- #1
Kea
- 859
- 0
Is there any chance that we could have the Theory Development forum back?
Regards
Kea
Regards
Kea
Kea said:Is there any chance that we could have the Theory Development forum back?
Regards
Kea
Bengt Nyman said:Here is the dilemma: The reason why you should not let a child watch R or X rated materials is because the child is still learning by copying. Adults use r and x to experience the unacceptable vicariously. The same is true about this site. If this site is intended as educational you have to be careful with speculative subjects. The children of the site might learn the wrong thing. At the same time you are denying the site and its readers the possibility of really contributing anything, good or bad. If the moderators themselves are still in the process of proving that they know the latest beliefs, the moderation becomes outright intollerant.
How about an uncensored site where the moderators guide and comment, like a good mature parent, without fearful and dictatorial censoring.
Remember, 10 years ago this site would have been preaching Centrifugal Force.
Today they are preaching Gravitons.
10 years from now they will not.
Bengt
mattmns said:I think I have seen one theory here on PF that I consider true. It is Moonbear's theory of Sarcasticity. It states that if you are being sarcastic and do not use enough smilies then one may consider your post to not be sarcastic.
Chronos said:'Threads gone wild'
Bengt Nyman said:How about an uncensored site where the moderators guide and comment, like a good mature parent, without fearful and dictatorial censoring.
Bengt Nyman said:"Dirty Laundry", "Obsession", and "Confusing" are angry, judgemental words. You can not do good science when you are angry.
However, I like your idea of studying something that is still unverified. That is science, not just parroting.
How about an uncensored site where the moderators guide and comment
Actually, "fearful," "dictatorial," and "preaching" seem to arise from anger more so than Zz's choice of words. Anger and judgemental do not need to go hand in hand, yet it seems you've made that connection, perhaps based on your own subjective views.Bengt Nyman said:"Dirty Laundry", "Obsession", and "Confusing" are angry, judgemental words.
Science is objective, not subjective. It's true that one's objectivity may be clouded by emotion, but that can happen for overzealousness and elation as much as from anger. It's hard to be "angry" at a theory, but it is easier to get overly excited about a theory to the point of being unable to see its obvious flaws. If you start taking things too personally rather than focusing on the evidence and data, then it's time to step back and identify your biases. We also saw far too much of that in TD. The person posting their pet "theory" would take every criticism of it personally rather than stepping back and considering those criticisms as helpful advice.You can not do good science when you are angry.
However, I like your idea of studying something that is still unverified. That is science, not just parroting.
So what if ZZ (or chroot) shows his annoyance/frustration? That doesn't make him wrong. As long as his analysis of the post is correct, his personal reaction is irrelevant. In fact, his personal reaction is generallly based on the correct identification of a crackpot. Crackpots may think his emotions are getting in the way of his judgement, but they really do have it backwards.Bengt Nyman said:ZapperZ pisses me off.
Bengt Nyman said:I agree with you Moonbear. ZapperZ pisses me off. I participated in Steven Hawking open forum for many years. I first published my IPP hypothesis there. That is how I got invited to Budapest. I would love a serious discussion on the subject of Gravity and electrical charge. I just seems I can not get passed indescriminant zapping.
Bengt
Bengt Nyman said:I agree with you Moonbear. ZapperZ pisses me off. I participated in Steven Hawking open forum for many years. I first published my IPP hypothesis there. That is how I got invited to Budapest. I would love a serious discussion on the subject of Gravity and electrical charge. I just seems I can not get passed indescriminant zapping.
Bengt
ZapperZ said:Putting in such amount of effort for hardly any worthwhile outcome is not just bad science, it is bad business, bad time management, international space station, etc.
Bengt Nyman said:I was hoping to talk Physics.
Thanks anyway.
Bengt
sad...tsk..tsk...I think that was his way of exitting this site and inviting folks to go with him to a site where they can discuss the idea he's not being permitted to discuss here.
Bengt Nyman said:If anybody is interested in computer simulations showing the mechanism of hydrogen gravity in free space, and more, feel free to email me directly.
Bengt Nyman
NRE Group
nregroup@netzero.com
ZapperZ said:Putting in such amount of effort for hardly any worthwhile outcome is not just bad science, it is bad business, bad time management, international space station, etc.
Zz.
The "Petition for Theory Development Forum Return | Kea" is a petition created by members of the scientific community to bring back the Theory Development Forum on the website "Kea". This forum was a platform for scientists to discuss and develop new theories in various fields of science.
The Theory Development Forum was removed from Kea due to a lack of activity and participation from users. The website's administrators decided to focus on other features that were more popular and beneficial to the community.
The purpose of the petition is to show the administrators of Kea that there is still a demand for the Theory Development Forum and to encourage them to bring it back. The forum provided a unique platform for scientists to collaborate and share ideas, and its absence has been felt by many in the scientific community.
Anyone who supports the return of the Theory Development Forum on Kea can sign the petition. This includes scientists, researchers, students, and anyone with an interest in scientific theories and discussions.
If the petition is successful, it could lead to the administrators of Kea bringing back the Theory Development Forum. This would not only benefit the scientific community by providing a platform for collaboration and idea-sharing, but it could also attract new users to the website and improve its overall popularity and reputation.