Comment on new guidelines

[Arsonade]

i would just like to post somthing on the new gidelines being set up for tis site, i have a fealing this thread is going to be closed so reply soon lol. my first question is Why are we closing threads? what harm is it doing to leave threads open? if they are not popular, they usually get rid of themslves, and to be honest, most of the topics discussed are never really closed for discussion, i may post up something in 2003 and maybe not get a reply untuil 2004, it doesn't make much sense to me, f my post ( https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=23088 ) had been closed befor this went into effect, i would never have gotten vilal information that i needed for this experiment, it probably would have been shut down very early and i would not have had a sucsessfull discussion. The fact is that while closing posts and or threads ma make the dministrator's job easyer, it really infringes the purpose of the site; to engage discussion on physics issues. I have seen people in these fourums discuss amazing things and those discussions may not have hapened if those discussions had been closed.

Adam

P.S. i also don't understand why posting in theory development is no longer allowed but i assume that if a thread attains to that section is made, it will be moved there

 

[Phobos]

Hi Arsonade
We want to build forums with quality discussions on scientific topics. The Theory Development forum is typically left for personal theories that often contradict mainstream science. You are right that, usually, there is no harm in letting topics take their own course. And our TD forum was left open for a long time. However, the amount of traffic we were getting in the TD forum lately was taking us in a direction that we did not want to go. So, as a general policy, we are allowing fewer TD topics. Some people are upset by this action and some applaud it. But, in the end, it came down to what kind of forums we wanted to host.

 

[chroot]

what harm is it doing to leave threads open? if they are not popular, they usually get rid of themslves,

This is probably the most common argument I've heard against our new policy. It is not valid, however. If speculative theories were unpopular and simply fell off the bottom of the page, we would have had no problem with them.

On the contrary, speculative theories are extremely popular. The proponents of personal theories are usually extremely vociferous, and many scientists are incensed by attacks on science that they feel are ill-founded. As a result, threads about speculative theories usually either quickly deteriorate into personal attacks, or go on and on for dozens of pages of circular arguments without resolution. Threads of this variety are not very useful to anyone, despite their popularity, and are an inordinate drain on our limited staff resources. We have therefore chosen to no longer host them.

it really infringes the purpose of the site; to engage discussion on physics issues.

This statement contains a hidden, leading assertion. Our purpose is certainly to entertain discussion of physics; however, by definition, personal and speculative theories are not physics! They are metaphysics, or perhaps philosophy. The only material that can rightfully be called "physics" is that which can be found in a physics textbook or a physics journal or a physics classroom. Personal and speculative theories are no more welcome in those places than they are here.

- Warren

 

[plover]

The only material that can rightfully be called "physics" is that which can be found in a physics textbook or a physics journal or a physics classroom.

While I have no complaints about the guidelines, have no problem with what seems to be the intention behind the previous post, and most likely fully agree with the PF poobahs on what constitutes crackpottery, I would like to say that the above, as worded, strikes me as a terrible definition of "physics" as it actually does preclude genuine new theories. I suppose it's ok as an operational definition for the site given the rarity of new theories of real merit (and the overall likelihood that someone would post one here ), but I doubt that in a global sense the definition constructs even a sufficient, let alone a necessary condition. I just the think the distinction between the local and global definitions is worth making.

(Sure I'm pedantic, but am I pedantic enough? )

I also vote that Greg and chroot change the badges by their names to read "PF Poobah".

 

[Integral]

The point is this is not the appropriate place to present new theories. Anyone with the knowledge and skills to formulate a meaningful theory will present it in the appropriate journal, with the appropriate experimental evidence. What we get here are people with little or nor formal education in Physics sitting around dreaming up misconceived notions of how they think it should be.

It takes a lot of time and effort on the part of someone with the knowledge to refute these notions. To make matters worse the proponents of these misconceptions are generally not interested in learning how accepted physics deals with their ideas. They are only interested in pushing their personal theory.

The staff is in general agreement that they would rather spend their time helping those who WANT to learn or discussing meaningful science with other knowledgeable individuals. Thus we are restricting and even eliminating discussions of personal theories because it takes to much time to police them. We do not want this site to become the soapbox for every crackpot on the web. There are plenty of forums out there that will welcome these discussions. We do not.

