Two word titles may be deleted aka Constructive Feedback

[nothanks]

"Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

This is my first, and likely only, forum thread.
I am posting this thread not to bash the community, harass
the moderators, or to ridicule "This is the only FACT" thinking.
Only to point out a missing ingredient in the community that is
not found on this forum. I hope you read it as the sincere
advice that I intend it to be...

I was looking for an astronomy, physics, and general science
forum where I could further my knowledge by asking such
questions as:

Why is Mercury considered a planet and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29" not considered a
planet when it's larger than Mercury? Likely the sun cleared
Mercury's path more-so than Mercury itself.

And

What other evidence is there for an expanding universe? I've
seen an explanation that http://www.scribd.com/doc/33711296/Essentials-of-Hubble-Distance-Redshift" could explain the
redshift. Is the jury still out on the "Expanding Universe"? Or
are http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/einstein-and-the-universe" theories still under consideration?

And

When I was in High-school, I was taught that heat was the result of
excited mass particles. So, how does light excite mass if it has no
mass of it's own? An example is Crookes Radiometer

But then I found things like this:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=607387&postcount=19
and plenty more complaints of your censorship on the web.
(Yes, when I'm looking for a serious discussion I make sure I
don't speak to deaf ears.)


[PLAIN]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/8217/endisnear.png


I don't accept the "Silence The Crackpots" as a "Valid Intellectual Just Cause"
for a few simple reasons:
Barry Marshall who won the Nobel prize- demonstrated
that ulcers was caused by bacteria was called a crackpot for
even having the theory.

Robert Chambers who wrote one of the first books about
evolution was called a crackpot... but paved the way for Darwin.

Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel for proving that not just
gravity - but plasmas and magnetic and electric fields are important
in galactic physics... after being called a crackpot.

Galileo Galilei, Barbara McClintock, J Harlen Bretz, Boris Belousov, Karl Jansky...

the list goes on.

Granted, there are plenty of "Chem-Trails" and "Didn't Walk on
the Moon" and "The Face of Mars is an alien statue" people
out there...

But if you silence the crackpots then when a http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html"
speaks up he or she will just be lost in the crowds of BanHammers
and Deleted Threads despite actual research - however incomplete
(Such as R. Chambers)

(I also would of asked if http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html" succeeded and if so - did she try to
remeasure the mass at a lower speed? Why when we already
know? Because that's also what exploring is: seeing if a "Fact" holds
true under different circumstances.)

Well I just had to stop by to say that I'm sorry the PhysicsForums.com
community forgot one of the most fundamental necessities of
exploration, discovery, and experimentation...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/inspinv.html"

-With Respect,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno"

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Theorem: I am Einstein.
Proof: They laughed at Einstein and they laughed at me.

 

[nothanks]

[PLAIN]http://www.fourbyfivephotography.com/Images/UpArrow.bmp
Just proved there are more than one Einstein.
(and appears off topic and didn't read)

 

[bp_psy]

Theorem: I am Einstein.
Proof: They laughed at Einstein and they laughed at me.

Big deal!. Einstein was wrong and I can prove it with a fancy colorful drawing.

 

[nothanks]

[PLAIN]http://www.fourbyfivephotography.com/Images/UpArrow.bmp
Just proved jimmy is no big deal today... try being Lucille Oball tomorrow.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

[PLAIN]http://www.fourbyfivephotography.com/Images/UpArrow.bmp
Just proved jimmy is no big deal today... try being Lucille Oball tomorrow.

Theorem: I am Lucille Ball.
Proof: They laughed at Lucille Ball and they laughed at me.

 

[nothanks]

good 1 :)

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is a little like complaining to a vegetarian restaurant that they don't have steak* on the menu. There are other places on the internet where this can be discussed.

(* Well, more like complaining they don't have rancid, maggot-infested horsemeat on the menu masquerading as steak, under the principle that maybe the next time it really will be steak)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In addition to all of the obvious flaws in this bogus argument, as far as I know, nobody ever actually laughed at Einstein except me.

