Aethelwulf

I'm personally against reputation systems in general, but perhaps there are ways to improve the one we have right now.

 

Consider, for example, that a negative reputation has to be reviewed by a moderator (or some other higher ranking member); the user giving the reputation must write a short note as to why the person in question deserves a negative reputation, and if the moderator thinks the negative reputation is well deserved, he passes it through. If a moderator has been given a negative reputation, another moderator will have to review it.

 

What do you guys think?

I think that is fairer.

I wonder the same. Perhaps they mean make it an eigenvalue equation with a distcrete spectrum for the operator (non-continuous set of eigenvalues)? Don't know, just a guess.

There is such a thing a Canonical Quantization, a First Quantization and a Second Quantization method. My approach would have been a type of Canonical Quantization where we introduce the use of h-bar (a purely quantum mechanical) entity and their respective operators for the replacement of classical variables.

I still look at it though as the lowest energy state for any quantum oscillator.

It is the appearance of geometry in a vacuum http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/geometrogenesis

Well I can honestly say that I have never given you a rep point of either colour.

In fact I think I have only given one or two since I've been here as I too am not sure of the value of the system and view it with caution.

 

I did however wade through your extensive presentation in this thread

 

http://www.sciencefo...__1#entry683191

 

and posted a comment when no one else seemed prepared to.

 

Your spiel seemed to me to be associating mass with charge and you introduced Larmor as an explanation.

 

Your reply was suprising since you asked me why I had associated Larmor with mass.

 

I gave up the thread at that point.

That's because at the time I was unsure exactly what you where asking. So you don't (it seems you are saying) have the attention span to actually sit and explain yourself?

Nice one.

The thing is, nobody has said ''I can see English is not your first language'' nor ''your physics knowledge seems a bit muddled,'' two things about which you've complained. (Though, ironically, you have complained about someone not carefully reading your posts). The sentences were similar, but those are not actual quotes, and the meaning does change when you look at the actual statements.

 

One of the realities about discussions such as the one in question is that there will be criticism. One needs to be able handle a certain amount of it and not overreact.

 

For the record, "I'm not sure if its just 2:30AM, if english isn't your first language or if you're just naturally incomprehensible" isn't an ad hom. This comes up a lot. Maybe we should have a thread for that discussion. If you want to complain that there is some minor snark in the comment, fine. Rather than complain, though (seeing as nobody complained about your snark) perhaps you could read it as someone not understanding what you posted, and making a new effort at explaining yourself. Especially in light of the fact that this was explained in a subsequent post.

 

 

In the broader view, there's a certain amount of hubris involved in immediately assuming that giving negative reputation is personal, or that it's being given by the person with whom you are having the discussion.

Please don't get me started with this again. Ecoli was hinting that either I was incomprehensible or that English was not my native tongue. He also said I seemed to be muddled up physics wise.

I am not getting into this again, read his posts.

Oh, and in my case it certainly felt personal. Right down to a long list of each of my posts being negatively repped.

I don't know if it was just the nature of the thread, but I know my posts where hardly the trash it was made out to be.. and being negatively repped isn't even my problem. As I have explained, this kind of system acts more as punishment and reflects on the person enough that someone first coming here will think to themselves.. ''oh, don't read his posts or listen to him.''

Its morally wrong having such a system.

Well I figure, to have an ordered set of events you need to be able to speak about time. In the beginning, there was no kind of time we can deal with in a relativistic sense. We are traditionally told, that everything diverged from a ''single point'' without dimensions. If this is the case, then the kind of time we often think about, the conventional space-time doesn't really hold. So whilst we may speak of ''first instances'' there was no kind of geometry to actually speak about time. Geometry only appears a little later when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to allow geometrogenesis. Which is actually a topic I believe Wheeler introduced, you may have heard of it?

Yes Aethelwulf I have read your posts at great length, and I am under no doubt that you are an intelligent, articulate individual who could have much to offer this forum. However if you insist upon attacking, insulting and generally taking an argumentative stance as indicated by the Monty Python sketch I posted you will alienate your peers and cause us all not to take you seriously.

 

You seem to take offence when forum contributors ask you to back up your assertions with evidence or further information which is both condescending of you and frankly makes you guilty of exactly what you are accusing others of.

 

May I suggest that you try and respond without the emotion which runs through so many of your posts and stick to the facts of your Hypotheses. Maybe read and try to understand the advice you have been given by some extremely esteemed contributors and you will get a much warmer response.

No no, I don't take offense when asked to back up a claim. That I am happy doing.

One of the most recent things which has got up my nose is saying ''I can see English is not your first language''.

Why? What am I doing... am I speaking in chinese or something?