 

[Arsonade]

but isn't the point that personal theories should be proved wrong? isn't that how progress is made? i would never have gotten to the conclusions i came to if the tpic was not argumented over, argument provokes thought, by arguing we all pull each other up on the same level in doing that, act much better than a textbook ever could, but the fact is, passages in a physic's textbook will not close on you, and it seems that the pages of this website are beginning to do that, It also doesn't seem to be that hard of a programing aspect to have posts that have not been replied to in a certain amount of time actually fall off the bottom of the page, possibly into a closed file system, possibly into records, possibly be deleted, this leaves say 20 posts up and running, the ones being discussed; right out in front, the ones ignored, slowly fall out of the system as they are no longer necacery, while i personally feel that the posts should be archived, i think that deletion or anythin of the sort would be beter than closing.

Adam

 

[enigma]

but isn't the point that personal theories should be proved wrong? isn't that how progress is made?

Find a dozen old threads in TD where the OP was critiqued and the poster agreed that he was mistaken.

I doubt you'll find a half dozen.

 

[chroot]

It also doesn't seem to be that hard of a programing aspect to have posts that have not been replied to in a certain amount of time actually fall off the bottom of the page

Did you even read my last post? You seem to have missed the entire point.

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

but isn't the point that personal theories should be proved wrong?

The point is that people should get an education before coming up with their own theories. And if you look at those threads that were locked, you will find that those theories have been proven wrong. If a thread is locked without comment, it is because the post is so overspeculative, and so without experimental basis, that the poster should have known better than to post it.

The whole problem with these people is that they are putting the cart before the horse. They believe they can come up with something substantial by merely being creative, without going through the exertion of the years of training it takes to get to the point at which one can theorize well. It's no different than if a couch potato were to try out for the Olympics.

That's why everything they come up with is nonsense.

 

[ZapperZ]

but isn't the point that personal theories should be proved wrong? isn't that how progress is made?

You are assuming that the people who are posting these personal theories have the ability to comprehend the replies they are getting. More often than not, when you try to reply and tell them what's wrong with their idea, you have to DOUBLE BACK and explain your own reply, because they either could not understand certain phrases and terminology, or simply bastardize various physics concepts that you are trying to convey. It becomes a vicious and time-wasting exercise because you have to keep on taking many steps back. Someone who is trying to prove that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is wrong should not need to be told what a "hermitian operator" and "commutative relations" are. So no, I have NEVER recall of making any "progress" when dealing with things like this. Never underestimate the power of delusion when one is willing to spew one's idea based on ignorance.

My point in all of this has always been the question: is there a shortage of places on the Internet in which these people are able to post their garbage? If anything, there is a serious misproportion of discussion sites that simply want to deal with legitimate physics. So these people certainly can pick from countless places to air their laundry. So the whinning about "censorship" and the restriction placed on personal theories are rather lame and hilarious.

Zz.

 

[Arsonade]

i think that you are right in the fact that most posters do not accept if they are proved wrong or not, most of them are stuburn, i don't think i feel strong enough on this issue to keep arguing, there should at least be a place for personal theories that would then be transferd to theory development, and i don't mean just posting under general physics, mayby somthing like theory preliminary discussion or somthing, you would wind up with the same as theory development but the actual theories would be transfered, people would know where to look to find a good and senciable disgussion, and i would still like to emphasise the topics being droped automatically, eventually all topics are discussed and there is nothing left ot agrue, putting these kind of posts in a place like the theory preliminary discussion would tell the people arguing that the chances are this topic is wrong and a waste of time, if people would like to waste tht time explaining, it is their choice, personally, i think that agruing over these things does good to everone involved, but that's just my oppinion. as i said i don't think this topic is really worth arguing over but i think i will accept "defeat" in some areas of my first argument, but either way, with people not being able to publish in theory development, you are going to wind up with a lot of those crazies (sorry if i ofended anybody there) all over the rest of the site.

Adam

P.S. a final thought, if you close the thread, it only helps the people looking at the area of the site, the person with the bad idea is going to stick with that bad idea and they won't have that group of people to tell them they are wrong, they won't even have the reason available to call it stoubournness. just a thought

 

[chroot]

mayby somthing like theory preliminary discussion or somthing

Not a chance.

people would know where to look to find a good and senciable disgussion,

The problem is that very, very few personal theory threads result in good, sensible discussion. You're obviously new to internet science discussions! The empirical fact is that 99% of personal theory threads never result in any good, sensible discussion. We left the TD forum open to discussion exactly as you suggest for years, and we know quite well how things actually worked there under that policy. You seem to have a very utopian ideal of the way people discuss personal theories.

and i would still like to emphasise the topics being droped automatically, eventually all topics are discussed and there is nothing left ot agrue

This already happens! For the last time, old posts are already pushed off the front page to later pages.

i think that agruing over these things does good to everone involved, but that's just my oppinion.

