Is there a crackdown on speculative posts?

  • Thread starter chronon
  • Start date
488
0
I've noticed a recent tendency against speculative posts. This seems odd, since this was the main reason I joined PF. For instance Arctic Fox asked what seems to be a reasonable question https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=621169#post621169 only to be told that it isn't worth discussing.

More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Well, for some time now there has been moderation and locking of overly-speculative posts, and yes, the forum is being kept focused on standard physics, if by "standard" you mean peer-reviewed, published physics. Just see the thread just above or below yours here on Theory Development, where this has been discussed ad nauseum.

As for the thread you provided as an example, it starts right out with "Forget Einstein..." People in that thread seem to be asking, "why?" However, you'll note that the thread is not locked or the poster banned, the folks posting seem to be trying to get clarification on what the point of such an exercise is and to ask people to justify their answers. Otherwise, if someone wants to have a science fiction poll (i.e., if anything was possible, what would you prefer), then it belongs in General Discussion, not one of the more serious science forums.

I have never visited any of those sci.physics.* groups, so don't know what they do or do not allow, but from the discussions that have gone on here, I get the impression that almost anything goes there, and our moderation and dedication to accuracy is more rigorous.

You'll notice that Theory Development is a closed forum. Once in a while a post or two is moved there and tentatively allowed to remain open to give a poster benefit of the doubt, but generally, the decision was made that those types of topics are too time-consuming for the mentors and don't have enough of a benefit to justify that additional time. If people can post those topics for discussion someplace else, then let them discuss them there.

There is a difference between speculation based on sound evidence and over-speculation based on no scientific foundation, or a very poor foundation.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
The thread in question has neither been locked nor moved to TD; chroot must be allowed to express his opinion about it.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,925
3,800
chronon said:
More seriously, users have been banned, where it seems the only reason is that their ideas are non-standard. In particular Caroline Thompson, who tries to highlight the loopholes in experiments demonstrating Bell's inequality. I don't see that this is a reason to be banned. Her posts are accepted by sci.physics.research, and I would expect moderation on PF to be less strict than on SPR. Likewise Eugene Shubert (perfectly innocent) has posts accepted on SPR but has been banned on PF. Is there a good reason for this, or is PF being restricted to 'standard' physics?
I do not believe that the postings by Caroline Thompson were stopped because her ideas were "non-standard". All you need to do is check her understanding of basic physics, which she FREELY admits, isn't much. And don't let her fool you into believing that she's trying to restore the classical light picture - she thinks Maxwell Equations are also wrong and nothing more than just "math" (ref: QM2 Yahoo group).

Point I'm trying to get across: there is no such thing as worthwhile non-standard ideas when they are based on utter ignorance.

Zz.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
IMO, unless the Arctic Fox provides some justification for listing option #2, that thread belongs in GD. Moreover, he asks that specific tools of science that deal directly with his question not be used or talked about. In short, that thread is not about science...yet. If he does provide a justification, the thread should go to either S&D or TD.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

Overly Speculative Posts:

Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.
 
488
0
Moonbear said:
I have never visited any of those sci.physics.* groups, so don't know what they do or do not allow, but from the discussions that have gone on here, I get the impression that almost anything goes there, and our moderation and dedication to accuracy is more rigorous.
True of the unmoderated sci.physics forum (where flame wars abound), not of the moderated sci.physics.research. I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going. I see Caroline Thompson as someone who is serious about showing problems with Bell test experiments, rather than someone peddling crackpot ideas (Although some of the sites she links to fall into that category). Looking at her website - http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ - it seems that it's only PF who reject her ideas out of hand.

ZapperZ said:
she thinks Maxwell Equations are also wrong and nothing more than just "math" (ref: QM2 Yahoo group).
I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
374
0
chronon said:
I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.
Is this some attempt at a guilt trip? The sky is not falling, quite frankly.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,481
21
chronon said:
True of the unmoderated sci.physics forum (where flame wars abound), not of the moderated sci.physics.research. I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF.
Just out of curiosity, why would your decision to post a question here have anything to do with our policies against crackpottery?

I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.
Firstly, I don't see Caroline or her ilk stinking up SPR either, so I'm not exactly sure of what you are talking about. And secondly, I don't know why you would not think that PF has the same authority as SPR (whatever that means), but even if it were true it is still not the case that outside influences do or should determine our policies here at PF. And it should be perfectly clear as to where we are going: We are trying to be the best scientific discussion forum on the internet.

I see Caroline Thompson as someone who is serious about showing problems with Bell test experiments, rather than someone peddling crackpot ideas (Although some of the sites she links to fall into that category). Looking at her website - http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ - it seems that it's only PF who reject her ideas out of hand.
She wasn't rejected out of hand. She was heard and answered before she was banned.

