Greg what's going on? Censorship?

[russ_watters]

To Chroot Thanks for the reply -- at the bottom of this page there is a link 'contact us' it never let's you in -- why is that ?.

Hold your cursor over the link and look at the bottom left corner of your browser window where it identifies links: that's a link to Greg's personal email. If you don't have an email program like outlook, nothing will happen when you press it: but you can copy and paste the email address to your email program.

...what exactly are you worried about ??

We are worried about our site being dragged down to the level of similar boards.

Btw, your misleading characterization of Einstein and his work speaks volumes. As I said before, its a red-flag: When someone says "you guys would probably have written off Einstein!" (and btw, we hear this a lot -about Einstein, flat earth, the sound barrier, etc.), the implication is either: 'I'm Einstein and future generations will see it' or 'the mainstream was wrong then, therefore it must be wrong now.' Such arguments are not scientific.

Somewhere around here, someone posted a "you might be a crackpot if..." quiz: comparing one's-self to Einstein scores very high on the crackpot-o-meter.

YOU cannot and should not try to shield others from others opinion all you can do is to encourage people to form their OWN opinion and to be critical of what they see and read .

You're viewing the learning process exactly backwards because you're missing a key piece of the learning process: in order to form an informed opinion, a person has to first learn about the subject. In TD, if a physics novice goes in, they have absolutely no way of knowing what is trash and what isn't and no capacity to judge for themselves. That's why the learning process must be guided by those who already know the subject and have already made a judgement.

This misunderstanding of how to learn is perhaps the biggest challenge we face here. You have no idea how often in TD we hear something to the effect of "why should I learn Relativity - I already know its wrong?" The natural response, of course, is "if you don't even know what it says, how can you know its wrong?"

If you think about this you will see that we are totally inundated by schlock stuff in magazines TV and the Internet everyday on every topic under the sun...

That is exactly the reason we are needed - to separate the real physics from the garbage. Someone who doesn't know much science will not be able to process all the information the media gives them and come to their own (correct) conclusions.

If I am setting myself up as a judge, it's because of my experience on the matter.

More to the point, as mentors, that's our job - and graphic7, though not a mentor, has a pretty good understanding of what we do and why.

 

[russ_watters]

I have to add somethng , Einsteins work has never been totally accepted -- and should never be -- it's only a limited model of reallity and many question this today also
but his rejection as a poor student shows how limited our view is of some-one else and how judgemental we can be

Arright, this really is one of my pet peves, so I'm going to nip this in the bud right now: Your understanding of Einstein's life/career is grossly misleading/incorrect.

HERE is a good biography.

Of note:
-In 1900, Einstein graduated from college at age 21 like his peers.
-For the next year+, he tried, but failed, to get a teaching job. This fact says nothing at all about the "acceptance" of his work.
-After a couple of temporary teaching jobs, Einstein took his famous patent office job in 1902 at about age ~23 (note: he was not a "clerk" as is often said - he was a "technical expert"). He gave up looking for a teaching job. Stopping here is where the erroneous perception comes in. Continuing, for proper context:
-He earned a pHd in 1905 - yes, that's right, he was still a student when he first started working at the patent office.
-Over the next few years, he did a significant amount of his scientific work in his spare time. 1905 is when he first proposed Special Relativity.
-In 1908, he became a lecturer at Bern
-In 1909, he quit his patent job having now, at age 30, been recognized for what he was.
-In 1912 he became a full professor.
-By 1919 following a solar eclipse prediction, the revolution was complete: "The London Times ran the headline on 7 November 1919:- Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown."

To summarize: in his 20s, in between earning a living and putting himself through school, Einstein laid the groundwork for his main works. By age 30, he was recognized for what he was and by age 40, he had essentially completed the rewriting of much of physics. After that, the "only" thing he did was lay much of the groundwork for QM...

 

[Evo]

I cannot argue with whoever sets the rules I do not own the site --I can state my feelings on the issue , The internet is a free for all on ideas and many will be rubbish that does not mean one should censor , it means we have to develop a discerning ear and encourage others to do so , I do not think you should judge whether someone is wasting their time that is entirely their problem if they can they will learn , what exactly are you worried about ??