There are two kinds of personal theory discussions. The first kind begins something like this:

Hi all, I'm new to physics. I was thinking about black holes the other day, and was thinking that maybe the only reason they pull things in is because they are strongly electrically charged. What does everyone think of this?

This kind of personal theory discussion is actually generally welcomed here. The poster has done some critical thinking, which is always positive, and wants some feedback about the plausibility of his/her idea. If this person listens to the counterarguments and gracefully accepts that the theory is untenable, and learns something in the process, that's excellent. I don't think I or any of our other mentors would object.

My point: this is a scientific discussion. The poster presented a rational, scientifically meaningful hypothesis, and accepts when evidence disproves that hypothesis. This is how science works. We would approve of this whole-heartedly.

The second kind of discussion begins something like this:

I can't believe the scientists have been misled for so long. They spend all their time quoting Einstein, living in their little intellectual foxholes, blind to the reality of the world around them. It's obvious that Einstein was wrong, there's no way time dilation really happens! The truth is that time flows through vortices in the fifth dimension, and mass and gravity are just projections of the time vortices in the fifth dimension. The big bang theory is obviously wrong too, it's also just a time vortex.

This post would not be welcome here. The poster is presenting something resembling a hypothesis, but it is so poorly described that no one can actually follow it. No one knows what a time vortex is, and this poster has not taken the time to explain them to us. In virtually all such cases, these people are unable to adequately and rigorously explain their hypothesis even when pressed. Futhermore, this poster makes some outlandish claims about time dilation not happening, despite its observation in thousands of experiments. He also makes some disparaging remarks about physicists being closed-minded. This post will almost certainly not generate any discussion worth reading. It would be closed or deleted under our new policy.

you are going to wind up with a lot of those crazies (sorry if i ofended anybody there) all over the rest of the site.

And we will be quite happy to ban them from the forum.

P.S. a final thought, if you close the thread, it only helps the people looking at the area of the site, the person with the bad idea is going to stick with that bad idea and they won't have that group of people to tell them they are wrong, they won't even have the reason available to call it stoubournness. just a thought

We are not in the business of trying to force sense into delusional peoples' heads. It's a thankless and often pointless endeavor. We are in the business of educating people who have an honest and well-intended interest in science.

- Warren

 

[Arsonade]

first of all, what i meant by posts being droped in not moving them to another page, but deleteing them, getting rid of, ect. the site does not do that.

as for your two types of threads, i agree that the second will not be convinced of his being wrong, its just not going to happen, this is why all of these theories should be put into a kind of preliminary theory development page, sonce only mentors are allowed to bring the threads to theory development, if they take a look at the post and see that it is like the second example, they simply do not bring it up, and the even smarter thing to do would be for the mentors/contributors to ignore the post, other users may debate if they would like but it simply won't get into theory development, since the thread in the preliminary theory development page, anyone going to that page already knows that the threads here are probably not all signifigant arguments or discussions and if they want to find such signifigant discussions, go to theory development instead.

The buisinus of forceing sense to onto people is, as you said not what this site is about, i think that i am simply sugesting that there be a different place for those who will accept sense and those who will not, either way you are going to get noncence posts, but with a separate place for them, they don't corroupt any other pages

Adam

P.S. i did tell myself i wasnt going to argue on this anymore didnt i, o well

 

[chroot]

The people who will accept sense belong anywhere on the site they choose to post. The people who do not accept sense do not belong anywhere on the site at all.

What you are proposing is to subdivide TD into two subforums, one for the hopeless and one for the remediable.

This is just not necessary.

- Warren

 

[Arsonade]

what i mean is a specific place for both noncence and sense specific to theory development to use this, both start out there if they want to post for Theory development, but only one will wind up in Theory development, it is necacery because otherwise the hopeless and the redeemable will continue to stay together, the way i am proposing is a way that keeps the integrity and the oppinion of the site as a great way to put theories up for discussion intact and still keeps the site from being overcrowded by nonesence threads where they are not welcome. its a win win situation where the closing of threads is not necacary.

Adam

 

[enigma]

The problem you're overlooking Arsonade, is that someone has to moderate all of the forums, whether you look there or not.

Flame wars, insults, threats, inappropriate links, etc. all slip into the forums each and every week. You don't see them usually because the mentors and administration are quick-like-a-bunny to delete them. We've got almost a hundred reported posts from the last month in our 'reported posts' forum, and that doesn't include anything one of us simply deleted without bothering to store a record of (like much spam).