I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).
Her banning from PF did arise from her posts here. Here's just one example.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58093

And as for Eugene Shubert, his ideas are routinely torn to pieces on SPR and the like. If they want to allow this "I proved you wrong", "No you didn't", "Yes I did" nonsense to go on ad infinitum then that is their problem, not ours.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,925
3,800
chronon said:
I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).
But YOU were the one who brought up the comparison with OTHER physics forums. Thus, you opened the door to that avenue and I'm just using the same tactic as you did. Furthermore, I am pointing out EVIDENCE that her point of view is not entirely kosher - she's a quack who knows how to disguise her ignorance of physics through cleverly-manipulated sentences so that physicists have a hard time deciphering what she's trying to say. Read her Chaotic Ball paper, or am I again bringing up external sources that has no relevence here?

Your claim that she was banned simply for the singular reason that her ideas were "non-mainstream" is just plain wrong.

Zz.
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
One extra data point: Caroline Thompson has been forcibly evicted from many other venues on the web. She has been a nuisance on wikipedia for the better part of a year, and frankly is not at all a rational person. This is more than evident by watching her behavior among other professional scientists working on the encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bell_test_experiments

We do not intend to copy-cat the moderation of other venues. We do not intend to welcome any and all persons with open arms. We do not intend to be used as a soapbox. The majority of us are happy to have carved out a (relatively) sane haven on the web to discuss real physics, and we'd like to keep it that way. If our ideals are not compatible with yours, please vote with your feet.

- Warren
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
chronon said:
I can't help thinking that whether or not someone is banned from PF should depend on their posts to PF, not to other forums (or Wikipedia, which seems to have been the source of most of the friction).
And conversely, even if someone is permitted to post elsewhere, even on the slim chance they have multiple personality disorder and post cogently everywhere else and only exhibit crackpot tendencies here, we can only judge them by their posts here. What they post out in sci.physics.* is irrelevant to how PF is run. We have our objectives and they have theirs, and there's no reason for one site to need to emulate the other.
 

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
chronon said:
I have to say that if I have a serious physics question to ask then I would post it in SPR, not in PF. I can't see PF ever having the same authority as SPR, and if its moderation criteria are more strict then it's difficult to see where PF is going.
Tom Mattson said:
And it should be perfectly clear as to where we are going: We are trying to be the best scientific discussion forum on the internet.
chronon, you may or may not agree with Tom as to where you think PF should be going.

Let's assume for the moment that some of us do want to head in the direction Tom summarises.

Would you please be kind enough to tell us how (in your mind) we can best get to that goal? If it helps, imagine the content scope is principally physics, astronomy, cosmology, and mathematics. In particular, what stance should PF take to 'non-mainstream' ideas? How much should we insist that such ideas are self-consistent? consistent with good experimental and observational results? quantitative?

Kind Regards
Nereid
 
488
0
Tom Mattson said:
Her banning from PF did arise from her posts here. Here's just one example.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58093
I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.
2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.
3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)
4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
34
chronon said:
I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning. What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.
She was not banned for a single post. She was banned because she only posted on a single topic, and that topic was non-mainstream, and thus against the guidelines that she agreed to follow when she signed up. She had ample time to get in line.
When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not. I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.
There is no reason why PF should not attract more and more professionals. Nor is there any reason why PF should not try to become "something it is not." We have a large membership and a strong leadership. We can become anything we want to become, whether or not you like it.

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?

1) Posters should only be banned for severe breaches of netiquette, (flaming etc.) not for the opinions they express.
Check out sciforums, and see for yourself how well that approach works on the internet.
2) Threads can be moved to the appropriate forum, to theory development if necessary, but it is better if borderline threads are left where they are.
We have redirects, so there's no harm in moving a thread to its appropriate forum.
3) PF can tolerate long discussions around an idea (in SPR the moderators will stop a thread if they think it has gone on long enough)
Some people will never stop arguing, even after every conceivable argument has already been made dozens of times. When our staff decides a thread is "done," it's done.
4) Moderators should add comments to posts to indicate that they consider them to be non-standard. I can see that if someone posts asking for homework help then they are likely to be confused if a non-standard theory is posted in reply
Non-mainstream posts are generally dealt with by splitting or deleting. If a post is wrong, yet "close enough" to be allowed to stand, someone invariably corrects it.

- Warren
 
488
0
chroot said:
She was not banned for a single post. She was banned because she only posted on a single topic,and that topic was non-mainstream,
ZapperZ said:
I do not believe that the postings by Caroline Thompson were stopped because her ideas were "non-standard".
There seems to be some confusion as to whether posting non-mainstream ideas deserves to get you banned

Gokul43201 said:
From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :

Overly Speculative Posts:

Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. Posts or threads of an overly speculative nature will be moved to the Theory Development subforum without notice, where discussion may continue in quarantine. Forum staff may choose to lock threads in the Theory Development subform when they decide the topic has run its course. Advertisements of personal theories and unfounded challenges of mainstream science will not be tolerated anywhere on the site, including the Theory Development subforum. Users may not create threads in the Theory Development subforum.
Except that it isn't. I have always found it strange that PF doesn't have a TOS link, but this is what you get when you sign up

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.
 