Me: What have I got in my pocket?
Einstein: Well, I'm no Einstein, but I'll guess a ring.
Me: Ha Ha, wrong you moron, it's a ... wait a minute, best out of three.

 

[Drakkith]

Unfortunately it is necessary to be harsh to things which might appear either non-science or which are contested. One of the main reasons things are censored here at PF is to keep it easy for non-experts to learn fundamental science. This CANNOT happen unless a great many threads from actual crackpots or even simply people that are incorrect are kept from proliferating. This absolutely keeps some ideas from being thrown around, usually because they are either NOT mainstream or they just don't make sense to many people. To ensure the proper environment for the majority of PF goals this must happen.

To quote PF rules:

One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community

 

[DivisionByZro]

[PLAIN]http://www.fourbyfivephotography.com/Images/UpArrow.bmp
Just proved there are more than one Einstein.
(and appears off topic and didn't read)

Maybe if you had read his joke more carefully you would have understood. Your argument is basically as follows:

"Why do Physics Forums not allow crackpot theories more openly when I have a few examples of some "crackpots" who ended up doing well for themselves?"

This can basically be re-written in the form Jimmy Snyder gave (Which was very relevant by the way).
Think of the number of crackpots who didn't become famous. Now think of the number who have becomes famous. Just because you found a few examples doesn't mean that most crackpots are eligible to be listened to seriously.

I would expect anyone with a modicum of interest in science to know that just because one has found a purple duck does not mean all ducks are purple.

 

[jtbell]

To address some of your hypothetical questions:

Why is Mercury considered a planet and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29" not considered a planet when it's larger than Mercury?

This is a matter of definition by an appropriate astronomical organization (I've forgotten the name). I consider it a legitimate question. If you were to ask this in our Astronomy forum, someone would probably provide a summary of the official rationale, or a link to a site that describes it. If you want to argue seriously that Eris should be considered a planet, you should write up a formal proposal to the organization in question, after first checking whether the organization has in fact considered this already.

What other evidence is there for an expanding universe? I've
seen an explanation that http://www.scribd.com/doc/33711296/Essentials-of-Hubble-Distance-Redshift" could explain the
redshift. Is the jury still out on the "Expanding Universe"? Or
are http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/einstein-and-the-universe" theories still under consideration?

People ask about alternative models like these all the time in the Cosmology forum. That's OK. If it's been proposed in the professional literature, it's fair game here. What's not OK is to push seriously a non-mainstream model here, especially one that has not appeared in the professional literature. This is not a research forum. That is, it's not a place to (try to) put new ideas into the professional arena.

how does light excite mass if it has no mass of it's own? An example is Crookes Radiometer

People ask about this at least once or twice a month, usually in the Relativity forum. They usually get some kind of answer. Sometimes people get a bit grumpy because it gets asked so often, but that hardly qualifies as censorship.

 

[mishrashubham]

A crackpot might go on to become a Nobel Prize Winner but as long he claims things without providing any proof or evidence, he will continue to remain a crackpot. The fact that he wins a Nobel Prize means that he stopped being a crackpot somewhere along the line. Tomorrow if you give me genuine and compelling evidence of the Earth being cubical in shape, I will have no choice but to accept.

 

[Monique]

The crackpot first has to withstand the test of science to become a Nobel prize winner, this forum clearly is not the place for that.

Do you really think that Barry Marshall would have been any more accepted if he would have been allowed to advocate the unsupported idea on a forum? No, he was accepted because he performed the experiments that proved him right.

Barry Marshall fought the medical doctrine and won the right to be text-book material, that's what this forum is all about: established science.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe if you had read his joke more carefully you would have understood. Your argument is basically as follows:

"Why do Physics Forums not allow crackpot theories more openly when I have a few examples of some "crackpots" who ended up doing well for themselves?"

This can basically be re-written in the form Jimmy Snyder gave (Which was very relevant by the way).
Think of the number of crackpots who didn't become famous. Now think of the number who have becomes famous. Just because you found a few examples doesn't mean that most crackpots are eligible to be listened to seriously.