The internet is accessible to all, but that does not mean that any website is a "free for all" where anyone is welcome to post anything they wish, this is where you are wrong. The owner of the website will determine what is and is not appropriate content. The fact that PF holds a higher standard than other sites is appreciated by those that don't want to read all the nonsense.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Greg, and where were you all the time ? ... my question was directed to you ... but ... I just hear silence.

I have been keeping track of this thread, no worries. I haven't had anything to say because the PF staff and I generally share the same principles and views, thus the reason they are in the position in the first place. We've had a pseudoscience/theory development forum since the birth of PF. Overtime we have further molded and refined what we feel PF should be and how it can serve visitors and members best. Over the last few months we concluded that supporting such a forum is not in the best interests of the site. It's a matter of pros and cons. We've given the theory dev forum 3 years to be productive, but it just hasn't happened and it ends up doing more harm than good. We're not saying it doesn't have some sort of benefit, however, what we are saying is that it does not have enough benefit to meet the high standards we pride ourselves in keeping.

 

[Arctic Fox]

Now I'm wondering if I should even post here anymore...

If I want to have a thread on electrogravitational theories, will it be deleted as well?

This is something I'm actively studying and am currently trying to build prototypes. A lot of times I need help on existing theories or engineering problems pertaining to my designs - I've been banned from other forums for just meantioning the word eGrav...

Do you intend to do the same?

----

I started in these theories alone, and seem to be ending up that way again.

 

[Chronos]

Hmm. You walk by two people arguing on a park bench. One is an idiot, the other a scientist. You are permitted to ask each of them one question.. however it must be the same question. Phrase a question that assures you can tell one from the other.

 

[Moonbear]

I cannot argue with whoever sets the rules I do not own the site --I can state my feelings on the issue , The internet is a free for all on ideas and many will be rubbish that does not mean one should censor , it means we have to develop a discerning ear and encourage others to do so , I do not think you should judge whether someone is wasting their time that is entirely their problem if they can they will learn , what exactly are you worried about ?? As said I just get the feeling ( which is why I do not visit very often ) that there is a an undue amount of policeing here. I subscribe to another forum where there is a tremendous amount of rubbish , however it all gets sorted in the end with good rebutalls and good explanations from other subscribers -- with little interference from 'above' , they see their job as a referee to ensure people do not go overboard in language and so on -- but they do NOT censor and they do not move things around or otherwise throw their weight about .
You talk about going to classes well I think there should be Mentor classes too .

You have quite a misconception there about how internet forums work. This is a privately owned site. Basically, Greg has set up a meeting place, but without the traditional brick and mortar walls that might limit membership to a more local community, and instead and created a virtual meeting place where the more global community can gather. In this meeting place, everyone is invited to attend, listen, participate, but there is a guiding set of rules to the discussion. One of those rules is the subject must be scientific in nature, not pseudoscience or quackery. You can think of this place as a physics "club" with fairly open membership (we occassionally ask a member to leave if they become overly disruptive to the proceedings). It's not censorship to limit the topics of discussion here, because we do not prevent you from opening up your own group in the "building" next door to discuss those ideas, or from going to some other group, we simply do not wish to discuss that here, that's not why we joined this group and clearly not why Greg established it. Just because Greg tolerated some side discourse on the subject initially, when there weren't a lot of people visiting yet and mentors had more time to deal with them and keep them from getting out of control by providing rebuttals, doesn't mean he can't now decide the resources are no longer available to dedicate to that topic. This site is now quite crowded with people wanting to talk about legitimate science, and the mentors are stretched thin in their increased responsibilities for overseeing all those discussions, so it's no longer feasible to drain resources on a peripheral topic that doesn't serve the main objective of this group. If you still want to discuss those topics, feel free to find another group to do so. You've already indicated another site you visit that allows it, so continue to do so there, not here. And if you can't find a site that suits your wants/needs, you are free to start up your own site.

