Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

PF leaves a lot to be desired

  1. Mar 29, 2006 #1
    About this post:

    Wow, your mods are piece of work. Tom Mattson told me I could post a question in the forum, after I told him that I disagreed with the off-base reasons for a rejection of a paper I submittted to the IR forum.

    I conclude:

    - Your mods need better communication among them.

    - I followed all the rules here to the letter.

    - The thread did not run its course--that's a joke. The thread was in the thick of resolving issues, with posters learning and teaching, and the discussion was for the most part polite and spirited.

    - The IR forum seems to be only a token nod to open-mindedness, because the reviews are bad based on my experience, and it allows for no rebuttal in that case (albeit that's no worse than formal journals). The comments I got on my paper were illogical--to use an analogy, it's like I wrote a story about bears and got a rejection that says "tigers aren't black". The mod felt my title, "A Flaw of General Relativity", was offensive. Now that's scientific.

    Sour grapes? You be the judge. And by all means feel free to let me know that I was completely wrong in the other thread, in this one in which I can't respond to your points.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 29, 2006 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Wow. You quacks are a piece of work.

    I am fully aware of what you were told since I was privy to the VERY same information. How else did you think your thread survived THAT long? Under any other circumstances, what you posted at the very beginning of the thread would have been deleted and IR form letter sent. That didn't happen because of that information.

    And "politeness" has nothing to do with it. The thread was clearly degenerating into a series of post for you to circumvent our Guidelines in speculative personal theories. A number of participants there have clearly expressed their frustrations at you for refusing to even understand basic SR/GR.

    You are welcome to start this in the IR forum, but not in the main physics forum.

    Zz.
     
  4. Mar 29, 2006 #3
    You aren't fit to be a mod, with a comment like that.

    Had I known the thread might be summarily closed at some point, I would not have started it. Common human decency calls for notice of that possibility when one is told they can start the thread.

    They expressed their disagreement. The original poster should not be held responsible for the frustration of others. That's just bad moderation.
     
  5. Mar 29, 2006 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You were only given back what you threw out. If you can't take it, you shouldn't be too free at dishing it.

    Sorry, but I'm not psychic. I have no idea it would deteriorate into such a state. So I had zero plan way in the beginning to close it at some point. It was clearly becoming a way for you to pull out what you submitted to the IR forum to be played out into the main forum. Looking back, it has become apparent to me that it was your way of circumventing our Guidelines.

    And they expressed it continually over the same issue. It is why the thread has gone nowhere and linger on the same thing. It HAS ran its course. It is now for you to step up to the next stage if you dare and maybe submit it to AJP or some similar journal.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
  6. Mar 29, 2006 #5
    The difference is, what I throw out I support with evidence.

    It is obvious to any reasonable person that the thread did not deteriorate.

    Not becoming, but was, in the form of a question. Just as Tom told me I could do.

    Every objection was in the process of being resolved with reason and logic. The thread did not run its course.

    That's immaterial to the discussion here. My point here is that PF leaves a lot to be desired. PF could do a lot better, and without the problems that arose with the original Theory Development forum. As it is, I think PF only pretends to be open to new ideas. Maybe that is Greg's intent, but I hope not.
     
  7. Mar 29, 2006 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    And what was your "support"? Your accusation that we "mods are a piece of work" was based on your assumption that we don't know what each other is doing based on what Tom told you, and the action that I took on your thread. I accused you back that it is you who are a piece of work by disputing your "evidence" (more like guess work). I did know what was going on as far as your IR submission.

    So your "evidence" was faulty, even with your support.

    Ah, then that must be why there are people who have given up on it.

    Open mind? Why is it that PF is the only thing that needs to have an open mind? Were you open minded when several people on that thread asked you to go back and study SR/GR carefully? Again, you seem to want to dish it out, but you don't want to take it.

    You circumvented the Guidelines. Go ahead and submit that to the IR forum. The topic you want to discuss is not appropriate for the main physics section.

    Zz.
     
  8. Mar 29, 2006 #7

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For the record, here's what I said to you after quoting some comments by a reviewer.

    "There were other comments that strongly indicate that the error lies with your analysis, not with GR. My recommendation to you is to go ahead and post your questions in the Special and General Relativity Forum. But do be advised that a title as cheeky as "A Flaw of GR..." is not going to be received well."

