Greg what's going on? Censorship?

[pelastration]

On Theory Development I posted some hours ago a reply ( Something wrong with E=mc2) about the practice on the Theory development thread on "strange theories", which are against mainstream (you know the official Guru's). I said that new ideas may have great value even not proven yet. So I am for an open approach. Then I said I liked PF but not such Inquisition type of approach where Chroot closes every new "strange idea". I don't think my remarks are that offensive.

IMO refusing new ideas is not scientific. If science would have an answer to everything ... I would agree. But we see that world recognized experts are battling between them, even on terms like background, strings, Quantum Gravity, ... etc. Much is speculative.

But then my critical post was DELETED ... that was really surprizing to me. Does that shows that in PF the censorship becomes a rule? I don't think so in general, but on Theory Development for sure.
When someone expresses critics ... just delete the post. That means that the system has no answer, or that the system knows something is wrong, or that systems fears that something is spread.

I suggested also that an alternative was to post "strange" ideas on http://www.superstringtheory.org:8080/forum/index.jsp which is a more open system. There you have no Chroot closing threads.

Now it have no real problem that Chroot blocks posts, it's just a pity that good ideas may be lost or not get exposure. It's just shows that PF became rigids. May be PF over-judges it's importance. May be. On the start is was different ... every post was welcome to get the numbers.
The consequence: Action gives reaction. That's the way it goes in Physics, that's the way it goes in communications. Since two years I promote PF on my website. On every page (40 pages?) I made a link. But now ... since I don't trust PF's openness ... why should I do that? I am going to remove those links on next update. May be not of real importance ... but that's my simple reaction. I don't like censorship, and I don't think that open people need to be linked to people which apply in any way censorship.

My question: Is PF mentally strong enough to let this post appear on the site? Or will it be deleted in some hours?

 

[chroot]

1) I didn't delete your post. Integral deleted it, because it was off-topic.

2) There is an enormous difference between world-class physicists developing and debating new theories and uneducated cranks arguing about relativity on the internet. If you can't see the difference, I frankly pity you.

3) I am not the only person here responsible for the censorship. All of our staff agreed that TD needed to be cleaned up. There is no inquisition against ideas, just against pseudoscience. If an idea does not follow the scientific method, it simply does not belong on this site.

4) There are a million other sites on the web where you are completely free to spout whatever pseudoscientific gibberish you want. This isn't one of them. You are free to leave.

5) I put the issue to a vote, and the vast majority of those who voted said the site is better without TD. Our policies are supported by most of our users. We have no interest in catering to you.

6) To my knowledge, no good ideas have ever been posted to TD. Ideas are not good just because their authors think they are good.

7) We've already enduring a dozen or so threads in the feedback section started by crackpots who don't like our new policy. We'll endure yours, too. What makes you think your complaint matters to anyone but you?

- Warren

 

[Integral]

You bet I deleted it, and I'd do it again. It was simply a rant with no real relavance to the topic of the thread.

This is the forum for such rants. But since this is a deadhorse which has been beaten to a bloody pulp, I do not think there is any reason to.

 

[Bystander]

"New ideas?" Uh-uh --- they've all been run up the flagpole before --- they're tiresome.

Two bits from one of the membership voting to do w'out TD.

 

[KingNothing]

I would just like to say that, for the record, I have learned a lot of useful ways to counter crackpots in real life just by reading threads in PF (I never respond to them, though). I think it's a good realization for some people to get shot down. After they are shot down, I don't think people should continue...so I agree dead horses should not be beaten further. Are questions along the lines of "I know this isn't right, but can someone explain why?" still legal?

 

[chroot]

KingNothing,

Sure, questions will always be permitted. That's our bread & butter here.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

I would just like to say that, for the record, I have learned a lot of useful ways to counter crackpots in real life just by reading threads in PF (I never respond to them, though). I think it's a good realization for some people to get shot down. After they are shot down, I don't think people should continue...so I agree dead horses should not be beaten further.

That was one of the main reasons why the TD forum stayed open so long. But the volume of crackpottery just got too high.

 

[pelastration]

3) I am not the only person here responsible for the censorship. All of our staff agreed that TD needed to be cleaned up. There is no inquisition against ideas, just against pseudoscience. If an idea does not follow the scientific method, it simply does not belong on this site.

5) I put the issue to a vote, and the vast majority of those who voted said the site is better without TD. Our policies are supported by most of our users. We have no interest in catering to you.

6) To my knowledge, no good ideas have ever been posted to TD. Ideas are not good just because their authors think they are good.