I don't want to sift though mountains and mountains of pseudo-science to make sure everyone's behaving. I think I can speak for the rest of the mentors that none of us want to.

For several years, we had the TD forum like you're recommending, and it seriously tired and frustrated the physics mentors who the task of wading fell to. So, we changed the guidelines for everyone's benefit.

There are plenty of forums and places on the internet where people with personal hypotheses can rant on to their hearts' content. This just isn't one of them.

 

[chroot]

what i mean is a specific place for both noncence and sense specific to theory development

I will repeat:

Sensical posts, including those which involve personal theories developed according to the scientific method, are welcome anywhere on the site.

Nonsensical posts are not welcome anywhere on the site.

I see no reason to have separate sensical and nonsensical theory development forums. We don't wish to host anything nonsensical, and I suspect the sensical theory development forum would have essentially zero traffic.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

what i mean is a specific place for both noncence and sense specific to theory development to use this, both start out there if they want to post for Theory development, but only one will wind up in Theory development, it is necacery because otherwise the hopeless and the redeemable will continue to stay together, the way i am proposing is a way that keeps the integrity and the oppinion of the site as a great way to put theories up for discussion intact and still keeps the site from being overcrowded by nonesence threads where they are not welcome. its a win win situation where the closing of threads is not necacary.

Adam

Why would we want to encourage nonsense threads by giving them a home? Besides, someone posting such a nonsense thread isn't likely to have the sense to put it in the right place anyway. You don't just crack open your Physics 101 textbook and have enough knowledge to develop a sound theory.

People who are in the process of developing sound theories aren't likely to post them here, they will publish them in a peer-reviewed journal, and prior to publication will seek comment from their colleagues by presenting preliminary findings at scientific conferences, where they are more likely to get solid critiques than at a web forum.

If you would like to learn more physics, the way to do so is to ask questions and heed the answers, not try to create theories. There are plenty of ways to open a discussion and expand your knowledge without confusing people by making up new "theories" that aren't even hypotheses. Even an hypothesis must have grounding in direct experimental observation and be consistent with ALL previous experimental findings. A good way to open a new discussion is to explore someone else's published works and discuss what it does or does not mean, what questions have been answered, are there any inconsistencies it didn't explain, what questions remain unanswered by the work, what solid conclusions can be drawn, etc. If you're going to say the conclusions of a published work are wrong, you better be prepared to back that up with the contradictory studies, either published or your own experimental data and not random mental meanderings.

 

[Arsonade]

and I suspect the sensical theory development forum would have essentially zero traffic.

didnt you say yourself that a certain type of theory would be accepted, such as your first example in one of your previos posts? my point is that i know that sencical posts are welcome anywhere but unless you just made up the page for theory development as code for "post anyting here" then that's not what i meant, i am talking about a system for only theory development, posts that pertain to theory development are posted in said preliminary page and then upgraded to theory development if they are relevant enough, I am talking about people that want to post senciable posts on Theory development, I am not talking about the rest of the site, i know that senciable posts are welcome everywhere, but they appear to come up majorly short in TD so while senciable posts are accepted everywhere i am talking about accepted TD associated posts. Of coarse you don't want to host nonsence posts but rather than having to go and delete them, why not just sepperate the good from the bad and focus on that? you have already shown me that a post can be determined as usefull or not usefull from the first post, if you are so boged down with work, focus on that. As for enigma, you're right, i don't know how the system works on this site, i thought that one mentor controlled one specific page, apparently I am wrong, why not, instead of giving morework to mentors, just get more mentors, are you payed? the fact is that people are going to rant wheather you like it or not and if i know anything its that they will probably do whatever is needed to keep their post going, wheather you close it or not. so instead of going through all the closings, why not just have a place to let the arguments boil away from everything elce, if people understand that this section has been made to be separate or even that complaints on this section are not valid, a kind of read at your own risk kind of thing. but if the fourum has worked and failed like this in the past then it is likely that this way is better.

Adam

 

[Arsonade]

Why would we want to encourage nonsense threads by giving them a home? Besides, someone posting such a nonsense thread isn't likely to have the sense to put it in the right place anyway. You don't just crack open your Physics 101 textbook and have enough knowledge to develop a sound theory.

People who are in the process of developing sound theories aren't likely to post them here, they will publish them in a peer-reviewed journal, and prior to publication will seek comment from their colleagues by presenting preliminary findings at scientific conferences, where they are more likely to get solid critiques than at a web forum.

