Does anyone know any basics of black holes?

I'd MUCH rather log on and read a bit of Mister's "vacuous nonsense" which can even be amusing, and when patiently corrected by AN or RPenner, be a learning experience, then see posts like this all the time with not a peep from the moderators:

Guess it just depends on what you find offensive/ban worthy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

. . . dittos . . . . adoucettte

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say that. Is explaining yourself really too much to ask of you? Is expecting you to elaborate on your thoughts, which you repeatedly post, too much to ask? After all, if all you did were post one line posts without explanation you'd not be contributing anything.

Give the over reacting hyperbole a rest, it gets old very quickly.

No, that isn't necessarily the case. Firstly if gravity is quantised it requires tremendous energies to measure individual graviton interactions. The LHC is trillions of times too weak to measure such things. Secondly there are nuances with the mathematical structure of quanta in gravity because of their coupling constant's dimensionality.

There's more than just one quantum field theory which could hypothetically describe subatomic processes and gravity is a type which is more mathematically complicated. So once again you've made a blanket statement on an area you are not familiar with which has turned out to be wrong.

It's precisely behaviour like that which Mister regularly engages in and is one of the reasons people get sick of his behaviour so quickly. If you don't know something don't pretend otherwise. Don't make blanket sweeping statements as if you're intimately familiar with the subject matter when you aren't. It can mislead people who aren't familiar with the material and the whole point of forums like this is to help spread information, not misinformation.

I'm trying to work out whether you're being deliberately obtuse or you really have such poor comprehension skills.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AN Quote Post #38: We have found quanta for each of the other forces so why should gravity be any different?

AN: Quote Post #43: Firstly if gravity is quantised it requires tremendous energies to measure individual graviton interactions. The LHC is trillions of times too weak to measure such things.

AN: in #38, you apparently assume that gravity is quantised, similar to other forces. In #43, you qualify that with "if" gravity is quantised. That is the nature of scientific enquiry . . . . to observe, speculate, hypothesize, theorize, test, to the point of scientific truth (Scientific Method"). For gravity, I'd guess (not state categorically) that we are somewhere around the "hypothesize-theorize" range.

My premise (and I do have one!) is that we cannot say with confidence that the gravity force(s) behaves like all other forces. Show me a non-hypothetical (real) graviton? . . or a Higgs boson?. My (unconfirmed yet) preference is speculated upon in my EEMU Hypothesis, that I won't belabor (fear of trolling?) here.

(Opinion here -->) Within the scientific community, intellectual introspection and extraspection (is that a word?) (i.e., individual thinking?) is a key starting ingredient in producing scientific truths. Sure, such mental activity produces a myriad of both quack and realistic ideas . . . but some portions of even quack ideas often have merit. My approach is to initially give the 'quacker' the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to present his support, without wholesale dismissal of his original thinking. The other key ingredient for producing new scientific truths is rigorous application of the scientific method (SM) to any, and all, hypotheses. The SM process usually ferrets-out deficiencies in the quack theories (but not always).

Finally, I actually DO believe most aspects of the Standard Model are correct. But the basic causative mechanisms are somewhat lacking. I also think that anthropomorphic reasoning may be a source for new, original (alternative) ideas that can resolve these basic causative issues. That is why I often appear the be the 'protector' of alternative thinking. If our history of scientific development (and the Standard Model) are 'truths', then they will easily withstand the onslaught of alternate hypotheses and theories and will eventuate a more complete snapshot of causative mechansims that 'operate' the universe.

You and others may take the above discourse as you see fit . . . just wanted to provide other than a 'snippet' for your reflection.

 

Did you report that post or otherwise bring it to the attention of a mod?

If not then don’t complain. We don’t live on this forum and don’t slavishly read every post – we require the assistance of members in that respect.

If yes then allow some time for moderation; it was only posted today. If you have received a moderator reply and don’t like the response you received then escalate your objection to the SFOG forum and/or an administrator.

Edit: Well, there ya go! Gendanken has been banned for 3 days. Now, adoucette, upon reading your post above I found the post in question in World Events and reported it myself. So, I don’t know if this is the result of my report or yours. If it’s the former, then there’s a lesson to be learnt.

 

@ James R.,
I'd like to comment on a remark you made to Adoucette.

I have viewed most of these posts (including mine) to be critiques aimed at a certain "moderator", and have little to do with "Mister/Reiku".

I am not arguing for or against consciousness causing collapse in quantum mechanics, but it is an undecided point. Since it is undecided it should have merit in the physics forum.

You have suggested undecided elements of physics should go in alternative theories, however this should mean that many aspects of quantum mechanics be discussed in that forum.

I proposed in a different thread that there should be be several physics forums. One dealing with physics by its known definitions and maths. If someone wants to calculate an objects kinetic energy then they would be in a good spot. The second physics forum would deal with things like the Copenhagen Interpretation and allow new physics to mingle in with works done by Bohr and Schrödinger.

