Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

Wall for Ron Maimon

What difference does it make if I approve or disapprove? If you have a new idea, you should be confident enough in it to persist no matter what anyone else says. Your idea has merit, pursue it, and if you get good models and so on, show me I'm stupid. It might be possible to make a symmetry along the lines you suggest, but the counting you do is totally premature, and the paper is mostly discussing this unjustified counting rather than the interesting new idea.
Aug 30, 2014 by Ron Maimon
Well, no issues, you have not obligation to put time on it, of course. I have seen that sometimes you are flogged by the comoderators about being too harsh (which really is a problem in online forums). But I'd say that in this case the problem was the opposite: you were so polite in the first criticism that I thought you approved the rest of the content!  The optimum is somewhere in the middle, surely.
Aug 30, 2014 by -
I have no interest in your paper, I just don't want it on this site. I didn't do anything a-priori. I read the text very quickly (the same as I would a paper by anyone else), and then decided it doesn't deserve close attention, because I understood every idea in it well enough to judge. I looked at it, saw the state counting, reproduced the basic idea, and understood exactly what you are doing. It doesn't take long. I never reject anything a-priori.
Aug 30, 2014 by Ron Maimon
Of topic: It is fascinating that you have put such interest on my paper -and I thank you for it- and that at the same time you have read so lightly the text. I guess that it was a prejudiced reading, either because the arxiv notes had already been discussed and dismissed time ago, or because you labeled it "a priori" as an extraordinary, and thus wrong, claim.
Aug 29, 2014 by -
Ok, moved to hep-th; you can do this through "move to different parent" from Admin/Categories/categoryname
Aug 28, 2014 by dimension10
Oops!! Thanks. It's a consistent brain glitch, like "Polchinsky". Maybe I should call him "Terry" from now on. Spelling is not my strong suit.
Aug 21, 2014 by Ron Maimon
Hey Ron. Looks like you keep misspelling Terence Tao as Terrance Tao. Not sure whether intentional, just thought you might care.
Aug 21, 2014 by Andrej Vukovic
Do I have to repeat myself?
Aug 16, 2014 by WolfInSheepSkin
You have misunderstood me (or my explanation was not clear): You have not offended me at all.

I was just asking JonLester to focus on the meat and to ignore your particular internet style ("moron", "bullshit", upper case letters,  and so on).
Aug 14, 2014 by drake
I did not delete anything (so far), but explicitely calling people names is not needed to show the physics proof do wrong, if it is wrong.

Not even Lumo does this when discussing outside TRF ...
Aug 13, 2014 by Dilaton




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...