The Role of Open Forums in Scientific Research

  • Thread starter Thread starter quantumdude
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Physics Forums is launching a new moderated subforum called "Outside the Mainstream" to allow the submission of personal theories, effective July 15, 2005. This initiative aims to maintain scientific integrity while providing a platform for independent theorists to present their work under strict guidelines regarding methodology and format. Submissions will undergo a moderation process, with decisions communicated within seven days, and rejected submissions can be resubmitted once with adjustments. The forum will also ensure that discussions remain relevant and focused, with a limit on the number of posts per thread. This development is expected to enhance the community's engagement with innovative ideas while upholding rigorous scientific standards.
  • #51
Tom Mattson said:
Firstly, you don't know that that will be the case. We will only know by trying it out.

:rolleyes:

This doesn't make any sense. You disagree with what, exactly? That the posts will be deleted? I assure you, they will.
No i disagree on the fact that the bad posting will stop appearing on this forum. As a matter of fact i think you will have a lot more deleting to do.
In stead of dumping all rubbish in TD, the rubbish will spread out over the entire forum when you remove TD. that is my point.

Let me give you this example to illustrate why i think this: suppose some guy's pet theory is rejected (for the correct moderating-reasons, i am convinced that will always happen here, really). This guy wants to know why, so he starts posting his questions somewhere else in the forum, in another sub forum. Then, the administrators will need to trace back all these posts and delete then because the content will ofcourse be rubbish.

If you look at how difficult it is to convince people (BY USING FACTS) that their theory is wrong, how are you going to cope with that ? I know you claim that you have already answered this question but i really do not think that.
I mean, you honestly do not believe that answering them back with PM will do the job, right ? That just is not realistic.

Good for you.
Thanks

:smile: Are you stoned?
:smile:
No, i really think you were when you came up with this initiative

Firstly Marlon, you told me that you never read TD, and you made comments that are strongly consistent with that admission.
:rolleyes: Yes indeed i did but i also told you that i participated on TD. What i meant to say was I left TD and stopped participating for specific reasons which are the same as why most of the members do not actively participate in TD.

I make my best effort to understand people as well as possible when I listen to them, but there's only so much I can do.

Do not worry, same here...

And secondly, my point to you is to "be more informed" about the things that you talk about. You said, "There is no real info in TD, only the notion that a certain post is wrong", which is patently false.
Mmm, i can see why you say this. Let me explain. What i wanted to say is that most people will not learn many things by reading TD posts. I believe the real sub forums and the journals are much more useful for these purposes.

But let me excuse myself for this patently false statement



I seriously doubt that you would be warned for well-considered criticisms of this idea that are free of barbs. But really Marlon, all you've done in this thread is engage in misguided ranting, which I think everyone can agree that we can do without.

Yes, well let us not start insulting each other just because you disagree, ok ?
Thanks

marlon
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Moonbear said:
As for the current TD forum...:rolleyes: I don't know if I'd miss it at all if it disappeared overnight. I realize there's motivation to keep it for the sake of the informative posts interspersed throughout by those who really put the effort into try to correct people's misunderstandings, but those are so buried amidst the insults, crying, and crackpottery, that I'm not sure how useful they really are.
I completely agree with you

On the other hand, cracked pottery seems to be a popular museum exhibit, so maybe it should be renamed, "PF Museum of Crackpottery." :biggrin: We can all stand around and gawk.
Now that is a great suggestion :approve:

marlon
 
  • #53
marlon said:
No i disagree on the fact that the bad posting will stop appearing on this forum. As a matter of fact i think you will have a lot more deleting to do.
In stead of dumping all rubbish in TD, the rubbish will spread out over the entire forum when you remove TD. that is my point.

Let me give you this example to illustrate why i think this: suppose some guy's pet theory is rejected (for the correct moderating-reasons, i am convinced that will always happen here, really). This guy wants to know why, so he starts posting his questions somewhere else in the forum, in another sub forum. Then, the administrators will need to trace back all these posts and delete then because the content will ofcourse be rubbish.

I don't think anyone is arguing it's going to make the crackpots disappear and stop trying to post on the main boards, they do now even with TD closed. But, I disagree that it would be any more work. Right now, they do that and then the thread gets moved to TD, and after being moved to TD, usually after a few more posts, it gets locked. Now, the moderators don't need to move, watch, then lock, they will just hit "delete." And, currently, as soon as a thread is moved to TD and locked, we get the usual posts on various forums complaining about censorship, providing a link to the thread and attempting to re-ignite debate by saying just one more thing, swearing up and down how the moderators are such ogres, etc. I'm sure they'll continue too. Those will be locked or deleted as they always have been. I don't think that will be more work, just the same. And when the offenders are more quickly banned, it stops the nonsense sooner.

