Hi
this is secret

I've a very strong desire for knowledge and always ask why

However I seemed to have a status lower than both cranks and trolls
As I'm technically transparent and only very few does notice my existence and respond to my questions in my threads

This is an unexplained phenomenon and so far happens only in the internet medium

P.S. Below is my maths knowledge level for mods for future reference
Honestly, I don't know very much about higher maths.

a. Things such as complex numbers, singularities, number theory are only being read briefly from wikipedia (and I mean really briefly, almost as if I just only know the names and basic definitions)

b. Users from a forum with 4D (mathematical) space as the subject briefly introduced group theory, ordinals and cardinals, pseudovectors and cross product and matrix transformations

Here's what i know about vectors:
Vector addition: either parallelogram rule or triangle rule.
Vector addition (algebric): Let a = ni + mj + pk and b = qi + rj + sk. a+b = (n+q)i+(m+r)j+(p+s)k
Vector subtraction: Addition of negative of vectors
Magnitude of vector a= |a|
Null vector = 0 (Don't know how to put the arrow sign here)
Dot product: Let a and b be vectors. a . b = |a||b|cos(angle between a and b)
Unit vector: Vector of magnitude 1. Let a be a vector: a^= a/|a|
Vector components: i^, j^, k^ etc. corresponds to the x, y, z etc. axes
Equality of vectors: If a = ni + mj + pk ,b = qi + rj + sk and a = b, then n=q, m=r, p=s

Here's what I know about matrix:
matrix addition and subtraction: Let A = (a b c;d e f;g h i), B = (p q r;s t u;v w x) and C = (m n; h k) then A+B = (a+p b+q c+r;d+s e+t f+u; g+v h+w i+x), A-B = (a-p b-q c-r;d-s e-t f-u; g-v h-w i-x) and A+C is undefined. A+B = B+A
matrix multiplication: (Matrix of order mxn)(Matrix of order nxp) = (Matrix of order mxp)
Let A = (a b;c d), B = (e f g;h i j) and C= (x y;z w;v u) then AB = (ae+bh af+bi ag+bj;ce+dh cf+di cg+dj) and AC is undefined. AB =/= BA
Transpose: Let A = (a b c;d e f), B = (q w r;i s k) and c be a scalar, then
A^T =(a d;b e;c f)
(cA)^T= c(A^T).
(A^T)^T = A. A^T + B^T = (A+B)^T
Identity matrix(In): All entires on the diagonal from top left to bottom right are 1 and others are zero (Must be square matrix (nxn))
(don't know how to type matrixes here so stuff after ; means next row in the matrix)

Here's what I know about powers:
Basic logarithm rules
Basic exponential rules
Index laws

For calculus:
Basic differentiation (limits and continuality, first principles, basic d/dx forumlae, rates of change)
Basic integration (Indefinite and definite integrals, area and volume under curve)

Others:
Basic things about set (e.g. empty set, intersections and unions, subset and elements within a set)
Basic logic (and, or, not, if, iff, not (A and B) = not A or not B (forgot name of the rule)

P.S.
I tried reading about rings(mathematics) in wikipedia but I fail to understand it

(Anything not listed may either mean I have not encountered it before, or that I've forgotten.)
(There's a possbility that even the stuff I listed will be forgotten and recalled at random)
You can introduce explanation using maths not on this list, and I'll try my best to understand and ask (usually via pm to avoid clutter up the threads) if I fail to understand/need clarification

P.S.2.
Some brief info of my personality to help you get my thoughts and assist in clarifying/correcting them:
1. I tend to find similarities/difference between two raondom things (be it how it is written, properties etc.)
2. I tend to place similar things into groups (laymen sense)
3. I tend to look for a general formula for a group (laymen sense) of things
4. I tend to approach maths visually and by understanding the motives and origin of formulae, manipulating numbers within a formula and see how it evolve geometrically and algebrically. I don't mind looking at formal proofs, given if I can understand them
5. I tend to attempt in "laymenlize" advanced things and share them with my friends and teachers

I've a very strong desire for knowledge and always ask why

However I seemed to have a status lower than both cranks and trolls As I'm technically transparent and only very few does notice my existence and respond to my questions

This is an unexplained phenomenon and so far happens only in the internet medium




I guess that few people answer your questions on the internet because that's not easy to respond to technical or scientific questions.
This has got nothing to do with posting comments below a music video in YouTube.

