Tom Vose

No they don't orbit the nuclei of atoms. They instead exist as a cloud around the nucleus, due to the wave distribution of probability. So they do not orbit, but exist in all places around the nucleus.

Yes.

I'm sorry

Well, ok. There isn't many.

.................................

What??? My work consists of 127 pages, what makes you think i have the kind of time to check every post?

You can take stuff out of me,

But if you fill me up, i never get full...

What am I?

Which ones, because i am not doing them all.

.............................................

Ok, i am yet to see what this infraction is for, but so much for digging that hole, eh YT?

Not that this is a very admirable victory, but i feel the action of changing it for another post, is really simply to save the reputation of the moderator.

Yes. Care to offer some evidence to contradict that?

 

Oh, wait, you're allergic to evidence. You just prefer spouting random big words and expecting people to act impressed.

 

 

 

How about this: I'll remove one warning point for every time you actually support an argument with evidence.

 

Mokele

Ok, how does one offer evidence here... i could give you my house number, and that way you can hear my voice, and then i could also give you Toms' mobile if you want to hear his? Would that be sufficient evidence for his grace?

.........................

I would like to know which post i have been infracted for this time.

oh far from it, things could have been MUCH Worse for you had you been warned Every time for such things!

in fact you were given ONE fixed point penalty for a multitude of offenses, the one listed being simply being the one chosen to execute the procedure, but it could well have been any number of prior instances.

 

but anyway, tell me something about this "Other Warning" you were given, in particular Why after receiving it you chose to ignore it and carry on???

 

really Tom, you Are digging quite the hole for yourself here!

The infractions i refer to, are the two i recieved concerning my behaviour here at science forums. If i have been in error before in the past, then why so much pus$y-footing around me? Why not just have punished me for other offenses if indeed, it was called for?

The reason why it never, is because i haven't breached any other rule here, apart from two others: One for trolling, the same label you gave my infraction

for, and another, for foul language, which i more or less feel bad about, because i can usually contain myself quite well.

So, the latter here you speak of -- is really a straw man, because unless you just wit up on your behaviour, and admit i never lied, i haven't exactly continued to do anything.

But you must see as you have Paranoia, that i can't be in the wrong, and have merely been targeted by someone who straight down the line, doesn't like me very much.

Plus, i don't think my posts are all bad. The greater part of them keep their original places, serving their own good.

I will to my best in the future. This thread was actually intended to be an apologetic thread, not a flame war against me.

The problem, Mokele, is that he claims himself to be a scientist. So presumably he already knows all that

 

And yet, the real scientists on this site can't understand what the hell he's talking about...

By the way, i made a complaint about this post, and how does one know if something has been done?

I don't think freely calling people idiots is good ettiquette, but purely condescending and insultive.

It's not, are you calling me a liar?

You are the one who was in the wrong, and sir, you are the one caught out in error. You have reacted irrationally, and not very professionally at all in your moderating. It is you sir who should be ashamed, for i am not a liar, nor did i lie on the account you claimed i had.

I call for my infraction to be retracted as soon as possible, because this is outragous.

Well, no... i wasn't going to respond again here, but this subtly corresponds to my previous thread which was deemed to complicated to the OP. Whilst it is technically true that the big bang is the origin of energy, it goes deeper, where the true origin of energy is revealed as the zero-point energy field, rather than some application of a singular region.

But he signed up for me. Nothing wrong in that, because he was exploring this place.

I have done nothing wrong.

So technically, he used his own name. I simply use his account.

Relative to what?

Well, i remember reading recently, that if you could collect all the gold in the world, it would only be enough to fill three entire football stadiums.

A Newton has about the same weight as a Granny Smith Apple, and that would be like a nugget on a good day in the American Rocky Mountains.

In any case, the infraction should not be taken as merely for one post, but as an infraction for an accumulation of similar offenses.

Offenses, however, that i have paid for, for other infractions. I am being targeted simply, and this infraction was uncalled for, and equally unjustified.

I think "lies" is inaccurate. Misinformation is closer, and we all know how quick we are to jump on inaccuracies so they don't gain tacit approval. As far as I know, Tom Vose has only lied about this account at Bebo not being his.