 

[Glenn the Great]

Just to add my 2 cents about pseudo-science, I believe that not everything that exists in this universe is tangible or measurable with conventional equipment, and that that doesn't mean it isn't real. I have an open mind to all pseudo-science that doesn't contradict itself. Also, there is much we have to infer rather than measure with the scientific method that could be considered pseudo-science anywhere outside theoretical physics such as the color charges of quarks and gluons. I prefer to use mathematics as the test. If there is something causing an anomaly in the universe and we don't know what it is, but someone can make something up, describe it in a way that the math matches reality, than this thing may as well exist. We could not be sure, but science is not a realm of being sure. If science ever became "sure" it would die.

 

[ZapperZ]

Just to add my 2 cents about pseudo-science, I believe that not everything that exists in this universe is tangible or measurable with conventional equipment, and that that doesn't mean it isn't real. I have an open mind to all pseudo-science that doesn't contradict itself. Also, there is much we have to infer rather than measure with the scientific method that could be considered pseudo-science anywhere outside theoretical physics such as the color charges of quarks and gluons. I prefer to use mathematics as the test. If there is something causing an anomaly in the universe and we don't know what it is, but someone can make something up, describe it in a way that the math matches reality, than this thing may as well exist. We could not be sure, but science is not a realm of being sure. If science ever became "sure" it would die.

So when was the last time you encounter a "pseudo-science" that can describe something "... in a way that the math matches reality"?

The whole point of learning something first is so that one doesn't make something up out of ignorance. It doesn't mean it is correct, it means that it is not obviously incorrect simply because one is ignorant of what is already known. A pseudoscience makes no such distinction.

Zz.

 

[dpeters]

What I'm worried about is someone 'interested' in Physics coming around here and reading some garbage someone posted in TD, then being influenced by that garbage and spreading the garbage to peers who will spread it further. That's the concern that everyone here has with TD.

You mean like when someone listens to a professor in college ?

 

[dpeters]

Here's what this all boils down to. Physics guys can only speak in terms of math. If you give them your theory in a general way in English they won't understand a word your saying because the part of their brains that understands spoken words has withered away from under use. So unless you speak Tensors and linear algebra and stuff they will not understand you.

But sometimes good theories need to start out in broad terms and then be refined later with the math. These guys will totally miss out on those ideas. And they won't care either. Hahahahahhahaha.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Here's what this all boils down to. Physics guys can only speak in terms of math. If you give them your theory in a general way in English they won't understand a word your saying because the part of their brains that understands spoken words has withered away from under use. So unless you speak Tensors and linear algebra and stuff they will not understand you.

But sometimes good theories need to start out in broad terms and then be refined later with the math. These guys will totally miss out on those ideas. And they won't care either. Hahahahahhahaha.

mmm hmmm...

 

[ZapperZ]

Here's what this all boils down to. Physics guys can only speak in terms of math. If you give them your theory in a general way in English they won't understand a word your saying because the part of their brains that understands spoken words has withered away from under use. So unless you speak Tensors and linear algebra and stuff they will not understand you.

But sometimes good theories need to start out in broad terms and then be refined later with the math. These guys will totally miss out on those ideas. And they won't care either. Hahahahahhahaha.

Now you are just being silly - or maybe you're not if you do not realize why mathematics is the language of physics.

Compare these two statements:

"the strength of the field in my theory gets smaller as we move away from the source"

and

"the strength of the field varies as exp(-kr) where r is the distance from the source"

Now you tell me, which one is ambiguous, which one makes not only a qualitative description, but also a quantitative description that can be tested?

What you are forgetting that physicists look at mathematical descriptions the way musicians look at musical notes. They don't just look at the notes on the paper, but rather "hear" the music that those notes represent. The mathematics represents the conceptual idea, it does NOT represent just mathematical symbols on paper! It is the MOST concise and accurate way to represent physical ideas devoid of social, cultural, and linguistic connotations that ordinary languages have.

... but you would have known that had you done any considerable work in physics.

Zz.

 

[Glenn the Great]

So when was the last time you encounter a "pseudo-science" that can describe something "... in a way that the math matches reality"?

The whole point of learning something first is so that one doesn't make something up out of ignorance. It doesn't mean it is correct, it means that it is not obviously incorrect simply because one is ignorant of what is already known. A pseudoscience makes no such distinction.

Zz.