Janus

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,367
1,018

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,481
21
chronon said:
I see nothing in that thread which would in any way justify banning.
As has been emphasized over and over: She wasn't banned for any one thread or post. But the posts in that thread are unquestionably cranky, and therefore against the policies of this website. Mix 1 part ignorance with 1 part arrogance and 1 part persistence, bake for a month, and you've got a perfectly cooked banned crackpot.

What I do see is that

#1) The posts is not do not have the precision of a scientific paper.
#2) The idea Caroline is putting forward (the non-existence of the photon) is non-standard
She demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of what physics is and how it is done. That in itself is not worthy of a ban, but the authoritative tone she takes while being so badly mistaken is not good. Its presence damages the educational credibility of PF, and is worthy of a ban IMO.

If #1 is used as a criterion then most posters to PF would be banned. I think that we agree that #2 should not be used as a criterion for banning. Indeed in this case the idea isn't so non-standard - look at the comments of Willis Lamb. It looks like the problem is not so much that Caroline's posts are deep within the Crackpot region as that they are on the borderline - that is some of the ideas might one day be accepted. This is likely to seem much more threatening to some people.
No one is threatened by anything she wrote. The problem here is that she attempted to supplant a well-established theory with some half baked idea that sounds good to her. We don't stand for that here, and I dare say that any forum that does stand for it cannot hold a candle to our "authority", if I read your meaning of that term correctly.

When talking about the policies of PF it is natural to compare it to other forums. I'm not trying to imply that SPR is in all ways superior to PF. I post to (and read) PF much more than SPR. But a post to SPR is likely to be read by many experienced physicists, whereas a post to PF is not.
Baloney. ZapperZ is at Argonne, Ahrkron is at CERN (and he was at Fermilab until last year), Reilly is a retired physicist, and the list goes on and on. We have many outstanding professionals here, and the list gets larger all the time.

I think that this is something which you have to accept, and not to try to make PF into something which it is not.
You said in a previous post that you would be more likely to ask serious questoins about physics on SPR. Why do you ask serious questions at all? Why don't you settle for just not knowing? Why don't you just accept it, rather than try to make yourself something which you are not?

See what a dumb question that is?

So what are my ideas on how PF should be moderated?
With all due respect, your ideas are a recipe for certain failure.
 
488
0
Janus said:
What Gokul43201 quoted is found in the Forum Feedback & Announcements forums as a sticky named:

"Physics Forums & mkaku.org Forums Guidelines"

Found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=66018#post66018
Silly me, the fourth thread in the second forum from the bottom of the list, the obvious place for the Forum Guidelines.

All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,481
21
Gokul43201 said:
From the Forum Guidelines (that all members accept, before signing up) :
Actually, chronon is right about this. Those guidelines are not displayed at the registration prompt.

But at the same time we don't go around bashing people over the head for infractions. I think we have a good track record of letting people know where they can find the Guidelines when necessary. Besides it should be common knowledge that it's bad netiquette to irreverently come into a scientific forum like gangbusters and start blazing away at the foundations of modern science. It should also be common knowledge that a forum called "Feedback and Announcements" just might contain a few...well...announcements.
 

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,349
51
Tom Mattson said:
Actually, chronon is right about this. Those guidelines are not displayed at the registration prompt.

But at the same time we don't go around bashing people over the head for infractions. I think we have a good track record of letting people know where they can find the Guidelines when necessary. Besides it should be common knowledge that it's bad netiquette to irreverently come into a scientific forum like gangbusters and start blazing away at the foundations of modern science. It should also be common knowledge that a forum called "Feedback and Announcements" just might contain a few...well...announcements.
I have to agree with chronon that those guidelines/rules are not as prominent as they should be. When this thread showed up, I didn't even know where to find them. I went looking in the FAQs thinking that would be the most likely place to find rules. Maybe a link to that sticky thread in the FAQs would be an appropriate location to remind people of the rules. Afterall, even if someone read and agreed to rules when they signed in, who saves that page to remember it much further down the road?

As I'm reading this thread, the general topic of why people are or aren't banned for certain types of posts is, or at least might be, helpful to folks, but I don't think it's helpful or fair to be discussing one specific banned individual who is not here to defend herself, even if this is only being used as an example. Banning doesn't always occur due to the threads/posts left on the board, but may have involved threads/posts that were deleted or discussions via PM, and it doesn't seem very appropriate to expect the moderators to dredge that information up to justify the banning. That is between the banned member and the administration.

