So... is it time to kill off this [P and M] sub-forum yet?

No, silly, read again , the two "d" do not represent the same distance, one is in one direction, the other one is in the opposite direction.
How old are you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They could still be the same distance.
If two things are not equal, why represent them by the same letter?
It is you who have caused confusion here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thread is really getting off topic. There isn't really any direction anymore, but let's not forget the early postings. Several people stated that cleaning the crank stuff out of P&M would make SciForums a better place, and that started a cluster fest about all the ignorant meat heads who think they should be able to post things in P&M that are without scientific merit.

If I understand, the best case would be that those who have a rigorous understanding of physics and math expound on math games and the current mainstream theories, and chat among themselves, and at the same time stand ready to answer legitimate questions. Maybe answer a few homework questions, and dispatch unworthy questions and threads to the fringe, including cases where the resident P&M experts aren't happy with the way the recipient of their educated guidance responds to them. And of course sending them off with flames would be frowned upon, but allowed.

Have I got any part of that right; would that be the perfect P&M world, or would someone in the credentialed community who wants to clean up P&M like to explain how I have it wrong, and explain just how you would like to structure the P&M forum here at SciForums.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no confusion for people who know physics.

 

Yes, this is how real physics forums work. Cranks and their stuff are quickly redirected to their own sandbox, away from the main forum. If they insist on polluting the main forum, they get quickly banished. See also here.

 

Yes, that is a first class forum, and strictly non alternative, though I have not really looked at the threads lately to see what degree of alternative discussion are happening these days. I am a member and your point is well taken, hard science is the rule.

Are you recommending that same posture for SciForums?

You have to be pragmatic when implementing change. The Science Section at SciForum today is what it is; low member participation, uneven moderation, no effective rules or rule enforcement.

There is a broad selection of sub forums, and too little member participation; the forum looks empty if you base you perspective on "today's posts" and the frequency of activity.

We are dealing with established descriptions of fifteen sub forums in Science and the Fringe, which sometimes results in topics being misclassified by the originator.

That means that the topic list presented in the hard science forums are diluted with less than scientific topics, and that results in flames and abuse. From there, members get dissatisfied with the threads that turn to flames and leave or don't participate. In addition, threads where the consensus answers lead to follow-on questions about the consensus itself, that leads to flames and abuse as well.

When conscientious members who know the guidelines for each sub forum, select a sub forum in the Fringe, an implied stigma is in the air. The result is that a few members who have alternative ideas briefly discuss each others ideas, and then the thread goes quiet, except for the continued efforts of the originator to spark the discussion by replying to themselves. This is also a no rules territory where intolerant self proclaimed experts flame and disparage the membership who rightfully are discussing their ideas in the fringe.

So is your solution to the situation here to impose the Physics Forum standards?

 

Einstein didn't do it. He always picked different letters when he meant different things.

@QW
This site is always slow at this time of year.
It will pick up when the new university and school years commence.

 

He put English language clarifications next to each calculation so you could see what \(d\) refers to in each case, didn't look like much of a big deal to me. Maybe it would be nice to have subscripts like \(d_+\) or \(d_-\) to help eliminate any confusion, but unless it were a formal paper I don't think anyone in the field would pick a bone with him over it.

 

yes.

.....lots of antimainstream posters posting garbage while trying to pass it as science.....

...so, the moderators need to move them where they belong

The other way around, the current P&M is diluted with fringe garbage. Drowning in crackpots masquerading as scientists.

Well, if the shoe fits...wear it.

 

Sorry, I have been an active member for five or six years, and I was an accountant before I retired, lol. I know my characterization of activity is not fully explained by the slow season. If only from memory over the years, the year over year participation has significantly declined. Even before the summer session, we rarely had >30 members on line at the peak hours over the past eight months. We have bottomed out, and there is no telling what the stories are of those of us remaining, lol.

 

OK, and what about the rules of conduct. Your style would have to change or you would soon have a perma ban, wouln't you say?

 

I think there's nothing wrong with questioning the existing understanding, as long as it's done in a sincere fashion. A disingenuous line of questioning involves rhetoric demonstrating that the one asking the questions has clearly decided on the answer in advance, and they summarily dismiss informed contrary answers without the use of informed arguments. If you want to ask genuine questions about how things are done in the field of math or physics, you should certainly be welcome to do that here without taking any spit or abuse, and fair moderation would discipline anyone doing so under those circumstances. Everyone makes mistakes and informed individuals can give crappy or incorrect answers, so it's not like one has to express satisfaction with whatever answers they've been given, but if they want to argue against those answers, they should be able to use (or at least demonstrate a sincere attempt to use) supporting evidence and established theory, otherwise they should take the discussion elsewhere.

There is indeed a stigma associated with those subforums, and it's well deserved, because it's not science. The topics that go there don't follow the established rules for how scientific inquiries are conducted. There's nothing scientific about speculation unless it can be rigorously shown to tie into something that's already well known. Since mathematics is the language of what's already known about the physical laws of the universe, that means if you've got a pet theory and you want it to be treated as scientific, you need to show at minimum that it's either mathematically consistent with existing knowledge, or that you've performed some sort of novel experiment in which the results quantifiably matched with your predictions in a way that our existing understanding can't.

If forum membership is an issue and the physics/math section is starting to run bone dry, flooding it with junk science is still a worse alternative. There's nothing to stop people from finding threads of interest in the Fringe sections, if they're not specifically looking for topics to address science as it's understood in the present day. On the other hand I think you bring up a valid point as far as abuse and harassment in the Fringe sections- I think scientific arguments should be a valid means of contesting any claim made anywhere on this site, but aside from arguments on that basis, one should not be mocked or insulted or otherwise harassed for expressing an alternative view in the appropriate place.

 

You and the others like you (Farsight, Undefined, chinglu, Motor Daddy, Q-reeus) stop posting BS in the main forum and my style will change. Actually, I will not even look at your posts if you confine yourselves to the Fringe section.

 

That brings up my argument about the inconsistency between GR and QM. Is that discussion supposed to be limited to the fringe?

 

Based on the way you formulate your threads, it belongs in Fringe.

 

Does it have any connection to our existing understanding of why they conflict?

 

Let me rephrase that question I asked Tach. "That brings up the inconsistency between GR and QM. Is that discussion supposed to be limited to the fringe?"

I rephrase it because when I said "my argument", it could be confused to make you think I had one specific argument in mind, and I was generalizing to the topic, meaning isn't that a mainstream topic, and doesn't it represent current work of thousands of science professionals?

There are explanations about the distinction between the quantum realm and the macro realm, and how QM applies at the quantum level and GR at the macro level. I was asking though, about discussion of the general topic that would then lead to more detailed arguments, but not intending them to be pursued here.

 

So if I formulate my threads differently, I could post in the main forum, under the new rules?

 

Why don't you use the time wasted posting here in order to take a physics class? That would be much better use of your time. Once you did that, you could return here and post meaningful, informed threads instead of what you are posing now

 

I know more about the topic of the inconsistency between GR and QM than you are ever likely to give me credit for. For example, take the case in another thread where you mistakenly posted that there was no cumulative effect of gravity on an object between two massive objects; you said something like, "the gravitational potential is zero". Only after you worked out the math did you realize your error and correct your statement. I knew the instant that you said it you were wrong, and I didn't need any math to bring me to that conclusion. Why don't you get some practical grasp of the effects of gravity before you post BS answers? (I'm just mimicking you, lol.)