Anyway, I don't understand what you try to tell us about your maths knowledge list. (?)

Judging from your comments
It seems my question generally were treated as something equilivant to what rule #17 said

17. Financial, legal and medical advice is best provided by qualified professionals. We welcome discussion of financial, legal and health issues but we reserve the right to remove posts that may put readers at risk. Members should be aware that, in general, it is impossible to verify the qualifications of any member providing advice.

In my case, I'm trying to discuss some physics and maths issues in depth and find some members which according to their posts, seemed to suggest they are very likely to be physicists and mathematicians respectively. Thinking I've found a professional to discuss some of my questions with, I end up keep asking and waiting for their reply. It might be possible that they are not really professionals of the aspects. It seems once you get on the Internet, no matter how professional a comment sounds, does not imply they are actually professionals.

Therefore it seems professionals were not found in forums, but where else can we find them?

As for the second question, sciforums usually have a lot of cranks. Sometimes I'm aware I have some potential to exhibit crank behavior which I tend to avoid. however there might be times that I posted crank but did not aware of it. Thus the maths level posted here act as a reference and evidence in case mods or just ordinary members have found I have exhibit crank and will be used against me to convince me that i have post something that I assume to have knowledge on but actually not or avoiding questions (I.e. crank behavior)

Secret: . . . the "blue" font colorization doesn't work for me?

It might be your system
As it works fine in both iPads and computers

. . . I guess it's all relative . . . . appears "maui blue" to me . . . .

Secret, one possibility is that whatever you are posting people are not finding interesting.

I find Sedret's posts interesting . . . but then again . . . . I am classified (by some) on Sciforum as a crank and troll . . . .

Secret, one possibility is that whatever you are posting people are not finding interesting.

Or he could post it in the Physics & Maths forum.. :shrug:

Well I do have some threads in the physics sub forum
They are not locked, banned or anything, just gone deserted despite there are still questions remain unanswered

@crunchy cat
That might be a possibility as few people tend to go into details of some concepts or problems
Not sure about the professionals though, as they are expected to have rich knowledge regarding their own subject and should be able to provide some rich insights.
However besides the issue stated in rule #17 (that there are no way to work out the qualifications of any contributing users), interest is something independent of the knowledge level.

It frustrating when you have a source to look for an answer, but the source cannot be reached for various reasons (e.g. It seems for people, their interests prevent me from getting an answer, despite they can answer the question)

Well I do have some threads in the physics sub forum
They are not locked, banned or anything, just gone deserted despite there are still questions remain unanswered

@crunchy cat
That might be a possibility as few people tend to go into details of some concepts or problems

You could try to ask your questions in a more definitive manner?

And in a lot of instances, many may believe the question you seek has been answered, so they stop posting in it?

If you have some queries or want to know if you are doing anything wrong, to try to PM the moderators of Physics and Math and see what they have to say? It is also possible that your questions may have already been answered a while ago, so a search could help you to determine if that is the case.

I do wrote pms to the mods (who happened to be the professionals regarding my questions)

However 3-4 weeks waiting and still no reply despite they are almost always online.
Some explain the long term no reply as being their habit of seldom checking pms, business and adivce me that if I have general questions I should use threads to express them. I then followed his/her advice and posted the questions in the relevant threads. After yet another 2-4 weeks wait, there is still no answer and the thread were pushed back by new threads

I also tried bumping the threads ( trying to avoid double posts in the process) but to no avail

The 'evidence' that convinced me I'm most likely being ignored is their frequent online status and also reply to other threads during most of their online session. Thus it is illogical of how they failed to notice my threads, pms visitor messages etc. (given a good notification system of pms and new threads in sciforums)

If the underlying reason is what crunchy cat suggest, then there is really no way around it...