If you would like to learn more physics, the way to do so is to ask questions and heed the answers, not try to create theories. There are plenty of ways to open a discussion and expand your knowledge without confusing people by making up new "theories" that aren't even hypotheses. Even an hypothesis must have grounding in direct experimental observation and be consistent with ALL previous experimental findings. A good way to open a new discussion is to explore someone else's published works and discuss what it does or does not mean, what questions have been answered, are there any inconsistencies it didn't explain, what questions remain unanswered by the work, what solid conclusions can be drawn, etc. If you're going to say the conclusions of a published work are wrong, you better be prepared to back that up with the contradictory studies, either published or your own experimental data and not random mental meanderings.

the problem is that many people developing sound theories may ver well not have the reosorses needed to do somthing of the sort, and also, i am not encouraging creating a place for noncence theorys, imply a place where both noncence and sense wind up before making it into TD, how do they get into TD? by way of the mentor's or admin's decision. it is not a place for noncence theorys, it is a way to separate the noncence from the sense without having to close threads.

Adam

 

[quantumdude]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Adam, how many times do you need to be told that we already tried what you are suggesting? Seriously, enough is enough.

 

[Moonbear]

the problem is that many people developing sound theories may ver well not have the reosorses needed to do somthing of the sort, and also, i am not encouraging creating a place for noncence theorys, imply a place where both noncence and sense wind up before making it into TD, how do they get into TD? by way of the mentor's or admin's decision. it is not a place for noncence theorys, it is a way to separate the noncence from the sense without having to close threads.

Adam

On the contrary, someone capable of developing sound theories will very much have the resources necessary. People with that sort of knowledge of physics are quite attractive to both academic institutions for faculty positions and to industry for running private labs.

The current system seems to work quite well. A reasonable topic will not be locked, unless for some reason those discussing the topic have gone way off-topic (such as flaming or running in endless circular arguments). Only the nonsense threads get locked. There's really no need for the TD topic anyway. Any sound theoretical discussion can easily fit within the appropriate physics topic the same as any other discussion on that topic. The fact of the matter is that topic never had any real theories being developed in it. Some of the threads may have led to interesting discussion, so stayed open, but many eventually get locked. It's more like a holding pen to see whether a wacky idea might spark a more rational discussion or if it will hopelessly spiral to absurdity before the mentors make a final decision whether to lock it.

By the way, the mentors here volunteer their time to run this site. They have real jobs and real lives, so any distraction of their time from the main focus of this site...that of people committed to learning more physics (and other sciences)...is not a good thing. Since you seem fairly new to the concept of internet forums, it might be better for you to sit back and observe how things work here for a while, participate in some of the ongoing discussions, and just get a general idea of how things work and why they are done the way they are done before suggesting major changes to the way it is run.

 

[arildno]

What's so wrong about a forum which aims at homework help and discussion of solid physics?

Why should such a forum cater to all sorts of cranks?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why should such a forum cater to all sorts of cranks?

Ummm...he means 'people' ? :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

 

[selfAdjoint]

No I think he means cranks. There are all sorts of forums where devisers of loony theories can talk to each other, not to mention that nearly all of them have web sites. Why do they have to come here?

 

[setAI]

No I think he means cranks. There are all sorts of forums where devisers of loony theories can talk to each other, not to mention that nearly all of them have web sites. Why do they have to come here?

no one seems to ever address the elephant in the room- the good thing about Physicsforums theory developmennt was the fact that theories could be posted and DEBUNKED by professionals

this is the very reason I first came to this website- I had been presented a huge rigourous theory and I thought it seemed wrong but it was far too mathematically complex for a non-physicist like me to find the errors- so I came and posted the links to the theory here so that professionals and experts could explain the errors!


all those other "science" forums just have cranks shouting at each other and patting each other on the back for "standing up to the academic priesthood" and revel in the aether together- HERE was the ONE place that you could find definitve reasons why the more complex alternative theories out there are wrong- and you cannot say "learn physics and debunk the crank theory yourself"- I HAVE learned physics through the undergraduate level- and as a theoretical computer/cognitive scientist I know much of the math [but my math expertise is focused on computer science]- many of the alternative theories- such as Plasma Cosmology are conjectured by physicists who make very ponderous mathematical arguments that only working physicists who are INTIMATELY aquainted with the specific mathematical concepts could possibly evaluate-

I understand the need to get the cranks off the site- but what are lay persons to do when presented with a huge list of equations that an author states is "proof that Einstein was wrong" if you literally have to have post-grad level physics training to even know what you are looking at?

