Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[Integral]

(How often do we get 13-year old genius on here anyway?)

If you ask them... Lots.

 

[Integral]

...and that's the way TD used to work. As it turns out, very few of the threads started there turn out that second way (honest question leading to an answer, leading to learning). The vast majority quickly degraded into crackpottery. Many even started with with the claim that learning was the intent (ie 'help me understand why I'm wrong...'), only to find out that it really wasn't.

I did no content moderating on the old TD. If I felt like it I would post to a thread, for the most part it was hands off. Since there was no requirement of valid Physics, how could I pick between one fallacious theory and another? I made a strong effort to keep questionable posts out of the Physics area, in the old days, they went straight to TD. Now they go to TD with a lock. I am leaning more and more to simply removing the entire TD sub forum.

 

[Philocrat]

To Admin: Maybe you guys should post this and let people debate and vote on this:

Should Science Papers be given FREE Access?

Current Science Papers are deemed not only very expensive to write, peer-reviewed, processed for publications but also they are very expensive to catalogue and distribute to the intended purchasers and users. These factors together are said to be responsible for the restricted access to the people who need these papers most – students, researchers and lecturers.

Now, there is an intense debate on different corners of the globe as to whether these papers should be made more accessible through costs reduction or through making them completely free via the library services or via online publications, or both.
The debate about FREE ACCESS is already started in many areas of the media. A more dedicated and better-organised debate on the subject can be found on Nature’s website. (http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/archive.html )
The current costs of writing, publishing and distributing papers are published on Peer-reviewed Journal on the Internet (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue2_8/odlyzko/index.html)

Voting; In what ways should more access be given to science papers?

1. By FREE Online Access (and why)?
2. By FREE Library Services only (and why)?
3. By Reduced Writing, Research, Production and Publication Costs?
4. By a combination of (1) and (2) only
5. By a combination (1), (2) and (3) and why?
6. By doing nothing (leave things as they are now)?


Should All academic papers be given FREE Access?

 

[4newton]

Hi russ_watters:

4Newton, I had a pretty similar interpretation to Gokul's. In the thread we were involved in, your math was fine - it followed your assumptions. The problem was simply that the universe doesn't work the way you assume it does. So even though your logic was impeccable, your conclusions were still wrong (for this universe). The thought experiments you proposed were set up to work in your universe, not ours, and you simply wouldn't accept that fact. Had I seen examples of this in other posts, I would have pointed them out, but when you stay within the constraints of our universe, you do fine. (edit: you're good in the engineering forum too)

Thanks Russ. I have found our exchange very educational. As you could probably tell I had not had any critique of my ideas up to that point. My last class was over 40 years ago. After our exchange and reflection I realized that my approach in presenting ideas was very poor. I thought that everyone on this forum would recognize a good idea just by stating it. I now realize that any idea no matter how simple needs to show that it is tied to some accepted theory. I have used this approach with much greater success.

The problem I have now as I stated before is, must I go through the entire proof each time I state a conclusion from another post or will a reference to another post be accepted as a valid post? It would also help the content of all posts if a format would be recommended. For example:

Summary:
Theory the Earth moves around the sun.

Prior history:
It has always been accepted that the sun goes around the earth.

Reason for new theory:
Observation does not match for other planets .

New theory with support:
The Earth goes around the sun matches observation.

Result:
The Earth goes around the sun

I think something like this would help anyone posting an idea. If they had to apply the format it would eliminate the dream posts. It would also give a guide to anyone responding in pointing out any area deficient in posting. I think this would be much better than just calling someone stupid, in one way or another, and help them formulate good ideas.

You will not reduce dream posts by just removing them. You will find that you will have the same number or more and require the same amount of time to sort them out. Plus you will create a lot of ill will. Some response is better then being ignored.

You could try to limit the number of replies allow before going into archives and off the active posting this could be automatic and require no time of the mentors. It would take positive action to extend the number of posts. Any mentor should be allowed to extend any posts. This action also makes mentors positive people not negative. Never solve a problem in a negative way if there is a positive method.

Btw Russ I now have a good proof for a zero reference frame that you would accept and even like.

 

[NoTime]

I voted for the first and 4th. Figure that one out...

Maybe scary, but that makes sense to me.
I only came across this site a few days ago so I don't know if I ever saw the old TD.
I think this is a good site.





.