A single post is unlikely to get someone banned (unless it's an especially egregious violation of board rules), but a pattern of posting and disregard for warnings to change that pattern will.
 

Danger

Gold Member
9,564
244
chroot said:
If a post is wrong, yet "close enough" to be allowed to stand, someone invariably corrects it.
Happens to me at a disgusting rate; I'll try to help some kid out in GP or Engineering only to be corrected by someone because it turned out that I didn't understand it as well as I thought I did. It's embarrassing, but educational, and I don't expect to be banned or even warned for it. If, on the other hand, I responded to such a correction by insisting that I was right and everyone else was wrong, I wouldn't deserve to be welcome here.
 
I'm learning that there is no room for any more theories. Apparently, everything has already been invented and proven. Pure (true) science has made its stand, and there shall be no others before him.

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves. I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts, and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.

I'm going to keep asking my questions and will keep searching for answers, having to tiptoe around Chroot's modgun. I've spent a shiznits load of money and time on trying to get things in order so I can work on proof of my theories, but because of limited income and people who keep chopping me off at the knees before I can take even a first step - this has taken a lot longer to even attempt so start. If I had won a lottery, my designs would've been built, refined and tested already. In my mind I see that my theories will work, and I'm willing to bet my life on it. But because I can't even get started, no, I can't prove any of it.

So, again in my defense, I post my 'quacked' theory questions here because I'm tired of other forums telling me about psychic alien communications and creating artificial black holes with easily aquired anti-matter. :)
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
733
You have missed the point, Arctic Fox. This forum is about real science. Chroot is trying to remind you of that in a nice way. If you ask honest questions here, you will get very good answers. But if you insist on promoting yourself as some sort of genius, you will get very predictable replies. Most of us here are here to learn, not proseletize.
 

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,481
21
Arctic Fox said:
I'm learning that there is no room for any more theories. Apparently, everything has already been invented and proven. Pure (true) science has made its stand, and there shall be no others before him.
Good grief, you're a drama queen. :-D

Look, the opening post of that thread of yours that chronon linked to really does more closely resemble science fiction than science. Why not try to learn something about why that is, instead of taking it as a rejection?

Here's my situation; I'm wanting to work on "fringe science" theories, those that are contrary to Einstein or that work around his theories. I would rather not post in places like space.com because I end up getting really whacked replies (like "try to summon the aliens for their information with my mind"). I've already been banned from another engineering forum (and had the NRC snoop around my site) for asking questions on nuclear materials - for which PF answered all my questions professionally and without problems.
Ah, but see, herein lies the rub. You know those professionals who answered your questions about nuclear matierials? Well by and large they are not interested in reading naively formulated speculations about science (not singling you out, just making a general observation). It rubs most people the wrong way when someone who is not trained to do a job comes along and makes comments that imply that he can do the job better than the professionals can do it. Can you imagine someone with no flight time walking into a room full of airline pilots and insisting that he can fly a plane better than they can? It is no less preposturous when someone does similar things with a (virtual) roomful of physicists and engineers.

Now, here is my problem; I'm getting tired of people like Chroot calling me and my theories "crackpot". Makes me feel like stepping into the ring without the gloves.
Oh yeah? Well then you shouldn't make comments such as the ones in the opening post of this thread, which is incidentally one of the threads that earned you one of those warnings.

I'm going to be banned from this forum, I have no doubts,
Hmmm, it's good to have goals. :rolleyes:

and it'll be between Chroot and I. I've already gotten 2 warnings from him alone with my "Warning Level" being at 7 now, it's only a matter of time.
If chroot bans you for wanting to tell everyone here how wrong they are, without knowing what you are talking about yourself, then he will have the backing of the entire staff, and most likely a grateful membership as well.

I'm going to keep asking my questions and will keep searching for answers, having to tiptoe around Chroot's modgun.
Questions are fine, that's our main business here. But if you start spouting off uninformed opinions then you will leave us with no choice but to silence you like a misbehaved kid in a classroom. I'm saying this to let you know that it's not just chroot who feels this way. The leadership of this website is firmly committed to this sentiment.


I've spent a shiznits load of money and time on trying to get things in order so I can work on proof of my theories, but because of limited income and people who keep chopping me off at the knees before I can take even a first step - this has taken a lot longer to even attempt so start. If I had won a lottery, my designs would've been built, refined and tested already. In my mind I see that my theories will work, and I'm willing to bet my life on it. But because I can't even get started, no, I can't prove any of it.
I applaud your curiosity and wish you the best of luck.

So, again in my defense, I post my 'quacked' theory questions here because I'm tired of other forums telling me about psychic alien communications and creating artificial black holes with easily aquired anti-matter. :)

Well, a lesson to be learned here is that if you persist in telling trained, professional scientists "how it is", then what you've described above is the only audience you are going to get.
 
Last edited:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top