think of it this way- imagine that I run a site devoted to Medicine and you are not a doctor- but you found out about some new therapy that could possibly help your health problem and you desperately need information from a professional- but when you came to my medical forum-you found out that you could not post about any forms of medicine that are not accepted by the AMA? and all of the other health forums on the web were just collections of spam from new age healers and fake penis enlargement drugs? you would be SOL


so by not allowing alternative theories to be posted- in effect you are promoting crank theories by not providing a place to debunk them- so that smart lay persons interested in physics can be lead astry by cleverly worded and overly complex crank theories with no one to say "wait! this theory is garbage and here is why"

 

[chroot]

Many professionals would rather not waste their time trying to debunk every crackpot theory in the world. If professionals want to go debunk crank theories, they know where to go. The professionals here have spoken: they don't want to debate crank theories here. End of story. We understand that those of you who wish to promote crank theories are not happy about the decision, but that's okay -- the site is not intended for such use.

- Warren

 

[Bystander]

Many professionals would rather not waste their time trying to debunk every crackpot theory in the world. If professionals want to go debunk crank theories, they know where to go. The professionals here have spoken: they don't want to debate crank theories here. End of story. We understand that those of you who wish to promote crank theories are not happy about the decision, but that's okay -- the site is not intended for such use.

- Warren

Hear! Hear! Ole! Bravissimo!

Just a note to all: TD was created more as a garbage disposal than as a serious forum --- Greg had a misguided fit of sympathy for the whacks and named it "TD" rather than what it really was, but everyone understood that a post moved to TD was not a forum acknowledgment of something truly unique and interesting --- it was more like being locked in the stocks at Salem Mass. for passersby to egg, and otherwise torment.

The growth of the forum over the past couple years has brought in lots of people who never tried to deal with "pi" --- and, they looked at TD and appear to have inferred that it's a serious seminar area --- this perception conflicts in major fashion with the old-timers customary use of "TD" as polite, or politically correct, designation of a post as crank/crackpot garbage.

Science is not an evangelical, or proctological, undertaking --- them as won't pull their heads out gets to leave 'em right where they is --- there's no point in wasting time on 'em.

 

[Integral]

setAI,

You may have better luck if you post your questions in the form of a question. If you link to a questionable site with the question, "what is wrong with this". I am sure there will be no immediate problem. However, if you then begin to argue with the posts of mentors and science adviser members about the material, there will be a lock.

If such a site is linked as a response to a members question it will be locked or preferably simply deleted. I will not tolerate a crack pot link as a response to a members question.

 

[arildno]

Just a note:
I meant "cranks".
A lot of sensible people have wrong ideas, but that doesn't mean they're cranks.
You can usually tell, often from the first post, to which category a poster with erroneous ideas belongs to.

 

[setAI]

Integral- some time ago I did just as you suggested and I was able to get some answers [although the thread was fairly dead- not a lot of interest]- here is the thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27911

the problem is there doesn't seem to be a place to post something like this now- [or can I?] I know most alternative theory posts are usually thinly veiled attempts to spam/challenge/persuade- but I honestly am looking for errors becasue I believe they are wrong- but need good knowledge to argue with- I have several friends who are physicists that embrace what I think are crank theories [alot of Aether/Plasma- heads- they almost hooked me as well]- the problem is that they have graduate level physics/math education so I NEED HELP TO ARGUE AGAINST THEM-

 

[chroot]

the problem is that they have graduate level physics/math education so I NEED HELP TO ARGUE AGAINST THEM-

Then you either need to get a graduate level education in physics or math, or you need to recruit help somewhere else.

- Warren

 

[setAI]

Then you either need to get a graduate level education in physics or math, or you need to recruit help somewhere else.

- Warren

do you really mean that? really?

there is no where else that I am aware of- and the idea of leaving my university admin position with no way to pay my bills/rent so I can go study graduate physics and spend thousands of dollars just to have a little more information to argue with a friend- when I could simply ask an expert for some advice?

does that mean if you had a heart problem- you would go to medical school and try to operate on yourself instead of going to a physician? come on now

 

[chroot]

You're welcome to ask questions here, setAI, as I have said all along. If you want to argue with the answers from the experts, though, you're probably not so welcome.