7) We've already enduring a dozen or so threads in the feedback section started by crackpots who don't like our new policy. We'll endure yours, too. What makes you think your complaint matters to anyone but you?

3) Pseudoscience: I believe there are enough examples in science where crackpot or Pseudoscience finally won. Remember the mainstream idea that Earth was the Middle of the cosmos? Where people executed for stating that in stead the Sun was in the middle?

5) The majority : meaning 15 or 16 users of ...13,000 members! That's a "significant" ratio! Real science here.

6) Your knowledge may be limited. Maybe it's your perception of reality that is different. Ideas are not just bad because the mentors think they are bad.

7) I was not talking about myself. Sometimes I found interesting alternative views in posts on TD with a different creative approach. Do you really think actual science has all answers? I believe most inventors or new theories came from individuals who went off the traditional way of thinking, and came with the missing piece.

I repeat: Do you really think actual science has all answers? YES or NO. YES or NO ?

Like MICHAEL DUFF said: Physics tend to be dictated by fad and fashion. There are the gurus who dictate the direction in which new ideas grow. It was a very lonely time in many ways. When I tried to get graduate students interested many of them would say well look, you may be right and you may be wrong, but if I work in super gravity I'm not going to find a job.

I remember that before TD was called the Pseudoscience thread. Why not re-name it that way?
Nobody must go to such thread ... only those interested in that stuff. Why would someone NOT INTERESTED in Pseudo Science visit such sub-forum?

 

[marlon]

Actual science is the main fundament of this forum and that is a very good thing. I would like to thank the administrators for blocking the TD-section here. The problem is not that people have certain ideas on science, it is the fact that they never want to see the flaws in their pet theories. I have been spending quite some time here, answering to people who made certain assumptions on nuclei and particle physics. The problem is that those people do not have any good idea on the further development of science. They just formulate their question in such a way that it sounds like some new theory they developped.I often found people talking about new QM-theories, but at the same time they want you to explain to them what a Hamiltonian is... I think enough is said with this example...

marlon

 

[Hurkyl]

Pseudoscience: I believe there are enough examples in science where crackpot or Pseudoscience finally won. Remember the mainstream idea that Earth was the Middle of the cosmos? Where people executed for stating that in stead the Sun was in the middle?

You seem to have a fundamental misconception: "pseudoscience" is not synonymous with "going against the mainstream".

 

[arildno]

"I remember that before TD was called the Pseudoscience thread. Why not re-name it that way?
Nobody must go to such thread ... only those interested in that stuff. Why would someone NOT INTERESTED in Pseudo Science visit such sub-forum? "
You can't quarantine them in that way, they'll spread and infect the rest of the forum with their nonsense. The best way to contain the malign influence of crackpots is to slam the door shut in their faces.

 

[pelastration]

they'll spread and infect the rest of the forum with their nonsense.

Sure ... the Bush way. Don't listen. Just destroy.
And you know what " nonsense" are? Yes? Because your smart? Smarter than all others? You have the TRUTH? Yes?
Or are you just a bandwagon ... repeating in awe the words of the Guru's.

 

[Hurkyl]

Nonsense and truth are different concepts.

 

[pelastration]

Nonsense and truth are different concepts.

Sure but ... please explain. I am curious about your arguments.

 

[Hurkyl]

I agure that the quality of being "right" or "wrong" is irrelvant to the censorship on this forum -- it's the quality of the argument.

Even if I agree with someone's point, I will still correct them if their argument is nonsense. I've seen other mentors do the same.


People who have poor quality arguments against the "majority held belief" (whatever that means) are "censored" because their argument is poor quality, not because it's against the majority belief.

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

I agure that the quality of being "right" or "wrong" is irrelvant to the censorship on this forum -- it's the quality of the argument.

Even if I agree with someone's point, I will still correct them if their argument is nonsense. I've seen other mentors do the same.


People who have poor quality arguments against the "majority held belief" (whatever that means) are "censored" because their argument is poor quality, not because it's against the majority belief.

I think it is plain to see that the Forum Admin staff, Advisors included, Are really digging a hole here:I agure that the quality of being "right" or "wrong" is irrelvant to the censorship on this forum -- it's the quality of the argument

Why not create a Poll asking WHY people come to the PF site?..here are a few questions for starters:

Reason for entering into PF forums:
1)To be Educated

2)To be Laughed at

3)To be annoying

3)Because their lonely

4)Comical Reasons

5)Boredom

6)Financial

7)Great place to talk about scientific Awards

8)Great place to chit-chat

9)Good reason for someone Scientifically to put me in my place

10)I think I am wrong about a Scientific reasoning, and would like a genuine consensus of opinion

11)Because I can have a number of different identities and use this to my advantage to express my Scientific Ego in giving advise

I really think the fact that TD is still up and running, accepting posts hides an Ulteria motive, why not remove it and all the archive postings..what are the admin afraid of!

