Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[arildno]

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?

 

[ZapperZ]

Perhaps a slightly different take on this ...

Before I joined PF, while still just a guest, I thought that 'Theory Development' was a forum for folk who were developing theories to get an early critique of them, say a month or two before submitting their first paper for peer review. I felt it would also be a good place for an independent researcher to float some 'extension ideas', based on new work they were doing, after having laid the foundation with a PhD thesis, a one page letter paper, etc. And indeed, here at PF we have at least one such researcher, and previously had maybe one or two others.

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.

Zz.

 

[Philocrat]

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.

Zz.

Are you suggesting that people can nick ideas from your forum and you can do nothing about it? From most of the threads that I have participated in and read many postings in them, some of these threads, especially in the physics section, may contain new materials or useful conversational materials, how would you spot them, let alone protect them as copyright materials from your own forum? If this is the case, then why not secure TD and limit access to only your PF mentors and administrators and those with special membership?

 

[Bystander]

Intellectual property? TD?

Landfills serving metropolitan areas in this country contain millions of dollars worth of diamonds (loose settings into the gutter, down the sink, and up the streetsweeper, eventually to the fill) --- for ten bucks you can have every claim I might have to those diamonds. Same goes for TD --- you can have every Nobel prize to be found in that forum for another ten.

 

[4newton]

My understanding and experience on this forum is that you do not object to new theories if they can show substance and support for the theory.

I have posted theories with substance and support and have had some general acceptance of the posting. It was not called speculative and dumped into theory development. I have then posted the same theory in another thread without the detail substance and support and was dumped into theory development with a warning and told that I could not post any idea in this forum unless it had been published. This makes it very difficult to extend or apply a theory that had previously been accepted as a legitimate post elsewhere in the forum.

Are links to other postings that are not called speculative accepted on this forum in other threads the same as published or is there some way to have a review of a theory and have it proclaimed valid material for discussion.

To be required to post all supporting references every time you wish to use a new theory is unproductive for all.

As of this time I am not sure this is a forum for my support or me. I am not sure of your mission. Is it only to recall past theories and to answer questions for students? I am looking for a place where ideas with substance may be exchanged.

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you suggesting that people can nick ideas from your forum and you can do nothing about it?

Think about it. What's to prevent people from NOT doing that?

From most of the threads that I have participated in and read many postings in them, some of these threads, especially in the physics section, may contain new materials or useful conversational materials, how would you spot them, let alone protect them as copyright materials from your own forum? If this is the case, then why not secure TD and limit access to only your PF mentors and administrators and those with special membership?

But this whole point is moot because of ZapperZ's First Law: No useful information that have made any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of physics have solely existed in open forums.

If I have something substantial, I would NOT post it in an open forum. And I know I'm not alone in this. So what does that tell you about people who do? And how would they even know they were scooped since most of these quacks don't even know what a "peer-review journal" is?

Now this is different than casual conversation that, in turn, somehow triggers a new idea. It has happened to me before, and it has happened with me as the impetus. But I can immediately tell you that it didn't happen at an internet open forum! It occurred at physics conferences, workshops, colloquiums, seminars, etc. and in conversations with people who were in the trenches, working intimitately with a particular area, and who know physics!

Again, no one has made any convincing argument on the importance, contribution, significance, etc. of having these so-called "theory development". At best, all I've read is that we should have it because... well... we should! How such things contribute to the "development" rather than a "retardation", I still have no clue.

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

4Newton, I think you believe that anything that is mathematically true should describe a physical reality.

I've come across many more people with this idea. It seems to be the cornerstone, upon which some of the more carefully thought out, albeit speculative, theories are based.

 

[4newton]

Gokul43201

4Newton, I think you believe that anything that is mathematically true should describe a physical reality.

I've come across many more people with this idea. It seems to be the cornerstone, upon which some of the more carefully thought out, albeit speculative, theories are based.

I think if you took the time to read some of my posts you would not make snap judgments about what I think or about the approach I have used to substantiate the theories. If you think any of the ideas are wrong please point it out. Unlike others I do have an open mind and can accept new information.

The main point is that some type of guide should be used not just the feeling of one person as to the development of new ideas. After all this is a scientific forum and should be able to come up with a scientific method for the value of postings.

 

[Gokul43201]

Sorry if I misjudged you. That was the impression I got when I first read one of your threads. Maybe I have you confused with someone else.

 

[Andre]

Originally posted by Copernicus

4 Oct 1514

Okay, hey guys I think I may have stumbled upon a weird idea. You know, those swarving stars, I think I have the solution. Earth is not the centre of the universe, instead I propose that:

1- There is no one centre in the universe.

2- The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe.

3- The centre of the universe is near the sun.

4- The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars.

5- The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars.

6- The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it.

7- The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes.

I'm starting a book on it, "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies"

Originally posted by Aristotle (Administrator)

6 Oct 197 BC

Thread is moved to TD and subsequently locked.

Reason: The theory is seriously flawed;

1. Everybody knows that the creator made the Earth the centre of the universe.

2. If the Earth actually spun on an axis why don't objects fly off the spinning Earth?

3. If the Earth was in motion around the sun, why doesn't it leave behind the birds flying in the air?

4. If the Earth were actually on an orbit around the sun, why isn't a parallax effect observed?

Moreover, the theory is neither published in peer reviewed publication nor is there a convincing line of reasoning that would endanger the general consensus.