- Warren

 

[marlon]

does that mean if you had a heart problem- you would go to medical school and try to operate on yourself instead of going to a physician? come on now

Now this is an interesting remark. SetAI, what is it that you want to achieve with this statement ? What is your point here ? Sorry for bumping in here but i don't really see your problem...

marlon

 

[what_are_electrons]

Now this is an interesting remark. SetAI, what is it that you want to achieve with this statement ? What is your point here ? Sorry for bumping in here but i don't really see your problem...

marlon

The problem SetAI has is one that I have too. I have no time or money to go back to school and yet I want to learn advanced physics concepts. When I read something I don't understand, I need to ask a question and sometimes I end up making it appear like I am speculating some new theory which is nowadays immediately sent to TD or locked. It's not that I am really speculating, but rather it is a difference in communication, the ability to understand what is written and ability to define the question. From my current point of view, the PF has put on blinders and has mental cataracts. Those who could help, decide arbitrarily that the people asking for help are quacks. All in all, it is a sad state of affairs on the PF.

 

[chroot]

Those who could help, decide arbitrarily that the people asking for help are quacks.

This site is fundamentally based on those who are more educated helping those who are less educated. Virtually every thread on pf begins with a question. I have no idea how you can say something as ridiculous as this!

- Warren

 

[Integral]

SetAI,

I checked one of your links, do you really expect me to plow through a 300+ page pdf just so I can tell you what is wrong with it? Sorry dude, it aint going to happen. I would rather spend my time attempting understand a VALID theory, why should I waste any time and effort on one that can be seen as flawed in the first paragraphs? Would you be satisfied if someone knowledgeable, were to simply say, "That is garbage, avoid it"?


If you want to learn Physics your time be better spent finding a text of the appropriate level. Then, instead of surfing questionable web pages, read and work your way through the text. Now you could bring meaningful and useful questions to the forum. This would be a pleasure for all involved.

 

[Moonbear]

no one seems to ever address the elephant in the room- the good thing about Physicsforums theory developmennt was the fact that theories could be posted and DEBUNKED by professionals

You could try the skepticism and debunking forum. That way, everyone entering knows the topic is already highly suspect of crackpot-ness, and if they feel like giving it a stab when they have some free time to amuse themselves, they can. Most people posting theories in TD weren't doing so with the acknowledgment they were in need of debunking, they posted them there thinking they had revolutionized science with the handful of equations they had just learned and applied incorrectly with complete disregard for all of the experimental evidence to the contrary.

 

[Chronos]

Handful of equations? More like a head full of vague abstractions and circular logic. When was the last time you saw a pottery magician post any math?

 

[Moonbear]

Handful of equations? More like a head full of vague abstractions and circular logic. When was the last time you saw a pottery magician post any math?

Oh, some throw in some math. It's always wrong, but they like to use math and Greek symbols, probably because they can make pretty patterns out of them. The most dangerous thing about cracked pottery is that it has so many errors and false premises that you can't just point to one fatal flaw to say it is wrong, so it's incredibly time-consuming to go through all the reasons why it's nonsense.

 

[enigma]

pottery magician

Pottery magician!

That is pure brilliance, Chronos!

 

[arildno]

I was never attracted towards archeaology; the study of pottery shards seems so tedious and unrewarding..

 

[Nereid]

Integral- some time ago I did just as you suggested and I was able to get some answers [although the thread was fairly dead- not a lot of interest]- here is the thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=27911

the problem is there doesn't seem to be a place to post something like this now- [or can I?] I know most alternative theory posts are usually thinly veiled attempts to spam/challenge/persuade- but I honestly am looking for errors becasue I believe they are wrong- but need good knowledge to argue with- I have several friends who are physicists that embrace what I think are crank theories [alot of Aether/Plasma- heads- they almost hooked me as well]- the problem is that they have graduate level physics/math education so I NEED HELP TO ARGUE AGAINST THEM-

Two suggestions:

1) You could set up your own discussion forum, recruit some willing and knowledgeable advisers, etc. The forum would probably need to have a different format that that which we have here at PF - perhaps only one new thread per week? Perhaps a strict limit on the number of posts in favour of an off-the-wall idea? If you were to be the moderator, I'd guess you'd quickly find you were bombarded with hundreds of emails, PMs, new postings ... per day ... that you would find very tiresome; so little gold, so much dross.

2) Ask supporters of these off-the-wall ideas to give a succinct list of the core problems with their ideas, such as apparent internal inconsistencies, inconsistencies with well-established theories with overlapping domains of applicability, and mismatches with good observational or experimental results. IMHO, a mark of 'good science' is the ability of those very familiar with their field to write such a list ... it would also seem that pottery magicians (such a marvellous expression!) are reluctant to acknowledge that even hairline cracks in their works. Of course, this is far from a perfect method - good theories have a share of arrogant, blustery advocates.