Seems to me the OP has come to the forums just to engage in a good argument such as the link below

 

 

 

http://video.google....077907195969915

Have you even took the time to see the quality of my posts?

A lot of them take a great deal of time as well due to latexing.

Clicking on the little swooping arrow takes you to the post. These remarks did not involve ecoli.

Well plenty of people where being condescending in that thread. You may need to be specific.

Then don't make posts that garner negative responses amongst members. Moreover, instead of assuming it's to do with how much people like you (and ignoring the posts people have made here in the process), maybe have a look at the content of the posts that were neg repped and work from there.

 

I have to ask, is thread really about the rep system as a whole, or is it specifically about your discontent at the rep points you and/or pmb have been given? Seems to me it's more of the latter.

The reputation system in general. I wouldn't care at all if I didn't think it would influence the veiws of others.

---Sorry swansont, didn't realize about the post.

Really? If you knew an INCH of science, you wouldn't ask isn't a bit insulting? Something you will learn in science friend isn't a tad condescending?

When did I say ''an inch'' of science. If i did, I apologize upfront now, but I don't find this second case insulting. Ecoli was extremely condescending in the previous and following posts. Stating things like ''your physics knowledge seems a bit muddled,'' yet hyprocritical since I hadn't seen him contributing here in the physics subforum once since my arrival.

http://www.sciencefo...od/page__st__20

I really don't see how my posts deserved to be harshly criticized in such a way. As I said, being liked doesn't bother me... you could hate me and it wouldn't phase me. But knowing that your reputation can impact how people view your posts is actually frustrating.

Zero point is not a photon.

 

[math]\omega[/math] does not have a set value

It's a limit for any energy and may very well apply to a photon - in fact, Einstein's original work on a zero point energy involved quantum oscillators - these include all particles of energy belonging to the electromagnetic field, fermion fields, gauge fields ect

You may want to have a read of this: http://www.sciencefo...on-versus-time/

 

It's short, but offers some explanation as to how members choose to use the reputation system.

 

Simply, it encourages people think a bit more before they post. The main use of the positive rep points that I've seen is to congratulate something that is well thought out and well presented. I myself give pos reps to such posts even if I don't necessarily agree with them.

 

Within a thread, rep points can help direct members (particularly new members and those who can't tell the difference) to posts that should be paid attention to and which ones to maybe ignore. To my mind, the points given to individual posts are more often what people will pay attention to as opposed to the total number of points an individual has received. I really wouldn't worry about one thread that went badly.

 

Most often, neg reps are given to posts that are insulting, posts that are an obvious attempt to troll and ignite a flame war or posts that come across as deliberately ignorant (the latter kind of falls under the second category). It is very, very rare that a member would use the reputation system to punish someone simply because they don't like them. This would indeed be quite difficult to accomplish, as regular members are restricted to 1 neg rep per day.

 

On the flip side, what we do sometimes encounter are members creating sock puppet accounts to increase their reputation. Remember too that mod staff and admin staff can see who gives out what. If something seems off, we can check it and reverse it. In the case of spam sock puppet accounts, the great and almighty Cap'n has this special move with instant cool-down best described as, 'BAM, -1000 rep points.' I've seen it happen only once and it was glorious.

Then it clearly is being abused. Not once have I sat down and created a thread frivolously, or went out my way to deceive in a post or even... in my own eyes, created a thread and answered anything with stupid thoughts or questions. What does seem clear, is that this ''reputation'' is a kind of slander without words on a person and will be abused by people who generally don't like you.

I have never been really insulting either... if anything I have been insulted. I certainly don't think it is rare that someone would distribute negative reputation points to punish someone. My most recent thread is a prime example, of posts being disliked because ''it is not within their mentality or standards''.

And I don't think for one moment the several odd negative reputation points was from many people. I think one person has just found each and every post and zapped them regardless.

!

Moderator Note

If you wish to debate a mod note, you know the appropriate channels.

 

But, for the sake of completeness:

 

You've spent the entire thread evading this question:

 

 

 

 

 

You did in fact respond to this, but unfortunately, it was equally as evasive with a bit of added ad hom:

 

 

 

 

And despite all his patience, you still haven't answered this:

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You see, all answers are replies, sure, but not all replies are actual answers. We want answers, not evasive and insulting replies.

 

Whether or not you said it's testable is not the point. The rules of this forum, which I both linked and quoted in my above post, dictate that what you present here has to either have evidence to support it or has to be in some way testable by current science.

 

If you have any more issues with mod actions, please use the report feature or PM an available member of staff. Please do not continue to derail the thread by debating this note.

I didn't evade that question, I simply forgot about it.