I don't see why you object to trying it. If it doesn't work out and the worst-case scenario happens, they can always just delete an empty forum and drop the idea. It seems worthwhile to give it a test.
 
  • #54
For what it's worth, I think this new forum is a good idea. It will certainly be an improvement over "Theory Development" and a lot of interesting discussion could come out of it. I agree that the only way to find out is to try it.
 
  • #55
marlon said:
:rolleyes:

Regardless of how you feel about it, I have in fact answered your point.

No i disagree on the fact that the bad posting will stop appearing on this forum. As a matter of fact i think you will have a lot more deleting to do.
In stead of dumping all rubbish in TD, the rubbish will spread out over the entire forum when you remove TD. that is my point.

Then you are mistaken. There is no reason to think that there will be a substantial rise in the amount of actionable offenses because the vast majority of crank posting is in new threads that they start, as opposed to existing threads already in TD.

And since posting new topics has been disabled in TD (quite some time ago, in fact), where do you think they have been posting? That's right, in the main science forums. The difference from July 15 onwards will be that we delete, rather than move.

Let me give you this example to illustrate why i think this: suppose some guy's pet theory is rejected (for the correct moderating-reasons, i am convinced that will always happen here, really). This guy wants to know why, so he starts posting his questions somewhere else in the forum, in another sub forum. Then, the administrators will need to trace back all these posts and delete then because the content will ofcourse be rubbish.

If you look at how difficult it is to convince people (BY USING FACTS) that their theory is wrong, how are you going to cope with that ? I know you claim that you have already answered this question but i really do not think that.

Dealing with what you describe here is still easier than responding to the threads, which is what we would have to do if they remained in place. And it is still more desirable than letting TD grow even more.

Tracing posts is much easier than rebutting nonsense. All I have to do is hit a button marked, "Find all posts by User (x)", and I see them all. No problemo.

I mean, you honestly do not believe that answering them back with PM will do the job, right ? That just is not realistic.

We have more tools at our disposal than just PMs, such as the one that let's us track down and delete posts with a minimum of trouble.


:smile:
No, i really think you were when you came up with this initiative

You of course realize that you are free not to participate, yes?

:rolleyes: Yes indeed i did but i also told you that i participated on TD.

Your said you never participated. You flip-flopped only after being backed into a corner.

Mmm, i can see why you say this. Let me explain. What i wanted to say is that most people will not learn many things by reading TD posts.

You don't know that.

Yes, well let us not start insulting each other just because you disagree, ok ?

The only one who has done any insulting in this thread is you.
 
  • #56
I'm tempted to suggest calling the new forum 'Crackpots Anonymous'. Post here if you dare. See if you can run your favorite non-mainstream theory past the dogs while wearing a pork chop necklace. Survivors will qualify for 'Theory Development'.
 
  • #57
What will you be missing, Marlon, once the new (sub)forum's created, much to your dislikes...? This (*) unbelievebly valuable piece of cr@p...?

By the looks of it, at least at the level of intentions, such nonsense will not be present on PF anymore and will definitely not affect our sight.

Daniel.

(*) Follow the link.
 
  • #58
Moonbear said:
Maybe some brainstorming on the best title for the new forum would produce a better idea.
The only thing that concerns me about it is that as a layman interested in real science, the title "Outside the Mainstream" sort of indicates the sort of stuff that you'd find in "Skepticism and Debunking"; ie paranormal crap, UFO's, etc.. As such, I would avoid it like the plague. Perhaps something like "Scientific Speculations" would be more descriptive of what you are trying to accomplish. Or even something with the term "Alternative" in it.

dextercioby said:
What will you be missing, Marlon, once the new (sub)forum's created, much to your dislikes...? This
I'm going to sue you, Dex. That link gave me one truly piercing headache.
 
  • #59
dextercioby said:
What will you be missing, Marlon, once the new (sub)forum's created, much to your dislikes...? This (*) unbelievebly valuable piece of cr@p...?


(*) Follow the link.
:smile:
ok, after reading that link, i stand corrected

thanks dex

marlon
 
  • #60
That's right, we will delete threads such as that one straight away when the new policy takes hold.
 
  • #61
So, is there an ETA for this new forum?
 
  • #62
Tom Mattson said:
The policy change will take effect on July 15, 2005[/color], and the new Forum will be a Subforum of Scepticism and Debunking.

Tom Mattson said:
The following new Theory Development Guidelines will be posted at the top of the new Forum and will Take Effect July 15, 2005[/color]

Tom Mattson said:
The difference for PF as a whole is that today garbage threads are posted (and therefore viewable) in TD, after July 15[/color] they won't be seen at all.

