Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Ted: on 10/4/12 at 14:20pm UTC, wrote Sergey: Such are the rules in a democracy where so few can control so...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 6:35am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

Ted: on 10/2/12 at 13:08pm UTC, wrote Sergey: Thank you. I become overwhelmed by the staggering entries and...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 10:39am UTC, wrote After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I...

Ted: on 10/1/12 at 0:15am UTC, wrote Chris aka "Sir Sharko": Thank you. Good Luck with your sharky aspect of...

Sir Sharko: on 9/30/12 at 22:52pm UTC, wrote Ted, As a fellow marathon swimmer I can identify with your work...and...

El Sharko: on 9/30/12 at 20:57pm UTC, wrote Ted, As a fellow marathon swimmer I can identify with your work...and...

Hoang Hai: on 9/20/12 at 11:24am UTC, wrote Dear Ted Erikson - Many thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, your...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Georgina Woodward: "Quite right Lorraine, ( to be clear perhaps I should have said..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Honestly Georgina, Wake up! Change of number is NOT energy." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...

RECENT ARTICLES

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
July 18, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: To Seek Unknown Shores by Ted Erikson [refresh]

Author Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 11:34 GMT
Essay Abstract

Physics assumptions wrong? Not necessarily, but are inadequate for the original intent of physics, role(s) of: water for life, the electron for light, and a substance for mass. Panpsychism 1, an ancient philosophy, is related to a Russian ”troika” (3-horse "forces") acting on a point. Aspects of energies are raised in a swimmer-water dialogue (swimming, feeling, and thinking all use energy, no?) Dr. Tykodi’s works2 are of great influence. Thermodynamic entropy increases as heat equilibrium is sought from energies in space, mass, and time. These are connected as an inscribed sphere in a regular tetrahedron coupled by two sets of 4 points, non-collinear. With graphing (tree) possibilities of 6/16, 9/16, and 1/16, they relate, respectively, to 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D space. A dialogue with water discusses dimensionless ratios of the fine structure constant, critical ratios of surface area-to-volume, [A3/V2]1/2 and other factors, under headings: (I) Motion-Growth, (II) Actions-Reactions, (III) Spheres-Tetrahedrons, (IV) Thermodynamics-Kinetics, (V) Mass-Energy, and (VI) Gravity-Charge. End Notes add some insight into Tykodi's work and panpsychism. ________________________________________________________ 1. Erikson, T.A., The Philosophy of Evolution, Ch. 6: Panpsychism and Thermodynamics, Explored, Yash Publishing, (2009) 2. Tykodi, R.J. Thermodynamics of Steady States, Macmillan (1967) & Thermodynamics of systems in non-equilibrium states, Thinkers Press (2002)

Author Bio

Ted Erikson holds a B.S. ChE ('52) and an M.S. Chem ('59) from the Illinois Institute of Technology and a Gas-Surface Interaction diploma (’65) from MIT. He spent 23 years at the IIT Research Institute as a Senior Chemist resulting in 2 patents and 9 publications followed by 16 years teaching chemistry, math, and physics in public schools. Water interests evolved from Montana droughts, U.S. Submarine service, record marathon swims and continues in senior swimming events (USMS). Ted's beacon in life is chaos, defined as, "a state of things where chance is supreme", all things considered.

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 12:21 GMT
A specialist's view (from the waterline) gives a nonobvious tweak to a classic physics conundrum.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 22:22 GMT
Who are the "little people"?

report post as inappropriate

Ted replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:35 GMT
"Little people" are the particles, atoms, and molecules we try to comprehend. They do their best to communicate their needs.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:09 GMT
"This submission evolved from a question seeking answers that Diane and I

sought since 1961, "Why does anything do what it does?"

The same question Einstein put forward wisely:

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.”(see Einstein quotes)

I think all participants of this contest try to find out answer.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:14 GMT
"This submission evolved from a question seeking answers that Diane and I

sought since 1961, "Why does anything do what it does?"

The same question Einstein put forward wisely:

"What I am really interested in is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.”(see Einstein quotes)

I think all participants of this contest try to find out answer.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 23:33 GMT
Yuri:

Exactly. It was the original intent of "Phussis", a philosophy in ancient times. Now, "Physics"

Thanks,

Good Luck \!!

