• FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017

  • Using Klauder’s Enhanced Quantization to set a bound to the Cosmological constant, in Pre Planckian space- as a way to ascertain the most important fundamental physics question. by Andrew Beckwith

Why I was so blunt about last minute rate BOMBING

I never expected to win this contest.

I did expect a discussion of ideas

In doing the rate bombing, two community members showed

a complete disregard as to the premise of DISCUSSION

All you have done is to try to silence a point of view and

in this, you have FAILED.

In this, I can say in the Gravity foundation contest, and

in Rencontres De Moriond that I will continue with this venue

and hope for some sort of impact.

In doing rate bombing, all you did, is to make me MORE

willing to present what I have to say and you did not

succeed in censoring a point of view.

You have neglected your obligation to discuss IDEAS and

in this you have FAILED.

Wear it.

You have not stopped me from presentation

As I did NOT expect to win, or to be in the FQXI book

in Springer, I have no complaints, as to what the

RESULTS of my contest entry, per se

I am APPALLED at what rate bombing shows as far as violation

of Scientific ethics and also of the cowardice shown by

people too unwilling to discuss basics

In the end, all you did, was to show YOUR weakness

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

I am going out for a dental appointment.

Wear this, essay bombers

A. Rencontres de Moriond

B. Frontiers of Fundamental physics 15

C. Gravity foundation, Grideout as chair

I doubt you whom bombed me would be able to get in, and

don't deny it

I will hope you enjoy your lives, as you failed to shut me down.

Good luck

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

Dear Andrew,

I emailed fqxi too about this. These massive downvotings denote both lack of integrity and violation of the rules of the contest. I was affected too, with the same difference in the last 20 hours alone, and other bombs spread in time in the last week and the entire duration, but with less frequency. I noticed Karen Crowther was affected too. Definitely others too, but this is what I saw. In terms of position and chances to qualify in the finals the result in your case seem to be devastating. I will write on Karen's page to inform her, please do the same, maybe she will write to the organizers too. and if there are others affected that you know, please do the same.

Good luck,

Cristi

Andrew,

Peter J says he's complained in the past suggesting a simple provision, but was ignored. Just a rule that 1's without posts may get put back on the scorers essay. I agree. The more who complain the better. His rating of mine put it above his, mine on his reversed it back. That feels better than I imagine 1 bombing does.

He directed me to and recommended your essay. I confess I felt some of the language more obscure than ideal for the 'SciAm' reader target, but otherwise excellent and I agree worth a top score. Adding to your 6.1 now.

Very best

Richard

PS If you haven't read & rated Peters I can tell you I've studied QM for some time, have spent many days checking it through, and his past essays. It's a bit complex at first sight but works brilliantly. That really is fundalmentally revolutionary. I'm disgusted with the limited & entrenched views of 4 of 5 academics here. I hope you're not one!

    Dear rating site posting bombers, you still cannot control yourselves. I.e. my grade moved from 6.4 to 6.2

    When you GET IT, that my entry, in terms of ideas will be posted in its entirety in Rencontres de Moriond, La Thuile, Italy, you may get a brain.

    All you are doing,when you refuse to read my entry is confirm what a worm you are

    Too bad. This idea is going to be in Rencontres de Moriond

    Cry me a river. I hear a violin sobbing

    YOU LOST

      Each time you hit me with a 1, JACKASS, I will know you have lost, jackass

      How many of you are out there, gnashing your teeth in fury because you cannot just bear that someone has another venue to present ideas?

      What sonnet of frustration must be in your worthless soul, as you howl?

      Too bad, my record will outlast yours, o great master of the 1 point rating bomb

      Make my day

      Andrew,

      Shame yours didn't make it in. I did roust up some support. I calculate mine was hit by five or six 1's. I suspect most were, though you were hit hard at the end, as it seems were Peter Cameron, Chandra Roy.. Gordon Watson & Sue Lingo among others, also dropping like stones.

      No point getting worked up about it as it means little anyway. If you look at previous scores and prizes you'll see we don't qualify anyway (not being 'hidebound academics'!) Yours was probably also a bit techie for the stated 'SciAm' reader target. Nice you've got it published anyway.

      I see Richard mentioned I've proposed a solution to 1 bombs. If we all batter Brendan we may get some action but the judges don't give a damn about scores anyway.

      I've been planning a trim & update of my 2013 HJ paper on galaxy cyclic evolution (including deriving bars) so may perhaps pop you a copy through when drafted to see if you think it suitable for 'Galaxies'. Not sure if you saw the original & had any thoughts or comments?

      Very best

      Peter

        Really the problem is the whole idea of giving numerical scores or votes. It is one thing to offer critiques of essays, but giving numerical scores to these papers becomes problematic. It is not going to happen often that finding a flaw in a paper is going to be greeted by the author with "Thank you, and I will give a fair vote for your essay without any influence from your observation."

        LC