0% of the women were ordered out of the house, 0%were threatened with arrest, 0% were arrested and 12% of men were arrested even though they called the police. Now before the standard female victim crusade tactics come out accusing me of all sorts we can't draw full conclusions from this data. Percentages can only go so far as the arrests may actually be valid..... 0% of women could actually commit domestic violence. What this highlights (like the gender pay gap) is that the picture isn't all what it seems at face value. This is why stats and rational debate is needed. Just saying it's overwhelming doesn't really help anyone, even the women who are actually getting victimised as it misplaces the focus.

Come on I have not defended threats of violence. I have said it happens on both sides meaning we cant put the threats of violence down to because of female victimhood, that would be religious reasoning. It's interesting that my other points aren't addressed.

Sexism can happen in other areas of society other than the work place. Variables like getting married can give background noise. Women may be expected to or choose to raise the children, not dedicate more time to work, not move for or go for a promotion in order to keep a home and raise the children. Because of this we exclude it marriage as these factors are hard to quantify. The fact that non married women earn't 6% more than non married men suggests that people in the workplace aren't simply promoting and paying women less than men for the same amount of work. It suggest that there are other areas that need to be looked into. This is the basics of any quality analysis. The fact that you're not comprehending it says more about your willingness to comprehend that what's being written. I apologise for this. I know how frustrating it is when someone puts words in your mouth. I have not said that there is nothing to see I'm saying that there is two sides to the story. Due to the anonymity of the internet it is hard to tell someone's gender. Sometimes the poster makes it clear like the females harassing the female game reviewer but how could we collect statistics on this? I just tread lightly when I come across a muddy area where data collection is hard and some of the high profile campaigners have been caught outright lying. Don't put words in my mouth. I appreciate that sometimes we can get lost in the swing but it's a scary level of double standards when you complain about putting words in your mouth then put words in my mouth in the same post. I have a lot of work on and I already knew about the gaming so it didn't take much time. I'm reserving judgement of the rest because I haven't read into it. Judging by the snip on the games I'm predicting (not dismissing or claiming) that it's not going to be balanced. I not saying that one cancels out the other. What I'm saying is that there are muddy waters. The "one lie" isn't just one lie. First of all it's a main campaigner and secondly there are loads more lies. When there are offences on both sides it's hard to point out which one is the victim. Instead of putting words in my mouth I will actually tell you where I'm coming from. The data is shoddy, there has been numerous offences from both sides. One of the main campaigners has been caught outright lying multiple times. I will reserve judgement and read more before I religiously bang the women victimhood drum. Yes I agree it's actually worse. People are making assumptions based on no data at all and accusing people of being dismissive because they wont make a judgement based of anecdotal evidence and a few tales. I'd actually say it mimics religious style reasoning. Come on.... another double standard. Would you accept this from me?.... maybe if I was claiming that women are victims. This woman has been caught outright lying. Despite raising 25 times more than she needed for her project ($160,000) she released 7 youtube videos and then uses the harassment she's received as a platform to ask for more money. How much of here harassment comes from her lying or simply attacking video games? When a high profile person outright lies they get negative attention on twitter. Google Jack Thompson, a white middle aged lawyer who campaigned against violence in games and he didn't focus on women. He also got multiple death threats and was driven out of his profession because his arguments were agenda driven. Now I'm not saying that one cancels out the other. I'm saying that it's hard to determine what level of harassment (if any) is sent her way because she's a woman. What you have done here is along the same lines as a religion. Like when priests look at an incident and then don't bother to look at the stats or other possible reasons as to why it happened then link it to their cause. You have done the same. I don't know if you have actually done this or if you're just being dishonest because you offer no analysis of the point you make. If anything I could actually claim that men have it hard. Jack Thompson got no support. Anita has got multiple support. Both said that games brainwash people when there is no evidence. The main difference is that she was playing the female victim card. I'm not going to have the same double standards as you and say this is the case or attack someone's personality of put words in their mouth because they don't agree with this as the evidence is shoddy. What I am demonstrating is that this whole area is a minefield and there's no real research. We'd be here all day trading tales if I stooped to your level of standards. I am shocked that very reasonable people go into autopilot when female victim gets inserted into the subject.

I'll look into this after my assignments are in as I am under a lot of pressure at the moment but I'll address one thing as I've seen this before.... it's twisted information again and onlookers instantly assuming the woman is the victim. The sexist video game criticism has been twisted. Analysis is very shoddy and people from both sides have made threats of violence. Below is a video showing an award winning gaming critic was outright lying. She then disabled her comments on youtube as the criticism was valid and then hid behind the victim card. As there is always fringes threats of violence have been made to her and to her critics. Below is a video of a female game reviewer questioning the methods of this famous gaming critic who was being interviewed on the Colbolt report on TV. This female reviewer got messages from women attacking her for criticising the feminist critic. Below is a more balanced view on games iNow I'm shocked. You are usually a very considerate poster but you have fallen into the trap of: female victims.... sounds about right. You are usually a critical thinker. Have you had women victimhood dinned into your head so much that you don't stop to think that there might be two sides to the story that you're reading? The snip you showed had no stats or research backing it up. You wouldn't accept this if someone was denying global warming. There is a scary double standard, lack of critical thinking and half-baked acceptance when the conclusion is that women are victims. I will look into the rest after my assignments are in but judging by the bias tone this snip was written and the complete lack of coverage of the other side of the story I will not be surprised if there are other sides to the other points the article covers.

Sorry for the hibernation recently I have assignments in and this question has had me stuck for 2 days straight. What I get for the first 2 parts of the question is to apply poisson's equation with cylindrical coordinates. Only the radius will change so del squared will only consist of the radius. For the general solution I get the following: V( r )=(p/6EE_0)(r^2)-(A/r)+B I am completely stuck on part C. I think that the boundary conditions are: V(a)=V(2a)=0. I use simultaneous equations to solve for A and B but my result is completely different to the solution given in C. Where do the logs come from? Where have I gone wrong? I would be very grateful if someone could nudge me in the right direction. Many thanks for your time

In no way do I affiliate learning difficulties with women or suggest that womens' academic ability is less. Find me a quote where I say this. I am extrapolating the argument. CharonY admitted that biology does play a role in terms of giving birth etc. However, if we are going to intervene and interject positive discrimination because of this and in turn discriminate against people who's biology doesn't hold them back we may as well be consistent and do this in OTHER areas where biology holds people back such as learning disabilities. It's amazing that this isn't sourced. Can you please so me the data. The 1950s claims on the gender pay gap turned out to be trash if we actually looked at the data properly. once we excluded factors like marriage it turned out that white non married women were earning 6% more than non married white men in the 1950s!!!!! I never stop being amazed by the double standards when people argue for the women victim crusade. Anyone against them has to source everything but they can chuck stuff like this out constantly and no one bats an eyelid. Also the miscomprehension of other posters increases. It's almost as if there's a conformation bias. Instead of thinking the people arguing against have a different opinion its: the people arguing against must not like women for some reason. Prime example is people accusing me of saying that women have lower academic ability.

Regarding the comment about female academics delaying having children and foregoing that privilege really hints - and to an extent concedes - the point I have been making. That having children and the consequences in life that follow (maternity leave, re-prioritising life, etc.) are what really makes a difference. Take for example my point about the pay gap - the gap literally is between those never married, versus those who marry and choose a different work-life balance. I am not sure this automatically equates to discrimination, but instead a different set of choices resulting in different outcomes. What is wrong with individuals making their own decisions with the natural outcome that overall men and women will come out differently? What is to be done about this? If a man gains more experience and works longer hours should he be held back especially for a woman who chose to have children, has less experience in aggregate, works less overtime, etc. Is it right to treat one gender favourably over another? Whatever happened to equal opportunity? If we're consistent with this we may as well acknowledge that biology plays a role with learning difficulties. Shall we lower the standards and let them become surgeons, engineers etc and should we discriminate against able engineers and surgeons when people with learning difficulties are not equally succeeding? We also have to consider how many women are discouraged by the fact twisting of issues like the gender pay gap by the women victim crusade. It's frustrating as hell that the female victim parade either lie about this or simply ignore it. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

it's an arbitrary label. It will vary with culture etc

This is what's wrong. We're going round in circles. We busted the pay gap myth and produced a study that showed that women in STEM climb the ladder just as quickly. The people who are stating that women are victims in STEM should provide some evidence. iNow and swansont, I appreciate that you're usually very reasonable people but I'm afraid with this topic you guys seem to be muttering rumours. If you can provide some evidence that women are victims in STEM I believe that the thread will develop in a healthy manner.

Thank you for the video but I feel that people are misunderstanding my point. I'm pointing out that when it comes to women victimhood the waters get muddied very quickly. I've backed up my statements apart from the last one which you kindly did however, I see very little evidence from the people talking about women being victims in STEM.

