krash661

how am i continuously receiving negative points on a topic that locked ?

Really? You thought it was weird. This is an open forum where anyone can participate. I simply asked you what was weird and provided you with my explanation. If you didn't want further clarification, then you could've taken a very different aproach to your replies, but you didn't.

unfortunately,

the word weird is not a question,

again, this is your own thought to something that never was,you interpreted your own thought to my words.

( again, another form of auto pilot thinking)

simple.

 

I simply asked you what was weird and provided you with my explanation.

and i responded with,

" well that would mean each visitor has viewed my profile 200-250 times each person.

to me that does not make sense.

edit-

i'm wondering if the views are from java script ( hover over name and short profile comes up)

and the visitors are the ones who actually clicked on your name to view your profile.

that to me makes sense and lines up with the numbers. "

If you didn't want further clarification, then you could've taken a very different aproach to your replies, but you didn't.

again, i was not the one who does not understand what a question is,

then i gave you an answer that you again did not understand.

then became offended when i stated you did not understand.

 

simple,

the bottom line is,

you did not understand and became offended of it.

simple.

 

ridiculous,

 

trying to answer your question. You can only have your questions answered if you provide enough information.

again, there was no question,

it's you not understanding what a question is.

 

I only gave you 1 negative rep point for your attitude and tone of voice.

lol first, there is no voice, this is what's called typing,

second,

again,

there were no attitude or tone,

this is your own thought to something that never was,you interpreted your own thought to my words.

This is how the conversation went...

 

 

Here, your statements suggest that you do not understand why profile views are greater than visitors. You make no mention of your method of tracking. So I am left with reiterating what iNow said:

 

 

Although I tried to answer your question given the limited information you provided, I even included a smiley face to indicate I was exaggerating and not actually being serious.

 

 

Again, you do not mention anything regarding your actual thought process and how you've been tracking visitors. So we are left in the dark.

 

 

I'm not cherry picking these quotes. Here, you accuse me of not understanding without sharing your thought process, and it's all downhill from there.

first, i know and understand the conversation, i actually read every post fully, and continue to read it until i know i understand it,

 

simple,

 

and second there were no other questions,

i said,

 

" hmm, kind of weird since my profile views are far more greater than visitors by the thousands.

 

but all in all , thanks. ',

 

it was your own mind and choice to think it was a question, then jumped in with your comment,

 

simple.

 

Here, your statements suggest that you do not understand why profile views are greater than visitors. You make no mention of your method of tracking. So I am left with reiterating what iNow said:

again, this is your own thought to something that never was,you interpreted your own thought to my words.

( again, another form of auto pilot thinking)

simple.

 

Although I tried to answer your question given the limited information you provided, I even included a smiley face to indicate I was exaggerating and not actually being serious.

again,

there were no other questions,

it was your own mind and choice to think it was a question, then jumped in with your comment.

and also, what a nice attempt to talk your way out of it.

 

Again, you do not mention anything regarding your actual thought process and how you've been tracking visitors. So we are left in the dark.

first, i haven't mentioned any tracking at all at this point

and second,

which is why i clearly stated (civilly),

" i have been tracking this since the day i signed up here ",

in the following post.

but you had no clue what tracking meant,or did not read the full post or something.

 

I'm not cherry picking these quotes. Here, you accuse me of not understanding without sharing your thought process, and it's all downhill from there.

yes,because you did not, which i had no problem with so i told about me tracking

.i wasn't or not the one who became offended of the words " do not understand ".then,

on top of that you still did not understand or stop to think about what tracking means,

 

simple.

it's a matter of auto pilot thinking,

 

i said 27,

the first response was ,

how could that be, there's only 5 showing,

if anyone stopped to think, maybe they would have realized, there was another method,

 

so i clearly stated (civilly),

 

" i have been tracking this since the day i signed up here ",

since no one stopped to think this.

 

then the result was,

it appeared, no one knew what tracking meant.

(still on auto pilot thinking)

simple.