When I suggested that; it was met with a very rude response from Prometheus. I have a hard time believing some of the "adult" behaviour coming from this "moderator".

However; it would appear that any discussion of the Copenhagen Interpretation is relegated to the "alternative theories" section (according to James R, Cesspool if you are Prom) . Yet somehow it does not seem appropriate. Quantum physics is still physics, and I can see where some people might be tempted to post it there.

I did not and do not want my opinions of the "moderator" to be seen as being in defence of "Mister/Reiku". I do enjoy some posts by that member, but I am not defending him.

I saw a moderator take a subject that I still think has physics merit and toss it into the cesspool after four posts. It is like saying the Copenhagen Interpretation is banned from Sciforums, unless you're willing to generate a conversation in the Cesspool.

This is why I started to dislike your moderator. Original and recurring rude behaviour also made me like him less. Now seeing what I think was a retaliatory member ban, coupled with "Happy Holidays Mister" makes me dislike him an entirely new level.

I am obviously not the only member who feels this way.

Censoring topics is censoring topics.

 

Now we have people working on quantum computers, where the collapse of the wavefunction of the organic molecule they are using as a computer is a very real problem and can be caused by a bump from a nearby molecule which constitutes a measurement, I think this question of whether consciousness causes collapse is basically settled. If a thread appeared in physics and maths on this topic that was a source of decent discussion then I would leave it there. If, as was the case in mister's thread, it was a tool for mister to try and fool people into thinking he knows a lot of physics then it deserves to be moved.

There is no problem at all with discussing the interpretations of quantum mechanics in the physics forum. There are plenty of threads on the subject in there.

Here is a verbatim quote of my response: "There is: Alternative theories"

If you think this was "very rude" you should wait until I dial it up.

If you think it has merit then start a thread on it, and as long as it stays on topic and people don't troll it etc it will stay. If you use dishonest tactics to argue your points or break the forum rules in some other way then it will be moved quite swiftly.

The list does seem to be quite short though, and you are by far the most vocal and ranty.

I'd also like to remind you of another mistake of yours:

That didn't last long did it?

 

A lot of people seem to have got a problem with the ban after the infraction, because he posted this thread; but the threat to ban was a part of the infraction. So the ban is logically justified. Given that mister is at least the 3rd sock puppet of a repeat offender, and has been banned and given infractions for this [mister sock puppet version's] time as well, I think prom was being an outright generous saint.

But,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why are infractions not to be made public? If that's part of sciforum policy, am I entitled to the reason for it? Or was that threat just some muscle flexing from 'Prom'?

Additional questions:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111658

 

I never thought we'd be agreeing on anything. lol But then, if they tried to ban you. . . I'd probably fight like hell to get you back too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So he was banned for coming up with a non-viable brainteaser?
The POINT James, is regardless of it's viability, it was his attempt at a Brainteaser, and posted in the appropriate thread.

No one had to respond to it if they found it silly so to complain that a BrainTeaser is "vacuous nonsense" is somewhat silly.

Indeed, many BrainTeasers include a lot of "vacuous nonsense".
Like the example of the Cats talking about their owners that I cited.

Please show where he was Explicitly instructed to not start a thread?

Specifically not to in Site Feedback ASKING for clarification on his Warning:

In Site Feedback he posted the infraction he received from Prometheus and then asked what appears to be a reasonable question:

Tachyons are a hypothetical faster than light sub-atomic particle. Not everyone believes in them, but then again, not everyone believes in Gravitons either, and we also discuss them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Well I can't say how much nannying he has required, but that wasn't the reason given for why he was banned either.
Still, it would appear to me that the Warning given in the BrainTeaser's thread wasn't actually deserved and then going ballistic because he asked a question about his Warning in Site Feedback seems totally uncalled for.
Seems like a lot of the recent "nannying" is self imposed.

The Brain Teaser was posted in the appropriate thread.
So what if it wasn't logically consistent to you, it was to him.

The question he posed in "Site Feedback" also appears to be a reasonable place to ask about his warning.

And it's clear that the issue you have with the content of his BrainTeaser is based on his ignorance. There's no obvious indication that he was Trolling.

No, I'm quite aware of much of it.
I'm interested in many of the subject areas that Mister posts in, but I'm not likely to respond myself to most of them.
What you seem to miss is that posters like Mister provoke explanatory responses from others like AN, Rpenner etc that are meaningful to others who are following the threads.

Indeed, if it wasn't for a foil like Mister a great deal of interesting explanations (at the level many of us can understand) would never get posted.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Terrific. Turning Sciforums into a No free speech zone and a police state, just what we need. :shrug: A place where everyone has tissue paper egos. Do we want a place where people are free to express themselves and where interesting and lively discussions take place, or a place where bland posts are the rule of the day?