 

It's hard to gain trust back after it's been broken, but I, for one, see a bit of a change happening. Tom Vose, if you stay here long enough and get over our initial reactions to your initial stimuli, we all may benefit. Scientific method is a process, not a road map, so don't feel like we are trying to yank you onto tracks that all lead to the same place.

Thank you, and can i clear something up. I never exactly lied about the account either. I am not Tom Vose, i use his account. I am his flat mate, so the bebo page is not mine.

paranoia: if you`d care to read the original infraction, it`s Plural! "lieS, them, and factS", and Does indeed with intent cover the multitude of other instances this has been done by him.

 

Cap`n is perfectly correct in what he said.

How is he correct, unless of course, the rules have been modified just for me so that i may be punished twice for something?

As i said, i have been punished already, and this attitude of, ''well, since we aren't right this time, you can still suffer for all the past indiscretions,'' is simply unfair, and i am sure it is a breach of the sacred rules.

Saying they have a degree in science is premature, i would have thought, but not the label scientist, because they do engage in scientific studies, and by definition, makes them a scientist.

Only i never said that we had any that could beat the worlds most fastest computer deriving relativistic equations, or one that can model the universe precisely to superpositing laws.

I did however say we had them, and we can calculate the first (or something like it) 15 prime numbers, using methods that normal computers cannot do.

I never passed french, but if i did, i would have said something else.

Anyway, you telling me that students in university who work in the field are not scientists?

I think these definitions are more or less the same.

I second Mokele's and Snail's definitions of "scientist".

 

 

 

Hope you don't mind, but I've taken the liberty to rephrase your statement.

 

"it seems that backing statements up that are contrary to proven science, come hand-in-hand with what i said."

 

I'd wager that anyone here who makes such claims would be asked to supply proof, no matter how popular or respected.

 

If you can provide even one name of someone you think is given preferential treatment, I can likely find you post where they made a claim that seemed extraordinary, and where at least one member asked for verification. I've seen it with at least three members of influence here. But mostly, they recognize in advance if their statements would seem extraordinary in light of proven science, and provide links and/or quote sources.

 

Personally, I wouldn't take offense. It's not scientific to "just take my word for it". Science requires lots of references to other works. That's simply how it is.

I would agree with this diplomatic post.

But one Newton of gold... its not really that much

No, i mean the calculations we make using them have different computational methods. We could not do this before.

I am not trying to wriggle out of anything.

I don't recognise the v(x) part, this is why i may have asked this question.

I`ll tell you what then, You support your claim that quantum computers that exist today are performing calculations that we can`t do on regular computers, citing Reliable sources (I`m getting tired of asking this), and I`ll retract the points!

 

I can`t say fairer than that now can I!?

Actually, are you not twisting what i said. I never said that normal computers cannot compute answers. I did however point out that quantum computers can do things (like computational processes) in ways that normal computers cannot.

I give up. Just lock this thread, because it's ''obvious'' i can't be a scientist. This is all most of you have even focused on, and its ridiculous to say the least. I am currently a student of physics, (this is my job), and that to me makes me a physicist.

So cei la vie.

I received an infraction here, as someone called me a liar.

''Dear Tom Vose,

You have received an infraction at Science Forums, The Original.

Reason: Trolling

-------

keep your lies to yourself, do NOT post them here as Facts!

-------

This infraction is worth 10 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=453602

As they exist now, you said. They do exist now, and we can make calculations we couldn't make previously.

All the best,

Science Forums, The Original

______________''

How the hell did i lie?

If we can compute the first (let's say) seventeen prime numbers from using sophisticated quantum computer technology, how is this a lie?

I ask this moderator to retract his statement and apologize to me.

Hi Tom - Just a reminder... Please, please, please don't do the work for the requestor. Ideally, you would explain to them how to work through it, maybe splitting the basics into steps without giving away the answer. More than a policy here at SFN, it's actually a good practice in life.

Oh my bad.

Actually, why don't you learn a bit about them, before making these unsupportive claims..

...Oh, Dejavu...

How many times will i need to contemplate these reports, before i just give up on your asses?