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it is plain to see that the Forum Admin staff, Advisors included, Are really digging a hole here:I agure that the quality of being "right" or "wrong" is irrelvant to the censorship on this forum -- it's the quality of the argument

Why not create a Poll asking WHY people come to the PF site?..here are a few questions for starters:

Reason for entering into PF forums:
1)To be Educated

2)To be Laughed at

3)To be annoying

3)Because their lonely

4)Comical Reasons

5)Boredom

6)Financial

7)Great place to talk about scientific Awards

8)Great place to chit-chat

9)Good reason for someone Scientifically to put me in my place

10)I think I am wrong about a Scientific reasoning, and would like a genuine consensus of opinion

11)Because I can have a number of different identities and use this to my advantage to express my Scientific Ego in giving advise

I'm not sure what point it is you are making here...anyways, such a poll has been conducted.

I really think the fact that TD is still up and running, accepting posts hides an Ulteria motive, why not remove it and all the archive postings..what are the admin afraid of!

If ten people come up with the same crackpot idea, it needs to be debunked only once...so long as there's a copy of that somewhere, that can be linked to.

 

[Chronos]

Another conspiracy theory. Greg and the 'gang' are part of an insidious plot to subvert humanity and free thinking to their own evil purposes. Have you considered a hobby, or a pet? I hear both can be therapeutic.

 

[pelastration]

I agure that the quality of being "right" or "wrong" is irrelvant to the censorship on this forum -- it's the quality of the argument.

Even if I agree with someone's point, I will still correct them if their argument is nonsense. I've seen other mentors do the same.


People who have poor quality arguments against the "majority held belief" (whatever that means) are "censored" because their argument is poor quality, not because it's against the majority belief.

1. the quality of the argument? Just closing new threads on TD is not arguing.
This the manifestation of disrespect for the opinion of others.

2. ... if their argument is nonsense.
Nonsense ... means no sense.
The logic some TD posters showed makes sense.
In your mind it maybe makes no sense. That means you see your own intellectual capacities as superior. I would say: Hurkyl ... prepare yourself for the Nobel prize. You must be the smartest man on earth.

3. majority held belief.
Theories like QM start with postulates. QM has a lot. That means there is a pre-set of assumptions which lead to following results.
Now when someone doesn't accept these postulates or some of them, or claims different postulates, does that makes his arguments "poor"? Based on those different postulates his conclusions or results may be perfectly logic.
I remind you on the Middle Ages and Earth being flat and in the middle of the Universe. Defenders of that vision made - in their reasoning (postulates) - very strong arguments. Contradicting views - putting the Sun in the middle - were censored ... .
TD - originally set up the be a type of open space on PF - is now doing the same since most mentors believe they have the source of wisdom.

http://deoxy.org/galileoc.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/solarsystem/history.html

 

[Chronos]

Well just how many flat Earth theories need be deflated before they are deemed flatulent? Rev up your own website, expend the resources necessary to shape it in your own image and then come back with a field report. The Mentors give a damn about this oasis on the net. It is their creation and they have a vision of where they want to take it. Excising tumors is generally considered beneficial to the patient.

 

[pelastration]

The Mentors give a damn about this oasis on the net. It is their creation and they have a vision of where they want to take it.

Sure. Remember that I questioned the attitude on TD, not PF. In the deleted post on TD I said that I liked very much PF. I understand very well that all mentors spend a lot of time on PF, and that it's their project.
My point is that restricting the distribution of new vision, ideas is contra-productive, and unscientific. Closing your eyes will not take away the fire or the lion.
Calling different ideas a tumor shows disrespect and self admiration.

 

[Hurkyl]

Now when someone doesn't accept these postulates or some of them, or claims different postulates, does that makes his arguments "poor"?

No, it does not.


However, here are some examples of poor arguments related to this:

"I don't believe Special Relativity has empirical justification, because I don't accept its postulates."

"My postulates are more intuitive, so they must be right."

"You've been brainwashed by the establishment if you don't see that my postulates must be the right ones."

"I don't need empirical justification, I have thought experiments."