 

so i posted what it meant

 

then i received negative points,

because individuals did not understand,

simple, so when they realize they were wrong and offended from being wrong, the result was negative points,

like always.

 

lol it's as simple as individuals becoming offended of the " not understanding/comprehending " word,

 

which i find very funny, says a lot about an individuals mentality.

and there's a definition for it.

i'm just curious as to what ever happened to this snell guy.

 

i notice this attempt is not used anymore,

 

weird.

Well, that isn't clear at all. You left some ambiguity on how you were tracking the site, which lead to the confusion concerning your situation. Yes, I did make some assumptions as a result. However, none of them were insulting or meant as a derogatory statement regarding your comprehension. Perhaps, you should be more clear in your meaning as to avoid future conflict.

track·ing

 

track·ing [tráking]

n

1. following of trail: the act or process of following the trail of a person or animal

 

it was the auto pilot thinking that lead to assume i was looking at the list,

 

simple.

 

edit-

 

lol,

here comes the hilariously typical negative points.

lol always from bias,

like what katz and mice stated.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67349-why-is-there-a-reputation-system/?p=686629

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67349-why-is-there-a-reputation-system/?p=686645

 

edit 2 -

 

lol got to love the low level/average minded.

 

lol when wrong and offended, just resort to negative points.

Let's be civil. No need to make assumptions regarding my level of comprehension. I simply asked you a question about where you are seeing a list of the 27 people who visited your page last. I guess you are manually creating a list as new people visit your profile because I can't find a setting that allows me to view the last 27 people to view my profile. I assumed that you read the entire thread and realized that when non-members view your profile that they don't show up in the visitor list, but do count towards your profile views.

talk about " assumptions ",

you assumed i was using the sites list.

 

and second, i clearly stated " i have been tracking this since the day i signed up here ",

 

before you posted,

 

" Where are you seeing a list of 27 people? This is getting off topic, but I can only show the last 5 visits to my profile as determined in my settings. I created a screen shot showing my settings page along with my 5 latest visitors. I cannot find a setting that allows me to view more than 5 of my last visitors. "

 

which leads to my other post.

 

simple.

I assumed that you read the entire thread and realized that when non-members view your profile that they don't show up in the visitor list, but do count towards your profile views.

yes, i did think about that,i do not run on auto pilot all day long.

i actually stop and think

i have been tracking this since the day i signed up here.,

lol what's so hard understanding this ?

Where are you seeing a list of 27 people? This is getting off topic, but I can only show the last 5 visits to my profile as determined in my settings. I created a screen shot showing my settings page along with my 5 latest visitors. I cannot find a setting that allows me to view more than 5 of my last visitors.

 

MySettings.png

you lack comprehension, or you do not fully read what i stated.

 

simple.

As CaptainPanic stated earlier...

 

 

Out of interest, what do you hope to gain by tracking the number of (human) visitors to your profile ?

 

 

EDIT: That was in response to krash661

nothing i was just curious after reading some of these post,

and was bored and joined conversation.

narrow mindedness.

 

everything always leads to a bigger picture.

the subjects out come is based on human mentality and human behavior in a majority with out subject to change.

there's at lease 10% truth to everything,

more than likely 90% of it is bull shit.

nothing more.

humanity flows in it's path as it does,

and as of this moment in humanity,what is value to it, is what is value to it.

nothing more.

we as humans decide what is valuable by a majority.

nothing more.

in the end,there's only 3 thing for human existence that is tangibly or realistically valuable,

and those 3 things are,

life, intelligence and language, every thing else is just bullshit to keep a majority content.

humanity has already failed.

No... Your visitor list has been truncated to show a much smaller and more recent list of the people who viewed your profile.

you are not understanding,

 

i have been tracking this since the day i signed up here.,

 

i only have 27 people (including you) on the last visit list,

 

i have 4,150 views,

 

that would imply, what you state, that all visitors has visited my profile 208 times each visitor.

