Exploring Creativity: Beyond the Standard Model in Kinetic Gravity Forums

[bill alsept]

Are there any forums where people are not afraid to discuss things that do not completely agree with the views of the forums gatekeepers? Why have a category called "Beyond the Standard Model" ? Can’t you allow at least one category for creativity and imagination? It could help to keep things from getting stagnant.

 

[ZapperZ]

Please read

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=615859

And just for your information, none of us are "afraid" about such things. However, I can easily point the accusation the other way, where crackpots are lazy and "afraid" to learn physics.

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

These repeated complaints are getting to be very tiring, especially when the rules are spelled out explicitly. Are some people unable to read and comprehend?

Zz.

 

[Doc Al]

Why have a category called "Beyond the Standard Model" ?

Our "Beyond the Standard Model" forum is intended for discussion of current, professionally researched theories such as string theory and LQG. (Which attempt to go 'beyond' the standard model of particle physics.) Despite what the title might seem to imply, that forum is not intended as a place to discuss challenges to standard, mainstream physics.

 

[micromass]

Are there any forums where people are not afraid to discuss things that do not completely agree with the views of the forums gatekeepers?

Sure, forums enough. Just google it and you'll find some.

 

[bill alsept]

And just for your information, none of us are "afraid" about such things. However, I can easily point the accusation the other way, where crackpots are lazy and "afraid" to learn physics.

Thats is all I was asking in my original Post Kinetic Gravity that was locked. Where is the physics that shows subjects like kinetic gravity to be so utterly wrong that no one is allowed to even discuss them? Why do I have to be the bad guy for only asking questions that no one has answered.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thats is all I was asking in my original Post Kinetic Gravity that was locked. Where is the physics that shows subjects like kinetic gravity to be so utterly wrong that no one is allowed to even discuss them? Why do I have to be the bad guy for only asking questions that no one has answered.

Are you claiming that the topic you want to discuss falls within the Scientific Discussion Guidelines of the PF Rules that you had agreed to? If so, can you show evidence that it does?

Zz.

 

[bill alsept]

Are you claiming that the topic you want to discuss falls within the Scientific Discussion Guidelines of the PF Rules that you had agreed to? If so, can you show evidence that it does?

Zz.

For one thing kinetic gravity in one form or another has been part of scientific history much longer than other subjects discussed on this forum. If the subject is banned for some strange reason then maybe there should be list of taboo subjects. Besides all I have ever asked from any of you is to help direct me to the science that rejects kinetic gravity so I can study it for myself. And if you could be kind enough to at least attempt to explain why you believe that only that view is correct.

 

[PAllen]

Epicycles were part of scientific history longer than physics since Kepler. That doesn't mean these forums are the place to argue the revival of epicycles.

All you need to do, to discuss here, is show a theory has been discussed in a paper in one of the peer reviewed journals described in the forum rules:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/

The above link is provided for your benefit in the forum global guidelines.

 

[ZapperZ]

For one thing kinetic gravity in one form or another has been part of scientific history much longer than other subjects discussed on this forum. If the subject is banned for some strange reason then maybe there should be list of taboo subjects. Besides all I have ever asked from any of you is to help direct me to the science that rejects kinetic gravity so I can study it for myself. And if you could be kind enough to at least attempt to explain why you believe that only that view is correct.

Notice that you've not answered my question, and that tells me that such avoidance seems to imply that it DOES NOT conform to the rules that YOU had agreed to.

Just saying that it has been around longer than such-and-such a subject does NOT make it legitimate. Astrology and other voodoo pseudosciences have been around longer than many valid scientific subjects. It doesn't make them any more legitimate!

Again, you KNEW what this forum is all about when you joined. Yet, now, you want to complain for that.

Zz.

 

[bill alsept]

Notice that you've not answered my question, and that tells me that such avoidance seems to imply that it DOES NOT conform to the rules that YOU had agreed to.

For the record I have never discussed kinetic gravity.(I would like to) The original post that I was wrongly penalized for only asked "Can anyone direct me to any articles that prove kinetic gravity impossible." I legitimately wanted to study those articles in order to see why such a subject could be so taboo to everyone. Who know it was radioactively taboo??
It would have been much easier to answer the original question than to make such an issue of a simple question. Sorry

 

[berkeman]

For the record I have never discussed kinetic gravity.(I would like to) The original post that I was wrongly penalized for only asked "Can anyone direct me to any articles that prove kinetic gravity impossible." I legitimately wanted to study those articles in order to see why such a subject could be so taboo to everyone. Who know it was radioactively taboo??
It would have been much easier to answer the original question than to make such an issue of a simple question. Sorry

When the rules say we don't discuss it, that means just that. Questions like "can you tell me why this is a crackpot idea" are not allowed here. That's just a basic part of the PF. Please post within the PF rules.

Generally, in the science discussion forums we do not allow the following:

Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.

Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion

Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context

Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science

Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.

 

[ZapperZ]

For the record I have never discussed kinetic gravity.(I would like to) The original post that I was wrongly penalized for only asked "Can anyone direct me to any articles that prove kinetic gravity impossible." I legitimately wanted to study those articles in order to see why such a subject could be so taboo to everyone. Who know it was radioactively taboo??
It would have been much easier to answer the original question than to make such an issue of a simple question. Sorry

And for the record, you still have not answered my question.

Zz.