 

[russ_watters]

1. the quality of the argument? Just closing new threads on TD is not arguing.

Of course closing a thread isn't arguing - that's not the point and you know it. Threads are closed because the quality of the argument is low.

This the manifestation of disrespect for the opinion of others.

And what of respect for the integrity of our site?

2. ... if their argument is nonsense.
Nonsense ... means no sense.
The logic some TD posters showed makes sense.
In your mind it maybe makes no sense. That means you see your own intellectual capacities as superior. I would say: Hurkyl ... prepare yourself for the Nobel prize. You must be the smartest man on earth.

None of us claim to be Nobel prize material (though, actually, several TD posters have...). We're just the ones charged with making the judgement. People who think we're making bad judgements are more than welcome to leave.

3. majority held belief.
Theories like QM start with postulates. QM has a lot. That means there is a pre-set of assumptions which lead to following results.
Now when someone doesn't accept these postulates or some of them, or claims different postulates, does that makes his arguments "poor"?

All theories have postulates and to argue against a postulate is to misunderstand the scientific method. Postulates are simple the "if" of an if-then statement.

Based on those different postulates his conclusions or results may be perfectly logic.

Mabye - but again, it is up to us to judge whether such an argument is reasonable. We have, in fact, even left open threads that start "assuming the speed of light isn't constant, what would happen...?"

I remind you on the Middle Ages and Earth being flat and in the middle of the Universe. Defenders of that vision made - in their reasoning (postulates) - very strong arguments. Contradicting views - putting the Sun in the middle - were censored ... .

You said that before and everyone let it go. Its wrong. Its historically and scientifically inaccurate. No, there was not ever any scientific problem there: it was a religious issue. Both of your links make this fact perfectly clear in their first sentence. And btw, using historical examples (especially ones that are wrong) is one of the red-flags of crackpottery. Theories must be proven (or disproven) scientifically, not historically.

The problem with TD is that it brings down the scientific quality of this site. Your posts here and the threads you just started in S&D show that the reason you disagree is that you have a fundamental misunderstand of what "science" itself is.

 

[pelastration]

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.

 

[chroot]

3) Pseudoscience: I believe there are enough examples in science where crackpot or Pseudoscience finally won. Remember the mainstream idea that Earth was the Middle of the cosmos? Where people executed for stating that in stead the Sun was in the middle?

As has already been explained, this is silly rationalization. We now have an excellent scientific framework -- the scientific method -- that has performed extremely well over the last several hundred years. We have chosen to support the scientific method here. It is possible that someone will come up with a scientific breakthrough via some other method, but it has never happened, and likely never will.

5) The majority : meaning 15 or 16 users of ...13,000 members! That's a "significant" ratio! Real science here.

The majority of those who voted, of course. You don't very well count people who don't vote.

6) Your knowledge may be limited. Maybe it's your perception of reality that is different. Ideas are not just bad because the mentors think they are bad.

Most of us have scientific qualifications. Some of us are professors. We have the education to make reasonably good judgements. We are not infallible, but we're far from incompetent.

7) I was not talking about myself. Sometimes I found interesting alternative views in posts on TD with a different creative approach. Do you really think actual science has all answers? I believe most inventors or new theories came from individuals who went off the traditional way of thinking, and came with the missing piece.

You are welcome to your belief, but your belief is not justified by historical fact.

I repeat: Do you really think actual science has all answers? YES or NO. YES or NO ?

Of course existing science is incomplete -- that's why scientists still have jobs. What does that matter to this discussion? We don't believe science is complete, but we believe the scientific method is the best horse on the track. It certainly has done well so far.

Why would someone NOT INTERESTED in Pseudo Science visit such sub-forum?

I've already head this argument many times: If people don't like the theory development forum, they don't have to read it. You don't need to close the forum. Of course, that's silly too. We don't want those kinds of posters anywhere on our site, or in any way connected with our site. This is essentially like complaining that political sites don't have cooking sections, and cooking sites don't have quantum mechanics sections. We have chosen to provide a specific sort of environment for a specific sort of discussion -- that based on the scientific method. If you are not interested in such discussion, this just isn't the right site for you.

- Warren

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, you almost had me. I was going to drop this issue. But seeing the low quality of your arguments ... I need to react.

1. Threads are closed because the quality of the argument is low.
This is circle reasoning. When new threads are closed from the start - without any reaction and without any explanation to the poster - then that has nothing to do with low arguments. How do you know in advance what can come out as reaction of other posters.

