Myself-Intro and a Complaint

In summary, kevin found an article about the universe being twice as old by an Ottawa physicist and he was confused about what the requirements were for posting to this forum. He learned that posts that do not support mainstream scientific links will not be allowed here.
  • #1
skynr13
1
2
How did you find PF?: Science article link about the Universe being twice as old by an Ottawa physicist.

Hi people, I am unsure about what the requirements are for posting to this forum, but upon posting a basic comment on an article I was given an almost unimaginable list of requirements and my comment can no longer be found. I think I deserve an apology from the forum moderators and reposting of my comment. This is the first time I've commented on a thread here and I felt I was completely in line with all requirements. - k.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, this is my first post. so this individual post has great merit to me and especially if I'm barred from posting because of it. But I commend you on your 'way out' if I respond to the PM's, which I have twice since this post to you. Apparently one of my mentions in my comment, which I thought might be common knowledge to many now, wasn't even known by the PM. Hopefully I can keep commenting on the articles and threads that appear in this forum. Thank you, kevin.
 
  • #3
skynr13 said:
How did you find PF?: Science article link about the Universe being twice as old by an Ottawa physicist.

Hi people, I am unsure about what the requirements are for posting to this forum, but upon posting a basic comment on an article I was given an almost unimaginable list of requirements and my comment can no longer be found. I think I deserve an apology from the forum moderators and reposting of my comment. This is the first time I've commented on a thread here and I felt I was completely in line with all requirements. - k.
skynr13 said:
Well, this is my first post. so this individual post has great merit to me and especially if I'm barred from posting because of it. But I commend you on your 'way out' if I respond to the PM's, which I have twice since this post to you. Apparently one of my mentions in my comment, which I thought might be common knowledge to many now, wasn't even known by the PM. Hopefully I can keep commenting on the articles and threads that appear in this forum. Thank you, kevin.
Welcome to PF. Let me take a look to figure out what is going on. Back soon...
 
  • #4
Yikes, your reply in that technical thread was very far out of the mainstream, and you supplied no reference links to mainstream journal articles or textbooks to support your claims. Please do not post like that here again.

We welcome questions and comments supported by mainstream scientific links here. Please keep that in mind in your future posts.

(Thread has been moved from the New Member Introduction forum to the Feedback forum.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #5
An additional comment -- your 2nd post in this thread was in reply to a post by another PF user, but they have subsequently deleted their reply.
 
  • #6
I was just basically responding to the evidence in the article. Part of the problem is the x in the calculation in the article were turned to ? marks on my end. I found this out later with further research. But I still believe this physicist from Ottawa has just started his theory and what he is deriving is still just that, basic theory.

Saying this I didn't mean to offend anyone. I did compare it to another article about time after the BB moving 5 times slower and I thought that because of this find, there might be a connection to the length of time to the Universe overall. I really was just putting my comments out there hoping for someone to reply with anymore insight into what the article was about and to what the scientists findings might lead to.

I mean sometimes I look at articles in Arxiv seeking more info. and that is what brought me to your website. I get ideas of what's happening in space and science from e-mail's I receive from Space.com, SpaceDaily, Astronomy, etc. and Space.com is where I found the article about New research puts age of the Universe at 26.7 billion years. And not fully understanding it, did a web search and found references to the article on your website. I signed up and left my comment. But since I have never read another comment on your website, really had no idea how much I'd have to prove anything. From now on, I will do more looking than commenting and I hope I get a better idea of just what is required to make a comment on the science represented within your forums. - Thank you, kevin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
skynr13 said:
I mean sometimes I look at articles in Arxiv seeking more info. and that is what brought me to your website.
As mentioned in the PF Rules, arXiv sources can often be okay, but not always. But posting links to your reading is always a good idea, :smile:
 
  • #8
skynr13 said:
upon posting a basic comment on an article I was given an almost unimaginable list of requirements and my comment can no longer be found.

I didn't get to see what you posted, but I share your frustration sometimes. A helpful hint: Ask questions. You can have a good discussion here by posing a link with a quick summary and saying "Do you think this link is credible?" If it turns out it is not, then the responders will likely give you some new search terms and better sources. Research, read, give it time to percolate, then after a few weeks, read again. You might come back with much better questions.
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G and Bystander

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
688
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • New Member Introductions
Replies
1
Views
110
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
149
Back
Top