I would expect anyone with a modicum of interest in science to know that just because one has found a purple duck does not mean all ducks are purple.

Yes, and just for those who aren't aware, our restrictions against crackpottery are not based on any principle (misguided or not), but rather on practicality: we used to have a crackpot forum, but couldn't effectively moderate it. The principle that we are better off without it came after that realization. So the objection is largely misdirected (in addition to its other flaws).

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree that calling somebody a crackpot is ad hominem, it has no place on a science forum. Arguments can be crackpot, but you should at least show how they are crackpot, which mostly eliminates the need for the word "crackpot".

So, unless you're trying to use emotional warfare, there's really no need for the the word; strangely, it's the double-standard on PF; the only allowable ad hominem attack. What's largely unfortunate about it is the way people use the crackpot accusation to bolster their own arguments without providing any real arguments. Just by using the word, it's a free-pass.

 

[Evo]

I believe that the link you posted sums up what this forum is about.

It's hard to isolate one "ingredient" of the physicsforums.com recipe as that which makes the site the best on the web. We have an unbelievably qualified and dedicated staff, we have thousands and thousands of intelligent, well-spoken members. We have math typesetting. We have loads of google traffic. We help tons of kids with their homework. We have professional physicists, astronomers, biologists, chemists, and more (many of them, in fact!). We are a relatively strongly-censored forum, in that we have a no-nonsense policy. We quickly eliminate spam, off-topic nonsense, crackpot theories, and the like. We try to keep the overall quality of posts very high here; in the process we do, in fact, turn away a lot of people. Perhaps the "closed" nature of the forum is what makes it work so smoothly.

- Warren

If you don't wish to discuss mainstream science, find another forum that's non-mainstream.

 

[D H]

\Why is Mercury considered a planet and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29" not considered a
planet when it's larger than Mercury?

First off, Eris is not larger than Mercury. Eris' mass is about 1/20 that of Mercury's, and its volume is about 1/10 that of Mercury's. This discrepancy is due to Eris' density being about half that of Mercury's.

When astronomers started discovering objects about the same size as Pluto in the outer solar system, the International Astronomical Union was faced with a big problem. There was no official definition of"planet" at the time. The default choice was to continue with this non-definition; nobody liked that option. Were these things planets or not? The IAU had two serious proposals:

• A planet is an object that has pulled itself into a more or less spherical shape due to its own self-gravitation, or
• A planet is an object that has pulled itself into a more or less spherical shape and has cleared its path of other objects.

The "pulling itself into a spherical shape" definition is more than a bit problematic: Where is the boundary? What is "more or less?" There is no clearcut boundary. It is a continuum. The dynamicists who proposed the "clearing its path" definition had a very sharp boundary, at least in our solar system. The ratio of Mar's mass to the mass of the junk in Mar's pathis three orders of magnitude greater than the equivalent ratio for any of the dwarf planets. Even an order of magnitude would have made for a nice boundary compared to a continuum. Three orders of magnitude? That the clearing of the path proposal was the winner makes imminent sense.

As for your other valid questions, others have either answered these already, or you can find the answers on this forum.

As for your questions about crackpots, we exclude them for a couple of key reasons. Reason #1 is that our primary goal at this site is to educate. Crackpot notions do not help in that regard. They just get in the way. Reason #2 is that crackpots as a group are immune to logic and reason. There is no debating them. Such debates inevitably led to rancor, they never ended, and they very much detracted from the valid discussions. Besides, there are plenty of other places on the 'net where they can get their say.

 

[micromass]

1) I think the OP doesn't really understand what a crackpot really is. Not everybody with an unconventional theory is a crackpot! In fact, calling somebody a crackpot doesn't have to do with the theory they hold, it has more to do with the attitude they have against criticism.

Any serious scientist will APPRECIATE criticism. They will try to understand the critic. They will see they obvious problems of a theory and they suggest valid ways to solve it. A crackpot does none of these things. They will be very hostile to any criticism and they will not understand why their argument is flawed.

