I saw a website(?) that discussed Einstein's SR indicating that it could be possible for "objects"/particles to travel faster than speed of light "c"--relating this to "frames of references". How is this possible?:yuck:
In many cases, it will be self-evident to almost any adult of normal ability that some website is not mainstream. In some cases, only those who benefit from sound judgement plus considerable knowledge of and experience in physics (or whatever technical field we are talking about) will be able to quickly spot and debunk fringe assertions. IIRC, there is a tutorial somewhere around PF offering advice (not a magic bullet) on spotting crankery. IMO discussion of the question of where the boundaries lie between mainstream and fringe science websites should move to the Scepticism and Debunking forum. You can also ask questions at places like http://forums.randi.org/ TIA!Your comment about a..."mainstream website" could be very important for members posting from research websites. Just what would be considered "mainstream"?
Two other journals that I would be suspicious of are "Physics Essays" and "Annals of the Louis de Broglie Foundation."I'm not sure offhand how a layperson could find out that "The Journal Of Galielan Electrodynamics" (for example) is not very respected, even though it claims to be peer-reviewed.
One might be able to take an extra stepTwo other journals that I would be suspicious of are "Physics Essays" and "Annals of the Louis de Broglie Foundation."pervect said:I'm not sure offhand how a layperson could find out that "The Journal Of Galielan Electrodynamics" (for example) is not very respected, even though it claims to be peer-reviewed.
If I have read about some non-standard theory and don't understand myself why it is wrong, how would I phrase questions here? Any question that contains a hint at comparison between an established theory and some other theory will likely be understood as supportive for the other theory.We welcome well-formed and plausible theories (worthy of professional discussion and experimentation) from any author of any credentials in our Independent Research forum.
If you know it's non-standard, don't even post it here at all. We do have a skepticism and debunking forum, but it's not really intended for the debunking of crackpot theories.If I have read about some non-standard theory and don't understand myself why it is wrong, how would I phrase questions here?
Our guidelines against personal theories do make the site less helpful in debunking personal theories. On the other hand, our guidelines make it vastly more helpful at everything else. Long ago, we collectively sided with everything else.But if they cannot be discussed here, these forums are less helpful than they could be.
If you can't find it in a textbook, peer-reviewed journal, reputable publication, conference, etc., then it doesn't belong here. If you aim to discuss some specific personal theory, and you know it's not mainstream, this is not the place. There are hundreds of other places on the web which welcome such discussions.I know that the danger is always high to drift into nonsensical discussions, so some guidance as to how to compare good theories against bad seems to be necessary.
are the two that come to mind.
Boaah, not sci.physics. There is no sensible way to discuss anything relativity or quantum related in the newsgroup. It tried this and any discussion immediately gets out of hand. This is what the rules in PF are for to prevent, of course. Only sometimes I feel they are just a bit to strict.
I'll see what happens on sciforums.