I don't think that is what adoucette had in mind. He is probably grown up enough and thick skinned enough to ignore the reactionary lunatic feminist ravings of a literally brilliant young member for the sake of the controversial discussion she brings to the forum. A little leeway is needed for an individual's personality for goodness sakes. . . I think that was the point.

Jeese adoucette. . . hope Gendanken never finds out you got her banned. . . you know how nasty she can be and how she holds a grudge. Once she finds out, she will stalk you, hunt you down, and troll you for a week. I know she did that to me once I got her angry. But well, I'm nice, she got bored of me. lol

 

Congratulations. That was a very nice opinion and would have looked very lovely in a consciousness thread had it remained out of the cesspool. It is a shame that others will not find your argument as easily when it is in the "site feedback" forum.

As long as the many thought experiments i.e. "wigners friend" remain in textbooks on the subject then the matter has not been "decided", or

There are still many people who will argue that a bumping molecule still needs to be observed, and others who might argue that molecules themselves may have consciousness.

As I said however; I am not arguing for or against consciousness in physics. I have been upset that a valid (to many in favour of) topic was tossed off Sciforums without discussion being allowed.

 

Nope
Didn't feel I needed to because she wrote that TO a moderator.

See first point.

Nope, the other reason I don't usually report such, is that I've noticed that the Moderators tend to ban people when they should just help to cool things down.

A forum is to exchange ideas and banning someone stops the flow of ideas.

Yeah, the lesson that the moderators here tend to hand out bans when they should actually moderate. I do realize that it is not as easy, but still the Edit function is a powerful tool (which some moderators ARE good at).

 

Mister recieved an infraction for a post for trolling.

But as James said:

And this is the post mister made:

I think this was a case of benign ignorance. At the most, it was pseudoscience. But it was definitely not trolling. IOW, he should not have recieved the infraction in the first place.

Secondly,
Why was he threatened to be banned if the infraction is made public? Is this a part of sciforum policy? If yes, can we know the reasons for it? If not, why was prom allowed to bully mister from posting this thread?

I am not against prom here. I wrote in post # 50:

That said, even if making the infraction public is against policy, and Mister was being arrogant, this is still a thread in site feedback asking for justification:

In which case the ban for making this infraction public should not have been enforced.
Regardless of the history of mister or prom, this was a very poor moderator decision.

 

"quantum physics" maybe?
right below the regular physics forum.
what about rules?
you need rules to moderate the forum.

moving posts or threads is not censorship.
forbidding discussion and/or editing/deleting posts is.

 

I disagree. It was not moved from one forum to another. It was removed to Cesspool, which is practically deleting it.

I am unsure why I am getting disagreement from anyone, nevermind James R.

@ James R,
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=111280

Look at the link in question.

Post # 4 is Prometheus tossing the subject into the Cesspool.

however

Post # 5 is you (James R) reviving it to general science.

So like it or not; it seems to demonstrate that you had a difference of opinion with Prometheus at the time.

Well I did as well. I seem to be getting a lot of Flak over thinking this thread (linked above) should not have ended up in the Cesspool after 4 posts, and yet it is obvious you moved it into science.

@ James R,
I did not think the linked topic deserved the Cesspool, and you yourself must have agreed as you moved this topic from the Cesspool to Science. So now why are you so critical to those who still feel that moving it to the Cesspool was a bad move.

I am sure a prolonged campaign at demonstrating a "moderator" censoring topics (and posts) in his area is not going to accomplish much. If rude behaviour was a bad quality in moderators then I'm sure you'd have nobody left to maintain the website.

I think it is reversed. I more than most understand that accepted physics must measure up from every front and scrutinized beyond imaginings. There is little talk of new physics here from what I see because of the scrutiny.

I hear it said that quantum physics has a place in the physics forum, however all the posts I see pertaining to atomic level matters are threads from what seem to be defined as woo-woos on this website.

If we listen to Steven Hawking then we know consciousness does not exist and we are all a bunch of Bio-Chemical robots. This is a common theme among today's physicists, and on Sciforums.

I am happy to entertain that "assumption".

@ James R,
You say "Copenhagen Interpretation", "Many-Worlds Interpretation", "Path Integral", "Relational Interpretation", and "Thought experiments" are welcome in physics.

First of all. Since it has already been decided what Interpretation of the Double slit experiment is correct please let me know. I am limited to what I can read.

I would love to hear the solution to that puzzle.

The Copenhagen Interpretation makes little sense any more, as it can be read to determine almost anything you want. There are too many Interpretations of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was originally a popular concept with what many believed to be conscious involved collapse.

Now we Know that consciousness itself is only a myth (Steven hawking).

I think the argument for consciousness is perhaps one of the most interesting topics that could be discussed on a forum, but since Steven Hawking has made up his mind then the topic itself should be censored.

I again stand firmly behind everything I have said on the matter. It is a topic that is better than many on here on any given day.

 

James R - Dont you think prom is having some recent rough with mister?
Like in the thread kwilnorn linked to?