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 18:11 GMT
Ted

I added something new by posts to my essay

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 00:50 GMT
Ted

Our views closer than it seems to me at the beginning.

report post as inappropriate

ugo Fabbri wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 08:32 GMT
I've found the article "To Seek Unknown Shores" quite interesting . The topic, however, broadens the research field inordinately and risks becoming dispersive. As you have rightly pointed out the space available does not allow us to go into the necessary depth, but the grandeur of the project for the greater glory of those embarking on it is sensed intuitively. I invite others to insist on the topic: only in this way can exhaustive solutions be provided for science's too many remaining unsolved problems.

report post as inappropriate

Ted replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:57 GMT
Ugo:

Thank you. I had some anxiety submitting because the main stream of Physics has gone so far beyond my mathematic background. I am in process of expanding this into a fuller scale tome,

I do feel that Nature is a form of Chaos, tho, and I seek Occam's razor to uncover its core.

Of course, the proof will always lie in confirming evidence and its utilization to benefit all creatures, large and small.

Good luck in the contest.

Ted

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 09:50 GMT
Dear Ted,

I have read your essay but I'm afraid I must admit not really understanding it. I think I was doing OK until it became technical.I can empathise with the discussion about water and swimming. I used to live near an indoor municipal swimming pool and would enjoy early morning lane swimming. Which can be a refreshing, soothing, wonderfully sensuous, meditative activity. Though now the only nearby pool is an outdoor school pool and the frigid early morning water has far less appeal.

I think its good that you have shared your ideas, even though I can't make sense of things in your way. I don't feel the universe full of intention but more just "going with the flow". That may be just because I am not "tuned into to it" in the way that you and your partner have been. I hope others will enjoy your essay and find things in it that resonate or spark their imaginations. Kind Regards Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Ted replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Georgiana:

Thank you. I am sorry that you felt it was too technical as you read further. That is exactly my feeling when I read the really technical stuff submitted. It is my fervent hope that it will spark someone's imagination to pursue it in more depth.. Thank you..

Wishes for your future luck, also.

Ted

report post as inappropriate

El Sharko replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 20:57 GMT
Ted,

As a fellow marathon swimmer I can identify with your work...and think Diana was speaking correctly to you in the dream....I have been working on my own poem and article entitled "Sharks and the Water of Life" which addresses more of the philosophical aspects of our relationships with Water, God and Sharks.

Sir Shark

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT
Ted

emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (carriers) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors of system as a collective. But according to the law of the negation of the negation , some properties of the carriers repeat again at high levels of matter, when the carriers form very big systems. The properties of this systems will similar to properties of the carriers.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Janko Kokosar wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 15:55 GMT
Dear Ted,

1.)

I also used such gueesing for elementary numbers:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1103.0025v1.pdf

I also developed some model which is visible in above paper and in this FQXi paper: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1418.

Once I also developed the fine structure formula, but I do not believe in it.

But your formula can be statistically tested -...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 16:07 GMT
Jancko:

Hooray! A fellow thinking along the same lines.. Will miracles ever cease? heh heh

The 1-D, 2-D, 3-D contains the guts of my thoughts.. emergentism and panpsychism.. Their "identification" resides in the probability 0f 0.0625 observed and observer measurement..

Will look at your suggested links shortly. Meanwhile, a similar view to mine is in Armin Shirazi's

recent essay... (forget #, but very recent..)

Cheers and good luck..

Ted

report post as inappropriate

Diane Richards wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 17:57 GMT
Ted:

You have not introduced the positive and negative Fibonacci numbers representing future and past "times" that originate from zero as we discussed once.. ?

Diane

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 18:06 GMT
Diane:

Correct. 12 page limit prevented.

Ted

report post as inappropriate

Chris Lisle wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
I enjoy the fact that the heart of both our essays ask why do things do what they do?

report post as inappropriate

Frank Makinson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 16:13 GMT
Ted,

Perhaps you should examine the term "Po" as described by the Dogon. It describes what provides the ultimate "memory" of everything.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 19:33 GMT
Frank:

No comprehende. "examine the term "Po" as described by the Dogon. It describes what provides the ultimate "memory" of everything. "

And where is that located?

report post as inappropriate

Bashir Yusuf wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 02:27 GMT
Ted

In general your essay is intresting, and have many contents that I agree with you

Cheers,

Bashir.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 13:55 GMT
Bashir!