The word 'argument' is not meant in the sense of a dialogue. If I start a thread with a post saying "relativity is wrong because the speed of light in different frames must be different", I am making a poor, or at least unjustified argument for my assertion.

2. integrity of our site.
Your the host. His first attitude: courtesy and respect for the guests.

It is not discourteous or disrespectful to lock a thread that violates PF rules.

3. postulates.
You just don't get my point.

Yes, you may propose a theory based on a new set of postulates, but unless this theory conforms with experimental evidence, it is merely speculative.

4. Its wrong
Russ, again you are mixing things.
In the Middle Ages religion told what was scientifically allowed. We see such (Middle age) attitude even today in US (like Creationism, and some neocon ideas about the Biblical Task). Like Bush - after a talk with "his" God - killing Kyoto against the advise of almost all scientists.

Get the facts stright on the Flat Earth talk before using it as analogy. The Flat Earth theories mostly were proposed in the third century AD during which time, the spherical world was commonly accepted. The Flat Earth theory did not become popular at all, and the vast majority of people were not fooled by it. Later, during the Renaissance, the writings of an African grammarian named Lactantius (from 2-3rd century AD) were popularized for their grammatical quality. Since Lactantius was a Flat Earth believer, some of his related writings were also popularized. There was no observable evidence for the theory - it was based on the belief that heaven and hell must lie on either side of earth, and flat wordls were better for that. The theory was believed mostly by the uneducated, whimsical or deeply religious folk.

 

[rayjohn01]

I get the feeling that this forum is extremely self protective -- and I do not know WHO owns it -- I mean whoever owns it lays down the rules -- if you disagree then you leave , but I do notice that the 'contact us' area is usually closed for feedback.
Also in no other forum have I been attacked by the 'mentors' so much as here even tho' I was quoting physics book sources directly ! You guys have some very strange mentors , I have no idea what qualifications needed but they are woefully inadequate. Half the time you sound like the Spanish inquisition -- but then that was owned by someone . There are way too many titles on the mentors sounds like people stroking their egos -- the art of teaching is in the listening -- you guys would probably have written off Einstein !

 

[graphic7]

I get the feeling that this forum is extremely self protective -- and I do not know WHO owns it -- I mean whoever owns it lays down the rules -- if you disagree then you leave , but I do notice that the 'contact us' area is usually closed for feedback.
Also in no other forum have I been attacked by the 'mentors' so much as here even tho' I was quoting physics book sources directly ! You guys have some very strange mentors , I have no idea what qualifications needed but they are woefully inadequate. Half the time you sound like the Spanish inquisition -- but then that was owned by someone . There are way too many titles on the mentors sounds like people stroking their egos -- the art of teaching is in the listening -- you guys would probably have written off Einstein !

Keep in mind that Einstein had qualifications when he published his theory of Special Relativity. He was at least seen somewhat credible in his field. From what I've seen of the TD section, many of the posters have no qualifications whatsoever, and therefore will probably not be correct in any thoughts they produce. I'm not saying just because you don't have a PhD you're not correct, but keep in mind many people do read this forum and some do not have the qualifications to know better than what they read about in the TD section. Hence, the "censorship" this thread creator refers to.

There's some things that are just plain idiotic that I've read about in the TD section. When someone states they have an "earth-shattering" theory, someone who has never taken a physics class could come along, read it, and spread the garbage to his/her peers. This is the crap that needs to be prevented.

If you think you have a "theory", take some classes, and then see if your "theory" holds up to scrutiny. In fact, you may be able to better your "theory" once you've taken some classes. You can at least use the correct terminology and sound somewhat credible. My point is, most of the junk I've read in TD is a waste of the author's time, but more so everyone else's.

 

[chroot]

rayjohn01,

You can contact any of us at any time. A list of the entire staff is provided under the "View Forum Leaders" link off the front page. All of us can receive private messages. You accusation that we are not open to feedback is, of course, false -- you're providing feedback right now.

- Warren

 

[rayjohn01]

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 ?.
To graphic 7
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 miss my point on Einstein -- he was rejected -- by people who perhaps should know better -- believe me teaching is a rare gift and most 'teachers' do not have it .
Sincerely Ray.

 

[graphic7]

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 ?.
To graphic 7
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 miss my point on Einstein -- he was rejected -- by people who perhaps should know better -- believe me teaching is a rare gift and most 'teachers' do not have it .
Sincerely Ray.

Mentor classes? I mean formal University-level classes. 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.

