Joining. What are the rules?

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

Hello.
I am Guy René Bongers from Belgium.
I joined in principle - here meaning to begin with - to post a metaphysical comparison related to quantum physics and non physical areas.

It got refused by one censorer.

So what are the rules, criteria for censorship. ?

Is there here room for metaphysics ?

There are different opinions, beliefs conclusion, ideas, thesis, theory regarding physics.
Can they be explored here or can only the established be uncontested here ?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Is there here room for metaphysics ?

There are different opinions, beliefs conclusion, ideas, thesis, theory regarding physics.
Can they be explored here or can only the established be uncontested here ?

From our mission statement:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.

So, there is no room for metaphysics here, unfortunately. Furthermore, we are happy to discuss theories in physics rather than theories "regarding" physics.

 

[berkeman]

Welcome to PF.

So what are the rules, criteria for censorship. ?

You agreed to the PF Rules when you joined here. See "INFO" at the top of the page.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

Lets reply with the easy stuff first.

Thank you for replying to this post.

That is the easiest.

The rest is harder, for my first thought is ramblings and such.

I am going through reading the https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/
Some thoughts come to mind in response to that.

But they have been discussed before by others maybe and from reading a few post here I get the impression that previous topics are not open for re-discussion. It is very human not to want to keep discussing the same thing over and over again.

Not wanting to re-discuss is also true on the stack exchange network. There it is re-asked not discussed.

That leaves the forum with new questions with-in mainstream science but are not mainstream topics. Because those have already been discussed and are closed as for new replies.
Or they are never discussed except as chit-chat because they are known and old.

This does not cover the homework section.

 

[berkeman]

That leaves the forum with new questions with-in mainstream science but are not mainstream topics. Because those have already been discussed and are closed as for new replies.

How can something be within mainstream science but not be a mainstream topic?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

But they have been discussed before by others maybe and from reading a few post here I get the impression that previous topics are not open for re-discussion.

If you are referring to locked threads that are many years old, you can re-discuss them subject to the current guidelines. For example, if you are reading an old thread that is discussing something which is currently prohibited, then you cannot start a thread to discuss that again. It's always good to have a word with a Mentor before starting a thread based on another locked thread.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

A mainstream topic is something you learn in school.
It is also some thing the general public deals with, talk about in general.
Stuff like that
- A mainstream topic for doctors is not a mainstream topic for all people.
- Quantum physics is not mainstream physics for the general population but it is for quantum physicists .

What is not a mainstream topic are either
- old topics
- cutting edge new topic
- rare topics
- boring topics
- doctorate level science unless most participants are doctors.

Example :
The study of shrimp is not a mainstream discussion for the general population but for marine biologists it is a lot more mainstream. Not being a biologist and therefor evenless a marine biologist I do not know how much it is a mainstream topic amongst marine biologists.

 

[berkeman]

Interesting interpretations. Here at PF, the term "mainstream" means published in the professional peer-reviewed literature or part of professional textbooks. The list of acceptable peer-reviewed journals is linked to in the PF Rules.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

from : https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

Mission Statement:

Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community. As our name suggests, our main focus is on physics, but we also have forums for most other academic areas including engineering, chemistry, biology, social sciences, etc.

That includes amateurs.

but following this quote and the link it originally contained

Speculative or Personal Theories:
Physics Forums is not intended as an alternative to the usual professional venues for discussion and review of new ideas, e.g. personal contacts, conferences, and peer review before publication. If you have a new theory or idea, this is not the place to look for feedback on it or help in developing it.

For further explanation of our policy on personal theories and speculative posts, and the history behind it, see the following entry in the Physics Forums FAQ:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-faq-and-howto.617567/#post-4664231

That research led me to understand your site.

You are not as interesting as I assumed. You used to be as interesting as I assumed.

It is my understanding from reading the FAQ that the site with regards to learning is only good for students and their homework in the homework section. But it is my understanding that outside of the homework section learning is frowned upon both for amateur, students and academics.

That means I suspect that the only posters outside the homework section you end up with are professionals in the mainstream - not cutting edge - area of their profession.

You could not tolerate anything else.

Further reading of the FAQ conforms my suspicion.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[berkeman]

It is my understanding from reading the FAQ that site with regards to learning is only good for students and their homework in the homework section. But it is my understanding that outside of the homework section learning is frowned upon both for amateur, students and academics.

Your interpretation there is quite wrong. PF is a great place to learn about real science. That means that we don't tolerate personal speculation, etc., but that only makes it easier to learn the real science. I know I've learned a huge amount over the years here.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

Your interpretation there is quite wrong. PF is a great place to learn about real science. That means that we don't tolerate personal speculation, etc., but that only makes it easier to learn the real science. I know I've learned a huge amount over the years here.

What level of knowledge did you start with ?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

But it is my understanding that outside of the homework section learning is frowned upon both for amateur, students and academics.

That means I suspect that the only posters you end up with are professionals in the mainstream - not cutting edge - area of their profession.

"I don't understand this: ..." / "What is this theory actually saying?" and similar questions $\not\equiv$ "I have a personal theory which hasn't yet been published in any peer reviewed journal; I want to explain why it is correct."

Edit: Get your cutting-edge theories published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then we would be happy to explain the same to people who don't understand it. The discussion of "Why my theory is wrong?" should be done with the reviewers who reject your paper.

 

[topsquark]

from : https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

That includes amateurs.

but following this quote and the link it originally contained

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-faq-and-howto.617567/#post-4664231

That research led me to understand your site.

You are not as interesting as I assumed. You used to be as interesting as I assumed.

It is my understanding from reading the FAQ that the site with regards to learning is only good for students and their homework in the homework section. But it is my understanding that outside of the homework section learning is frowned upon both for amateur, students and academics.

That means I suspect that the only posters outside the homework section you end up with are professionals in the mainstream - not cutting edge - area of their profession.

You could not tolerate anything else.

Further reading of the FAQ conforms my suspicion.

I feel sorry for you.

I think you are misunderstanding the basic purpose of this site. It was said before but I'll paraphrase it. We are here to help members learn "Standard Physics." That is to say, if you are in a class, we specialize in helping you with the stuff you will be learning. We aren't saying that other topics aren't important... this just makes it easier for the members to find the information they are looking for without having to weed through speculation.

For Metaphysics you need to go elsewhere.

-Dan

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

"I don't understand this: ..." / "What is this theory actually saying?" and similar questions $\not\equiv$ "I have a personal theory which hasn't yet been published in any peer reviewed journal; I want to explain why it is correct."

Get your cutting-edge theories published in a peer-reviewed journal, and then we would be happy to explain the same to people who don't understand it. The discussion of "Why my theory is wrong?" should be done with the reviewers who reject your paper.

Hello.
This post is not about a theory.
I am new to this site.

This post is about what I learned about the nature of this site.

 

[Doc Al]

It is my understanding from reading the FAQ that the site with regards to learning is only good for students and their homework in the homework section. But it is my understanding that outside of the homework section learning is frowned upon both for amateur, students and academics.

You couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you should spend some time browsing the site so you can see for yourself.

That means I suspect that the only posters outside the homework section you end up with are professionals in the mainstream - not cutting edge - area of their profession.

Nothing wrong with "cutting edge" as long as it's published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Hello.
This post is not about a theory.
I am new to this site.

This post is about what I learned about the nature of this site.

But the thread started because your thread on metaphysics was deleted by the mentors, isn't it? Coming back to the point raised in the OP, we don't deal in philosophy. Regarding your views about the nature of the site: Correct, we don't discuss cutting-edge physics that has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Once you get it published in a journal that is not predatory and has a proper peer-review process, you can surely come back here and explain what the theory says. In fact, at that time, you can probably even write an Insight article explaining the theory to beginners in less-mathematical language.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

Thank you for your replies.

 

[berkeman]

What level of knowledge did you start with ?

MSEE, which includes a couple years of undergraduate physics classes. You can read my Mentor Biography by clicking on my Avatar to visit my Profile Page.

I've learned a bit more in EE here, lots more in ME and similar here, and a huge amount more intermediate Physics. I enjoy reading the more advanced Physics threads here as well, but they are well over my head currently.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

But the thread started because your thread on metaphysics was deleted by the mentors, isn't it? Coming back to the point raised in the OP, we don't deal in philosophy. Regarding your views about the nature of the site: Correct, we don't discuss cutting-edge physics that has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Once you get it published in a journal that is not predatory and has a proper peer-review process, you can surely come back here and explain what the theory says. In fact, at that time, you can probably even write an Insight article explaining the theory to beginners in less-mathematical language.

I did not know you where referring to my first post.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

MSEE, which includes a couple years of undergraduate physics classes. You can read my Mentor Biography by clicking on my Avatar to visit my Profile Page.

I've learned a bit more in EE here, lots more in ME and similar here, and a huge amount more intermediate Physics. I enjoy reading the more advanced Physics threads here as well, but they are well over my head currently.

congratulations on learning.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

You couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps you should spend some time browsing the site so you can see for yourself.Nothing wrong with "cutting edge" as long as it's published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

The replies so far confirm my understanding

 

[Nugatory]

That means I suspect that the only posters outside the homework section you end up with are professionals in the mainstream - not cutting edge - area of their profession.