 

[4newton]

Philocrat:
I agree. The method of producing and publishing papers is about 500 years out of date. You would think that the scientific community would use the most scientific method available.
A great deal of money is given to schools to advance education, which does not seem to reduce the amount of tuition. I would think that anyone really interested in education would be very happy to support the production and publishing of papers. This is an ideal area for Microsoft to support. Any software company could also gain by providing the software to find (google) and read the papers.

To take care of the increase in papers that would be submitted you could use web sites like this one. For a paper to be submitted for further peer review would require a number of votes on the site. The voting members could be established over a period of time by a vote of all users.

 

[chroot]

Philocrat,

You're behind the times. Go to www.arxiv.org. Virtually every paper published in scientific journals is posted there in preprint form, available to anyone and everyone for free.

- Warren

 

[pervect]

I think there is a definite place in the world for uncensored forums. Usenet, however, fills that role admirably. I'd suggest that anyone who wants to see what it's like visit usenet news, sci.physics.relativity.

Actually,I think Physics Forums might want to investigate exercising a little editorial control over the advertisments that it runs as well as the posts it hosts.

Take "Grand Unfied Theory" for example, an add I see a lot. Here is the webpage that URL links to:

Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory — the Theory of Everything

by Dr. Chaim H. Tejman

Home Page

The Grand Unified Theory explains every principle process that occurs in nature by introducing energetic matter (basic force), which formed wave formations — PHOTONS. Incredibly, these formations then went on to create everything.

Energetic matter = shrinking energy and space as well as time

Gravitation is a pushing force!

should PF really be advertising this site?

As another aside, I wonder where the people get the money to advertise like this. Either it's fairly cheap, and they fund it out of their own pockets, (I don't see many revenue sources on websites like the above), or they are getting funding from somewhere.

 

[arildno]

"Actually,I think Physics Forums might want to investigate exercising a little editorial control over the advertisments that it runs as well as the posts it hosts."

Ever heard of.. "prostitution"..
I can't really see the big harm in nutcases keeping PF profitable..

 

[enigma]

We've been trying to keep the crackpottery of the ads in check. For every one we strike down, six more pop up.

It's like a hydra...

 

[arildno]

The hydra DOES pay PF, or what?

 

[Chi Meson]

I got to say, whenever I peeked into the TD forum, I got angry. I tried to avoid it, but it was like looking at jungle disease books. You got sicker as you went but you couldn't stop. (Leo Kottke's line).

I occasionally tried to write a response that would put a crackpot in place, but it was exausting. I don't know how some of the mentors, moderators and anti_crank did it! OVer and over, again and again.

I say good riddance. Hit the eject button.

 

[enigma]

The hydra DOES pay PF, or what?

Oh yes. Otherwise it'd never have been placed there in the first place.

 

[arildno]

Nice hydra!
(But, I wouldn't come too close to it, all the same..)

 

[anti_crank]

I don't know how some of the mentors, moderators and anti_crank did it! OVer and over, again and again.

It's quite simple, really. Take two parts sanity, one part rationality, mix with a lot of patience and just a pinch of creative humour.

 

[Chi Meson]

My hat's off. Wait, I'll go get a hat so I can take it off...





OK, my hat's off!

 

[Nereid]

Nereid:
That was very interesting!
I agree that the intention of having a place where solid and new ideas can be scrutinized is very good; however, perhaps those places can thrive better on restricted nets rather than on the World Wide Web?

I tried to think of what I would do if I were in the shoes of these "independent researchers". First of all, I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.

Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in. If I have a theory of superconductivity, I do want someone in that field to scrutinize my idea. That person not only have the knowledge to in that particular field, but also is up to date on the state of knowledge of that field so that he/she can tell me "Oh, someone did that already" or "Oh, we already know that is not important". This means that I have to not only find such a person, but also verify his/her credentials to have any confidence that this person is legit.

Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.

Thanks guys, good points.

Here are some of those ideas; PF readers may judge their merits for themselves:
- 'one-way' speed of light experiment, involving two clocks and a laser
- 'bending' of a laser beam in a strong magnetic or electric field (in vacuo)
- 'simple' expressions for some of the ~25 'fundamental constants' (or their dimensionless ratios)
- 'footprints of LQG spinfoam' in images of distant SNe
- influence of core-mantle coupling on the rotation and spin axis of Venus

 

[jcsd]

Garth is a prime example, I don't necessarily agree with him, but at least what he has to say is of ineterset and not based on misconceptions about physics (the only issue I'd have is that in one post he implied that he'd signed the cosmology statement).

