Hmm an awfull lot of posts get deleted here?

[mimic]

im of the opinion no matter how much is known about a subject something new could still be learned or discovered.

i don't understand this policy of deleting threads to stop people taking a second look at things they know.

are we to asume we know everything? if you don't mind me saying that is called Pseudoscience, not physics

Forming conclusions without debait or discusion or even considering new evidence is truly Pseudoscience at its worst

 

[Hurkyl]

(We do have a feedback forum which, presumably, would be a good place to post feedback)


Well, several reasons for deleting posts were outlined in our global guidelines document to which you have agreed. You review the rules to which you've agreed in your control panel, but for quick reference, this particular one is found here.

And your warnings log indicates that you've already been given a reason why your posts have been deleted: "We do not allow links to crackpot sites. Please refrain from such posts."

 

[chroot]

And, if PF does not suit you, we encourage you to find another forum that does.

- Warren

 

[mimic]

"We do not allow links to crackpot sites. Please refrain from such posts."

but how/where do you draw the line between a crackpot and a revolutionary inventer?

no offence but there was appsolutly no discusion or examination of their work, what was this 'crackpot' conclusion based on?

surely this is a fare question.

 

[chroot]

Professional scientists, who have intimate knowledge of their fields, generally have no real trouble differentiating crackpot science from valid science. Our staff is comprised almost entirely of professional scientists and graduate students, so we are well-prepared to make such decisions. If you can't find something in a textbook, classroom or journal, it's almost assuredly not valid science, and doesn't belong on this site.

- Warren

 

[mimic]

well i respect your opinion but I am not sure i agree wiith that last part.

If you can't find something in a textbook, classroom or journal, it's almost assuredly not valid science, and doesn't belong on this site.

what about the stuff that's clasified, or is in the process of being added, new research, new discoverys?, I am sure a lot of new things have apeared in todays books that wernt in those of the 80s, it doesn't necisarily make them invalid.

 

[chroot]

Journals are the primary vehicle with which legitimate scientists release new research, discoveries, and so on. There's also the preprint archive at arxiv.org, which contains bleeding-edge premature papers that aren't yet ready for journal submission. Anyone with anything legitimate to say can find an audience in one of the literally thousands of science journals printed today. Legitimacy is determined by peer-review, just as it is here. We even have a forum dedicated to amateur science, given that it adheres to the scientific method.

What more do you want? If you're hoping our site will give up its standards so you can just post whatever you want, it's not going to happen. Our site is not that sort of venue, and you should go somewhere else.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

what about the stuff that's clasified, or is in the process of being added, new research, new discoverys?, I am sure a lot of new things have apeared in todays books that wernt in those of the 80s, it doesn't necisarily make them invalid.

Classified stuff shouldn't be posted on the internet. Something in the process of being published can wait for the publication to come out before you discuss it here. If it's new research, you shouldn't risk posting your ideas on an internet forum where you can't be given credit for them and others can steal them. If it's a brand new discovery, the scientists making the discovery will release the details in published format when they are certain their findings are correct and replicable, thus, if it is not yet at that stage, it doesn't belong being disseminated to the public yet anyway. None of those above categories would be available on a website because that's not the appropriate means to disseminate the information, if dissemination is even appropriate at all.

 

[mimic]

Journals are the primary vehicle with which legitimate scientists release new research, discoveries, and so on. There's also the preprint archive at arxiv.org, which contains bleeding-edge premature papers that aren't yet ready for journal submission. Anyone with anything legitimate to say can find an audience in one of the literally thousands of science journals printed today. Legitimacy is determined by peer-review, just as it is here. We even have a forum dedicated to amateur science, given that it adheres to the scientific method.

What more do you want? If you're hoping our site will give up its standards so you can just post whatever you want, it's not going to happen. Our site is not that sort of venue, and you should go somewhere else.

- Warren

I just wanted an explanation of how the conclusion was reached, As it 'seemed' unfare, Looks like i need to pay more attention to those journal's

 

[ZapperZ]

well i respect your opinion but I am not sure i agree wiith that last part.


what about the stuff that's clasified, or is in the process of being added, new research, new discoverys?, I am sure a lot of new things have apeared in todays books that wernt in those of the 80s, it doesn't necisarily make them invalid.

But you are latching onto them BEFORE they are established in peer-reviewed journals. How are YOU to know it isn't bogus?

Even stuff in peer-reviewed journals aren't "established physics", but at the very least, it has been peer-reviewed with the very minimum standard of not being utterly nonsense. That is the standard we have adopted. So think about it, if something still hasn't even PASSED the very minimum standard of being at least has the possibility to be even CONSIDERED to be valid, what is there hope for one of these things that you scoured over the internet, or heaven forbid, that you stumbled upon yourself?

Your complain is nothing new. I welcome you to look at the archived posts in this very section. There have been similar complaints, many by quacks, about our policy. It has been tried, and it didn't work. You were just not here to see the mess.

Besides, I thought you have already dismissed this forum and about to migrate your talents to "a proper physics forum" where you can "debate in true scientific manner" (good luck in finding one)? Whatever happened to THAT?