We seem to be ignoring a huge part of the discussion here and simplifying it. Some women will definitely feel this but we can't know for sure how much of this is justified. My later points (which haven't been refuted) about the pay gap myth being a dishonestly pushed around as if it's divine truth when it's a really a result of poorly analysis and generalisation of results and the study showing that women in STEM fields progress just as well raise a more interesting point. If you tell a group that they are victims enough they will start to believe it. Conformation bias is a powerful thing. We may never know but we must still consider the question: how many women have been put off these fields because of the half-baked lies that have been forced down their throats? Maybe the cultural bias that stops women going into STEM is the constant stream of white knights looking for and creating victims so they can fight their corner. A similar lie was the 1 in 5 women get raped in college. When you actually look at the methodology they class the woman being raped if they regretted sleeping with the person later on. Once you excluded these from the analysis surprise surprise it was the same as the national average. Again we may never know how many women get put off going to a college of their choice and staying at home and going to a local college because of this lie. When will white knights realise that women are very capable and independent and twisting facts to enforce a victim status will only disadvantage the "victims" that they are "protecting".

No I respect women enough to acknowledge that they aren't mindless cattle that can be herded from pillar to post with ease. What I am saying is that society generally encourages them to be more socially manipulative in terms of flirting, looks etc. Because of this cultural bias THEY CHOOSE THEMSELVES to go into careers where their social manipulation gives them an edge. Once again we are ignoring the risk taking point, the study I posted showing that women are given equal opportunity to progress in math orientated subjects if they choose to go into that field and the video raised about the gender pay gap (i appreciate that you personally didn't raise the gender pay gap issue with me). Does that mean you accept them or are you trying to sweep these points under the rug? Anyone want to comment on the fact that never married white women working full time actually earned more (only slightly admittedly) than never married white men working full time in the 1950s data???

This has been repeated so much it has been accepted as fact even though the analysis supporting this was very one dimensional. If you take the average salaries men earn more but there are more part-time workers in the female camp. When this is taken into account the gap doesn't exist. When we compare education and pay men still get paid more but when we look at the types of jobs being done men generally work more hours and do higher risk jobs. This video will help dispel this fact that is almost taken religiously as truth: It's very well referenced with direct stats You need to go back and reread what I've written. Where have I said that this will affect academic performance? The whole point of the post is that if you raise someone with attributes such as social manipulation in terms of looks etc they will do better in jobs where it will give them an advantage and will not go for mathematically orientated jobs where their social manipulation skills have less of an effect. You've missed out the major point: As for the following: My main approach is that women do not choose to pursue math intensive fields because their social manipulation skills do not give them an edge in these fields. Also we have to consider the risk taking nature of women. This study showed that whilst women are underrepresented in math intensive fields the ones who are actually in the field are not held back and succeed just as well as men: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/Women-Academic-Science.pdf?utm_source=nytimes&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=pspitimes "Importantly, of those who obtain doctorates in math-intensive fields, men and women entering the professoriate have equivalent access to tenure-track academic jobs in science, and they persist and are remunerated at comparable rates—with some caveats that we discuss. The transition from graduate programs to assistant professorships shows more pipeline leakage in the fields in which women are already very prevalent (psychology, life science, social science) than in the math-intensive fields in which they are underrepresented but in which the number of females holding assistant professorships is at least commensurate with (if not greater than) that of males. That is, invitations to interview for tenure-track positions in math-intensive fields—as well as actual employment offers—reveal that female PhD applicants fare at least as well as their male counterparts in math-intensive fields."