It is frustrating to not be able to get an answer especially the answer is just next to you but for some unknown reason also out of reach

As to address the "...definitive manner?" sometimes I make a post of clarification to clarify the details in a question. As I'm not other people, I cannot tell when they thought my question had been answered and I do notify them that the question is not finished yet (via bumps and visotr message or pm some of the users who seemed to be professionals regarding those question, however this leads to what I stated just above)

And some users do point out that I have some ambiguous conditions or assumptions. I then clarify the details. (e.g. In my t=s thread (bad title because I hit an error 500 at the time the thread was set up) I try to investigate the nature of the arrow of time using some hypothetical scenario (filming a ball rolling under some conditions and then compare it with the rewinded version). One user then point out that something can be clarified. I then posted a follow up to clarify all the conditions.) Sure there are posts by other members that follow , but (at least in that thread) none of them seemed to address the conditions in my clarified post

In most instance, these thread were then dead and no more new post appears

It is frustrating to not be able to get an answer especially the answer is just next to you but for some unknown reason also out of reach



And what will you do?

Sometimes, there are alternate sources (e.g. Textbooks) that are accessible to be use to answer the question

But other times, there is only one source. When that is the case, then I have no idea what to do, hence the frustration

What will you do if you were me?

What would I do if I were you and I didn't get a response to my questions? :)

That's not simple to answer it.
One can not avoid to feel disappointed when one is willing to get a response and doesn't get it. I know it. I know it's frustrating if you write and there is no answer.

Therefore it seems professionals were not found in forums, but where else can we find them?

That will depend on the topic of expertise.
Some professionals are to be found at universities, some in business corporations, some in hospitals, some in prisons, etc.


What is the topic on which one might likely find professionals at Sciforums?

Thanks for the suggestions
More specifically which of these source will I most like find some scientist to be discuss with?

Currently, most of my questions fall onto the physics and maths type, therefore I expect there are professionals regarding this category here in sciforums that can be discussed with.

I find Sedret's posts interesting . . . but then again . . . . I am classified (by some) on Sciforum as a crank and troll . . . .

Wlminex, because of your insistence on supporting every wild conjecture presented and your whinny vendetta against the moderators, I think the number of people who think you are a crank and a troll increases daily. That's just my opinion of course.

Origin: . . . opinions are like A--H---s . . . everyone has one! Thanks (NOT!) for the personal insult . . . review Sciforums Rules!!! We're getting OFF TOPIC now, re: the OP.

Thanks for the suggestions
More specifically which of these source will I most like find some scientist to be discuss with?

Currently, most of my questions fall onto the physics and maths type, therefore I expect there are professionals regarding this category here in sciforums that can be discussed with.

Secret, if some of your questions are not answered here you might try asking them at another (physics) forum.

Origin: . . . opinions are like A--H---s . . . everyone has one! Thanks (NOT!) for the personal insult . . . review Sciforums Rules!!! We're getting OFF TOPIC now, re: the OP.* * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

I received your complaint about being insulted. Please understand that this is not an academy, that the majority of our members are rather young, and that those who aren't often act like it. So we have to tolerate a certain level of trash-talk.

But more to the point, although I have not investigated the claims upon which this insult is based, Origin does indeed cite what he considers empirical evidence to support it. This conforms to the scientific method. In any case the actual "insulting" language used is rather mild by the standards of this community, who often howl with rage if we discipline them for anything less than mother-talk or overt racism.

The insult is even cleverly phrased as a summary of the opinions offered by other members.

So the question becomes: Do many of the other members regard you as a crank or troll? I'm not familiar with your posting history so I'm not in a position to know.

I suggest that you follow the scientific method yourself and refute Origin's assertion. I'm not suggesting that you prove a negative, which is never required by science. But you could point us to some positive remarks that others have made about you.