Tom Mattson said:
It really is quite obvious that, for better or for worse, the pre-July 15[/color] policy and the post-July 15[/color] policy have very different implications for both the face of PF and for the way the Staff approaches moderating the site.

The difference from July 15[/color] onwards will be that we delete, rather than move.

NateTG said:
So, is there an ETA for this new forum?

No.

:biggrin:
 
  • #63
What is considered to be outside the mainstream? There is often a conflict of opinion in peer reviewed published work, indeed science would not proceed without such alternative hypotheses, even when one theory is that accepted as the consensus viewpoint.

For example in gravitational theory and cosmology the MOND paradigm is well discussed in the published literature and yet it is definitely outside the ‘mainstream’. Similarly with Self Creation Cosmology.

Are posts on MOND to be posted to this new forum?

Garth
 
  • #64
I'll say basically what I said to Andre. If you want to make a post to discuss a paper that has already passed peer review feel free to post it in the most appropriate science forum. If you are proposing your own add-on to a theory, or a new theory altogether, that has not already passed peer-review, then post it in the new section.
 
  • #65
so tom, when will we get the new forum? :smile:
 
  • #66
yourdadonapogostick said:
so tom, when will we get the new forum? :smile:

You're going to make him pop a vein...

Zz.
 
  • #67
yourdadonapogostick said:
so tom, when will we get the new forum? :smile:

Actually, I'm wondering whether the posting interface will be like a thread start, or if it will be a PM to Tom.
 
  • #68
People will post threads just like in any other forum, but the threads will disappear from view and go to a moderation queue. I will copy and paste the opening post and start a thread in the screening forum, where it will be discussed. If it's a go, I'll approve the thread from the queue and it will appear in the forum.
 
  • #69
So what happens to the Venus thread? I seem to remember that only the moved/locked threads were to be removed. Correct? Venus is neither. Nor has it been refuted.

One of the reasons why I developed that thread was originality. If within my life time somebody was to publish something like “All-Venus-features-are-explained as-a-logical-end-state-result-of-excessive-planetary-perturbations-interacting-with-inner-core-spin-axis” I could point to the thread, having hundreds of witnesses that I was first. Just a little vanity, I guess. So, please don’t delete it.
 
  • #70
Andre,

Andre said:
So what happens to the Venus thread? I seem to remember that only the moved/locked threads were to be removed. Correct? Venus is neither. Nor has it been refuted.

Don't worry about a thing. As I explained to marlon, the entire current TD section is going to be closed and archived. Nothing that is in TD will be deleted.
 
  • #71
I see the new forum has opened. I like the revised name: "Independent Research." I also like the name of the reviewing forum "Post Court Room." :biggrin:
 
  • #72
Might want to correct the spelling of the link on the main page "Independant research".
 
  • #73
Moonbear said:
I see the new forum has opened. I like the revised name: "Independent Research." I also like the name of the reviewing forum "Post Court Room." :biggrin:
It's not open until Tom says so.

Greg/Chroot - can you fix the spelling ?

And to all the theorists out here : The Ides of July have come !
 
  • #74
Well, in Troy, NY it is now 1:36 am on July 15, so we may now consider the new policy in effect and the new forum open for business. :smile:
 
  • #75
...tap tap tap...tap tap tap...hmmmm...no clients yet ?
 
  • #76
Let me see if I can dig up my old papers on the perpetual motion machine . . .
 
  • #77
Moonbear said:
I also like the name of the reviewing forum "Post Court Room." :biggrin:

Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

:)

Zz.
 
  • #78
I do have a highly sophisticated paper on "Why Earth is actually FLAT?"
I am already seeing it, ah ... bright light and great heights!

-- AI
P.S-> I just hope i don't turn out to be the lighthouse keeper
 
  • #79
ZapperZ said:
Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

:)

Zz.
Please, no capital punishment on PF. The shame of being declared a crackpot should be enough. :blushing:
 
  • #80
ZapperZ said:
Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

:)

Zz.

Now, now, you'll never get selected for jury duty if the lawyers hear you say that! :-p

Should we hold a Grand Opening Celebration, put up big banners and balloons and lay down a red carpet to the entrance? I hate all this standing around waiting for the first customers.
 
  • #81
Moonbear said:
Now, now, you'll never get selected for jury duty if the lawyers hear you say that! :-p

I thought I've been automatically disqualified already just based on the fact that the number of Disney pins I have exceeds three times my age?

:)

Zz.
 
  • #82
I don't think we'll see any theories in the IR forum until a good bunch of posts get deleted and the posters pointed in the appropriate direction.
 
  • #83
FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, there was a last minute title change. The new forum is called "Independent Research". The appelation "mainstream" has shown itself over the course of discussion to be too vague to be meaningful.