 

[Nereid]

The problem SetAI has is one that I have too. I have no time or money to go back to school and yet I want to learn advanced physics concepts. When I read something I don't understand, I need to ask a question and sometimes I end up making it appear like I am speculating some new theory which is nowadays immediately sent to TD or locked. It's not that I am really speculating, but rather it is a difference in communication, the ability to understand what is written and ability to define the question.

This can be quite difficult ... if you don't know at least something about the answer, how can you ask a question?

A suggestion or three. Try to ask general, open questions first, using 'what', 'how', 'in what way', rather than 'why'. Be patient; ask your questions one at a time, with each new one building upon the answers from previous questions. If you get a response which seems to indicate your post has been misunderstood as promoting an overly speculative idea, reply that you are trying to understand how certain phemonena are addressed within the best theories we have today, and to what extent. If you're looking for results of particular kinds of experiments, say so (these are usually pretty easy to find).

 

[russ_watters]

Another suggestion: if you get an answer you don't like, don't reject it just because you don't like it. If you truly want to learn, act like it.

 

[Moonbear]

This can be quite difficult ... if you don't know at least something about the answer, how can you ask a question?

A suggestion or three. Try to ask general, open questions first, using 'what', 'how', 'in what way', rather than 'why'. Be patient; ask your questions one at a time, with each new one building upon the answers from previous questions. If you get a response which seems to indicate your post has been misunderstood as promoting an overly speculative idea, reply that you are trying to understand how certain phemonena are addressed within the best theories we have today, and to what extent. If you're looking for results of particular kinds of experiments, say so (these are usually pretty easy to find).

To build on Nereid's suggestions, which are very good ones, you have to build up your knowledge gradually, just as if you were going back to school. If you're going to study physics as a hobby rather than as a full-time job, then it's going to take longer to get good at it. If you're serious about wanting to learn more, you are going to have to invest at least some money into your hobby. Before jumping to advanced physics, buy some intermediate level textbooks. Find ones that come with problem sets or a study guide to help you along, and usually you can buy the solutions manual as well. Definitely go with ones where you can get your hands on the solutions (some academic publishers require that you write to them directly on letterhead to request the solutions guides for their texts so that you can show them you are not a student just trying to cheat your way through homework assignments). If you posted a list of the formal physics courses you've taken so far, whether the last course you took was high school physics or college level intro to physics, or if you took a few more advanced classes, and asked for suggestions of what a good text would be to study the next level, you'll probably get some good responses. When working through problem sets, your questions will be easy to ask. You could even ask them in the homework help section.

 

[Moonbear]

do you really mean that? really?

there is no where else that I am aware of- and the idea of leaving my university admin position with no way to pay my bills/rent so I can go study graduate physics and spend thousands of dollars just to have a little more information to argue with a friend- when I could simply ask an expert for some advice?

Does anyone else see the disturbing disconnect here? Someone claiming to be a university administrator who has no appreciation of higher education, or even of the logistics of getting an advanced degree?

And if your only motivation for asking questions here is to have a "little more information to argue with a friend," why should we be bothered with it.

does that mean if you had a heart problem- you would go to medical school and try to operate on yourself instead of going to a physician? come on now

No, what it means is if you want to have a discussion with a medical expert about current research in the field in more than a superficial sense, you need to go to graduate school or medical school too. Would you bring a book you suspect is quackery to your physician and ask him/her to go though it point by point to explain every bit of misinformation in it so you can go to your cocktail party and argue with your friend about it?

Oh, and here's another tip, which if you work in university adminstration, I'd hope you would already know. People writing crackpot theories don't have the advanced degrees they claim to have. Reputable scientists with reputable theories will have a track record of publications in scientific journals (you know, those things the university administrators count when trying to determine who gets tenure). Reputable books have editors. Now, some experts will write the occassional book intended for the lay reader. This is to excite the general public about the topic, and inform them a little bit, but things do necessarily get oversimplified for such books. They aren't intended to be critically evaluated, but instead are simplified summaries of the current field of knowledge intended for the non-expert reader.

 

[quantumdude]

Can't afford an education?

*cough cough*

There are enough free e-books on the internet to supply an education in physics from freshman year, all the way up to an MS degree. You'll have the knowledge, just not the degree.

And of course, anyone is welcome to ask for help here.

On that note,

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
--Author Unknown

Word.