 

[Terry Giblin]

Who can cast the first stone?

"They said it couldn't be done.
They laughed when I said I would do it.
They said that it couldn't be done.
I rolled up my sleeves and went to it.

I struggled, I strove, I strained.
I fought at it day and night.
They said that it couldn't be done."

Now who's right, the accused or the accusers...

Its all a matter of one's perceptive.

Regards

Terry Giblin

 

[Garth]

As an independent and yet published researcher in cosmology I have welcomed the discussion and criticism of my ideas, and welcomed being able to reciprocate. I too thought originally like Nereid that Theory Development was the place where new ideas could be thrashed out. Perhaps we need a second forum and the moderators could decide which one to put such posts in, a 'crackpot forum' and a 'serious heterodox debate forum'? Making such a decision might at times be contentious of course, and for the originator always contentious, but who said life was going to be easy?
Garth

 

[chroot]

99.9% of TD posts are crackpot. Only 0.01% are "serious heterodox." The crackpots can't really tell the two apart, though, so pretty much all TD threads end up the same way. We're not going to do such a thing.

- Warren

 

[quantumdude]

I found http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem.

 

[Garth]

And of course this one:

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

Garth

 

[russ_watters]

I found http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem.

Great article, Tom. I especially like this quote:

People who do things badly, according to David A. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

Unwillingness (or inability) to admit a mistake or imperfection (no matter how small) is one of the big red-flags.

 

[Dagenais]

Unwillingness (or inability) to admit a mistake or imperfection (no matter how small) is one of the big red-flags.

Couldn't that possibly be just an unfavorable character trait?

 

[quantumdude]

Couldn't that possibly be just an unfavorable character trait?

In general, yes. But when it's an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in one's pet theory, then you've got a crackpot.

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

In general, yes. But when it's an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in one's pet theory, then you've got a crackpot.

The why is there actually a 'Theroy Development' still in PF?

Surely if this is causing more problems, then unless there is some ulteria motive behind keeping it within the PF website,( to generate some conceptual ideas that are clearly not forthcoming by mentors and advisors), then the simplistic answer to all the Mentor, Admin, Advisory headaches is to Completely remove the TD forum, and all the archive material.

This would free up some bandwith for general chit-chat, actually I can see the future where most of Greg's activity is contained with childish polls, I am being honest here, and if anyone thinks I am being deliberate or vindictave just look at the last 6 month s traffic volume, and be really honest if you think that the PF site is evolving into more of a 'CHAT' website?

There are problems with TD, I know I caused many of the Forums admin, Advisors to really look at what I posted, but nevertheless I see this as an intellectual challenge that most administrators failed to counter, this is not saying that I am more intellectual advanced, but the feedback from advisors who never placed counter-advise, but just closed threads based on 'what they felt', their 'feelings' conspired to defeat them!

Sorry..but it needs to be said, get rid of TD completely, and delete the archives!

 

[Chronos]

Interesting. TD reminded me of the advice my grandfather once offered: "Son, never argue with an idiot, passersby may confuse one for the other."

 

[Wave's_Hand_Particle]

Interesting. TD reminded me of the advice my grandfather once offered: "Son, never argue with an idiot, passersby may confuse one for the other."

This is why all the PF admin-mentors-advisors should really take a vote amongst themselves to completely remove the TD (Trash Development seems to be the major consensus opinions?).

Why are none of the Advisors suggesting this option, at least this will hopefully stop the moanings, and let them get on with the Physic groanings.

 

[chroot]

It'll never stop the moaning. The majority of TD worthy threads have always been posted outside TD, and then moved into TD by an administrator. You have to understand that part of the pscyhology of crackpots is that they really feel they are doing all of us a favor by posting their half-baked nonsense. They aren't competent enough to realize their own incompetence. Crackpots will never stop attempting to abuse this site, no matter what forums we offer.

- Warren

 

[enigma]

Crackpots will never stop attempting to abuse this site, no matter what forums we offer.

And they'll never stop complaining when we won't allow them to...

How many "What's with the censorship?" threads have we had since we instituted the 'no nonsense' policy? A dozen? Two?

 

[marlon]

I think it is a great thing that TD is gone...
You might as well get rid of the philisophy section too.
Leave this forum for the REAL sciences...

keep up the good work guys,...
I think the way you handle things is correct and justified...

regards
marlon

 

[pelastration]

I think it is a great thing that TD is gone...
You might as well get rid of the philisophy section too.
Leave this forum for the REAL sciences...

keep up the good work guys,...
I think the way you handle things is correct and justified...

regards
marlon

Yes, and delete the string forum too ... since it's all speculation and pseudo religion. And please delete also the time traveller general discussion stuff because that's all scam, and delete also the every thread on God because that's also speculation.
If you do something ... do it consequent.

 

[marlon]

Yes, and delete the string forum too ... since it's all speculation and pseudo religion. And please delete also the time traveller general discussion stuff because that's all scam, and delete also the every thread on God because that's also speculation.
If you do something ... do it consequent.

stringtheory is speculative to some extent, yet is no simple pet theory. Why ? Well, because the well established results of QM and GTR must follow out of string theory in the correct physical regimes just like Newtonian mechanics need to follow out of QM in the right (ie classical) regime. Your reasoning is therefore incorrect and if I were to follow it, QM is just mere scam to you... Ofcourse you do not mean this. philisophy is not the same thing is real exact science like physics or mathematics...i know it, you know it and we all know it...

regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

As an addendum : indeed every thread on God should be deleted and every thread on religion too. I think the attitude of the PF administrators towards such post is the correct one. Time traveling is not possible in practice yet it is a valid consequence of GTR and thus a scientific fact. It only needs to stressed out that we need to look at such non-causal results with the right attitude and place them in the right context, which you obviously do not do...

marlon

 

[Garth]

Yet if we were to discuss Einstein's or Hawking's use of the word 'God' relating to the universe and its creation/laws/formation, as has happened several times, would that not be of interest to a physics forum?

Garth

 

[marlon]

Yet if we were to discuss Einstein's or Hawking's use of the word 'God' relating to the universe and its creation/laws/formation, as has happened several times, would that not be of interest to a physics forum?

Garth

I see your point but i think we both know that this GOD-concept is not really essential to the formulation and construction of physics, right ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

But i was primarily referring to GOD in a religious way...
marlon

 

[pelastration]

Time traveling is not possible in practice yet it is a valid consequence of GTR and thus a scientific fact.

If you believe that you can turn arround (reverse) all electrons around all nuclei of all atoms of all molecules of a burning tree ... (= that's what time traveling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.

 

[marlon]

If you believe that you can turn arround (reverse) all electrons around all nuclei of all atoms of all molecules of a burning tree ... (= that's what time traveling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.

Obviously you missed the point, which could have been expected because i said you need to put these time reversal results into the right perspective in physics. Just look at how astrophysics has dealt with black vs. white holes... Non-causal results may not be physical in our minds, yet they are a VALID solution to some theoretical model which has a very high degree of accuracy. This is something totally different then postulating some pet theory...

Keep in mind that postulating nonsense is NOT equal to being creative

marlon

 

[pelastration]

Obviously you missed the point, which could have been expected because i said you need to put these time reversal results into the right perspective in physics. Just look at how astrophysics has dealt with black vs. white holes... Non-causal results may not be physical in our minds, yet they are a VALID solution to some theoretical model which has a very high degree of accuracy. This is something totally different then postulating some pet theory...

Theoretical models may be very accurate. Sure. Theoretical models are essential, indeed. But theoretical models must stay on logic. And sure ... some theoretical models will make it possible to reverse time. But that doesn't mean it has something to do with reality, or it shows that something is wrong with the semantics.

"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
The process can be reversal, but not the time it takes.
If you miss this essential concept you can create many "official" pet theories.

If you use time just as a mathematical parameter then you can do all type of magic things with it.

 

[marlon]

Theoretical models may be very accurate. Sure. Theoretical models are essential, indeed. But theoretical models must stay on logic. And sure ... some theoretical models will make it possible to reverse time. But that doesn't mean it has something to do with reality, or it shows that something is wrong with the semantics.

"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
The process can be reversal, but not the time it takes.
If you miss this essential concept you can create many "official" pet theories.

If you use time just as a mathematical parameter then you can do all type of magic things with it.

Though all you state is very true, i am asking you politely to see my point here. All i am saying is that well estabished theoretical models may "predict" non-causal results or non-physical degrees of freedom, nevertheless the MODEL itself still contains those very well predicted (real) experimental results. All those pet-theories in TD did not. Secondly, i want to stress the fact that i have no objection what so ever against nem develpments in theories or even corrections to certain models. yet it needs to be said that those new data will not appear in TD because most of the people there did not make a well considered and tactical suggestion for changing a model. They just make a suggestion. If you ask them why they can give you a reason, but the problem is that this reason is most of the times false. I mean, this reason contains facts and assumptions that are based upon mis-interpretations of the already existing model. That is my point

marlon

 

[marlon]

"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.

This is a false statement though. In General Relativity for example time and position-coordinates can be interchanged when the curvature of spacetime is "very strong", like in the event horizon of a black hole. Basically this means that you cannot stop the movement of an object towards the singularity once it is inside the event horizon or once it crossed the Schwarzschild Radius (i am referring to non-rotating black holes so we don't need to mention the socalled ergosphere). Because time and position are interchanged and because you cannot say "i am going to stop time from evolving into next friday", you cannot stop the object's movement inside the event horizon. Time reversal here means that objects in the event horizon will be pushed out of this sphere, yielding the socalled white hole or "vomiting star". Don't take the time-coordinate too literally in GTR.

marlon

 

[chroot]

Of course, strings are speculative. All such works-in-progress are naturally speculative. What makes string theory legitimate is that it is being developed by the scientific method. Many people are working on making the theory produce testable predictions, which will support or falsify the hypothesis. This is the way science works.

The majority of the old disgruntled TD posters (yourself included, pelastration) did not follow the scientific method, and that was our primary frustration.

- Warren

 

[Zeteg]

Chroot, I believe that people should indeed be able to post in Theory Development. The thing is, often it's a good thing for developing minds to see how other people think, and see how the flaws are picked in what they believe.

Not only does it liven things up a bit, it shows how everyone thinks differently, and it let's others wake their minds up by refuting the theories. I can see how you'd be frustrated with people not thinking before they post, but that's just a bit of locking and deleting.

 

[Integral]

Chroot, I believe that people should indeed be able to post in Theory Development. The thing is, often it's a good thing for developing minds to see how other people think, and see how the flaws are picked in what they believe.

Not only does it liven things up a bit, it shows how everyone thinks differently, and it let's others wake their minds up by refuting the theories. I can see how you'd be frustrated with people not thinking before they post, but that's just a bit of locking and deleting.

Why can't the same things be accomplished while discussing valid physics?

 

[marlon]

Of course, strings are speculative. All such works-in-progress are naturally speculative. What makes string theory legitimate is that it is being developed by the scientific method. Many people are working on making the theory produce testable predictions, which will support or falsify the hypothesis. This is the way science works.

The majority of the old disgruntled TD posters (yourself included, pelastration) did not follow the scientific method, and that was our primary frustration.

- Warren

amen to that...

marlon

 

[CrankFan]

If someone gets cranky in this thread is he a metacrank?

 

[Andre]

Well, I know, it's probably all about the urge of being recognized and admired as a "smart cooky" and perhaps succeed explaining some enigmatic things with a wild imagination..

I'm guilty myself for starting a thread in TD as well as to a wild imagination, but I was assuming that the forums was about the same as what the title said, namely about posting ideas or hypotheses that can be substantiated or falsified during the discussion, being unaware of the fully automatic crackpot label. Talking about the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974&page=1.

Apparantly it's no good since:

99.9% of TD posts are crackpot. Only 0.01% are "serious heterodox."

(I wonder about the missing 0.09%)

But the publication is about finished after implementing a few more references like this, as evidence exhibit nr 114 on the ref list using:

Buckling cannot explain the observed wavelength. Cracking, which was originally proposed to explain the spacing of plain lineations [8] and the localization instability have predicted wavelengths of order of H. Hence, the implied BDT is shallower than expected for a dry rheology with the current surface temperature. The very short instability wavelength is possible if the surface temperature was high at the time of formation on these features. However, crustal melting is a concern for geotherms higher than 10 K km-1.

Crustal melting is not a concern. It just happened if my idea was right. Anyway I'm happy that my thread is not closed.

 

[chroot]

Andre,

Your Venus theory is one of the very few posted to TD which seems to follow the scientific method. I applaud you for setting a good example, personally. We don't plan on closing your thread.

- Warren