This issue is clearly a complex one. Not one point will completely explain this finding but I'm chucking in my half-baked speculation because I think it should be considered. There is a difference in sexes. Women tend to hold power over men with looks and the mans' desire to sleep with them. I'm not saying men don't use makeup or flirt to get their own way but in society it is more accepted to white knight a woman. If a man hits a woman it's completely unacceptable but if a women hits a man it's generally accepted and sometimes even laughed about (by the way I don't condone any violence against anyone). I made the transition from medical academia to physics. The biggest difference is that I noticed is that maths strips away a lot of things such as image. No matter how much you flirt with someone you're going to be fighting a losing battle convincing them that 2+2=9. People tend to work in fields where they have an advantage. This study shows that attractive women waitresses are more likely to get higher tips: http://tippingresearch.com/uploads/TipAveJASP.pdf For a man who wasn't fortunate enough to receive a good education and ends up waiting tables, women seem to have it easy. I'm not saying that this is right or that it's the natural balance of things but I think we should look at the way society raises women. If you teach a woman from a young age to be interested in image orientated things like fashion, or think it's part of being a girl to flirt to get boys to do things, pay for things or get away with things or act distressed to get out of things, do not be surprised when they gravitate towards jobs where looks and social manipulation give you an edge. Not saying there's none of this but maths does dampen this edge. My mother taught physics, brought her own house with her own money (dad ran away), also brought two flats in poor condition, did most of the building work herself and now rents them out. There are some very strong capable women out there but what my mother always said was: If a woman wants to achieve as much as a man they have to put up with what a man puts up with. Although this doesn't embody the whole problem I think it will help with parents raise tougher daughters. Maths and experimental outcomes don't care what you look like or how you talk. Another angle we have to consider is risk. Going into academia is risky. Funding isn't constant and you are in a sense gambling when you're running experiments because the outcome is going to affect your career. We all shrug when men are more likely to be homeless, have gambling, drug and sex addictions. However, we instantly scream misogyny when we hear that there are less women in risky professions. This is yet again one of the multiple examples double standards and white knighting that many members of society jump to for a few cheap pats on the back. We also have to consider the pace of change. If a woman is an academic in history and takes 5 years out to have 2 children not much will have changed in the field of history in those 5 years. If a woman is in the cutting edge side of particle physics or in a STEM job in nanotechnology and decides to take 5 years out to have 2 children she will lose that edge as STEM changes quickly.

This is more of a sign that you need to read up more. A standard undergraduate astrophysics textbook will explain this pointing out that brightness depends on size, how long the star has been alive. Astrophysics also takes into account transit times, spectra, photon flux rates and orbits. You'd fail your undergrad physics degree if you stated that a large part of modern cosmology is based on star brightness. Instead of thinking that something doesn't make sense to you therefore it must be flawed take the approach: something doesn't make sense to me therefore I must read up on it more. Life might be a little less frustrating for you.

Sorry for the late reply. My first degree was at Nottingham and then I worked for Imperial college London NHS trust and also did medical research at Imperial college London. After coming to terms with the depressing standards of medical academia I went back to university to study physics. Because of the £9000 a year tuition fees I decided to do my physics degree through open university (an unranked distance learning university). The UK universities honestly don't care where you did your undergrad. My degree cost me £10,000 as opposed to £27,000 and I have contacted professors at Imperial, University college London, Kings college London and Cambridge. They've all replied saying that if I get a good grade in my degree I will be admitted. My friend did a masters at Birkbeck (ranked 300th in the world) and he now has an interview at Cambridge for a phd. I can't speak for other universities but UK universities seriously don't care where you got your undergrad from. If you're willing to do an MSC/phd I'd pick the cheapest university that will give you an accredited degree, work extremely hard and then apply for bigger universities later. If you don't want to do any post grad study then pay out for a good university for undergrad.

Sorry for being silly but what effect does limb darkening have?

When a planet is transiting across a sun we can calculate the radius of the planet by the change in photon flux. However, I've read that limb darkening (reduced photon flux at the edges of the sun) can affect the calculation of the planet's radius. How can this be? Surely this wouldn't as you would measure the flux before the planet obscures any part of the sun then measure the flux when the planet is mid transit thus negating any effect limb darkening has on the readings. Am I missing something?

I agree i've experienced 3 British universities now (hoping to experience a 4th next year [haven't dropped out or failed anything yet]) and there main focus is marketing. The wealthy in this country see education as an investment with cash return. I don't think you can find shorter degree or phd course throughout the world. The courses generally have very little freedom. I once remember having two choices, qualitative and quantitative for a research module. The lecturers strongly encouraged all of us to pick qualitative because it was "easier". They even had material prepared to spoon feed a student who picked qualitative. All but me and another picked the qualitative option. The department wasn't happy and had to get someone from another department to mark it and couldn't offer any help with it. However, the degree certificate didn't specify which ones we picked and the course description stated that qualitative and quantitative were covered. If you don't really care about learning but you want your education to get you a good job then I'd say British will be a good choice. can't really comment on any other country as I haven't experienced it.

