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

Pi_314B and his problem with the PF Staff

  1. Aug 6, 2005 #1
    For starters - I'm not making any claim. Just stating the possibilities, of which one of them you choose to completely ignore. I have no problem with this. Speculate as much as you will, but at least allow others to do the same.
    My personal opinion is that a vast majority of the moderators at this site need to chill a little. It's almost like a bully mentality. Here is a line that says it all (Most users ever online was 1264, 05-13-2004 at 09:26 PM.). That is about the time the moderators started throwing thier weight around. Is it a better place now? I'm sure most mods would say yes!

    I beg to differ. Mostly because the moderators quash any thinking about things yet unknown. The constant brow beating at even the attempt has any free thinker off to greener pastures. I personally would like to read what others have to say, not what I know you have to say. I'd rather read a quack than an elephant that never forgets, because the elephant has already tooted it's horn.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2005 #2

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, just the unscientific thinking. :tongue2:


    If you're looking for quacks, then why visit a forum dedicated to science?
     
  4. Aug 6, 2005 #3

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, you are. You said:

    "This is speculation on your part.",

    followed by what you think is a viable alternative. Declarative sentences such as those are rightfully construed as claims.

    You have no idea of what you are talking about, with respect to both the science and myself. Light is observed to carry energy, and energy is observed to be conserved. Every scientific experiment ever designed to test that principle has borne it out as true. An excited atomic energy state plus a photon going to a deexcited atomic energy state plus a photon would violate a principle that has long been known to be accurate.

    So in short I refuse to regard your alternative as a viable explanation not because I regard my speculations as better than yours, but because I am not speculating, and I know that you are wrong.

    We don't bully anyone. We have policies, and we enforce them. If you don't like the policies, then you can find another place to post. It's as simple as that.

    Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. We experienced a spike in viewership at that time because of the topic on the Nicholas Berg beheadding (May 8, 2005). The viewership spike was noted here:

    A new record!

    And PF has always been a strongly moderated site. We didn't just start in May of last year. That's one of the reasons we are appreciated so much by the many people who come here and are serious about science.

    Of course it's a better place now. Every action we take is designed to make PF a better place, and we are confident that we have been successful.

    Have you not noticed that we recently opened up an entire new forum for just that very thing?

    You of course realize that you are free to vote with your feet and leave, right?
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2005
  5. Aug 6, 2005 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  6. Aug 6, 2005 #5
    By your judgement



    This site is dedicated to past science, with not even a sliver of space given to the potential for anything new. In other words - For the most part this site has nothing to say that hasn't already been said.
    I tend to visit just the philosophy section mostly because the moderators stand down and keep an arms length from it, and as a result the discussions are open. Do you intend to lay waste to that too?
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2005
  7. Aug 6, 2005 #6

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For the love of god, would you please be kind enough to get at least some of your facts straight?

    We had a Theory Development forum where people could toss around their personal ideas. It went south over the years, becoming a haven for cranks. So we retired that forum and went to great lengths to draft policies for a new, moderated forum where serious free thinkers could present their ideas in a forum with a better signal-to-noise ratio.

    My basic point is that you are wrong. PF has always had a place for new ideas, and we have just made a significant improvement in the way in which we are doing it.

    Forgetting for a moment the fact that you are dead wrong about that, let me ask you this: Do you know all of the things that have already been said that are discussed here? Have you learned all of physics, mathematics, and engineering? No?

    Well if you haven't heard it, then it's new to you!

    We have policies regarding the Philosophy section, too. Nonsense is not tolerated anywhere on the site.

    My take on this: You have an extremely warped idea of what PF is, what it should be, and what our goals are. I think you should give serious consideration to the possibility that PF is just not for you. Either that, or just accept PF for what it is and seek for what you are really looking for elsewhere. There are certainly sites out there that have the kind of unrestrained speculation that you seem to want.
     
  8. Aug 6, 2005 #7

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Are you having PROBLEMS with trying to find places where you can frolic in SPECULATIVE science? Because if you are, just say so. I would be MORE than happy to recommend you to the MAJORITY of forums on the net dedicated to what you wish to read and do.

    On the other hand, go around the net and try, if you can, find open forum sites that emphasize on the VALIDITY and quality of what is being discussed based as closely to what scientists would do. There aren't THAT many! What you want OUTNUMBERS the forum of PF caliber by orders of magnitude! Yet, there are still people like you who simply cannot be satisfied to see even a SMALL number of sites dedicated to such things. Why is that?

    And don't give me this crap about "past science". If you are ignorant about the details of what works and can be explained, you won't know what's new even if it comes and bite you on your rear end. Your imagination without knowledge is just ignorance waiting to happen. Furthermore, there are MANY research-front works being discussed in PF. Coupling of high-Tc superconductors, spin-charge separation in 1D transport, fermionic condensates, etc. etc. are ALL new, not in textbooks, and STILL highly active research area. Did you understand that these are not "past science"? Nooooooo...

    Zz.
     
  9. Aug 6, 2005 #8

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh yes, and about this bit:

    By my reckoning we have at least 2 physicists with PhD's on the staff, one of whome works at Argonne and the other at CERN. We have mathematicians, biologists, grad students, and teachers on the staff as well.

    What you are failing to comprehend is that the Staff members here are actually qualified to make such judgements, which is what makes PF such a special place. That's why people who want to talk about science come here instead of all the crank sites out there, of which there is certainly no shortage.
     
  10. Aug 6, 2005 #9
    Wow!

    Ya came in like vultures.

    Nice touch.
    Maybe you're right ( PF isn't for me). I couldn't get a word in edgewise anyway. You've got this moderator thing down to a science. You might even call it a new science. :smile:

    By the way - My original point about the photon is correct. Your failure to see the point was probably masked by the need for new meat.

    Congradulations! You lost another member for no reason at all, but to elevate yourselves.

    Pitiful ......................... just pitiful.
     
  11. Aug 6, 2005 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :rofl: So a simple, "I'm right" is all you've got to offer, eh? Sorry, but we don't play that way here at PF. We have a higher standard than that.

    Don't let the door hit you on the kiester. :smile:

    On that note, I think I've been patient enough with this. I can only tolerate so many illogical complaints based on falsehoods in one day, and I think this thread has put me past my limit. This thread is done.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Pi_314B and his problem with the PF Staff
  1. PF Staff Changes! (Replies: 9)

  2. PF staff change! (Replies: 4)

  3. PF staff changes (Replies: 30)

Loading...