In reply to this question, simply read this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism - I cannot word it any better.

And I can't answer questions like ''how do you test God''? This is not the nature of the OP to tackle that question. Especially of course for the fact that I can't. If God is nature itself, then how can one test a nature of nature? Just look around you in this world, you ask yourself whether God can be tested. It's like asking a fish to describe land.

tested?

Perhaps your observational skills are lacking somewhat, because no one has asked me to provide evidence to how ''God'' can be tested. If they had, I would have laughed in this thread and said if I knew that, I would be a nobel prize winner.

The question, indeed was, what are the statistics of a God to exist. I have answered him, three times now, that I cannot provide a statistic for God. Such a thing if it is possible would require a complete knowledge of the universes statistics involving such a being. I don't have that knowledge. What more do you want from me than the response you people are so insidiously trying to make out I have intentionally avoided?

Your actions here as a mod are somewhat lacking. I haven't avoided anyone, I certainly have replied to every question and I certainly am not advocating anything more than within my own capabilities. All I have stated in the OP, is that if a God exists, quantum mechanics places considerable limits on what his own existence might include.

Close the thread if you are so hungry for a power trip.

[[if I had said, without any doubt he exists, and was outside of physics, I think you would have had more problems with this thread. So far, I have seen nothing wrong in my actions.]]

I am glad to help. If you have any [questions] on physics, don't hesitate to come into the physics subforum and ask them. A question is never stupid.

I mean, let's think about it for a second. We have people here who have dedicated their time to help people in their times of trouble. People like... pmb who is very capable of talking about scientfic ''things'' and helping people. No doubt he has dedicated a lot of time to answer people but you take one look on his personal profile and you see he has a negative reputation. Any outsider would look at that and think he is... unreliable, contrary to him being a physicist.

Not that it bothers me being ''liked'' here, but it has come to my attention posts I have made could be easily ignored because of this system as well, since recently I have went down quite a few reputation points since me making a thread on the possibilities of a God. Again, I don't care about reputation points, I do care however if this is going to have a substantial impact on people actually listening to what I have to say.

Favoritism is a horrible way to induce the reliability of a person. Why should a reputation precede you on the quality of whether someone agree's with you? It's a fact of life that you will always experience someone who does not agree with what you say, whether partially or in the whole. But this shouldn't weigh up whether you are capable of even talking about subjects. This reputation system here is disheartening for anyone. It's not only childish, perhaps even morally wrong, but it is systematically flawed as it tries to the summarize the character of an individual.

If I admit I can't, which I have now about three times, how can you honestly flag this thread? You are persecuting me for not being able to adhere to your request.

If any moderator takes this flag seriously, I will take it as a biased decision based on you being a mod. How about those statistics?

My grasp of physics seems muddled?

LOL!

Come back to me when you are ready to debate this without the silly insults. I have years of understanding physics. I say the things I say because I have studied these things for a long while. Perhaps as a better come-back, you could actually challenge the physics and show what you know.

Personally, also I don't understand how anyone can flag this post because I am incapable of giving a statistic to God. I am very confused by such an attitude. I'd be even more confused if any action is brought upon it.

I'm not sure if its just 2:30AM, if english isn't your first language or if you're just naturally incomprehensible, but this is how I'm reading your statement.

 

you don't want to give an estimate about God existing because either:

 

1) the universe as it exists today is just one of many highly improbable possibilities that we can observe through physics

 

2) the universe as it exists today was pre-ordained.

 

Point 1 makes sense and is pretty much what I and others have said.

Point 2 makes little sense, but I'm just assuming that by "high potential" you mean god directing the universe's creation. This point is pretty much what I'm asking you to estimate.

Yes and no. First of all, making a statistic on whether a God exists is unwise. I will get back to this in a moment.

You seem to be saying that factor 1) is that it is what you and others have said because it is an improbable possibility that we can observe through physics. This is a wrong statement. The very first instant of the universe, and following, cannot be directly measured by any being on Earth. No one can and will be able to measure this moment because nothing will let us live within that era. I will leave you to answer within yourself why.

Factor 1) actually adds to the realization a God can exist. The improbability of a universe coming from nothing, or out of an infinite amount of states it could have arose from, adds to the conjecture arguably that a something intelligent was behind its creation. You can't argue one way or another whether this ''improbability'' adds or takes away the argument for a God. Factor 2) is the same. If you have a really high potential, (the kind of potential like [math]\frac{m}{2}\phi[/math]) and is dictated to be high for a universe to appear to be arguably again, in the favor of a design - that something was capable of making this potential be real and physical.

Making a statistic on God is useless.

And enough of the ad hominem insults about whether English is my first language. I am English.