But I'm kidding

Just think about it.

 

[Andre]

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.

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.

Zz.

But most certainly, if your idea was to have any economical benefit, like the thread on defeating the second law of thermodynamics and invent a gadget that would transfer heat directly into electrical power.

But what could would be the gain for weirdos to keep funny ideas for themselves, like the big brake of Venus, when there is no economic factor and the idea covers a wide range of specialities and said weirdos have no network to ventilate it, receiving only deadly silence on their requests to specialists?

Posting that kind of stuff at least fixes the date and the first originator of the idea, should it be feasible and stolen and has a chance in a million to trigger an insider.

 

[arildno]

There's no shortage of forums which allow/are dominated by crackpot threads.
Hence, there's no reason why PF should maintain the lowest standards possible.

 

[ZapperZ]

Posting that kind of stuff at least fixes the date and the first originator of the idea, should it be feasible and stolen and has a chance in a million to trigger an insider.

Try zero out of a million chance...

I didn't realize that the mission of PF was as a ventilation hole for quacks. Secondly, as has been pointed out several times, why PF, of all places? There are a gazillion places where such quacks can air their dirty laundry. Postings on Usenet are dated. They even have, I'm guessing, a larger audience base.

Zz.

 

[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)

 

[Andre]

Zz,

I understand your point but I think the sift is too coarse to separate the cream of the crap.

Can you see who the poster is of "hey, guys, I just figured something that is faster than light"

Of course it may be that stubborn no good spammer again or a bright 13 years old guy/girl with an unlimited fantasy. So what to do? Slam him/her and close his thread in TD, carefully attemting to preserving the standards, or start a dialog to test his/her comprehensiveness?

So what would ultimately lead to the so cherished highest standard?

 

[arildno]

Whoever beside you has talked about "highest standards"??
If you didn't know, that is what a peer-reviewed journal aims at.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz,

I understand your point but I think the sift is too coarse to separate the cream of the crap.

Can you see who the poster is of "hey, guys, I just figured something that is faster than light"

Of course it may be that stubborn no good spammer again or a bright 13 years old guy/girl with an unlimited fantasy. So what to do? Slam him/her and close his thread in TD, carefully attemting to preserving the standards, or start a dialog to test his/her comprehensiveness?

So what would ultimately lead to the so cherished highest standard?

You DON'T differentiate between the two. That's the reality of it, because if you try, then you (i) have to spend WAY too much time and (ii) have to make certain assumptions or guess work about the person. Treat the posting AS IS. We are not here to babysit and amuse a 13-year old prodigy who is too lazy to understand what he/she is babbling about. (How often do we get 13-year old genius on here anyway?)

Again, if you notice, there is a GLARING absence of a good reason for having such things. I keep getting rebuttals on why we shouldn't remove it, but I have seen no reasons on why we should have it. What positive effect does this add to this forum? What positive contribution does it add? And most importantly, how does this deprive the opportunity for such quackeries to be posted elsewhere? Why PF? Tell me these things, please!

Zz.

 

[Integral]

Zz,

I understand your point but I think the sift is too coarse to separate the cream of the crap.

Can you see who the poster is of "hey, guys, I just figured something that is faster than light"

Of course it may be that stubborn no good spammer again or a bright 13 years old guy/girl with an unlimited fantasy. So what to do? Slam him/her and close his thread in TD, carefully attemting to preserving the standards, or start a dialog to test his/her comprehensiveness?

So what would ultimately lead to the so cherished highest standard?

This is the exact reason that I often let a post stand, just to see how the original poster reacts to the posts of knowledgeable members. When it becomes clear that the intent is not to learn but to argue a lock will ensue.

 

[Nereid]

a wild idea

Let's assume Zapper is wrong, and that there is some gold among what was posted in TD for over a year. As PF has become more popular, the job of administering, moderating, and otherwise babysitting the huge numbers of TD posts has become onerous. So, to those who'd like to keep something like TD, and who can't bring themselves to start a theorydevelopment.com website, why not propose something like this:
- barbed wire fence around TD, with warning signs 10m high, in fluorescent pink
- rotating TD moderators, from a pool of volunteers, perhaps a max of three empowered at any time?
- these folk must be PF contributors, have no powers outside TD, and cannot post their own theories inside TD while they are moderators
- they must agree to act as TD moderator for 3 months - they can edit, delete, lock etc any threads in TD during that period
- at the end of their term, all TD threads are locked; the incoming moderator may unlock any (or all, or none) she deems fit
- if there are no volunteers, TD is abolished
- general PF policies about language, spam, plagarism, etc (but NOT 'textbook science') to apply, and TD moderators to commit to upholding these (so 'report posts' function works, but managing reported posts is the job of the TD moderator).

A phrase about money and mouths springs to mind for some reason ...

 

[russ_watters]

This is the exact reason that I often let a post stand, just to see how the original poster reacts to the posts of knowledgeable members. When it becomes clear that the intent is not to learn but to argue a lock will ensue.

...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.

 

[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...