Complaint Why My thread has been closed?

[SecretOfnumber]

Hi all,

I have started a thread called" Starting line of gravity" Just wondering why it has been closed ? What does speculation means for a subject based on the GR ? does mainstream of science stands against GR and therefore any discussion in this regards is speculation?! what about string , balck hole dark matter and physics itself?!

Cheers.

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you equating the physics being done in peer-reviewed journals with what you have posted in this forum?

Zz.

 

[SecretOfnumber]

I don't really get what you have mention Zz, it is simply a question base on my research and reason I am asking you guys is because I am not A physicist! (don have a degree in )? what about people chat on this forum on string theory and dark energy have they done the same?are they speculating? have they per-review their questions?!
And to be honest I have a theory!but as any other things, it has to look scientific before send to Journals, other than that just like last time no one comprehend it not even me!

Cheers,

 

[ZapperZ]

Remember, you were the one who made the comparison, not me.

Those things that you considered as speculation were not done out of ignorance of physics. The same can't be said about what you are doing.

This forum is not the place for you to work out your personal theory. This is clearly stated in the rules that you had agreed to.

Zz.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Peer review is not somehow superior to standard publication. This point, ZapperZ, I've made you aware of. Credible and legitimate articles can be in publications, or published, not peer reviewed. You've got to be pretty thick to think because it is peer reviewed it somehow superior to something not peer reviewed.

Also, it seems that many articles are refused because they challenge mainstream thinking. If you aren't able to get your ideas out there before discussion can take place, what is the point of advancing human knowledge and learning to think for yourself?

 

[mfb]

And to be honest I have a theory!

I am quite sure that you do not. This would come together with a lot of knowledge about existing theories of gravity, and your thread does not show this.
A bunch of speculative ideas is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis.

Could two higgs show gravity ?or two electrons? or...?

All massive particles attract each other.

Peer review is not somehow superior to standard publication.

While there are some good publications without peer review, the ratio of bad publications is significantly lower in peer-reviewed journals.
Peer review is standard for publications.

 

[micromass]

Peer review is not somehow superior to standard publication. This point, ZapperZ, I've made you aware of. Credible and legitimate articles can be in publications, or published, not peer reviewed. You've got to be pretty thick to think because it is peer reviewed it somehow superior to something not peer reviewed.

Also, it seems that many articles are refused because they challenge mainstream thinking. If you aren't able to get your ideas out there before discussion can take place, what is the point of advancing human knowledge and learning to think for yourself?

Note that non-peer reviewed articles are not necessarily forbidden here. For example, if you post in the forum "Beyond the Standard Model", then posting a non-peer reviewed article that appears on the ArXiV is something that you can do. This is explained here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=178075

All threads in this forum are intended for discussion of the scientific content of well-researched models of physics beyond the Standard Model that have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Due to the speculative nature of the subject, not-yet-published papers uploaded to databases like ArXiv or presented at reputable conferences are also acceptable for discussion. (Note that references to such unreviewed sources remain unacceptable in the other subforums dedicated to more established areas of physics.)

So this allows us to talk about unpublished material in the BtSM forum. However, if the material is crackpot, then it will be removed anyway. I would say that the mentors are very capable in recognizing which paper is crackpot and which is not.

 

[SecretOfnumber]

Thanks Guys!
Sorry my mistake,
You are disobediently right, not letting unwise ideas published in your forum, nothing would come out other than anarchy ! you see the most prominent scientists in the course of history were not what they were before they went public and many of them have received nothing from the public but invectives!
@ mfp thanks mate for your positive encouragement! Ill better finish this bottle and get back to my lovely geology and leave the entire universe behind! As -(1/2)!=Vφ .

Cheers

 

[ZapperZ]

Thanks Guys!
Sorry my mistake,
You are disobediently right, not letting unwise ideas published in your forum, nothing would come out other than anarchy ! you see the most prominent scientists in the course of history were not what they were before they went public and many of them have received nothing from the public but invectives!
@ mfp thanks mate for your positive encouragement! Ill better finish this bottle and get back to my lovely geology and leave the entire universe behind! As -(1/2)!=Vφ .

Cheers

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

Now you can boast that you have a second thread that has been closed!

Have fun!

Zz.