Cutting edge topics are welcome as long as they are based on an acceptable peer-reviewed paper - and because peer-reviewed publication is how new cutting edge ideas are are disseminated and evaluated anything that doesn’t meet that bar is going to be nonsense masquerading as new ideas, not serious work at the cutting edge.
Beyond the Standard Model and the two Quantum Mechanics sections are often good places to look for new work.

 

[Guy_Rene_emancipee]

The replies so far confirm my understanding

I am following your suggestion to browse the site.

You are right.

My previous understanding was wrong.
I am happy I learned.

 

[symbolipoint]

Guy_Rene_emancipee

The site is mostly for critical discussions, especially focused on Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, Computer Technology/Science, and other Natural Sciences, including medical topics.

One may on occasions bring-up a slightly deviant topic or question, but best IF you explain or describe from your own experiences, look for an find some online article or online presentation, so that some member could at least give intelligent criticism (in case you may have too much trouble looking for a high quality publication or journal article).

Topics types to be very careful about: Religion, God, Parapsychology, any kind of pseudoscience, unproven or discredited theories

Topics to stay away from: Philosophy, conspiracy theories, Metaphysics, (and probably "God" should be included here although I judged maybe "if careful about")

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Topics types to be very careful about: Religion, God, Parapsychology, any kind of pseudoscience, unproven or discredited theories

Topics to stay away from: Philosophy, conspiracy theories, Metaphysics, (and probably "God" should be included here although I judged maybe "if careful about")

All the topics under "very careful" should be under "stay away from".

 

[symbolipoint]

All the topics under "very careful" should be under "stay away from".

I put some of those in "be very careful about", because some posting members may have some well studied knowledge in those areas and some precise discussion could occur. Some connections are found in scholarly work between religious writings and history, archeology, and maybe languages developments. You cannot prohibit all of it. Some (few?) scholars look for truths between archeology & History and Religion/old religious communities. Not sure if any critical measurements relating to Parapsychology but I am guessing that some people have tried and again not sure about any successes. "Intelligence Quotient", these days mostly discredited. Possibility of too many cultural and environmental effects.

Sometimes intelligent members need to be given the opportunity to try.

 

[Rive]

Not sure if any critical measurements relating to Parapsychology but I am guessing that some people have tried and again not sure about any successes.

Actually parapsychology is subject to regular scientific attempts (usually a big rush in every few decades) and there are some permanent faculties at university level (a few member, usually) too, but no (positive) results.

So I guess in theory it could be a topic... It's just the usual mentions are NOT about the scientific part, so comes fast.

Is there here room for metaphysics ?

Usually some metaphysics: strictly constructive/supportive to a scientific topic/question is not locked immediately, but metaphysics for the sake of metaphysics won't last long.

 

[PeroK]

Actually parapsychology is subject to regular scientific attempts (usually a big rush in every few decades) and there are some permanent faculties at university level (a few member, usually) too, but no (positive) results.

I suspect that it's just academics making fools of themselves by being outwitted by an illusionist claiming to have supernatural powers.

 

[Rive]

I suspect that it's just academics making fools of themselves by being outwitted by an illusionist claiming to have supernatural powers.

Those faculties I mentioned were made to combat that, actually
There was a big surge of interest in classic parapsychology around '70s, '80s, and it was necessary to clear up the relevant statistics, develop new methods and tests for investigations, collect data and such.
They made a great, scientific job. They found nothing, as expected: but they made that big nothing a worthy reference. Now, they are kept alive mostly for educational and documentation purpose.

I don't think we need parapsychology here as it would be a really, really difficult thing to keep it focused, but in theory a scientific side exists (albeit with a solid 'nothing to see here' result).

 

[Nugatory]

I don't think we need parapsychology here as it would be a really, really difficult thing to keep it focused,

Yes. So much so that the forum rules specifically disallow it.

 

[topsquark]

I suspect that it's just academics making fools of themselves by being outwitted by an illusionist claiming to have supernatural powers.

It's people like you that make it so difficult to stare at goats. (George Clooney, if you didn't catch the reference.)

-Dan

 

[berkeman]

Yes. So much so that the forum rules specifically disallow it.

I had a premonition that you were going to say that...

 

[PeroK]

It's people like you that make it so difficult to stare at goats. (George Clooney, if you didn't catch the reference.)

-Dan

As I'm not psychic, I can't figure that one out.

 

[berkeman]

As I'm not psychic, I can't figure that one out.

Wait, wait! I got this. Must concentrate...

Spoiler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats_(film)

 

[OCR]

I had a premonition that you were going to say that...

Oh but! . . . your premonition is causal determinism. . . .

.