2) The reason why this forum bans unconventional theories is because the purpose of this forum is geared towards education of people. It is not made for advancing science.
This forum is perfectly for undergraduates who wish to learn, it is suited less for researchers who deal with unsolved problems.

We get the criticism a lot that we don't contribute to science. This is perfectly true, but this is not the forums intent. We rather wish to educate people. This is how I see this forum at least.

3) Forgive me, but I don't get why you posted this. I mean: you didn't even posted anything on this forum. You didn't try it out yet. You didn't see what it's like. I suggest you try out this forum for a while, and THEN criticize us.

 

[Pythagorean]

I thought "crackpot" was simply a scientist with whom mainstream contemporaries disagrees. I didn't think they had to be denialist too, though I can understand it being a commonly reinforced stereotype.

 

[atyy]

1) I think the OP doesn't really understand what a crackpot really is. Not everybody with an unconventional theory is a crackpot! In fact, calling somebody a crackpot doesn't have to do with the theory they hold, it has more to do with the attitude they have against criticism.

Any serious scientist will APPRECIATE criticism. They will try to understand the critic. They will see they obvious problems of a theory and they suggest valid ways to solve it. A crackpot does none of these things. They will be very hostile to any criticism and they will not understand why their argument is flawed.

2) The reason why this forum bans unconventional theories is because the purpose of this forum is geared towards education of people. It is not made for advancing science.
This forum is perfectly for undergraduates who wish to learn, it is suited less for researchers who deal with unsolved problems.

We get the criticism a lot that we don't contribute to science. This is perfectly true, but this is not the forums intent. We rather wish to educate people. This is how I see this forum at least.

3) Forgive me, but I don't get why you posted this. I mean: you didn't even posted anything on this forum. You didn't try it out yet. You didn't see what it's like. I suggest you try out this forum for a while, and THEN criticize us.

Apparently, Einstein's initial reaction to some correct criticism was hostile. "Einstein, who reacted angrily to the referee report, would have been well advised to pay more attention to its criticisms, which proved to be valid," Kennefick wrote." http://www.physorg.com/news8104.html

 

[russ_watters]

I thought "crackpot" was simply a scientist with whom mainstream contemporaries disagrees. I didn't think they had to be denialist too, though I can understand it being a commonly reinforced stereotype.

No, a crackpot is a person who claims to be a scientist, but doesn't act in a scientific way. The definition you are using is what a crackpot would try to claim - it goes back to the Einstein comparison: If we call Einstein a crackpot, then that legitimizes crackpottery. But Einstein was most assuredly not a crackpot.

 

[DaveC426913]

nothanks: it's all well and good to say what you don't like about PF. What solution have you?

Were you here when PF did not have restrictions (flawed or otherwise) to try to weed out crackpots?

Find a site that has a higher signal to noise ratio and has no restrictions on who can post any zany idea that pops into their head.That is, if you ever come back. You gave the impression you plan to take your best shot then leave without having to defend your assertions.

 

[dlgoff]

1) I think the OP doesn't really understand what a crackpot really is. Not everybody with an unconventional theory is a crackpot! In fact, calling somebody a crackpot doesn't have to do with the theory they hold, it has more to do with the attitude they have against criticism.

Any serious scientist will APPRECIATE criticism. They will try to understand the critic. They will see they obvious problems of a theory and they suggest valid ways to solve it. A crackpot does none of these things. They will be very hostile to any criticism and they will not understand why their argument is flawed.

...

Do I see a FAQ Proposal in the works?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do I see a FAQ Proposal in the works?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html"

 

[nothanks]

You gave the impression you plan to take your best shot then leave without having to defend your assertions.

I am posting this thread not to bash the community, harass
the moderators, or to ridicule "This is the only FACT" thinking.
Only to point out a missing ingredient in the community that is
not found on this forum. (...) http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/inspinv.html"

by saying "You plan to take your best shot..." implies that I mean it as an insult, rather than as intended constructive feedback. Please review my post with a lighter attitude, as it is intended.

