Feedback from Ratfink: Conflict of Interest & Moderation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nereid
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights a conflict of interest regarding moderation in a scientific debate about quasars. A participant accuses a moderator, Nereid, of misusing their authority to silence criticism instead of addressing errors in their explanation of quasar evolution. The conversation raises questions about whether individuals involved in discussions should also have the power to moderate them. Concerns are expressed about the validity of the arguments presented and the need for board administrators to intervene. The issue emphasizes the importance of fair moderation in scientific discourse.
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
3
ratfink said:
If you don’t mind me saying so, we seem to have a problem here Nereid. We have a conflict of interest on your part. As a participator in the discussion you are clearly in error with your evolution explanation. However when this is pointed out, instead of accepting this you seem to be using the power of your position to ask me to stop posting.
This is something the board administrators need to address. Should a person taking part in a discussion be allowed to moderate it as well?
This appeared in a post* in the https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113862", which due to my clumsy thread surgery, seems to have temporarily disappeared (it'll be back soon).

The extract, however, belongs here.

*the content is as follows:
ratfink said:
Nereid said:
As has already been pointed out to you, your analysis here is far too simplistic - quasars have several components (which contribute to the observed light), and quasars evolve.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood - do you have a study which you can provide a link to which shows that no 4-component model of quasars can possibly reproduce the observed (Hawkins) power spectra? Or you've done this (quantitative) work yourself, and are considering submitting it to ApJ (or PF's IR section)?

If you've got nothing better than this simplistic handwaving, please stop posting such.And your references for this are (I assume they are papers published in peer-reviewed journals)?[/size]
Nereid said:
As has already been pointed out to you, your analysis here is far too simplistic - quasars have several components (which contribute to the observed light), and quasars evolve.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood - do you have a study which you can provide a link to which shows that no 4-component model of quasars can possibly reproduce the observed (Hawkins) power spectra? Or you've done this (quantitative) work yourself, and are considering submitting it to ApJ (or PF's IR section)?[/size]
To reproduce the Hawking results with evolution one has to assume that all quasars were produced in the Big Bang itself – otherwise you wouldn’t get this ‘nice’ relationship with the greater the redshift the older the quasar. If quasars were to be formed after this point and at different eras, some of the older ones could have larger redshifts than the younger ones and hence ruin the Hawkins result. The assumption you make is not valid.[/size]
If you've got nothing better than this simplistic handwaving, please stop posting such.And your references for this are (I assume they are papers published in peer-reviewed journals)?[/size]
No problem. Will the ApJ do you?[/size]
SN 1996bj aged 3.35 +/- 3.2 days, consistent with the 6.38 days of aging expected in an expanding Universe and inconsistent with no time dilation at the 96.4 % confidence level[/size]
If you don’t mind me saying so, we seem to have a problem here Nereid. We have a conflict of interest on your part. As a participator in the discussion you are clearly in error with your evolution explanation. However when this is pointed out, instead of accepting this you seem to be using the power of your position to ask me to stop posting.
This is something the board administrators need to address. Should a person taking part in a discussion be allowed to moderate it as well?
[/size]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...
Back
Top