Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Two word titles may be deleted aka Constructive Feedback

  1. Nov 8, 2011 #1
    "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    This is my first, and likely only, forum thread.
    I am posting this thread not to bash the community, harass
    the moderators, or to ridicule "This is the only FACT" thinking.
    Only to point out a missing ingredient in the community that is
    not found on this forum. I hope you read it as the sincere
    advice that I intend it to be....

    I was looking for an astronomy, physics, and general science
    forum where I could further my knowledge by asking such
    questions as:

    Why is Mercury considered a planet and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29" [Broken] not considered a
    planet when it's larger than Mercury? Likely the sun cleared
    Mercury's path more-so than Mercury itself.


    What other evidence is there for an expanding universe? I've
    seen an explanation that http://www.scribd.com/doc/33711296/Essentials-of-Hubble-Distance-Redshift" [Broken] could explain the
    redshift. Is the jury still out on the "Expanding Universe"? Or
    are http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/einstein-and-the-universe" [Broken] theories still under consideration?


    When I was in High-school, I was taught that heat was the result of
    excited mass particles. So, how does light excite mass if it has no
    mass of it's own? An example is Crookes Radiometer

    But then I found things like this:
    and plenty more complaints of your censorship on the web.
    (Yes, when I'm looking for a serious discussion I make sure I
    don't speak to deaf ears.)

    [PLAIN]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/8217/endisnear.png [Broken]

    I don't accept the "Silence The Crackpots" as a "Valid Intellectual Just Cause"
    for a few simple reasons:
    Barry Marshall who won the Nobel prize- demonstrated
    that ulcers was caused by bacteria was called a crackpot for
    even having the theory.

    Robert Chambers who wrote one of the first books about
    evolution was called a crackpot... but paved the way for Darwin.

    Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel for proving that not just
    gravity - but plasmas and magnetic and electric fields are important
    in galactic physics... after being called a crackpot.

    Galileo Galilei, Barbara McClintock, J Harlen Bretz, Boris Belousov, Karl Jansky.....

    the list goes on.

    Granted, there are plenty of "Chem-Trails" and "Didn't Walk on
    the Moon" and "The Face of Mars is an alien statue" people
    out there...

    But if you silence the crackpots then when a http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/science/23speed.html" [Broken]
    speaks up he or she will just be lost in the crowds of BanHammers
    and Deleted Threads despite actual research - however incomplete
    (Such as R. Chambers)

    (I also would of asked if http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html" succeeded and if so - did she try to
    remeasure the mass at a lower speed? Why when we already
    know? Because that's also what exploring is: seeing if a "Fact" holds
    true under different circumstances.)

    Well I just had to stop by to say that I'm sorry the PhysicsForums.com
    community forgot one of the most fundamental necessities of
    exploration, discovery, and experimentation...

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/inspinv.html" [Broken]

    -With Respect,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno" [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2011 #2
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    Theorem: I am Einstein.
    Proof: They laughed at Einstein and they laughed at me.
  4. Nov 8, 2011 #3
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    [PLAIN]http://www.fourbyfivephotography.com/Images/UpArrow.bmp [Broken]
    Just proved there are more than one Einstein.
    (and appears off topic and didn't read)
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  5. Nov 8, 2011 #4
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    Big deal!. Einstein was wrong and I can prove it with a fancy colorful drawing.
  6. Nov 8, 2011 #5
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    [PLAIN]http://www.fourbyfivephotography.com/Images/UpArrow.bmp [Broken]
    Just proved jimmy is no big deal today... try being Lucille Oball tomorrow.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  7. Nov 8, 2011 #6
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    Theorem: I am Lucille Ball.
    Proof: They laughed at Lucille Ball and they laughed at me.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  8. Nov 8, 2011 #7
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    good 1 :)
  9. Nov 8, 2011 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    This is a little like complaining to a vegetarian restaurant that they don't have steak* on the menu. There are other places on the internet where this can be discussed.

    (* Well, more like complaining they don't have rancid, maggot-infested horsemeat on the menu masquerading as steak, under the principle that maybe the next time it really will be steak)
  10. Nov 8, 2011 #9
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    In addition to all of the obvious flaws in this bogus argument, as far as I know, nobody ever actually laughed at Einstein except me.

    Me: What have I got in my pocket?
    Einstein: Well, I'm no Einstein, but I'll guess a ring.
    Me: Ha Ha, wrong you moron, it's a ... wait a minute, best out of three.
  11. Nov 8, 2011 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    Unfortunately it is necessary to be harsh to things which might appear either non-science or which are contested. One of the main reasons things are censored here at PF is to keep it easy for non-experts to learn fundamental science. This CANNOT happen unless a great many threads from actual crackpots or even simply people that are incorrect are kept from proliferating. This absolutely keeps some ideas from being thrown around, usually because they are either NOT mainstream or they just don't make sense to many people. To ensure the proper environment for the majority of PF goals this must happen.

    To quote PF rules:
  12. Nov 8, 2011 #11
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    Maybe if you had read his joke more carefully you would have understood. Your argument is basically as follows:

    "Why do Physics Forums not allow crackpot theories more openly when I have a few examples of some "crackpots" who ended up doing well for themselves?"

    This can basically be re-written in the form Jimmy Snyder gave (Which was very relevant by the way).
    Think of the number of crackpots who didn't become famous. Now think of the number who have becomes famous. Just because you found a few examples doesn't mean that most crackpots are eligible to be listened to seriously.

