Making Sciforums more Successful.!!!

[Magical Realist]

i love it when i see srinivasa ramanujan name.
no one ever mentions him or even has a clue to his existence,
let alone his work.

Interesting anecdote regarding Ramanujan:

"The number 1729 is known as the Hardy–Ramanujan number after a famous anecdote of the British mathematician G. H. Hardy regarding a visit to the hospital to see Ramanujan. In Hardy's words:

“ I remember once going to see him when he was ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxi cab number 1729 and remarked that the number seemed to me rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. "No", he replied, "it is a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." ”

The two different ways are
1729 = 1 to the 3 + 12 to the 3 = 9 to the 3 + 10 to the 3.

Generalizations of this idea have created the notion of "taxicab numbers". Coincidentally, 1729 is also a Carmichael number."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

You for got N. Bose.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The "relevance of that"

Who knows Paddoboy... the next great idea could be locked up inside the brain of someone who is constantly being told they are wrong or stupid or being taught not to speak unless spoken to... how sad would that be?

It would be sad -- but what relevance does that have to this discussion?

R_W, it would seem that Kittamaru was responding to :
1.) - paddoboy's Post #56 :

Not sure of the thread you are referring to, or the reasons why it was sent to the fringe sections....
But I do know we have some cunningly enhanced posters that will do anything to gain credibility for ratbag opinions, and submit them in the science or P+M sections under different guises.
We have one now operating in P+M that will in time I'm sure, be shifted.

Bingo!!!!
That early statement is probably the most objective true statement in this thread, and fully supports the need for the real scientists here, to reveal the nonsensical nature of these Alternative, anti SR, anti GR, anti BB, anti evolution, anti this, anti that, as each is submitted.
Afterall, that is the forum scientific methodology and forum peer review in action, just as it should be.

...and :
2.) - paddoboy's Post #60 :

Einstein did have the necessary "learning" and subsequently his "Annulus Miraculus"[excuse my latin] and the four excellent papers that changed the course of physics in that year.
At any rate, Einstein I'm sure you'll agree was a notable exception, rather then the rule.
And I'm sure you'll also agree that this forum does not have any other exceptions to the rule.

R_W, you state : "It would be sad".

Do you not find it "sad" that a Poster that has averaged 14.81 Posts Per Day since joining SciForums (on 08-13-13), finds it somehow necessary to "derail" most every Thread into a "discussion(?)" about : "cunningly enhanced posters that will do anything to gain credibility for ratbag opinions" ; "fully supports the need for the real scientists here, to reveal the nonsensical nature of these Alternative, anti SR, anti GR, anti BB, anti evolution, anti this, anti that, as each is submitted." ; "Afterall, that is the forum scientific methodology and forum peer review in action, just as it should be." ; "At any rate, Einstein I'm sure you'll agree was a notable exception, rather then the rule." ; "And I'm sure you'll also agree that this forum does not have any other exceptions to the rule."...?

R_W, if you really are interested in the "relevance" of "that", you may find it enlightening to Read Posts #5, #8, #10, #13 and #15 of this Thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136179-Science-and-science-methedology&highlight= .

R_W, read the whole Thread, or any Thread that that Member has Posted in, for that matter.
Any serious questions you have concerning the "relevance" of "that", should be asked of the Member that, for whatever reason, seems compelled to introduce "that" into so many Threads, and repeat "that"so often.

 

[krash661]

R_W, it would seem that Kittamaru was responding to :
1.) - paddoboy's Post #56 :

...and :
2.) - paddoboy's Post #60 :


R_W, you state : "It would be sad".

Do you not find it "sad" that a Poster that has averaged 14.81 Posts Per Day since joining SciForums (on 08-13-13), finds it somehow necessary to "derail" most every Thread into a "discussion(?)" about : "cunningly enhanced posters that will do anything to gain credibility for ratbag opinions" ; "fully supports the need for the real scientists here, to reveal the nonsensical nature of these Alternative, anti SR, anti GR, anti BB, anti evolution, anti this, anti that, as each is submitted." ; "Afterall, that is the forum scientific methodology and forum peer review in action, just as it should be." ; "At any rate, Einstein I'm sure you'll agree was a notable exception, rather then the rule." ; "And I'm sure you'll also agree that this forum does not have any other exceptions to the rule."...?

R_W, if you really are interested in the "relevance" of "that", you may find it enlightening to Read Posts #5, #8, #10, #13 and #15 of this Thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136179-Science-and-science-methedology&highlight= .

R_W, read the whole Thread, or any Thread that that Member has Posted in, for that matter.
Any serious questions you have concerning the "relevance" of "that", should be asked of the Member that, for whatever reason, seems compelled to introduce "that" into so many Threads, and repeat "that"so often.

i find it pathetically sad that you are attempting to instigate.
i also find it pathetically sad that, IMO, you're one of the problems here.