Einstein was never rejected in the sense that people called him an idiot. Yes, people were freightful that what they've studied could be wrong, however, they accepted his work, willingly. Einstein followed the scientific method and had a degree from a credible University. If I were to question the TD posters to whether they had a degree in a scientific field, I would receive mostly no's. If I were to question whether or not they had taken a single physics course, I would receive mostly no's.

There's a difference in asking a question about a thought and claiming that you have a theory that is absolutely right, furthermore, wasting everyone's time.

Keep in mind that Einstein's work was never really accepted until it was experimentally verified by the mathematical models Einstein had created. This goes for Special Relativity, General Relativity, and the Photoelectric Effect. When some TD poster makes a claim that he/she has a theory with no mathematical model, it's absolute garbage.

 

[rayjohn01]

to graphic 7

you are right of course , but you seem to be setting yourself up as judge -- you have no inherent right to do that -- I also agree with some sort of logical approach to things but to be honest that may be a weakness rather than a strength -- people see things in DIFFERENT ways -- I wonder what you would say to a blind topologist --( your wasting your time ? )
One of the most celebrated topologists WAS blind from birth ?
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 . 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 , are you the Guardian of the truth?
NO but you are and can be an example of being a critical observer and explaining your view on the topic -- I see no problem with rubbish views it allows you to explain your position ( who knows you may actually be right )
or as right as ANYBODY can be .
WE live in a time where communication has unleashed a wealth of opinion and I am glad of it rather than the secretive ( latin only ) communication of the priviledged and wealthy -- it's difficult but it is correct and to try to muzzle it is wrong.
yours Sincerly Ray.

 

[rayjohn01]

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 -- this is the danger trying to think about what is 'best' for others instead of concentrating about what is good for us -- life has nothing to do with people being 'equal' only realising ( if they are allowed to ) their 'OWN' potential whatever that is . The so called scientific method only has to do with the way that scientists deal with observational data , to think that this is the only way to see life is not correct -- we have > 100 emotions none of which have been measured and all of which govern our lives !

 

[graphic7]

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 -- this is the danger trying to think about what is 'best' for others instead of concentrating about what is good for us -- life has nothing to do with people being 'equal' only realising ( if they are allowed to ) their 'OWN' potential whatever that is . The so called scientific method only has to do with the way that scientists deal with observational data , to think that this is the only way to see life is not correct -- we have > 100 emotions none of which have been measured and all of which govern our lives !

He won a Nobel Prize for his work with the Photoelectric Effect. I call that acceptance.

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

You are still failing to understand that there's just some things that are just absolutely, positively wrong. As marlon gave an example earlier about the Hamiltonian. How in the hell can you attempt to propose a "theory" worthy of attention without knowledge of a such a principle?

 

[ZapperZ]

This thing seems to never want to die down, and so, it is only appropriate that we regurgitate the identical responses.

1. This is a PRIVATE site, not a public-owned area. Whoever owns this can make any damn rules they please.

2. There is no censorship. An OVERWHELMING number of open forums cater to quackeries MORE than they cater to legitimate physics. This is a FACT. I challenge you to go browse through as many open forums as you like (start with the Yahoo Groups and end at the Usenet) and prove me wrong. Thus, if I were to just go by this, it is legitimate physics discussion that is being drowned by such garbage. So where is the evidence that these people are being denied of any opportunity to make themselves heard?

In many of the complaints about the so-called censorship and how the rules are being applied to PF, Point 2 has always been ignored. Of all the thousands and thousands of opportunities for posting quackeries, why oh why do these quacks INSIST on invading one of the few areas on the 'net that simply and clearly have indicated that they are not welcome? Is it because they simply cannot stand the idea that there exists at least one site with working professionals in the field and that this is their ONLY opportunity to expose their brilliance (since we all know the chances of their ideas appearing in a peer-reviewed journal is nil)?

And stop picking on Einstein! There is a distinct difference between the quacks we have on here and on the rest of the 'net, with Albert Einstein! No one can accuse of Einstein with being ignorant of the knowledge of physics at that time. In fact, one has to know intimately classical physics to realize the problem with the non-covariant nature of Maxwell Equation, or to be able to understand Planck's derivation to know it also applies to the Photoelectric Effect! These are not the sign of someone who only learned about physics from reading pop-science books or supermarket tabloids!

Again, so far, no one has clearly explained why "TD on PF" is useful. All I have seen are arguments that it should be there because... well... it should! If one has a "theory" to air, post it elsewhere where there will be tons of your like-minded people to give you all the encouragements you need and tell you what evil and brainwashed people physicists are. Now what could be better than that?

Zz.

 

[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.