That's mildly depressing to hear but on a practical note for you studying in the UK looks like a good choice. From a historical context EU universities have made great advancements. I'm definitely no expert but maybe british universities got into their pole position in the days of the empire. Maybe the majority of academic comunication is in english giving American and UK institutions an advantage. I have no idea. Hopefully someone who knows a lot more than me can shed some light on the subject.

Don't know much about any other countries but the UK universities I don't think UK universities live up to the reputation they have. UK universities are obsessed with their reputation and will happily neglect their students to hit technicalities to keep their rank. I know of a professor of vascular surgery at Imperial College London that doesn't have a single piece of equipment in his lab apart from computers, he doesn't do research but makes all his juniors write and publish literature reviews in any journal that will take them, Although it's nothing original he technically gets loads of publications a year so Imperial like him. There is also a sense of elitism. Young 18 year olds are constantly told they are the best of the best if they go to a russell group university in the UK. If you take it with a pinch of salt it will be ok but this can turn some into a very small minded arrogant adult. Also the UK education is very constricted and it does cut corners. You usually spend 3 years to get a undergraduate degree, only one year to get a masters and only three years to get a phd (shorter than other countries), English graduates are rushed through the system quickly and are not very rounded only focusing on the bones of their chosen subject. Like their focus on the ranking system you can graduate from a good university by memorising the bones of your subject to pass exams. I don't know if this is a worldwide problem but again I've met plenty of graduates who admit that they barely know anything about their degree subject despite getting good grades. It also depends of what subject you do in the UK. I have a friend who did a masters at Imperial college London (ranked 5th in the world at the time) in clinical research and passed it with no problems with a distinction not spending much time on it at all. He then did another masters at Birkbeck College (300th in the world) in statistics and he's studying long hours every day, struggling and getting a merit. I'm also going a second degree. My contrast in university rankings isn't so extreme but I'm finding a physics degree so much harder. It depends what you want out of an education. If you just want a degree just to get into a management etc do a medical/bio based degree in the UK. There is an government funded national health service that is not very efficient with it's money or high with it's academic standards. They chuck loads of money at medical "innovation" and "research" without really looking into it. you will be able to party a lot, get it done really quickly (as the degrees are shorter), have an easy time getting grades and your tutors will neglect you but work round the clock to make sure that your university has a high ranking in the worldwide figures. If you want to go the extra mile you won't get rewarded. I got told once by a tutor not to work so hard. Didn't really understand because it was clear that he wasn't reading what people wrote anyway. I have a friend who did a phd at Oxford and he changed one word to penguins throughout his paper to see if his supervisor read it. They handed it back to him saying it was a good read. If you want to do a degree in marketing or want to work in marketing after graduation the UK is the best for you without a shadow of a doubt. Of course this is all anecdotal evidence. I'm sure there are very good tutors in the UK who will encourage you to develop but in general the system favours image. Like most things to biggest factor in education is you. The internet has given you so much power. The UK also does manage to develop cutting edge advancements. I'm sure other countries have flaws or the same problems as the UK.

We also need to factor in physical complications of brain surgery. Infections are a serious issue. Plus the brain is delicate, the amount of mess ups I've seen in post op brain surgery patients is extensive. My friend is a neurosurgical trainee and he always says, if you can avoid brain surgery then you should. It's really a last resort like removing brain tumours or draining strokes. Even then the eligibility criteria is extremely narrow. If you look at new innovations like phototherapy for lung cancer and keyhole surgery etc they try and reduce the surgical emphasis as much as they can. Surgery is not done as a option if there are non surgical treatments. Brain surgery would have to advance a lot before we should consider it for treating personality disorders.

What has this got to do with what I said?????????

Thank you guys so much. If I have an unequal number of lowering operators to raising operators in a ground state would this also equal zero? If so is it because the wavefunctions will be orthogonal resulting in a zero value?

I agree he pointed out that he was leaving after Ophiolite said that he seconded my post. You may not like Ophiolite but you can't just make stuff up. It was the truth that stung Bluemercury, if you look at previous posts Bluemercury was willing to chuck passive aggressive insults out until the cows came home. He only got angry when his points were blown from under his feet. For other readers what Robittybob1 and Bluemercury have displayed is the new fashion that seems to be taking society by storm. Looking and analysing content is too hard and there is a risk that you may be caught out so forget the content and just get offended. Hide made up statements behind being a victim and attacking other peoples' character. The following article highlights this issue well, free speech is so out of date right now: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/ If this is all you see then the issue is with you. Sort out your conformation bias issue.