Also, as pointed out repeatedly in the replies, the forum is intended to educate individuals including students. When you find a student that never has a crackpot idea then you will likely also be finding a very Original-Idea lacking individual. That is a sad thought. I do not credit true crackpots as creating valid ideas, but rather as individuals that can inspire ideas in others.

for example:
Crackpot: "Chem-Trail blah blah blah..."
Legitimate: "Its not valid because of condensation laws etc..etc..etc... but it makes me think - do aircraft condensation trails increase the likelihood of higher pollutants raining down in acid rain? hum... I think I'll look that idea up or start some research."

Just food for thought.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

for example:
Crackpot: "Chem-Trail blah blah blah..."
Legitimate: "Its not valid because of condensation laws etc..etc..etc... but it makes me think - do aircraft condensation trails increase the likelihood of higher pollutants raining down in acid rain? hum... I think I'll look that idea up or start some research."

Just food for thought.

Maybe in your mind that happens, but we did have several years where crackpot discussion was available and I never saw that occur.

 

[Drakkith]

by saying "You plan to take your best shot..." implies that I mean it as an insult, rather than as intended constructive feedback. Please review my post with a lighter attitude, as it is intended.

Also, as pointed out repeatedly in the replies, the forum is intended to educate individuals including students. When you find a student that never has a crackpot idea then you will likely also be finding a very Original-Idea lacking individual. That is a sad thought.

Just food for thought.

No, your entire intent was to insult. You decided to try to disguise it as "constructive criticism" to make yourself feel better about it. There is a way to give constructive feedback, and what you are doing is not it, not by a long shot. You haven't even given us a reason why you believe PF lacks imagination other than because you read some stuff and we don't allow crackpots. All you've done is give accusations with no helpful information. That is definitively not constructive criticism.

Not only that, but you don't even acknowledge the possibility that keeping some of these people, who may or may not be actual "crackpots, out of the forums is in it's best interest. Have you considered WHY the forums may be set up this way? Do you think we should allow each and every idea, no matter how incorrect or far fetched to stay here on PF?

Furthermore, a student having crackpot ideas is not nearly the same thing as an educated person actively trying to put forward an idea labeled as "crackpot". The former is usually very easy to correct and to explain why it is incorrect. It is a requirement to get students to understand what real science is and how to go about it, to understand WHY their idea was wrong or how they came to the wrong conclusion.

 

[nothanks]

your entire intent was to insult.

::scrolls through the post...::

nope. I do not see a single insult.

 

[Drakkith]

::scrolls through the post...::

nope. I do not see a single insult.

Still waiting for some of that constructive criticism...

 

[micromass]

To put it this way: if crackpot posts were allowed here, then I would probably stop posting here. I'm very sure others also feel this way. I adore these forums exactly because the mentors do such a good job here. It may sound harsh, but it's for the better.

Stick around and post some things. I'm sure you will start to appreciate our way of handling things.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

for example:
Crackpot: "Chem-Trail blah blah blah..."
Legitimate: "Its not valid because of condensation laws etc..etc..etc... but it makes me think - do aircraft condensation trails increase the likelihood of higher pollutants raining down in acid rain? hum... I think I'll look that idea up or start some research."

Just food for thought.

That does happen on PF. How dare you come onto a site with absolutely no knowledge of how it operates and presume to lecture everyone on how to run it? We lock threads and infract users when they make crackpot claims and refuse to learn. There is a big difference between;

Member1: I've heard that the exhaust of planes contains chemicals...
Member2: This is a conspiracy theory. It is not true because...
Member1: Ah ok, Thanks!

And

Member1: Everyone knows that there are chemicals in plane exhausts. I believe that these chemicals are what is causing the rise in homosexuality in America...
Member2: This doesn't make sense because [insert long post]...
Member1: [Ignores the response and continues to make crazy claims]

If someone comes onto the site with a willingness to learn and asks a legitimate question then there is no problem. If someone comes on purely to have a platform to spout their crazy ideas then it is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes there is a possibility that someone posts a very speculative personal theory that in decades hence turns out to be true. But it is impossible to know this without having some sort of evidence to support the claim. That's not to say however that people can't come on and say things like "what experiments would determine if X is the cause of Y?" but that is a world away from "I believe that X causes Y and once mankind realizes this we could do Z".

