Someone credentialed to take it on

[Cryptonic]

someone "credentialed" to take it on

I'm disappointed that https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=324921" thread got locked, without anyone here actually disproving the OP's idea!?

I thought it was an interesting idea, and I was hoping for someone "credentialed" to take it on, perhaps giving good solid sound reasons why OP was wrong with his/her idea!?

Instead it was like "Nope = locked".

Gee, that is not very educational for us layfolk! There's a lot of folk here who want to learn. At least give a sound argument against a "silly" idea, THEN lock the thread!

Thanks, sorry for my rant. I would hate to see this wonderful science forum degenerate into something nasty like bautforum.

 

[Kurdt]

It is actually the job of the OP to provide supporting evidence for their idea. That aside however we have rules in place about overly speculative posts and ideas. These rules are designed to maintain the academic integrity of the forum. If you wish to discuss speculative ideas then there are plenty of other forums out there that allow this. However, you will find the quality of discussion distinctly less informative than you would hope.

 

[Hurkyl]

There's a lot of folk here who want to learn.

There are also a lot of people who don't -- and the opening poster looks like he was one of those people.

And besides, I'd place his idea in the category of "not even wrong" -- it's sufficiently vague that it's impossible to pin it down well enough to give even a rough evaluation of whether or not it might agree with reality.

And do note that he was given a link to our independent research forum on the chance that he was really serious about trying to develop his theory.

 

[OmCheeto]

I would hate to see this wonderful science forum degenerate into something nasty like bautforum.

That only happens when we show up for chat.

 

[Evo]

I would hate to see this wonderful science forum degenerate into something nasty like bautforum.

If you don't like the anti-crackpot rules and moderation at BAUT, then you won't like our anti-crackpot rules either.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And do note that he was given a link to our independent research forum on the chance that he was really serious about trying to develop his theory.

That is the point at which virtually everyone offering personal theories lose interest - when actual work is required.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm disappointed that https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=324921" thread got locked, without anyone here actually disproving the OP's idea!?

What is there to disprove?

"I think gravity is the result of invisible elves. Please state why it's wrong."

"OK, for one, what's wrong with the theory we have? For two, does yours make any better predictions? No and no? Well, come back when it does."

 

[russ_watters]

If you don't like the anti-crackpot rules and moderation at BAUT, then you won't like our anti-crackpot rules either.

They also have a strict anti-anti-crackpot policy too. After banning a crackpot, BA banned me for calling the crackpot a crackpot!

 

[DaveC426913]

They also have a strict anti-anti-crackpot policy too. After banning a crackpot, BA banned me for calling the crackpot a crackpot!

Wait. Who did the banning? You banned him, or they banned him?

You must have meant they banned him.

I guess they probably banned him for something more concrete that actually violated forum rules, not merely for "being a crackpot".

 

[russ_watters]

Wait. Who did the banning? You banned him, or they banned him?

You must have meant they banned him.

BA is The Bad Astronomer. He's the owner and sole operator of the site. He banned both me and the crackpot.

I guess they probably banned him for something more concrete that actually violated forum rules, not merely for "being a crackpot".

I don't remember the specifics of the situation, but iirc, the guy was a babbling/trolling philosopher type who used dishonest arguments. He misquoted me and basically got banned for lying and I got banned for calling him a liar.

 

[Evo]

BA is The Bad Astronomer. He's the owner and sole operator of the site. He banned both me and the crackpot. I don't remember the specifics of the situation, but iirc, the guy was a babbling/trolling philosopher type who used dishonest arguments. He misquoted me and basically got banned for lying and I got banned for calling him a liar.

That must have been quite the discussion!

 

[OmCheeto]

BA is The Bad Astronomer. He's the owner and sole operator of the site. He banned both me and the crackpot. I don't remember the specifics of the situation, but iirc, the guy was a babbling/trolling philosopher type who used dishonest arguments. He misquoted me and basically got banned for lying and I got banned for calling him a liar.

Did you make the "http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/30979-baut-banned-suspended-posters-log.html"" thread?

Some of the comments can be somewhat entertaining.