Independent Research Forum
 
  • #84
I guess I'm 2 stupid to figure it all out, but i still don't see the point of having someone post his/her individual/group research on an open privately owned forum.

If the article has already been published in peer-review-ed journals, therefore it is accepted and seen as valid by the scientific community, i can only ascribe this gesture to vanity. Trust me, everyone, people who want to get posted with the latest developments in theoretical physics read written journals, not internet forums.

If the article hasn't been published yet, or it has been rejected by the journal reviewers, what USE would it make to the author ? With what does this posting on PF help him/her ? If the article has been rejected, then it has the name NONSENSE attached to it, therefore, upon posting it on the PF, it should be deleted without any discussion and whatsoever explanation via PM-s.

So, Greg, why did you do it in the first place (the infamous "Theory Development") ? Why did you do it now?

Tom, why did you offer yourself (i assume you did, pardon me if I'm wrong, and Greg named you to the job with/without consensus with the rest of the staff) to manage such-pointless in my view-project ?

Does anyone think new and sound theoretical physics is done on an internet forum? (even though it's the best of them all)

Daniel.
 
  • #85
dextercioby said:
Why did you do it now?
So that TD may be closed, and junk posts deleted henceforth.
 
  • #86
Well, the way i see it, the entire (sub)forum is based on non peer-reviewed material (i'm not even talking about articles, some people just translated their "wise" thoughts into electronic format), so, by my (maybe faulty) judgement seen two posts above, it has the word "NONSENSE" attached and therefore ought to be deleted (ought to have been deleted ab initio, actually). Yet the staff decided "conservation". I just don't get it. :confused:

Daniel.

P.S.Tom, what is so valuable there, that the mankind needs to see and can't live without? :eek:
 
Last edited:
  • #87
I believe there are several good discussions that came out of refuting peoples' personal ideas. I'm not too familiar with what happens "in there" but from reading Tom's posts here, that's the idea I get.
 
  • #88
dextercioby said:
If the article has already been published in peer-review-ed journals, therefore it is accepted and seen as valid by the scientific community, i can only ascribe this gesture to vanity.

The new forum is intended to be the place in which we host work that has not been peer-reviewed. And even our professional physicists and grad students can use it to inform the PF community of work in progress that hasn't been published yet, kind of like a "PF Preprint Server".

Trust me, everyone, people who want to get posted with the latest developments in theoretical physics read written journals, not internet forums.

Not everyone. There are plenty of bright amateurs who are don't have sponsorship to post even in arXiv. The new forum is a place for them to be heard, if they can meet the requirements of the guidelines.

If the article hasn't been published yet, or it has been rejected by the journal reviewers, what USE would it make to the author ? With what does this posting on PF help him/her ?

It would certainly help him/her to find out what is wrong with the idea.

If the article has been rejected, then it has the name NONSENSE attached to it, therefore, upon posting it on the PF, it should be deleted without any discussion and whatsoever explanation via PM-s.

Rejection by a journal doesn't necessarily mean "nonsense". It could mean "wrong format" or "not original". And if an idea really is nonsense, or even if it is poorly formulated, then it will be deleted under the new guidelines. But it will be accompanied by a PM with an invitation to try again in the new forum, subject to the guidelines. Don't get me wrong, we do delete spam and posts that are considered "trolling", without notification, and we will continue to do that. But deleting a sincere, serious attempt to communicate one's thoughts, without any notification, is extremely rude, and considered by the Staff to be an abuse of power.

So, Greg, why did you do it in the first place (the infamous "Theory Development") ? Why did you do it now?

Greg can speak for himself if he wants to, but since I know the answer I'll tell you.

TD was originally created as a means to clear the main section of PF from overspeculation and crackpottery, and it was not a bad first try at improving the signal-to-noise ratio. But then TD kept growing and growing, and became more and more of an eyesore.

Then chroot imposed a new policy: No new threads in TD, and we would keep a close watch on the existing ones, locking them at the first sign of trouble. The problem there was that people would just post their threads in the main section, because they couldn't do it in TD, and we would just have to move them. So TD really never stopped growing.

This move is the third step: No more TD, and anything that was formerly considered TD material will be deleted, with notification. Home grown theories can still be discussed here, but only under the Independent Research rules.

Tom, why did you offer yourself (i assume you did, pardon me if I'm wrong, and Greg named you to the job with/without consensus with the rest of the staff) to manage such-pointless in my view-project ?

I offered myself, because it was my idea.

Does anyone think new and sound theoretical physics is done on an internet forum? (even though it's the best of them all)

Who knows? It hasn't really started yet.

I think you're missing the same essential point that marlon did. This isn't intended to be comparable to Phys Rev Letters. This isn't pointless at all, because it has all the pros of the old TD policy, none of the cons, and some new benefits that we did not enjoy before.

The whole process can be very educational for everyone who is not involved in professional science, but wants to learn about how it is done. Have you ever heard of schools that hold "Model United Nations" or something along those lines? Each participant plays a role, the moderator comes up with some issue for them to work out and sets the rules, and they simulate the workings of the real UN. Is it real, professional international politics? No. Is it going to change the face of world government? No. Does everyone learn something from the process? Yes, they do.

If it helps you to understand why we are doing this, try to think of it as a "Model PRL".

In fact, this is not the first time PF has tried something like this. In 2002 we had a "Mission to Europa" forum, which was kind of a simulation of the preparation for a space mission. Everyone who participated had fun with it, and this can be the same way if it is done right.
 
Last edited:
  • #89
Now I'm quite used to
Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"
and getting "the-you-must-shut-up, ignorant-wurm, when-you-speak-to-me" treatment, although nobody ever pointed out what specifically was wrong when I ventilated a little new idea. How about this one? But I detest confirming that I'm a crackpot, just by posting an unusual idea only to face tar and feathers.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Andre said:
Now I'm quite used to and getting the-you-must-shut-up-when-you-speak-to-me treatment, although nobody ever pointed out what specifically was wrong when I ventilated a little new idea. How about this one. But I detest confirming that I'm a crackpot the moment I post something like this over there, with the tar and feathers behind it.

And in not ONE of them did you ever offer a model such that a quantitative calculation can be made. What you did was offer a series of conjectures or "what if's", such as

" Suppose that Venus has been like ..."
"Venus was probably rotating normally..."
"Perhaps two things slightly different..."
" it may be that the same process took place..."

In not ONE of these is anyone able to make any quantitative tests to check if what you say is valid or crappola. You made GUESSES. When Einstein made guesses, we are able to CALCULATE logically the consequences of such guesses and then TEST them out. You gave no such thing. In planetary science, unless things have changed, hand-waving arguments simply do not wash! You STILL have to show how you are able to account quantitatively, at least fall within roughly the same order of magnitude, of the observation. You have done no such thing.

Despite all this, you had no qualms in claiming you have "...planet Venus solved". And you wonder why people think you're a crackpot? Give me a break!

Zz.
 
  • #91
Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just look into the literature ansd see if anybody did better.
 
  • #92
Andre said:
Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just look into the literature ansd see if anybody did better.

Why don't you list ALL the literature in question that YOU have looked at?

Zz.
 
  • #93
I did a VERY quick check and immediately found this:

"The chaotic obliquity of the planets", Laskar, J.; Robutel, P., Nature v.361, p.608 (1993).l

Abstract: Numerical study of the global stability of the spin-axis orientation (obliquity) of the planets against secular orbital perturbations shows that all of the terrestrial planets could have experienced large, chaotic variations in obliquity at some time in the past. The obliquity of Mars is still in a large chaotic region, ranging from 0 to 60 deg. Mercury and Venus have been stabilized by tidal dissipation, and the Earth may have been stabilized by capture of the moon. None of the obliquities of the terrestrial planets can therefore be considered as primordial.

Did you miss the phrase "Numerical study..."? And this is just ONE example!

Zz.
 
  • #94
So it's all in the numbers. If you can't give numbers, you have failed regardless what. But numbers are useless when you fail to cross check what other hypotheses require. And of course that you found something that overarches everything like Popper likes to see is far inferior to presenting a numerical model.

Here is a list of references.

J. Laskar & P. Robutel The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature 361, 608 - 612 (1993);

REFERENCES

.Temperatures in a runaway greenhouse on the evolving Venus: implications for water loss, Andrew J. Watsona T. M. Donahue and W. R. Kuhn Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 68, Issue 1 , April 1984, Pages 1-6)

Phillips, R.J., and V.L. Hansen, Geological evolution of Venus: Rises, plains, plumes, and plateaus, Science, 279, 1492-1497, 1998.
Smith, D.E., M.T. Zuber, with R.J. Phillips, et al., Topography of the Northern Hemisphere of Mars from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter, Science, 279, 1686-1692, 1998.
Hauck II, S.A., R.J. Phillips, and M. Price, Venus: Crater distribution and plains resurfacing models, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 13,635-13,642, 1998.

**********
Andoyer, H., 1923. Cours de Me´canique Ce´leste. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Arkani-Hamed, J., Tokso¨z, M.N., 1984. Thermal evolution of Venus. Phys.
Earth Planet. Inter. 34, 232–250.
Avduevskii, V.S., Golovin, Iu.M., Zavelevich, F.S., Likhushin, V.Ia.,
Marov, M.Ia., Melnikov, D.A., Merson, Ia.I., Moshkin, B.E., Razin,
K.A., Chernoshchekov, L.I., 1976. Preliminary results of an investigation
of the light regime in the atmosphere and on the surface of Venus.
Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia 14, 735–742.
Busse, F.H., 1968. Steady fluid flow in a precessing spheroidal shell. J.
Fluid Mech. 33, 739–751.
Carpenter, R.L., 1964. Study of Venus by CW radar. Astron. J. 69, 2–11.
Carpenter, R.L., 1966. Study of Venus by CW radar—1964 results. Astron.
J. 71, 142–152.
Carpenter, R.L., 1970. A radar determination of the rotation of Venus.
Astron. J. 75, 61–66.
Chapman, S., Lindzen, R., 1970. Atmospheric Tides. Thermal and Gravitational.
Reidel, Dordrecht.
Colombo, G., 1965. Rotation period of the planet Mercury. Nature 208,
575–578.
Colombo, G., Shapiro, I.I., 1966. The rotation of the planet Mercury.
Astrophys. J. 145, 296–307.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2001. The four final rotation states of Venus.
Nature 411, 767–770.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2003a. Long-term evolution of the spin of
Venus. II. Numerical simulations. Icarus 163, 24–45.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2003b. Different tidal torques on a planet with
a dense atmosphere and consequences to the spin dynamics. Preprint.
Counselman, C.C., Shapiro, I.I., 1970. Spin–orbit resonance of Mercury.
Symp. Math. 3, 121–169.
Darwin, G.H., 1880. On the secular change in the elements of a satellite
revolving around a tidally distorted planet. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
London 171, 713–891.
Davies, M.E., Colvin, T.R., Rogers, P.G., Chodas, P.W., Sjogren, W.L.,
Akim, E.L., Stepaniants, V.A., Vlasova, Z.P., Zakharov, A.I., 1992.
The rotation period, direction of the north pole, and geodetic control
network of Venus. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13141–13151.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., 1978. The rotation of Venus. Ph.D. thesis, California
Institute of Technology.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., 1980. Atmospheric tides and the rotation of Venus. II.
Spin evolution. Icarus 41, 18–35.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., Ingersoll, A.P., 1980. Atmospheric tides and the rotation
of Venus. I. Tidal theory and the balance of torques. Icarus 41,
1–17.
Gans, R.F., 1972. Viscosity of the Earth’s core. J. Geophys. Res. 77,
360–366.
Gold, T., Soter, S., 1969. Atmospheric tides and the resonant rotation of
Venus. Icarus 11, 356–366.
Goldreich, P., Peale, S.J., 1966. Spin orbit coupling in the Solar System.
Astron. J. 71, 425–438.
Goldreich, P., Peale, S.J., 1970. The obliquity of Venus. Astron. J. 75,
273–284.
Goldreich, P., Soter, S., 1966. Q in the Solar System. Icarus 5, 375–389.
Goldstein, R.M., 1964. Venus characteristics by Earth-based radar. Astron.
J. 69, 12–19.
Goldstein, S., 1965. Modern Developments in Fluid Mechanics. Dover,
New York.
Hart, M.H., 1978. The evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth. Icarus 33,
23–39.
Henrard, J., 1993. The adiabatic invariant in classical dynamics, in:
C.K.R.T. Jones, U. Kirchgraber, H.O. Walthers (Eds.), Dynamics Reported,
Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 117–235.
Herring, T.A., Gwinn, C.R., Shappiro, I.I., 1986. Geodesy by radio interferometry:
studies of the forced nutations of the Earth. I—Data analysis.
II—Interpretation. J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4755–4765.
22 A.C.M. Correia et al. / Icarus 163 (2003) 1–23
Hinderer, J., Legros, H., Pedotti, G., 1987. Atmospheric pressure torque
and axial rotation of Venus. Adv. Space Res. 7, 311–314.
Hunten, D.M., 1993. Atmospheric evolution of the terrestrial planets.
Science 259, 915–920.
Joshi, M.M., Haberle, R.M., Reynolds, R.T., 1997. Simulations of the
atmospheres of synchronously rotating terrestrial planets orbiting M
dwarfs: conditions for atmospheric collapse and the implications for
habitability. Icarus 129, 450–465.
Kasting, J.F., 1993. Earth’s early atmosphere. Science 259, 920–925.
Kaula, W., 1964. Tidal dissipation by solid friction and the resulting orbital
evolution. J. Geophys. Res. 2, 661–685.
Kino****a, H., 1977. Theory of the rotation of the rigid Earth. Celest. Mech.
15, 277–326.
Konopliv, A.S., Yoder, C.F., 1996. Venusian k2 tidal Love number from
Magellan and PVO tracking data. Geophys: Res. Lett. 23, 1857–1860.
Konopliv, A.S., Borderies, N.J., Chodas, P.W., Christensen, E.J., Sjogren,
W.L., Williams, B.G., Balmino, G., Barriot, J.P., 1993. Venus gravity
and topography: 60th degree and order model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20,
2403–2406.
Kundt, W., 1977. Spin and atmospheric tides of Venus. Astron. Astrophys.
60, 85–91.
Lago, B., Cazenave, A., 1979. Possible dynamical evolution of the rotation
of Venus since formation. Moon Planets 21, 127–154.
Lambeck, K., 1980. The Earth’s Variable Rotation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Laskar, J., 1986. Secular terms of classical planetary theories using the
results of general theory. Astron. Astrophys. 157, 59–70.
Laskar, J., 1988. Secular evolution of the Solar System over 10 million
years. Astron. Astrophys. 198, 341–362.
Laskar, J., 1989. Manipulation des se´ries, in: D. Benest, C. Froeschle´
(Eds.), Modern methods in celestial mechanics, Editions Frontie`res,
Gif-sur-Yvette, pp. 89–107.
Laskar, J., 1990. The chaotic motion of the Solar System. Icarus 88,
266–291.
Laskar, J., 1994a. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astron. Astrophys.
287, L9–12.
Laskar, J., 1994b. Description des routines utilisateur de TRIP. Preprint.
Laskar, J., 1999. The limits of Earth orbital calculations for geological
time-scale use. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A 357, 1735–1759.
Laskar, J., Robutel, P., 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature
361, 608–612.
Lumb, L.I., Aldridge, K.D., 1991. On viscosity estimates for the Earth’s
fluid outer core–mantle coupling. J. Geophys. Geoelectr. 43, 93–110.
McCue, J., Dormand, J.R., 1993. Evolution of the spin of Venus. Earth,
Moon, Planets 63, 209–225.
Melton, C.E., Giardini, A.A., 1982. The evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere
and oceans. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 579–582.
Mignard, F., 1979. The evolution of the lunar orbit revisited. I. Moon
Planets 20, 301–315.
Mignard, F., 1980. The evolution of the lunar orbit revisited. II. Moon
Planets 23, 185–201.
Munk, W.H., MacDonald, G.J.F., 1960. The Rotation of the Earth: A
Geophysical Discussion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ne´ron de Surgy, O., 1996. Influence des effets dissipatifs sur les variations
a` long terme des obliquite´s plane´taires. The`se, Observatoire de Paris.
Ne´ron de Surgy, O., Laskar, J., 1997. On the long term evolution of the
spin of the Earth. Astron. Astrophys. 318, 975–989.
Pais, M.A., Le Moue¨l, J.L., Lambeck, K., Poirier, J.P., 1999. Late Precambrian
paradoxical glaciation and obliquity of the Earth—a discussion of
dynamical constraints. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 174, 155–171.
Pepin, R.O., 1991. On the origin and early evolution of terrestrial planet
atmospheres and meteoritic volatiles. Icarus 92, 2–79.
Pepin, R.O., 1994. Evolution of the martian atmosphere. Icarus 111, 289–
304.
Poincare´, H., 1910. Sur la pre´cession des corps de´formables. Bull. Astron.
27, 321–356.
Poirier, J.P., 1988. Transport properties of liquid metals and the viscosity
of the Earth’s core. Geophys. J. 92, 99–105.
Roberts, P.H., Stewartson, K., 1965. On the motion of a liquid in a
spheroidal cavity of a precessing rigid body, II. Proc. Cambridge Phil.
Soc. 61, 279–288.
Rochester, M.G., 1976. The secular decrease of obliquity due to dissipative
core–mantle coupling. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 46, 109–126.
Sasao, T., Okubo, S., Saito, M., 1980. A simple theory on the dynamical
effects of a stratified core upon the nutational motion of the Earth, in:
R.L. Duncombe (Ed.), Nutation and the Earth’s Rotation: Proceedings
from IAU Symposium no. 78, Kiev, USSR 23–28 May, 1977. International
Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 78, Dordrecht, Holland;
Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co., p. 165–183.
Schaber, G.G., Strom, R.G., Moore, H.J., Soderblom, L.A., Kirk, R.L.,
Chadwick, D.J., Dawson, D.D., Gaddis, L.R., Boyce, J.M., Russell, J.,
1992. Geology and distribution of impact craters on Venus—what are
they telling us? J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13257–13301.
Shen, M., Zhang, C.Z., 1989. Dynamical evolution of the rotation of
Venus. Earth, Moon, Planets 43, 275–287.
Siebert, M., 1961. Atmospheric Tides—Advances in Geophysics. Academic
Press, New York.
Smith, W.B., 1963. Radar observations of Venus, 1961 and 1959. Astron.
J. 68, 15–21.
Stevenson, D,J, 2002 Planetary magnetic fields Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 208, Issues 1-2 , 15 March 2003, Pages 1-11
Stewartson, K., Roberts, P.H., 1963. On the motion of a liquid in a
spheroidal cavity of a precessing rigid body. J. Fluid Mech. 33, 1–20.
Toomre, A., 1974. On the ‘nearly diurnal wobble’ of the Earth. Geophys.
J. R. Astron. Soc. 38, 335–348.
Walker, J.C.G., 1975. Evolution of the atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci.
32, 1248–1256.
Williams, G.E., 1989. Tidal rhythmites: geochronometers for the ancient
Earth–Moon system. Episodes 12 (3), 162–171.
Williams, G.E., 1993. History of the Earth’s obliquity. Earth Sci. Revi. 34,
1–45.
Yoder, C.F., 1995. Venus’ free obliquity. Icarus 117, 1–37.
Yoder, C.F., 1997. Venusian spin dynamics, in: S.W. Bougher, D.M.
Hunten, R.J. Philips (Eds.), Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere,
and Solar Wind Environment, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, pp. 1087–1124.
Zahnle, K.J., Kasting, J.F., Pollack, J.B., 1988. Evolution of a steam
atmosphere during Earth’s accretion. Icarus 74, 62–97.
23 A.C.M. Correia et al. / Icarus 163 (2003) 1–23
 