 

what i stated makes sense and lines up with numbers.

What's weird about it? The count of profile views is for the entire history of having your profile. Surely you wouldn't want the latest visitors list be equal to your profile views. I've got 11,627 profile views, which would make the visitors list needlessly long : )

well that would mean each visitor has viewed my profile 200-250 times each person.

 

to me that does not make sense.

 

edit-

 

i'm wondering if the views are from java script ( hover over name and short profile comes up)

and the visitors are the ones who actually clicked on your name to view your profile.

 

that to me makes sense and lines up with the numbers.

hmm, kind of weird since my profile views are far more greater than visitors by the thousands.

 

but all in all , thanks.

what is the difference from Profile Views and Latest Visitors ?

pseudoscience

 

-fixed ideas

-no peer review

-selects only favorable discoveries

-sees criticism as conspiracy

-non-repeatable results

-claims of widespread usefulness

-"ball park " measurement

zimbu,

 

a simple question is,

 

what happens when antimatter comes into contact with matter?

Galaxy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy

 

black holes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

 

Astronomical spectroscopy / Red shift: the Doppler effect in light

http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/18A.html

 

An important consideration for astronomical spectroscopy is the correction for red shift (or blue shift), a change in the wavelength, and hence the color, of light that has traveled over long distances to reach us.

Red shift: the Doppler effect in light

 

It turns out that the light reaching us is predominantly red-shifted. Understanding this red shift is a powerful endorsement of the theory of cosmic expansion. In this model, our universe is expanding outwards uniformly. By analyzing the light from an object, and measuring the extent to which it has been distorted by red shift, we are able to estimate the rate of expansion using Hubble’s Law: recessional velocity as determined from red shift is proportional to distance (for distant objects).

BWorking back using this rate of expansion, we can estimate the age of the universe. This means we are effectively looking back in time, looking at light that was emitted in the early days of the universe.

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than conveniently side step it again,

 

once again, please provide a source,

Andromeda might not be the best example to use when it comes to expansion, since it's not only one of our closest neighbors, but also moving towards us.

pseudoscience

 

-fixed ideas

-no peer review

-selects only favorable discoveries

-sees criticism as conspiracy

-non-repeatable results

-claims of widespread usefulness

-"ball park " measurement

 

Prophet12 response,

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=45755&view=findpost&p=617239

 

Facts are:

Idea/theory/explaination is anything but fixed idea following

Offered for (scientific) review

Selects any discovery, especially the recent

Encourages any constructive critique

Consistant results and explains observations in any

Has widespread implications, no claims other than obvious

Very specific measurement, more discerning than present physics and no needs for 'constant' fudge factors to help theory match reality.

**** nuff said****

I agree. Besides, you did not provide an observation, merely a hypothetical. We are not asking for a hypothesis; rather, something we can see, touch, feel, taste, or hear.

you should see this shit on the other forum,

 

lol

Krash-

 

What do you mean source- i have told in posts and personal msgs, i am as close as you will get to Snell (the source) for now; that is dictated by him. For now just accept I am the best source on the Theory available to you/forums until he decides otherwise.

 

Peace

you know exactly what i'm and alex talking about.

refer to post # 7 in this topic.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77278-universe-expansion-vs-contraction/?p=754545

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67349-why-is-there-a-reputation-system/

i have to lean towards the agreement with katz and mice

Excellent EdEarl-

 

Test this-

 

Example: three objects in space O1 and 02 and O3

are traveling to the same location B. Neither object can see B, and definable space/universe is from just beyond the furthest of the three to the location of B. all three are in simple line to B, O3 being the furthest.

 

Each are accelerating in rate of space traveling, acceleration increased by gravity from B (massive) and because of the varied proximity to B, O3 being furthest O1 closest, each object's acceleration towards B is as different as their proximity.

 

To judge their distance and relation or change to each other, the objects use light viewed between each other. They each view measurements taken at two separate times, the first year and last year.