Moon Man banned for trolling and not defending his views here.

Reinstated due to popular demand after a couple of hours, then banned at noon on Sunday, November 13. I should have stuck to my guns the first time.

yelram permanently banned for an extended ad hom (deleted) against all mainstream posters in the ATM forum. Since he demonstrably has no respect for this forum or pretty much anyone here, he shouldn't be particularly bothered.

I think I stated once that it would be fun to have a similar thread here also, but I decided it would take all of the mystery out of Cyrus's monthly kick-boots.

And to the OP: I've stated it before that I contribute $$ to this forum, and no other, because they are quite good at keeping the riffraff out of here.

 

[Pengwuino]

Wow that banned/suspended log is interesting. Although what the hell is this:

Joeblake has been banned for sock puppetry.

 

[russ_watters]

Did you make the "http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-faqs-information/30979-baut-banned-suspended-posters-log.html"" thread?

No, it must have been before that thread opened...and hmm, seems he's signed up some moderators to help him. When he banned me, it was just him.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow that banned/suspended log is interesting. Although what the hell is this:

A sock puppet is a reincarnation of a previously banned person. Ie, an attempt to circumvent the ban.

 

[OmCheeto]

A sock puppet is a reincarnation of a previously banned person. Ie, an attempt to circumvent the ban.

They can also be created while still a user, to act as a yes man to all of ones imbecilic arguments.
I created a sock puppet for fun at another forum, simply because they had no rule against it, and everyone was accusing everyone else at the time of having multiple puppets.

Someone got pissy about mine, even though I named it the equivalent of "OmCheetos Sockpuppet".

It was like jeesh. I even reported myself to the moderators right after I created it, just to make sure it was ok. And that they could delete the account if it offended them.

They finally shut the forum down, I suspect due to insufficient moderation/admin control.

Which is why I seldom argue with the moderators here. Even when I thought my tomato post was hilarious, and they didn't find it funny, at all...

 

[Evo]

Which is why I seldom argue with the moderators here. Even when I thought my tomato post was hilarious, and they didn't find it funny, at all...

I don't remember the tomato.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't remember the tomato.

I do believe forum etiquette dictates that I am not at liberty to publicly discuss the tomato, nor specifically, the growing of tomatoes, at this time.

 

[Evo]

I do believe forum etiquette dictates that I am not at liberty to publicly discuss the tomato, nor specifically, the growing of tomatoes, at this time.

Oh, I found it. I agreed with your post. How can someone work themselves to death growing cherry tomatoes in a greenhouse?

 

[turbo]

Oh, I found it. I agreed with your post. How can someone work themselves to death growing cherry tomatoes in a greenhouse?

I grow them in pots on my back deck. I could fall and break my neck, I suppose.

 

[OmCheeto]

Oh, I found it. I agreed with your post. How can someone work themselves to death growing cherry tomatoes in a greenhouse?

Two guesses.
1. Translation error. He may have also meant the harvesting. It came out to about 250 lbs per person.
2. They may have to hand carry the the water every day because they don't have the infrastructure that we take for granted. I've carried 10 gallons of water 100 feet before. It prompted me to build an irrigation system. Manual labor sucks. And in their climate? I'd be dead.

It's easy to make fun of people when you don't know all the circumstances. The warning made me think about the situation, and how I might be wrong.

It's kind of like the line in my sig:

Opening your mind to something you ignorantly make fun of can be a jarring wake up to the reality that is, which is this: everything is not what it appears.

 

[Evo]

Two guesses.
1. Translation error. He may have also meant the harvesting. It came out to about 250 lbs per person.
2. They may have to hand carry the the water every day because they don't have the infrastructure that we take for granted. I've carried 10 gallons of water 100 feet before. It prompted me to build an irrigation system. Manual labor sucks. And in their climate? I'd be dead.

It's easy to make fun of people when you don't know all the circumstances. The warning made me think about the situation, and how I might be wrong.

It's kind of like the line in my sig:

I believe they said that the greenhouses were operational, which I took to mean having water. It did strike me as an over exaggeration.

 

[cristo]

The OP has received his answer, so this thread is done.