ydoaPs

! Moderator Note Personal attacks are against the rules and will not be tolerated. Keep discussions about the topic, not the person.

And that's what you're doing.

If you had been reading along instead of nitpicking notation, you'd know that was the point.

So, root(-13)=root(-1)3, no?

(ax)y=axy=ayx=(ay)x, no?

'nuh uh' isn't very persuasive.

That's also wrong. You can't get there from where you started. Yeah, it's multiplying by one to get the I out of the bottom like you're supposed to.

That's not right. You can't get from -1(a2/2) to ai. As I said before, a/i=-ai. Multiply a/i by i/i, and you get -ai, not ai. And -a2/2=-a. All we're doing is showing you why you're wrong.

a/i=-ai

"Gravity"

Let's take an example from this very thread which has (as of writing this post) 3 neg reps. Do you consider that mild?

I thought we weren't supposed to talk about that after the incident with swansont.

The thing is, as I tried to say before, there's a difference between you thinking you can recognize good posts and you actually being able to recognize good posts. And the former doesn't imply the latter. You may think you can pick out the good posts, yet in actually be entirely incapable of doing so. But, as I said, I've not gone through your posts to be able to tell you if you actually can tell the good from the bad. I believe such accusations require formal application of the Baez scale.

The idea is that good posting behavior (helpful posts or even just funny posts) is rewarded while unhelpful behavior (bad attitude or things like spamming speculations in mainstream threads) is discouraged and this is done in such a way that it lets new users see who the "better" members are. The staff members actually have the ability to see who upvotes/downvotes what. This gives us the unique position to see things like this. While that does happen, it's not as often as people think. People who get lots of downvotes tend to get paranoid and think they're all from the person they're currently disagreeing with. There was a recent example (though I won't name names) where A asked a question and B gave a very condescending answer even featuring all caps use. A (and another user) downvoted B's post. In the exchange, A didn't quite understand what was going on, so A asked a few more questions, though they weren't all phrased as questions. Since they contained minor errors (like A got a few equations slightly wrong), B decided A was a crank and that A deserved to be punished. So B started downvoting A's posts simply for small mistakes. Other people started downvoting B's overly agressive posts, so B thought that it was A and accused A of abusing the rep system. Curiously, B then lied about ever downvoting A and then used the report feature to accuse A of abusing the voting system. Lessons from this: 1) Since staff can see who reps what how, lying just makes you look bad. 2) Simply being wrong is not enough to warrant a downvote. 3) A acted perfectly correctly in terms of the reputation system while B abused it. That's the idea. I am not really familiar with you, so I can't speak to you specifically, but there is a psychological effect that runs rampant in cranks/crackpots/quacks. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically, incompetent people are so incompetent that they can't tell incompetence from competence. If you're bad enough at something, you might just think you're good at it. Many of the crackpot posters here know so little about the science they're arguing against that they genuinely don't know that they have no idea what they're talking about and they genuinely think that they are making great contributions to the site. Because of this, things like the directly above quote are hard to use without an in-depth look at the posting habits of the person. While the positive rep thing you mentioned does happen quite a bit, the neg rep isn't abused as often as you'd think. And there is an effect in place here where people see unjustly negged posts and plusrep them to even them out. The sheer volume tends to equal out the negative abuse. Similarly, just making witty posts won't save you if you're a jerk, a crank, or both. So the positive rep for witty posts tends to still go with people who are good overall posters. You might be underestimating the amount of rep given to particularly helpful posts as well. This is a perfect example of why posts get negative rep. What's the point of the post? It is nothing but flame bait. As such, the two people (as of the writing of this post) were in no way abusing the system in downvoting it.

At least two staff members (Hypervalent Iodine and Mooeypoo) are female as well as a few other members that I know. Though, the ratio is off. I do like that you listed "other" as there is at least one trans member on the site.

They could be the meaure words for those concepts.

! Moderator Note SFN and its members are perfectly willing to help with your homework, but we will not do it for you. If you would like help, please tell us what you've done so far and your thought process behind it. That way we can guide your thinking. We will not give you the answer.

How do you deal with the content of the OP? How is something blatantly inconsistent any less 'illogical' than a square circle? A contradiction is a contradiction.

What do you mean "turn off"? Are you holding the magnet? Is it an electromagnet?

...because we have a religion section?

But does it apply to interactions within the system or to the system itself? If momentum pops into existence at one end of the universe and cancelling momentum pops into existence at the other end, is that conservation or is it breaking conservation twice?

Because that's assumed in "X is what God said". Something doesn't have to make a contradiction to undermine something. It only has to lower the probability. And since God says he deceives prophets and the Bible was written by prophets, it does lower the probability that the entire Bible is true. It's about that since God says he lies, we need a way to accurately know which parts of the rest of it is true. All of it might be true, but how do you know? That's the rub. It undermines the authority which comes from the epistemological power of "God said so".

Is momentum conserved in every interaction, or only in closed systems? If momentum pops into existence at one end of the universe and cancelling momentum pops into existence at the other end, is that conservation or is it breaking conservation twice?

But how can you know? Because he said so? Nope, he said he lies.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Bible is God's word. "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."-1Kings 22:23 Ok, so, that's God making other people lie. Let's see what else we have. The Bible goes on to make this deceived prophet thing a bit more clear: "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."-Ezekiel 14:9 So, if God's word says God lies, then how can we trust anything else it says? The Bible itself seems to undermine the inerrantist position.