    That's correct. Since I couldn't give approval to your IR Submission, and since the reviewers of your submission strongly believe that you are getting hung up on a flaw in your interpretation of GR (as opposed to a flaw in GR itself), I invited you to ask questions pertaining to the subject in our SR/GR Forum. That's what we do best here, and I thought that you would benefit from it.

    There's always room for improvement, but there was no communication breakdown in this case. I advised you to post questions in the main Physics section of PF, and I thought it was understood that that section has Forum leaders (ZapperZ and DocAl) who oversee it at their discretion. Once I sent you to the SR/GR Forum, your thread was out of my hands. Although I can moderate the Physics section, I usually don't, unless one of them is not online when something crops up.

    See the Sticky at the top of the SR/GR Forum and see the section on Overly Speculative Posts in the PF Global Guidelines. It seems clear enough to me that you crossed both lines when you declared that GR is inconsistent without actually showing it. You were given far more latitude than I expected.

    And according to the reviewers, your paper is illogical (or at best unintelligible) and the preparation you did seems only to be a token nod towards learning GR. Seriously, have you considered the possibility that it is not the fault of the referees of the scientific journals or the reviewers at PF and that it is simply the case that your paper is no good? That would have occurred to me a long time ago, if I were in your shoes.

    See where I quote myself at the top of this post. I was not offended, but rather I was offering you a piece of advice. I had a strong suspicion that your original thread title would result in a quick lock on your thread. I also advised you in subsequent PM's that the bias about which you incessantly complain is to some extent in your hands, by means of the way you approach people. Remember?

    LOL, Yes I think so! :tongue:

    Don't. Starting a thread to circumvent a locked thread will get you banned in a hurry. That's not a threat, but another piece of advice. Just let it go.

    And from a subsequent post:

    I never said you could do that. Even material that is accepted into the IR Forum is not allowed to appear in the main section of PF! I told you that you could ask questions in the SR/GR Forum. You clearly overstepped the bounds of questioning and went straight into making statements about the flaws you think you've found. And all of this was done in the face of the uniquivocal testimony from your respondents that your arguments are vague and invalid.

    As long as you persist in such a state, there's nothing that PF can do for you.

    --Tom
     
  9. Mar 29, 2006 #8
    Certainly a reasonable assumption. If one is told by a mod to go ahead and post a question, no reasonable person would expect the thread to be summarily closed.

    Oh yes, if they give up on it, then I must be wrong--that's logical. This is a good example of what I'm talking about here. PF is blatantly unscientific and seems proud of it.

    Yes. But that won't be known because I was not afforded the opportunity to respond to those posts. The thread was closed before I could rebut with reason and logic, showing that further study on my part is unnecessary. Because I am open minded, I know I could be wrong, and I would have admitted that in the end if I clearly was, but the end had not yet been reached.

    If I did, I was given permission by a mod to do that.

    I would not do that again, since submissions to the IR forum are illogically reviewed based on my experience, as noted above. At this point I have every reason to believe that PF intentionally pretends to be open to new ideas.
     
  10. Mar 29, 2006 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    This pretty much says it all with regard to the thread "A Flaw of General Relativity?".

    From what I observe the Mentors have been generous and patient, and so have the other members. :approve: :rolleyes:
     
  11. Mar 29, 2006 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You did a lot more than post a question.

    You never were.

    Your submission was reviewed using the IR Guidelines (which you agreed to) as a standard. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Furthermore I'd like to point out that you are talking about a single data point out of nearly 50 (that's about how many submissions we've reviewed). And to compound the matter you're taking one in which you are personally involved and are not prone to be objective. And we're not scientific? Well, at least this experience has been good for a laugh, if only out of frustration. :rofl:

    I would like to refresh your memory on the Contact Guidelines of PF (again, which you've already agreed to).

    You've been given a great deal of latitude in the violation of this rule as well as the others I've cited, and I'm afraid you've exhausted that, too. We happily accept valid criticism, but you're just foaming at the mouth now. I feel sorry for the next set of reviewers who have to deal with you.

    This ends here.

    --Tom
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: PF leaves a lot to be desired
  1. PF Mail (Replies: 2)

  2. PF app (Replies: 7)

Loading...