Suggestion for New Section - Theoretical

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe Ciancimino
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights a tension between purists who prefer a clean forum for legitimate research and those interested in exploring theoretical ideas that challenge conventional norms. Participants express frustration over the dismissal of unconventional thoughts, which may be misinterpreted or poorly articulated. The suggestion is made to create a separate section for speculative discussions to prevent clutter and allow for more in-depth exploration of unconventional theories. However, concerns are raised about the effectiveness of such sections, referencing past failures in similar forums. Ultimately, the need for a balanced approach to accommodate both rigorous research and theoretical exploration is emphasized.
Joe Ciancimino
Messages
28
Reaction score
6
I noticed that I am not the only one that dabbles in exploring the theoretical, and this always seems to cause problems in one form or another. On one hand,the purists want to keep the forums clean so they can be used for legitimate research and reference. A rather admiral goal, considering this is open to the public. On the other hand those of us that want to research a valid question that goes against the grain of the current norm often feel like we are getting slapped down. I can understand that too many want to post some wacky idea that makes sense, then someone else comes along and gets lost in the mix, no one takes time to really consider what they are trying to say. Maybe their wording was off, maybe you simply are not understanding the context which they are trying to express. So they get slapped down with all the rest. So what I ask is, if you want to keep the forums clean and uncluttered then give us crazy people our own section.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Physics Forums used to have an "independent research" forum. It did not work out very well and is one of the reasons PF is not open to speculative threads. An anonymous internet forum is not a good place for discussions on new research, which should be done within the appropriate scientific community.
 
Joe Ciancimino said:
I can understand that too many want to post some wacky idea that makes sense
In all the years of this forum, this never happened. We just got some four-digit number of ideas that did not make sense at all. The ratio is just too bad.

Edit: Didn't see Orodruin closed the thread already.
 
  • Like
Likes Joe Ciancimino
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top