 

[Astronuc]

Well I just had to stop by to say that I'm sorry the PhysicsForums.com
community forgot one of the most fundamental necessities of
exploration, discovery, and experimentation...

Imagination.

Please substantiate that claim.

The requirement for a title to a thread: (be descriptive! one/two word titles may be deleted!): is reasonable.

We prohibit crackpottery and overly-speculative posts in order to prevent misrepresentation, misinformation or disinformation, which are contrary to the scientific method/process. We do not tolerate nonsense.

We do accept and encourage new ideas and legitimate dissent, but we have strict criteria in such endeavors.

With regard to new ideas or ideas contrary to established principles, one simply has to provide peer-reviewed papers from legitimate scientific or technical journals in support of those ideas. However, that's no guarantee of acceptance at PF, since we have observed some cranky material being slipped into some journals.

The staff are professionals in various fields of mathematics, science, engineering and technology, and many members are students who are planning to practice in these fields. We also volunteer our time and efforts. We will keep PF as it is with regard to the exclusion of nonsense and crackpottery.


And what does Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600) have to do with any this?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

And what does Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600) have to do with any this?

Actually, the wiki article that the OP links to says that Bruno was condemned for the heresy of pantheism, not for his scientific views. Of course, wiki cannot be the arbiter of what is correct, but I would have expected the OP to link to a page that supported his viewpoint, not one that disputes it. The 'scientific heresy" interpretation seems to have started some 200 years after the event.

 

[nothanks]

Astronuc,

I must say yours has been the most fulfilling and insightful of replies to my post.
While others have become defensive, generalized, hostile, vague, touching on flaming, or
poorly expressed; your reply as been the most specific, professional, and respectful.

Rather than be defensive such as Drakkith you are willing to hear out the point of view.
Rather than post mockery as DaveC426913's http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" , you are specific as to what you regard as a
"Crackpot" in a more recognizable criteria.
Rather than group all "CrackPottery" cause and effect together as Greg Bernhardt had, you
specified reasons, justifications, and limitations that are not so subjective or vague but
more "these are the guidelines" specific.
Better written than Ryan_m_b, more willing to speculate than Greg Bernhardt, more familiar
with the original post than russ_watters (you missed the point that great minds have often
been called crackpots, dear russ), and also a general pleasant read.

The requirement for a title to a thread:
(be descriptive! one/two word titles may be deleted!):
is reasonable.

and when 2 words is enough to be descriptive?

We do accept and encourage new ideas and legitimate dissent,
but we have strict criteria in such endeavors. (...) peer-reviewed papers
from legitimate scientific or technical journals in support of those ideas.

Don't forget, an idea could be legitimate dissent without technical journals or
recognized scientific sources. They could say "I've done this new experiment
to prove it and am looking for alternate hypothesis as to the result or for
someone to repeat the experiment that has more experience in the field."

And what does Giordano Bruno (1548 – February 17, 1600)
have to do with any this?

He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after
the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and
turned him over to the state

He was burned at the stake for crackpot idea that "God" and "Nature"
are the same... this ironically can also be applied to Darwin whom, to
paraphrase, stated that nature is the god that created us through
evolution and eons of environmental circumstance. To ban a crackpot
or to delete a crackpot post is, in Internet terms, the same as burning
someone at the stake or burning a book of ideas.

Though I do confess that I wouldn't miss Bill Kaysing's We Never Went
to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, I'd just hate to be
brandished as the like simply because an idea makes sense and i post up
seeking clarification.

Thanks to your objectivity to my post and well structured response, I'll likely
return in a month or two under a new name and ask some of those serious
questions on my mind (The result of too many Science News, Discover,
Scientific American, Sky And Telescope issues with no scientific education
worth mention).

-Seeking my CrackPot Inoculation Through Knowledge
no... Thank YOU!