Well, long time no contact.. Thank you for kind words.. have you an essay, did I miss it?

Hope all is well with you in these trying times.

Cheers

Ted

report post as inappropriate

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 23:29 GMT
This essay was rich, life-filled poem to Physics. I had trouble seeing how it related the topic of the contest, but I am glad this work was written and I am glad I read it.

I think this is the only essay here that could be made into a movie.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 17:13 GMT
Jeff:

Glad that you liked it.. Re: "movie?".. Fine, but who would play the part of "water"?heh heh.

Thank you for the comment..

Hope all is well with you.

Ted

report post as inappropriate

Jeff Baugher wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 01:13 GMT
Ted,

Interesting essay. You stated "Swimming ponders whether one is a wave of mass traveling on a sea of energy or a wave of energy traveling on a sea of water's mass."

I think you missed one. How do you know you aren't a void traveling as a wave (that thinks it is a mass only due to perspective) within a sea? Would the void be able to detect the sea or only other voids?

That is the difference between
$G_{\mu\nu}=\Omega g_{\mu\nu}-L_{\mu\nu}$
. The left side thinks it is a mass traveling within nothing, and the right is actually a void that reduces Omega (the sea) but travels as a wave. Does the second know it is a void and not the mass?

My essay is based on a simple question which I asked myself. If the function F1 is the Newtonian gravitational field strength, then F1' is the gravitational force. How do we know we have been anti-differentiating the Newtonian field correctly since we could have just been mistaking F1' for (C-F2)' following the rules concerning arbitrary constants of integration. This should lead back to a substitution in the Einstein field equation of
$G_{\mu\nu}=\Omega g_{\mu\nu}-L_{\mu\nu}$
. If the constant term is equated to the potential energy of the vacuum, then the Luv term is just equated to the dynamic residual energy tensor. This would seem to solve the cosmological constant magnitude problem, make it look like gravity is attractive but also allow for a repulsion after a certain radius.

Regards,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 3, 2012 @ 19:09 GMT
Jeff:

Hmmm. Interesting. I do "feel" that gravity can be both attractive and repulsive, particularly in the microscopic regions of particles.. In other words, the "charge" is produced by gravity at tiny distances.

Whatever.. I am off in the probability direction..

Regards, and good luck to you!!

Ted

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Ted,

"The 3-fold electric-magnetic-gravitational wave of Newstead18 suggests,

when (IF) experimentally confirmed and properly tuned, the creation of matter

from nothing (a point) has a 0.0625 probability. This may be happening in nature occasionally, even now."

If what you say is proved, I have right to give this value :

or matter only : 0.04687

Thanks for helping me.

report post as inappropriate

Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 14:36 GMT
AMH:

Thank you for your comment. I cannot vouch for Newstead's model of an em. gravitational wave, but it suggests things start from a point, creating mass and e.m. at the same time.

My End Notes describe in detail, assuming the sphere and tetrahedron grow co-joined as described in the body having equal "activities" , that there is only a 1/16 possibility of simultaneously staying co-linked due to motion AND growth. (or 4/64 if one allows that to occur at any distal vertex of the tetrahedron..

I hope this helps.. How do you get the difference of 0.0625 - "radiation" to give 0.04687 for matter?

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 15:54 GMT
Ted,

Consider the law of the 25-75 %

100% is 0.0625

Matter = (0.0625).(0.75) = 0.046875

Light = (0.0625).(0.25) = 0.015625

Thanks for your help and good luck!

report post as inappropriate

Blake wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
A unity based view of the universe expanding outward from one point. Expanding outward while growing in complexity. Every microcosm is every macrocosm and vice versa.

Very good article, definitely on the right track.

report post as inappropriate

Ted wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 17:12 GMT
Blake:

Interesting that a 16 year old picks up on exactly what my pursuit is!,! The "model" in the 2nd

Page of End Notesl is the most significant part of the essayi.

Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Hou Ying Yau wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Ted,

It is refreshing after reading your essay. Beautifully written. When you asked me about opionion related to tetrahedron geometry, I thought it was about string theory or other mathematical theories. I agree the answer to how nature works could be simple and there are truth even by looking at things that we have been taking for granted, e.g. swimming in your essay. It just require wisdom to find them. (However, I am a lousy swimmer barely able to avoid drowning.)

Sincerely,

Hou Yau

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 14:08 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Ted wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear hoang cao hai:

For many years, I have grappled with this problem, and in any acceptable solution, there must be an application, a model, a prediction, a use, etc. I strongly feel that "growth" as opposed to "motion": is being ignored. Light velocity is a maximum for motion, i.e. ":energy".. An analogical maximum for growth might also be evident for mass...or maybe a minimum?

Your essay, in words identify the real problems of physics...and philosophy. You are correct to begin the study at ground zero, i.e. a "beginning". But, to logically assess any start, there must be evidence which obviously is impossible. (we weren't there).

So, it seems that the best one can do is assume the success of quantum theory, i.e. "probabilities" is promising. In my End Notes, I show a tentative and simple model that identifies probabilities as being related to "space dimensions", i.e. 0-D,1-D,2-D,and 3-D and recently discovered that a "frequency" correction causes extrapolations to 3... or 4-D!! Time is definitely involved with probability. Infinite time can cause anything to occur..

Perhaps those more intelligent and better mathematically inclined can make better sense of it, or destroy the approach. Either way.I would be pleased. I am getting too old to worry about it anymore.

To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai replied on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 11:24 GMT
Dear Ted Erikson - Many thanks for your comment.

Unfortunately, your essay is too heavy for the ability to open my computer translation.

The main ideas that you have mentioned about quantum theory and mathematics, I think so :

1. Quantum theory is the most reasonable (compared to general relativity and string theory) I also use the basic principles of quantum for the my absolute theory. But it still is not enough,because there is quite many things are called "darkness" in our science.

2. We have lost too much time and effort to renovate and fix it but still no satisfactory results.Even, it seems that the efforts that have made quantum theory more trouble as today.

Because apparently Mathematics is just a tool of science, is used to determine the specific results for a particular problem from the specific grounds established by the imagination and logical reasoning to identify issues beyond our perception.

You can see that: the mathematical equations too far removed from reality?

The formula E = mc2 will is how to calculate the energy for a potato or a bread?

We determine the particle "subatomic" with the ability of technology, that technological capabilities are limited and do not have the norms for ability, and things that are beyond the capabilities of technology will surely forever are "dark"?

With current technology, we identified "subatomic", technology development than we will discover even smaller particles, and so on until (approximately few trillion century later) will probably find nuts "can not be divided" as the definition of "atoms" be had from a long time ago.

Whether your choice is how, if you really believe,please fight to the end for it.

I am very lucky when to know you.Kind regards ! Hải.Caohoàng

report post as inappropriate

Sir Sharko wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 22:52 GMT
Ted,

As a fellow marathon swimmer I can identify with your work...and think Diana was speaking correctly to you in the dream....I have been working on my own epic water poem and article entitled "Sharks and the Water of Life" which addresses more of the philosophical aspects of our relationships with Water, God and Sharks.

Sir Sharko

report post as inappropriate

Ted replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 00:15 GMT
Chris aka "Sir Sharko":

Thank you. Good Luck with your sharky aspect of water philosophy. I gather you voted less than 10.

BTW, my 44 year old Farallon record appears to withstand the rigors of time and trials, even relays!!

Hang in.

Ted

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Ted wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Sergey:

Thank you. I become overwhelmed by the staggering entries and only reviewed about 100. I tended to ignore those with too much past theory and found yours to be enlightening because your nesting approach is unique and in many ways similar to mine. I graded you very high!

My hypothesis seems to suggest that light as an active tetrahedral shape becomes, at rest, a mass of spherical shape with transient consciousness, i.e. as life time.

Wishing good luck to you, I am

Ted Erikson

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:35 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Ted wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 14:20 GMT
Sergey:

Such are the rules in a democracy where so few can control so many. I tend to agree. I feel is is somewhat a closed group of academia anyway, so I whetherI win. lose, or draw it was a good exercise of mental masturbation..

Ted

report post as inappropriate