The earth is still flat comments & suggestoin

  • Thread starter discord73
  • Start date
In summary: This rule is in place to maintain the integrity and credibility of the discussions on this forum. The purpose of this forum is to discuss mainstream science, not fringe or unproven ideas. In summary, the conversation revolves around the deletion of a post and a warning received for discussing a non-mainstream theory. The poster argues for a forum to discuss such theories and the conversation moves towards the purpose of the forum being for mainstream science discussions. The expert summarizer concludes that the rule in place is to maintain the credibility of the discussions on the forum.
  • #1
discord73
29
0
I recently had a post deleted and received a warning for breaking the rule ""It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion."

I posted
"So, what does everyone think about this?"
and having for the topic of the post a alternate theory I had come across recently

First my apologies for the post, it has been several years since I created my account and had forgotten that rule.

That being said.

Comment,
I had no idea the theory I was asking about fell into that category, I have no idea what has or has not been published in journals, especially now adays with the internet.

I do not agree with your rule of
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion."

Every theory started out as not being published in any professional peer-reviewed jornal as well as as not being a part of a current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

My suggestion
Instead of censoring information and ideas, have a forum for those ideas to be discussed in.

This reminds me of when people where persecuted for suggesting the sun was the center of the universe instead of the earth.

Unfortunatly unless your policy of censorship is changed I shall have to refrain from visinting this site in the future as I refuse to have anything to do with anything that still censor's new, alternate or conflicting ideas. Calling them "pseudo-science" I am especially glad this isn't the dark ages or else I would have not only been censored but would have been tortured and killed for typing what I did.

another comment
It is rigid thinking and rules like the one above that keeps humanity from advancing as fast and as far as it possibly could

suggestion
instead of censoring my question, others like it, and any interest in alternate theories why not provide a forum where they can be discussed and even possibly disproven?
Why is it that throughout the ages new ideas in physics and astronomy have been repeatedly beaten down simply because they didn't agree with the current status quo?

Where would we be if Galileo or Copernicus had given into the church and had not defended the heleocentric view? or if well, I can not think of any more controversial historical topics in astronomy or physics right now.

I just hope that this post does not get censored and deleted as well

if anyone one would like to know the theory I was asking opinions about so they can share thiers with me, feel free to contact me at discord1973@comcast.net
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
discord73 said:
I do not agree with your rule of
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion."

Every theory started out as not being published in any professional peer-reviewed jornal as well as as not being a part of a current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

My suggestion
Instead of censoring information and ideas, have a forum for those ideas to be discussed in.

Every crackpot idea also started out the same way. This forum, as been stated by others, is for discussion about mainstream, published topics. It is not for alternative, unpublished theories and that's simply how it is. There are other forums on the internet that do discuss such theories; this is simply not one of them. If you want to discuss baking, visit a cooking forum; if you want to discuss mainstream science, this is the forum for that. I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm simply stating the intent of the forum. Asking to keep the discussions within certain guidelines is by no means censorship considering there are plenty of other places to discuss such things.
 
  • #3
Yea you are right, I just didn't realize when I made my original post I was doing any thign wrong(It's been several years since I've read the rules) and also my first reaction when I'm given a warning or told I broke a rule or did something wrong is to get defensive, a trait I have my idiot parents to thank for. My main point though I guess though is that instead of just not allowing non-mainstream ideas there should be a forum to discuss them in, it wouldn't be that hard to do and as many people know, many great ideas were at one time crontoversial. I just wish we could get past that as a species and accept new ideas instead of censoring them.
 
  • #4
discord73 said:
Every theory started out as not being published in any professional peer-reviewed jornal as well as as not being a part of a current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

Sure, but that isn't the main aim of PF. This is a forum where people can come and learn and ask questions about the currently accepted, mainstream science. It is not a forum aimed at developing or publishing new theories-- that is what scientific journals are for.

PF did used to have a theory development forum in its early years, but it was a mess. If you want to discuss such 'theories', then your best bet would probably be to join another science forum-- there are plenty out there on the web with a lower level of scientific rigour.
 
  • #5
discord73 said:
and having for the topic of the post a alternate theory I had come across recently

You did not run across a 'theory', you can across a 'hypothesis'.

I do not agree with your rule of
"It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion."

Then you are free to leave.

Every theory started out as not being published in any professional peer-reviewed jornal as well as as not being a part of a current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

Again, misuse of the word theory.

My suggestion
Instead of censoring information and ideas, have a forum for those ideas to be discussed in.

No. We don't tolerate crackpot ideas. If you have an idea, do an experiment and validate it. Then get it published and report back to us.

This reminds me of when people where persecuted for suggesting the sun was the center of the universe instead of the earth.

.....:rolleyes: Okay.

Unfortunatly unless your policy of censorship is changed I shall have to refrain from visinting this site in the future as I refuse to have anything to do with anything that still censor's new, alternate or conflicting ideas. Calling them "pseudo-science" I am especially glad this isn't the dark ages or else I would have not only been censored but would have been tortured and killed for typing what I did.

It is pseudo-science. Sorry if this comes off rude, but if your only aim here is to post made up hypothesis, this isn't the place for you.

If you want to learn, we can tell you what books to read and learn what science is.
 
  • #6
discord73 said:
Yea you are right, I just didn't realize when I made my original post I was doing any thign wrong(It's been several years since I've read the rules) and also my first reaction when I'm given a warning or told I broke a rule or did something wrong is to get defensive, a trait I have my idiot parents to thank for. My main point though I guess though is that instead of just not allowing non-mainstream ideas there should be a forum to discuss them in, it wouldn't be that hard to do and as many people know, many great ideas were at one time crontoversial. I just wish we could get past that as a species and accept new ideas instead of censoring them.

We have already addressed this a gazillion times on here. Please spend several minutes browsing through old threads in this forum on the reasons why we have that rule.

Zz.
 

1. Is there any scientific evidence to support the claim that the earth is flat?

No, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that the earth is flat. In fact, all available evidence from various fields of study, including astronomy, physics, and geology, points to the fact that the earth is round. The shape of the earth has been confirmed through centuries of scientific research and observations.

2. Why do some people still believe that the earth is flat?

There are a few reasons why some people still believe that the earth is flat. Some may not have access to accurate information or may not have a strong understanding of scientific principles. Others may have a distrust of scientific institutions and choose to believe in conspiracy theories. Additionally, some individuals may simply enjoy questioning established beliefs and promoting alternative ideas.

3. How can we prove that the earth is round?

There are many ways to prove that the earth is round. One of the most commonly cited pieces of evidence is the fact that we can observe the curvature of the earth's surface from high altitudes, such as on an airplane or from a mountain top. Additionally, we have satellite images and data from space missions that clearly show the spherical shape of the earth.

4. What impact do flat earth beliefs have on scientific progress?

Flat earth beliefs do not have a direct impact on scientific progress, as the scientific community has long accepted that the earth is round. However, the dissemination of false information and misinformation can hinder public understanding of scientific concepts and can create confusion and doubt about well-established facts.

5. How can we address and debunk flat earth beliefs?

Debunking flat earth beliefs requires a combination of education and patience. It is important to provide accurate information and evidence to counter false claims. It is also important to engage in respectful and open-minded discussions, rather than dismissive or confrontational debates. Ultimately, promoting critical thinking and scientific literacy is key to addressing and debunking flat earth beliefs.

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
1
Views
262
Replies
21
Views
636
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
28
Views
2K
Back
Top