Meanwhile, also in conformance with the scientific method, I request that Origin cite some of the posts he claims to support his assertion. If he can't do this, then his insult does indeed start to look spurious.

If he can't or simply doesn't provide these citations, I'm sure you'll be keeping track and you'll send out another report to the Moderators. At that point we may consider taking action.

Given that Enmos, one of my colleagues, appears to be following this thread, I will assume that he agrees with my position that at this point there is no cause for action.

It's up to you now. If Origin doesn't provide evidence to support his assertion when challenged, then not only would he be rude, but he would also not be a good scientist. On this website that is a much worse offense.

I've noticed that some users struggle with English, and are therefore (perhaps wrongly) labelled as crackpots. I think if your English isn't upto scratch then find forums in your mother tongue, or brushup your English.

In this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111717) wlminex asks a question to get clarification about something despite the fact he admits he hasn't read the post he's asking for clarification about. I called it trolling at the time. And I've made numerous comments about his 'snipe and run' one liner posts which add only to background noise. I've also received a PM from someone (I won't say who) who commented on the annoying manner of wlminex's posts in a particular thread. And I believe AlexG is currently suspended due to calling wlminex a troll. Others have also commented on his willingness to defend any random idea which isn't mainstream purely because it isn't mainstream, regardless of rationality or justification.

I'd say 3+ people is sufficient for Origin to have said an accurate, scientific, thing about the membership.

The problem, Fraggle Rocker, is that wlminex thinks people who follow the scientific method are too constrained so he may very well dismiss your approach as inappropriate. He prefers more 'out of the box' thinking. So I suppose if we were to employ wlminex's own standards to things Origin has no need to provide any evidence, as wlminex has given favourable comments to utterly unsupported, sometimes even experimentally falsified, assertions made by others. One wonders how he can now complain when others make what might be seen as opinionated assertions. Is he for or against providing evidence for ones claims?

AN: Please read my 'Report' . . . also, by 'background noise' do you mean "Bremstrahlung"? . . . . there is probably more information 'hidden' in Bremstrahlung than we can currently conceive.(<--MY opinion here) . . . regards . . .

You've been given a suspension (not by me) so you can't reply but I'll leave my response here for when you get back.

When I asked you to explain yourself more I didn't mean adding label "opinion here", I meant explain yourself. For example, how could I possibly have been referring to Bremsstrahlung, I was talking about your posts. If all you do is post one liners which do nothing more than either complain about someone, attempt a joke, advertise your claims or whine about the scientific method for the 10th time then you don't add anything to the discussion, you instead just as noise, background noise to the discussion.

Now the question is whether you really thought I was referring to Bremsstrahlung radiation (which isn't background radiation anyway) or you're just trolling. Your one liner post once again contained a comment about you reporting someone. This is not the first time I've had to tell you that that isn't what you should be posting. If you have complaints about someone, such as myself, use the report button, PMs or this government subforum in an appropriate thread. Just dropping "Reported because he said stuff I don't like" into threads all over the place adds nothing and only serves to make you look a little whiny.

Rather than running to the report button every 5 seconds why don't you try defending your position. Origin said you're considered a troll by some and I said I am one of said 'some', partly due to your one line 'snipe and run' habit. By replying with a one liner which is precisely the sort of thing I've commented on you only serve to add support to Origin's assessment.

If you really have been in the scientific field for many years you should be well practiced in explaining yourself properly so that others can understand your train of thought. Unfortunately I have yet to see you actually display such qualities one would expect from with your claimed credentials.

Secret, if some of your questions are not answered here you might try asking them at another (physics) forum.

Too bad I've made a fatal mistake there.
In that forum I did not read the rules carefully, thus did not aware that that forum did not allow any topic that is overally speculative.

(e.g. In my case I asked whether scifi stuff can be posted, or something like that. There are replies, but I didn't read them carefully thus did not notice the important message (it is not allowed) within some off topic chatter about Skype.