I don't know whether or not you caught this, but the point I was trying to make was that much of what we accept as credible knowledge was once how I'd define a pseudo-science. I used quantum chromodynamics as an example. We knew from particle accelerator tests that baryons are made of 3 pieces surrounded by a unique force field, but we could not detect how these pieces now known as quarks interact with each other and their gluons because they were on too small a scale and no particle accelerator we could ever make would be strong enough to isolate a single quark for any length of time. Thus out of our ignorance of the laws of quarks, we decided to make up the 6 "color charges" and "create" 8 gluons to make the math surrounding the charges work out, and our math matches reality. The history of chromodynamics was a history of making pokes in the dark, and if someone were to ask me to define pseudo-science, I would say it's a field in which you poke in the dark.

To sum it up, I believe pseudo-sciences can have the potential to shed light in various fields of science, and we should keep our minds open to them but at the same time remaining vigilant for frivolous theories. If that is what is done here, I don't see a problem.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

To sum it up, I believe pseudo-sciences can have the potential to shed light in various fields of science, and we should keep our minds open to them but at the same time remaining vigilant for frivolous theories. If that is what is done here, I don't see a problem.

Well over the past four years the theory dev forum potential hasn't amounted towards anything credible, that is what we have to go by.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know whether or not you caught this, but the point I was trying to make was that much of what we accept as credible knowledge was once how I'd define a pseudo-science. I used quantum chromodynamics as an example. We knew from particle accelerator tests that baryons are made of 3 pieces surrounded by a unique force field, but we could not detect how these pieces now known as quarks interact with each other and their gluons because they were on too small a scale and no particle accelerator we could ever make would be strong enough to isolate a single quark for any length of time. Thus out of our ignorance of the laws of quarks, we decided to make up the 6 "color charges" and "create" 8 gluons to make the math surrounding the charges work out, and our math matches reality. The history of chromodynamics was a history of making pokes in the dark, and if someone were to ask me to define pseudo-science, I would say it's a field in which you poke in the dark.

To sum it up, I believe pseudo-sciences can have the potential to shed light in various fields of science, and we should keep our minds open to them but at the same time remaining vigilant for frivolous theories. If that is what is done here, I don't see a problem.

Then you have just made up your own definition of what a "pseudo-science" is. I believe, if you read, for example, Bob Park's book, this is NOT what is most generally accepted as pseudoscience.

Regardless of what it is called, do you honestly think that what we have in the TD section, and the quackeries found elsewhere on the 'net, have the same shape, appearence, smell, etc. with what YOU defined to be "pseudoscience"? Really now! You want a comparison or criteria? How many of the advancement in QCD, for instance, made it into peer-reviewed journals? And now, compare this to the other pseudoscience and quackeries on here.

You still do not see the difference?

Zz.

 

[arildno]

Glenn:
Have you bothered to look at what you may find in TD?
These examples represent the norm of the threads (i.e, the vast majority of TD threads are of this type):
1) Organic numbers
2) 0.999 recurring does not equal 1
3) Newton is wrong, the "law of the lever" rules.
4) Relativity is wrong&absolute motion is a meaningful concept.
5) Speed has direction

Good riddance to all of this crap.

 

[Galileo]

Just to add my 2 cents about pseudo-science, I believe that not everything that exists in this universe is tangible or measurable with conventional equipment, and that that doesn't mean it isn't real. I have an open mind to all pseudo-science that doesn't contradict itself. Also, there is much we have to infer rather than measure with the scientific method that could be considered pseudo-science anywhere outside theoretical physics such as the color charges of quarks and gluons. I prefer to use mathematics as the test. If there is something causing an anomaly in the universe and we don't know what it is, but someone can make something up, describe it in a way that the math matches reality, than this thing may as well exist.

Glenn, one important thing that must be realized is: If something cannot be measured, then it isn't physical and exists therefore outside the realm of physics.
The question whether something that isn't measurable is at all real is metaphysical and doesn't belong in TD. I may as well argue that there's a green leprechaun dancing on your shoulder and peeing against your head.
No, you can't see it. And you can't feel it. Actually you can't measure it with physical equipment, but I can derive in a logically consistent way, (it doesn't contradict itself), that it is responsible for many physical phenomona.
If I were to hold on to this view, I`m not surprised to be called a crackpot and the reason is not that the idea sounds ridiculous, but that it is an unscientific and unphysical explanation/description of the universe.