(And whoever keeps making negatives to my posts, grow up.)

These ''counting systems'' for the quality of posts are childish. It just shows you can't have a reasonable discussion without showing stupid emotions over something. I'd understand it if I have said something amazingly thick.

You've managed to both avoid the question and be redundant. The probability that there is no god is simply 1 - p(God exists). Please give an actual answer.

 

if you're saying that the probability that God exists is less that [math] \tfrac{1}{10^{40,000}} [/math], then I agree (though even that's higher than what I'd say). The only question is why you wouldn't consider this as being highly improbable. This number is far below the precision of most modern computers and will default to exactly zero for any calculation.

A safe estimate, would possibly be, what is the statistical chance of single universe coming into existence. Now, one can argue a number of different ''routes'' to this question.

One can argue that the universe is highly improbable - that the appearance of a single universe required just the right conditions that it was 1 in an infinite amount of conditions it could have arose in. These are amazingly fantastic odds, but true if one takes into consideration the laws of quantum mechanics.

However, one could argue that the universe was highly probable due to a very high potential which occurred around the same time our universe came into existence.

...so my conclusion is, if one was going to make a statistic on God, one cannot be definite one way or another. It's hard to base a statistic on something where odds like even a single universe is obscured by chances which... are either based on the first account or the latter.

But it certainly does not make them, improbable.

''same time'' sorry. edited.

Well, let us base some statistics on the probability let us say, on the chance of a simplest enzyme required for life. The probability, which was first calculated by Hoyle came to about 1 in [math]10^{40,000}[/math]. If this kind of life really is by chance, the question truly is, what are the odds there is no intelligent hand behind ''the world''?

And my point was that we know women wear bras. We can observe bras. We can observe them in different colors. We can observe women with no bras. What can you observe about God?

 

Well I don't get to see the woman often, so next time you see her, can you please ask her for me whether she even wears one

Sounds like you are certain a God must abide by the rules of quantum mechanics.

 

 

Am certain that the universe is ruled by uncertainty. Just knowing the location and trajectory of a particle would involve great amounts of energy. It would cause an inherent instability of the vacuum. In science, we can be sure to some great degree of the things we can measure and test.

To be honest, what you have said only adds to the evidence that we cannot be sure a God does not exist.

So you DO get it! In science, we don't draw conclusions about what we don't or can't observe.

 

 

oh... so you don't get it.

As iNow said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lack of evidence allows you to draw no conclusions about those claims. So yes, the probability that there is a God is low PRECISELY because there is no evidence.

 

 

But what claim are you making about Madonna's bra? That the color was red?

 

The thing is, even if you can't observe Madonna's bra, anyone who's been to a department store knows that red bra's exist. In fact, you could even count the frequency of red bras divided by total bras for a rough probability estimate that Madonna's bra is red (under the assumption that she picks her bra at random). It would be a reasonable estimate, but only because its an estimate based on observations and reasonable assumptions.

 

In order to make a similar estimate about the probability that God exists you'd have to observe multiple universes and calculate the relative frequency at which God exists in all observable universes. I don't think this study would be funded by the NSF.

What are you on about? I am quite aware of the methods of science, which is why I am disappointed in you and others being so dogmatic in your ways enough to say God is ''improbable''. Why should God be measurable? God is in the leagues of parallel universes. We may never be able to measure them directly but we still theorize on their possibilities and we hardly say things like ''they are improbable.'' I think most of you need classes again in the world of science where keeping an open mind is invaluable.

And my claim about the bra, is that I can't tell you what color it was, but I'm not going to say its improbable that she even wore one.

Nice quote thank you.

I agree strongly with that statement. I have even remarked myself in the past, that the beginning of the universe is devoid of such order that we associate to things today. I will expand on this if you want.

You are arguing it seems, that a total lack of evidence makes a God improbable. As a basic argument, I find it... unsubstantial. It sounds almost like your are justifying your position by a lack of evidence, which is why I said what I said.

There can be loads of reasons why we have no direct evidence of God, if one exists. Just as much as I don't know what color of bra the pop singer Madonna wore at the weekend.

There is no lowest energy. Photon energies are quantized in bound system transitions, but not all photons come from them. h is the quantum of angular momentum; all changes in angular momentum are in increments of h (or hbar, depending on where you account for the 2*pi).

Err there is a lowest energy. It is called the Zero Point Energy and always corresponds to

[math]\frac{1}{2} \hbar \omega[/math]

Of any quantum of energy.

This is why we say, ''the lowest energy a photon can have resides at the zero point energy scale''.

Well, no one else needs to know you business than yourself - just basically means it has nothing to do with anyone but your good little self