 

Questions:

1- when each measurement is viewed will the distances between the objects be getting expansive-greater?

2- would light shift be red or blue between them.

3- if universe which is space with objects/matter existing in it (not space-void-etc) was defined as just beyond O3 to B, would the universe be greater-expanding from or at the first measurement or last?

4- could O1, O2 or O3 perceive they are in a state of expansion relative to each other and space between them while in a state of universe contraction?

 

This simple example is to help others understand the (mis) perception of redshift which led to expansionism etc. The example is to help understand Snell Theory which explains contraction of the universe instead of Einstein's original GR of static universe which was changed after redshift was detected to/change to expansion.

 

Peace

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than conveniently side step it again,

 

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

Ok- what evidence proving the theory do you want?

 

Ask your questions, i/we will supply what advances validity.

 

Ask pertenant questions regarding the theory, as its been explained, and we will supply what evidence we have. We welcome all scientific inquiries or research.

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

 

for this to be,

" Granted the theory is not widely published-distributed yet. But i got a hardcopy from Snell's-group to research "

 

i can not even find a white paper or preprint.

which is kind of odd.

 

i can not even find it in review.

which is very odd.

 

Snell's-group

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#sugexp=cpsugrpqhmsignedin&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=664XcgFHwsBtboOFu-Ar7A&pq=snell&cp=8&gs_id=c&xhr=t&q=Snell+group&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Snell+gr&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=6ca84d98d48f74bf&biw=1296&bih=905&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b

 

once again, please provide a source,

 

simple.

Granted the theory is not widely published-distributed yet. But i got a hardcopy from Snell's-group to research, and i have yet to find anyone to debunk it and from everything it explains, it matches up with reality, sound physics/law, observations etc totally. It answers what others only question or they say is a mystery... Its no mystery to the theory.

 

Most posts against it is typical try to detract without knowing what it says, simply because it proves/explains contraction instead of expansion of mainstream etc.

 

Pay attention, mainstream relativity-GR is about to change. Yet because the crowd's momentum is what it is, change will be...?

 

Peace

this does not exist.

it's your own thought.

 

simple.

 

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than side step it,

so i used my access and found nothing.

 

edit-

my problem is i can not even find a white paper or preprint.

which is kind of odd.

 

i can not even find it in review.

which is very odd.

 

it's actually your own thought

which explains everything,

it explains why i can not find it in peer review ,why i cannot find white paper or preprint,

 

it's literally that simple.

 

 

Snell's-group

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#sugexp=cpsugrpqhmsignedin&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=664XcgFHwsBtboOFu-Ar7A&pq=snell&cp=8&gs_id=c&xhr=t&q=Snell+group&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Snell+gr&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=6ca84d98d48f74bf&biw=1296&bih=905&ion=1

We understand General Relativity, GR is wrong as it is presently written with a constant that predicts expansion, period.

 

Bignose's post -demonstrate 'more accurate or more predictions' and 'will be displaced' -is correct.

 

Snell's theory does demonstrate, more accurate, better predictions, so as to disprove present GR and more perfectly match theory/science with the universe/mass/space etc.

 

The questions about relativity are not just because some dont understand, its because they do and GR presently does not make sence/logic etc. in the real universe; it leads to too many mysteries-inventions-necessities etc.

 

Snell's theory addresses it all, and supplies the answers, scientifically.

 

The questions by many have been posed, now the answers (Snell's Theory) has been supplied; its all for a reason, if you care to reason.

 

Peace

oh my,

so you made your way here huh.

 

anyways,

 

this does not exist.

it's your own thought.

 

simple.

 

i asked you numerous times to provide a source and you did nothing more than side step it,

so i used my access and found nothing.

Other people have been working to make better batteries, but their efforts clearly do not satisfy you. Instead of blaming others for being incompetent to find "ways to power stronger batteries" why don't you do it?

i'm actually surprised the conversation went into 20 post,

 

i stopped reading at the third sentence.

so far everything went back to normal on my end.