  • #95
Anyway you did A VERY QUICK CHECK, which suggest that some weeks ago when Nereid listed Venus specifically as something that could be worth another thought, you did not bother to do so before starting the beating around.
 
  • #96
Andre said:
So it's all in the numbers. If you can't give numbers, you have failed regardless what. But numbers are useless when you fail to cross check what other hypotheses require. And of course that you found something that overarches everything like Popper likes to see is far inferior to presenting a numerical model.

Here is a list of references.

What you call "numbers" are required to do exactly just that - check the hypothesis! You said people in that field of study didn't do ANY BETTER than what you are doing. I pointed out just ONE that I found from a quick search that clearly falsify your statement.

Being able to come up with "numbers" require the formulation of a TESTABLE model! You cannot just say "what goes up must come down". This is utterly inadequate for a formulation of an idea. You must also say when and where it will come down! You don't even get close to this. Yet, you have no problem in claiming that you have solved "Venus". Honestly, are you THAT surprised that you've been called a crackpot?

Zz.
 
  • #97
There are numerous numbers to check the hypothesis. There is just not a sophisticated explaining itl model. Detailed geologic evidence with number seem to be rather supportive. Perhaps it's an idea to even try page two and three of the thread.
 
  • #98
Andre said:
Anyway you did A VERY QUICK CHECK, which suggest that some weeks ago when Nereid listed Venus specifically as something that could be worth another thought, you did not bother to do so before starting the beating around.

I do not follow the forum that you obviously spew your ideas in (lucky for me because I can't STAND hand-waving arguments being mistaken for definitive explanation). I take exception here in THIS thread because you seem to act as if you're a "victim" of something that is of no fault of your own. You brought this upon yourself!

Zz.
 
  • #99
Andre said:
There are numerous numbers to check the hypothesis. There is just not a sophisticated explaining itl model. Detailed geologic evidence with number seem to be rather supportive. Perhaps it's an idea to even try page two and three of the thread.

Hello? The "numbers" are the outcome of a clear model! Both you, and someone checking it SHOULD be aware of the model! So how can there be a non "sophisticated" model producing "numerous numbers" that "seem to be rather supportive"? This is getting funnier by the minute!

If I say "Venus consist of a solid core of radius R1, a gas shell of radius up to a radius of R2... with inner core density of rho1 and gas density of rho2..."etc., do you think you, I, and everyone who understands basic physics can (i) figure out the moment of inertia (ii) compare that to the spinning rate (iii) figure out the gravitational attraction to the sun (iv) compare with observational results? When you propose something, you HAVE to come up with the DYNAMICAL model especially in this field. If not, there is NO WAY to compare with observational data! You can't just say "oh, friction with the core reduces its spin". This is bogus! You come up with a model that details the mechanism of such a friction, including any assumption or coefficients being used, and THEN, show that the application of that model with proper initial conditions does produce REALISTIC results!

Now tell me with a straight face that you HAVE done this.

Zz.
 
Last edited:
  • #100
Nereid, If you follow this would you please reconsider the value of Thomas Kuhn.
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
9K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
8K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top