Zz.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You may not like the suggestion but if you have any 'fringe' material you'd like to discuss you can likely do so in the Skepticism & Debunking section of this forum. I believe the concern is that students using PF as a resource may be side tracked and confused if they try to integrate information that is not fully accepted, if at all, so such things will be more appropriate in S&D.

 

[Moonbear]

You may not like the suggestion but if you have any 'fringe' material you'd like to discuss you can likely do so in the Skepticism & Debunking section of this forum. I believe the concern is that students using PF as a resource may be side tracked and confused if they try to integrate information that is not fully accepted, if at all, so such things will be more appropriate in S&D.

Actually, that's not quite correct. S&D deals more with subjects that are on the "fringe" because they are dealing with things such as observed phenomenon with no clear physical explanation (not that they don't necessarily have an explanation, but the explanation is not obvious, such as UFO sightings, where someone definitely saw something, but does not know what and wants to see if they can find out what). Crackpot theories will not be permitted there anymore than any other place at PF.

 

[ZapperZ]

You may not like the suggestion but if you have any 'fringe' material you'd like to discuss you can likely do so in the Skepticism & Debunking section of this forum. I believe the concern is that students using PF as a resource may be side tracked and confused if they try to integrate information that is not fully accepted, if at all, so such things will be more appropriate in S&D.

Ivan may disagree with you on that! He keeps telling the rest of us Mentors that S&D is NOT the TD dumping ground!

:)

Zz.

 

[mimic]

But you are latching onto them BEFORE they are established in peer-reviewed journals. How are YOU to know it isn't bogus?

Even stuff in peer-reviewed journals aren't "established physics", but at the very least, it has been peer-reviewed with the very minimum standard of not being utterly nonsense. That is the standard we have adopted. So think about it, if something still hasn't even PASSED the very minimum standard of being at least has the possibility to be even CONSIDERED to be valid, what is there hope for one of these things that you scoured over the internet, or heaven forbid, that you stumbled upon yourself?

Your complain is nothing new. I welcome you to look at the archived posts in this very section. There have been similar complaints, many by quacks, about our policy. It has been tried, and it didn't work. You were just not here to see the mess.

Besides, I thought you have already dismissed this forum and about to migrate your talents to "a proper physics forum" where you can "debate in true scientific manner" (good luck in finding one)? Whatever happened to THAT?

Zz.

well, this is a big leep from deleting a post without explaining why, now i have heard the otherside i can see that you did actualy attempt to verify it first an this wasnt a botched conclusion, things sound a lot more like the physics I am formilier with

 

[mimic]

observed phenomenon with no clear physical explanation (not that they don't necessarily have an explanation, but the explanation is not obvious.

this is the area of physics I am interested in but please do not lump me in with 'ufologist fuzzy light nuts', I am interested in real reproducable effects. not 'ogie boogie crap', one of my area's of interest has been

the Huchison-Effect
There is no question that john's views are 'Very far fetched' but accidental discoverys do happen.

this effect apears real dispite his rambled explanation's.
http://stream.osen.org/aag/Hutchison_RaceToZeroPoint.wmv
I Want to know the real physics behind it.who else am i gunner ask?

 

[chroot]

The kind of material you just posted is not welcome here. If you want to discuss crank science, you need to find another website.

- Warren

 

[mimic]

The kind of material you just posted is not welcome here. If you want to discuss crank science, you need to find another website.

- Warren

discovery channel features cranks?, DAMIT! that channels spost to be legit

 

[chroot]

No, the Discovery Channel is absolutely not a reliable source of information. They have been known to show a variety of material ranging from "fringe" to downright quackery. They have shows about ghosts and hauntings and UFOs, after all.

- Warren

 

[mimic]

They have been known to show a variety of material ranging from "fringe" to downright quackery. They have shows about ghosts and hauntings and UFOs, after all.

- Warren

oh dear not much i can say to that iv put my foot right init

 

[mimic]

But you are latching onto them BEFORE they are established in peer-reviewed journals. How are YOU to know it isn't bogus?

by replicating their tests and verifying results,and formng an independant conclusion. to see if its correct.

Even stuff in peer-reviewed journals aren't "established physics", but at the very least, it has been peer-reviewed with the very minimum standard of not being utterly nonsense. That is the standard we have adopted. So think about it, if something still hasn't even PASSED the very minimum standard of being at least has the possibility to be even CONSIDERED to be valid, what is there hope for one of these things that you scoured over the internet, or heaven forbid, that you stumbled upon yourself?

Very Very little, but there are times when one man is right and the rest of the world wrong...

Tesla ,Galileo ,Einstein,The wright brothers, Sir Frank Whittle. i could go on an on but there's no need.

though this posibilty is extreamly remote it still remains

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan may disagree with you on that! He keeps telling the rest of us Mentors that S&D is NOT the TD dumping ground!

:)

Zz.

thank you.

Yes, please see the posting guidelines for the S&D forum. We don't have a pseudoscience or TD section.