Because of failed to notice the above, I then posted my second thread (dark emitters, is that possible? (that thread still exist there, it ask how to make something that behaves like 'a black colored light' using known laws of physics ). later I received an infraction from Evo that I've breached the rules. Evo mentioned in the pm that I know I cannot post speculative content yet I do so. I then got really confused cause at that point I don't think anyone have told me that besides the off topic Skype. chatter between the members and some mods

I then tried to send a lengthy pm to Evo explaining that I did not know (also expressing that I'm confused that something like time travel is not considered speculative (at that point I'm just want to clarify, not trying to get rid of the infraction)

Later in some unstable emotion state, I registered as Syllus and posted some absolute crap (deletion theory disapproved) in the Sceptisim or General discussion sub forum there, thinking I won't be discovered

And bam!, the next day I was permabanned there.
After reading the ban reason, I learnt two new things (crackpot/crank and sock puppet) and learnt that there is always a method to track down multiple account users

Thinking about what Evo said, I checked back the scifi thread. After reading the post carefully, I finally found the message buried within the off topic posts, but it is too late

Some few months later, I stumbled thAis forum. Hoping to start over, after registration I read the rules very carefully. I even pmed Stryder and asked about which subforum is most suitable for posting things that with an "If" nature (that includes the dark emitter thread previously posted in physics forums) Stryder then direct me to the pseudoscience and scifi sub forums.

Because of my previous fatal mistake in physics forums, I tend to be very careful. Unless the content is not something associated greatly with "IF" , I tend to post them in the pseudoscience sub forum as a safeguard. I also learnt that crank tend to avoid questions so when I post I'll make sure all the questions raised is addressed (sometimes to the extent of quoting everyone posted in the thread so far, as demonstrated in the "will a moving lump of ice colder than a stationary one"



But what I notice so far is like the opposite. Few people did address my post content or questions within a thread. It like as if what trooper's joke is true, that I'm like does not exist in the thread. (It does give me a feeling that the others are like crank, avoiding my questions, so to speak)

* * * * ANOTHER NOTE FROM A MODERATOR (sigh) * * * *

Look, you guys... the title of this subforum is About the Members. This is not one of our hard science boards like biology and chemistry. It is not even one of our soft science boards like psychology and linguistics. It is not even one of our boards for scholarship of a non-scientific nature, like politics or art & culture.

It is a board for socializing. You can tell each other anything you want the others to know about you. You can tell each other how you feel about what the others have said. You can even say whether you like each other, and why!

My suggestion that insults be treated as assertions and should be subject to peer review was an attempt to defuse your little squabble, since it seemed that it was all about a disagreement about how science is performed.

Obviously I was wrong and my suggestion was not the answer.

If there is one subforum on thus website where it is not only permissible but appropriate to say how you feel about each other, and why, it is this one.

No one is obligated to post here or read the posts. There is no science here, no scholarship here. Ignoring this subforum entirely will have zero impact on your scientific education or practice. If you don't like what people say here, then stay away.

I almost never read the discussions on this board, except when a new member is introducing himself. And this is why.

If you don't like socializing with these people, then stop coming to this subforum. On the other subforums the rules are interpreted and enforced more strictly. Personal insults beyond the adolescent level of trash-talking are frowned on, except when they are clearly in jest and still not too strong. Anybody who either makes a practice of insulting other members, or insults the same person multiple times, will be banned.

So, Winimex, I suggest that you go back to the science and scholarship boards. If anybody hassles you there and you complain, you'll get more attention from the Moderators. But it works both ways. If it turns out that your scholarship and science are acceptable, you will be defended. But if your scholarship is flawed and your science is bogus, we won't like you any more than they do.

And I believe AlexG is currently suspended due to calling wlminex a troll

So I was banned for calling wlminex a troll, and now wlminex is banned for trolling. :D

So I was banned for calling wlminex a troll, and now wlminex is banned for trolling. :D

At least you were correct. :3

So I was banned for calling wlminex a troll, and now wlminex is banned for trolling. :D

If I was you i'd push for an apology on that one.