Complaint Is Censorship Ruining This Forum?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timedial
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Censorship on the forum is perceived as excessive, leading to frustration among users who feel basic scientific discussions are being stifled. Participants argue that important topics, such as the relationship between entropy and matter, are dismissed or deleted, rendering the forum nearly worthless. Some users express a desire for more open dialogue and criticize the moderators for enforcing strict guidelines that limit free expression. Others defend the moderation, stating that the forum's focus on mainstream science necessitates a clear mission that excludes certain philosophical discussions. Overall, the tension between the need for structured discourse and the desire for open conversation is a central theme in the discussion.
Timedial
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
In my opinion this forum is near worthless due to moderation censorship.

When a thread discussing the nature of universal complexity is deemed irrelevant to cosmology! Pathetic forum

When it is suggested that the condensation of matter from early universal radiation runs contrary to principle of entropy. Entropy simply meaning that energy tends to spread out. That matter is energy and is stable and does not spread out, is a trivial issue. But not allowed on this sight because this is a pathetic forum

That basic considerations are so heavily censored and deleted here, is ridiculous. Moderator conduct here makes for a near worthless experience. Control freaking indoctrination is the purpose of this narrow forum.

I boycott this place
 
  • Like
Likes Priyo
Physics news on Phys.org
Timedial said:
Im leaving this forum
Bye.
 
  • Like
Likes cnh1995, russ_watters, Pepper Mint and 1 other person
Timedial said:
In my opinion this forum is near worthless due to moderation censorship.

When a thread discussing the nature of universal complexity is deemed irrelevant to cosmology! Pathetic forum

Because that would belong on a philosophy forum, not one for physics. In fact, looking at the thread you were given opportunities to find better references, and got nearly two whole pages in before it was locked - which was probably a bit generous of the mods.

Timedial said:
When it is suggested that the condensation of matter from early universal radiation runs contrary to principle of entropy. Entropy simply meaning that energy tends to spread out. That matter is energy and is stable and does not spread out, is a trivial issue. But not allowed on this sight because this is a pathetic forum

I don't know, maybe because the question makes no sense? Are you trying to argue against gravitational forces?

Timedial said:
That basic considerations are so heavily censored and deleted here, is ridiculous. Moderator conduct here makes for a near worthless experience. Control freaking indoctrination is the purpose of this narrow forum.

I boycott this place

The mod's seemed pretty nice to you in the thread's I've looked at.
 
Student100 said:
Because that would belong on a philosophy forum, not one for physics. In fact, looking at the thread you were given opportunities to find better references, and got nearly two whole pages in before it was locked - which was probably a bit generous of the mods.

I don't know, maybe because the question makes no sense? Are you trying to argue against gravitational forces?

The mod's seemed pretty nice to you in the thread's I've looked at.

The mods argent meen, but the most basic considerations are censored, locked or deleted. My first two posts here were deleted without apology.

Philosophy you say? That matter is energy which isn't spreading out under the rule of entropy. People are fixed in the mind set that universal complexities are a result of entropy, energy diffusion, disorder and caos. And that's ok, but not being allowed to discuss this and other most basic of issues is silly. This forum has the balance very wrong.

You say I had opportunities to provide references. Assuming I wasnt caught in a storm without power. But do I need a reference to say anything, everything. It appears I do. People who use this forum have no allowance for free expression or to contribute to dialog. A great place to train your robot
 
  • Like
Likes Priyo
Timedial said:
This forum has the balance very wrong.
No forum can be all things to all people.

A clearly-defined mission is a strength, not a short-coming.

You wouldn't buy a Hyundai Pony and then boycott them because of the leg room would you? Whose fault would that be?

This forum's mission statement is very clear-cut.
It is to discuss current mainstream science.

There are plenty of fora out there that are only too happy to discuss non-mainstream concepts.
But they have their own peccadilloes. Which you will find out very quickly, should you go there.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
All that has to be said, has been said. Locking the thread.
 
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