A physical theory must be quantitative. You mustn't explain what happens in a qualitative way, you must explain/describe what we can measure in a detailed and unambiguous way. That's the sole reason why QM is widely accepted: The results are in agreement with every measurement we have made.

Quantitative results and predictions are what crackpot theories are generally missing.

 

[BobG]

What you are forgetting that physicists look at mathematical descriptions the way musicians look at musical notes. They don't just look at the notes on the paper, but rather "hear" the music that those notes represent. The mathematics represents the conceptual idea, it does NOT represent just mathematical symbols on paper! It is the MOST concise and accurate way to represent physical ideas devoid of social, cultural, and linguistic connotations that ordinary languages have.

Zz.

Very well put.

Too many think a formula is just something you have to memorize and miss its meaning completely.

 

[Glenn the Great]

Glenn:
Have you bothered to look at what you may find in TD?
These examples represent the norm of the threads (i.e, the vast majority of TD threads are of this type):
1) Organic numbers
2) 0.999 recurring does not equal 1
3) Newton is wrong, the "law of the lever" rules.
4) Relativity is wrong&absolute motion is a meaningful concept.
5) Speed has direction

Good riddance to all of this crap.

I agree with that. Those are some examples of the frivolous theories I had warned against. I believe that what I'm saying is valid. All I'm saying is that throughout history there have been breakthroughs with hard numbers backing them up that most people considered frivolous. It's just like that leprechaun theory, you can make it up and play with the numbers so it matches reality.

When this happens, whether or not the theory will be accepted lies in subjectiveness. I'm not trying to say that what's going on here is wrong. With what I've seen it appears that things are working well. I've only been here for a matter of days so I don't have the full picture but I think it is being handled well. I'm just voicing my viewpoint.

 

[Arctic Fox]

It's like I'm back in the dark ages! Next you'll be telling us that certain science theories are really the work of the devil.

Next comes the burning courts... again!

I like this quote best and I think it should serve here:
“We won't be suppressing any views today, Dr Arrowway.” - Contact

 

[Nereid]

It's like I'm back in the dark ages! Next you'll be telling us that certain science theories are really the work of the devil.

Next comes the burning courts... again!

I like this quote best and I think it should serve here:
“We won't be suppressing any views today, Dr Arrowway.” - Contact

I must be in the slow class today Arctic Fox (or perhaps from Missouri? is that the right state??), in what way do you feel you are back in the dark ages? How does any of the discussion above lead you to conclude that [you - who?] will 'be telling [me] that certain science theories are really the work of the devil'?

 

[tfleming]

the trouble with all this is that people who venture into your 'lion's den' finds that you all are sitting there waiting...waiting...waiting...like caged beasts, waiting for some poor little shrinking violet... mmmm sounds like me I'm talking about there! :tongue: seems as long as we try to 'teach' you people something, even when we really aren't trying to, you take umbrage, spit the dummy, and roll out your spleens while you try and learn how to debate! and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs! you guys may be young but you haven't got experience on your side; some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

 

[graphic7]

the trouble with all this is that people who venture into your 'lion's den' finds that you all are sitting there waiting...waiting...waiting...like caged beasts, waiting for some poor little shrinking violet... mmmm sounds like me I'm talking about there! :tongue: seems as long as we try to 'teach' you people something, even when we really aren't trying to, you take umbrage, spit the dummy, and roll out your spleens while you try and learn how to debate! and don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs! you guys may be young but you haven't got experience on your side; some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

I don't remember seeing you on the 'Funnest PF Member' ballot. Maybe you should try contacting the admins on your addition to the ballot.

 

[Arctic Fox]

poor little shrinking violet

Uhmm... what are you saying?

 

[russ_watters]

... you guys may be young but you haven't got experience on your side; some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

If you'd read the profiles of the mentors, you'll find that we have fairly wide demographics - yes, some have "been around" quite a while.

And while its tough to prove that we don't think alike because Greg choose people who think alike, its been my (admittedly limited) experience that the scientific mindset is a common trait among scientists and engineers.

 

[ZapperZ]

some of us have been around and been abused by experts!

Then what are you whinning about? This then should feel very familiar to you!

Zz.