 

[paddoboy]

i find it pathetically sad that you are attempting to instigate.
i also find it pathetically sad that, IMO, you're one of the problems here.

If I were the Administrator, the continuing whinging and whining mod threads would be abolished.
The only purpose they serve is obvious.
Note the date of the last post in dmoe's link.....September last year.....hmmmmmm,

 

[krash661]

exactly

 

[dumbest man on earth]

The "relevance of that"...addendum

*** To Any and All Interested Posters ***

In reference to :

Note the date of the last post in dmoe's link.....September last year.....hmmmmmm,

If you really are interested in the "relevance" of "that", you may find it enlightening to Read Posts #5, #8, #10, #13 and #15 of this Thread :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136179-Science-and-science-methedology .

Please...actually Fully Read those Posts, maybe even Fully Read and actually try to Objectively Comprehend the whole Thread...Please?

Note that the Poster that Posted those Posts, stated that he LEFT the other Forums due to being "castigated" by "certain mainstream professionals" that he perceived as "self appraised mainstream science cheer-leaders".
Note that that very same Poster evidently had no problem becoming one of the principal "self appraised mainstream science cheer-leaders" on SciForums.
Note also that the Poster is not, in any way shape or form, a "professional" in any of the Real Sciences, but continues to "castigate" members of SciForums that were not only "professionally" Educated, but also "professionally" Employed in the Real Sciences.

That Poster, for whatever reasoning, evidently perceives that as, in his own words :

What do I see that's needed to make this science forum more successful.

I see it overall as OK.

So..."hmmmmmm,"...

 

[paddoboy]

exactly

Thanks krash....
That is really the only improvement this forum needs.
Scrubbing all the complaint threads, which afterall, are all narrowed down to a hand full of posters.

 

[krash661]

dumbest man on earth ,
why do you continue in these pathetic attempts to instigate ?

 

[krash661]

Thanks krash....
That is really the only improvement this forum needs.
Scrubbing all the complaint threads, which afterall, are all narrowed down to a hand full of posters.

, again, exactly

 

[leopold]

dumbest man on earth ,
why do you continue in these pathetic attempts to instigate ?

it's a splendid example just how wishy washy paddoboy is.
you know, just like a piece of rubber.

 

[paddoboy]

it's a splendid example just how wishy washy paddoboy is.
you know, just like a piece of rubber.

If supporting science, the scientific method and peer review is wishy washy, then I'm gladly wishy washy.

 

[leopold]

, again, exactly

how would the site deal with "poster dynamics" without complaints?

 

[krash661]

how would the site deal with "poster dynamics" without complaints?

,
your attempts to look and sound like an intellect are amusing.

 

[leopold]

,
your attempts to look and sound like an intellect are amusing.

what's even more amusing is your pathetic attempt at avoiding the question.

 

[krash661]

what's even more amusing is your pathetic attempt at avoiding the question.

the answer was " exactly ", before your " want to be intellect" self even asked the question.
amusing.
if it was up to me, i would ban all of them along with removing all the threads,
you included.

 

[leopold]

if it was up to me, i would ban all of them along with removing all the threads,
you included.

i'm quite positive you have 5 or 6 successful websites under your belt that demonstrates your methodology.

but why me?
what have i done or said that warrants such a comment from you?

 

[Russ_Watters]

Other great scientists with lowly beginnings:

First some clarifications about Einstein:

Einstein was not a patent "clerk", he was a technical patent examiner. And he was earning a phd while he was at it (he already had a degree) -- he was awarded his phd in 1905, just before his seminal papers were published. So while "lowly beginnings" is pointlessly vague and meaningless, Einstein was, most assuredly, an educated part of the scientific mainstream.

Now, most of the rest lived hundreds of years ago -- Copernicus, even, lived before science -- and have no relevance to a discussion of what is necessary for doing science today.

 

[Russ_Watters]

R_W, it would seem that Kittamaru was responding to :

Kittamaru appears to me to be under the false impression that such a situation exists here. For that to be true, it would require that at least one of our resident crackpots be a budding Einstein. I say again: no real science has ever happened in such a forum. And I'll elaborate: no budding Einstein would ever show up in a place like this.

So Kittamaru's fear is misplaced. What s/he should fear is the child who comes here looking to learn some science and learns something wrong from one of our resident crackpots. That would be a tragedy. It has almost certainly already happened numerous times.

 

[R1D2]

Yada yada blah blah! Some grow wings visit other places, some loose the password or username, some move on in real life, some interests expands or changes, you need something for everyone with out all the bashing and judgeing. Like you post in religion about your god all athiests stand up and yell..