    I would expect anyone with a modicum of interest in science to know that just because one has found a purple duck does not mean all ducks are purple.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  13. Nov 8, 2011 #12


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    To address some of your hypothetical questions:

    This is a matter of definition by an appropriate astronomical organization (I've forgotten the name). I consider it a legitimate question. If you were to ask this in our Astronomy forum, someone would probably provide a summary of the official rationale, or a link to a site that describes it. If you want to argue seriously that Eris should be considered a planet, you should write up a formal proposal to the organization in question, after first checking whether the organization has in fact considered this already.

    People ask about alternative models like these all the time in the Cosmology forum. That's OK. If it's been proposed in the professional literature, it's fair game here. What's not OK is to push seriously a non-mainstream model here, especially one that has not appeared in the professional literature. This is not a research forum. That is, it's not a place to (try to) put new ideas into the professional arena.

    People ask about this at least once or twice a month, usually in the Relativity forum. They usually get some kind of answer. Sometimes people get a bit grumpy because it gets asked so often, but that hardly qualifies as censorship.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  14. Nov 8, 2011 #13
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    A crackpot might go on to become a Nobel Prize Winner but as long he claims things without providing any proof or evidence, he will continue to remain a crackpot. The fact that he wins a Nobel Prize means that he stopped being a crackpot somewhere along the line. Tomorrow if you give me genuine and compelling evidence of the earth being cubical in shape, I will have no choice but to accept.
  15. Nov 8, 2011 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    The crackpot first has to withstand the test of science to become a Nobel prize winner, this forum clearly is not the place for that.

    Do you really think that Barry Marshall would have been any more accepted if he would have been allowed to advocate the unsupported idea on a forum? No, he was accepted because he performed the experiments that proved him right.

    Barry Marshall fought the medical doctrine and won the right to be text-book material, that's what this forum is all about: established science.
  16. Nov 8, 2011 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, and just for those who aren't aware, our restrictions against crackpottery are not based on any principle (misguided or not), but rather on practicality: we used to have a crackpot forum, but couldn't effectively moderate it. The principle that we are better off without it came after that realization. So the objection is largely misdirected (in addition to its other flaws).
  17. Nov 8, 2011 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    I agree that calling somebody a crackpot is ad hominem, it has no place on a science forum. Arguments can be crackpot, but you should at least show how they are crackpot, which mostly eliminates the need for the word "crackpot".

    So, unless you're trying to use emotional warfare, there's really no need for the the word; strangely, it's the double-standard on PF; the only allowable ad hominem attack. What's largely unfortunate about it is the way people use the crackpot accusation to bolster their own arguments without providing any real arguments. Just by using the word, it's a free-pass.
  18. Nov 8, 2011 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    I believe that the link you posted sums up what this forum is about.

    If you don't wish to discuss mainstream science, find another forum that's non-mainstream.
  19. Nov 8, 2011 #18

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    First off, Eris is not larger than Mercury. Eris' mass is about 1/20 that of Mercury's, and its volume is about 1/10 that of Mercury's. This discrepancy is due to Eris' density being about half that of Mercury's.

    When astronomers started discovering objects about the same size as Pluto in the outer solar system, the International Astronomical Union was faced with a big problem. There was no official definition of"planet" at the time. The default choice was to continue with this non-definition; nobody liked that option. Were these things planets or not? The IAU had two serious proposals:
    • A planet is an object that has pulled itself into a more or less spherical shape due to its own self-gravitation, or
    • A planet is an object that has pulled itself into a more or less spherical shape and has cleared its path of other objects.

    The "pulling itself into a spherical shape" definition is more than a bit problematic: Where is the boundary? What is "more or less?" There is no clearcut boundary. It is a continuum. The dynamicists who proposed the "clearing its path" definition had a very sharp boundary, at least in our solar system. The ratio of Mar's mass to the mass of the junk in Mar's pathis three orders of magnitude greater than the equivalent ratio for any of the dwarf planets. Even an order of magnitude would have made for a nice boundary compared to a continuum. Three orders of magnitude? That the clearing of the path proposal was the winner makes imminent sense.

    As for your other valid questions, others have either answered these already, or you can find the answers on this forum.

    As for your questions about crackpots, we exclude them for a couple of key reasons. Reason #1 is that our primary goal at this site is to educate. Crackpot notions do not help in that regard. They just get in the way. Reason #2 is that crackpots as a group are immune to logic and reason. There is no debating them. Such debates inevitably led to rancor, they never ended, and they very much detracted from the valid discussions. Besides, there are plenty of other places on the 'net where they can get their say.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  20. Nov 8, 2011 #19
    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    1) I think the OP doesn't really understand what a crackpot really is. Not everybody with an unconventional theory is a crackpot!! In fact, calling somebody a crackpot doesn't have to do with the theory they hold, it has more to do with the attitude they have against criticism.

    Any serious scientist will APPRECIATE criticism. They will try to understand the critic. They will see they obvious problems of a theory and they suggest valid ways to solve it. A crackpot does none of these things. They will be very hostile to any criticism and they will not understand why their argument is flawed.

    2) The reason why this forum bans unconventional theories is because the purpose of this forum is geared towards education of people. It is not made for advancing science.
    This forum is perfectly for undergraduates who wish to learn, it is suited less for researchers who deal with unsolved problems.

    We get the criticism a lot that we don't contribute to science. This is perfectly true, but this is not the forums intent. We rather wish to educate people. This is how I see this forum at least.

    3) Forgive me, but I don't get why you posted this. I mean: you didn't even posted anything on this forum. You didn't try it out yet. You didn't see what it's like. I suggest you try out this forum for a while, and THEN criticize us.
  21. Nov 8, 2011 #20


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Re: "Two word titles may be deleted" aka "Constructive Feedback"

    I thought "crackpot" was simply a scientist with whom mainstream contemporaries disagrees. I didn't think they had to be denialist too, though I can understand it being a commonly reinforced stereotype.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook