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

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by funkstar, Aug 10, 2013.

  1. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    If it's about discussing the conflict between GR and QM, and/or alternative theories that have demonstrated a mathematical ability to unify them to some degree, then I'd say it's a perfectly appropriate topic. If it's intended as a backdoor to open up discussion of alternative ideas that don't have any mathematical tie-ins to existing knowledge nor experimental demonstrations, then that would be like a pop-up ad to go check out a thread that doesn't relate to modern science, and there's no reason to post it in this section.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Just like at Physics Forum. That is your solution to what ails SciForums?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Furthermore, there are lots of people who have their own pet theories that attempt to qualitatively extrapolate on the knowledge contained within QM and GR. How can it be taken seriously in a scientific discussion if someone attempts to extrapolate on theories they candidly admit they haven't even learned? If one doesn't have a solid grasp of the mathematical mechanisms by which these two theories go about describing things in the real world, and the ability to evaluate claims, assertions and implications on that basis, why should we take their attempts to extend or circumvent these theories seriously?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    So you think the way to improve SciForums is to mimick Physics Forums? What is wrong with just letting SciForums fade away and moving over there?
     
  8. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I don't see how the quality of discussion is enhanced by embracing unscientific approaches in a section specifically dedicated to scientific approaches, nor do I see the benefit in allowing disingenuous posts intended as pop-up ads for a completely separate topic. If you want a free forum of ideas, we have one now down in the Fringe section, and the quality of the dialogue is entirely dependent on the people who choose to discuss the subjects that interest them there (and I agree that moderators should allow people to express their views openly there without being insulted and harassed by other members). If people perceive a stigma to be associated with the Fringe section and prefer to browse the Physics & Math section instead for carefully evaluated information, then that's what they deserve to find when they come here.
     
  9. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I don't think so, this is a very difficult subject and you have just a veneer of knowledge. You know no knowledge of mathematical formalism, so you cannot be converse in this subject (or any physics subject for that matter).



    Precisely, you need to be able to translate into math, once I realized the sign error , I corrected myself. On the other hand, you know no math.

    Really? How did you do that? What are the odds that you will ever be able to tell right from wrong in the future given that you lack the mathematical formalism?


    There is a difference between making a mistake and willfully posting BS. I made a mathematical mistake, I realized it, I corrected it. Willfully posting BS is what you do: you post about subjects you know nothing about, then you stretch it for hundreds of posts, proudly counting the number of views that your BS is getting and gloating shamelessly about it.
     
  10. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Listen, unlike many other science websites, there are subforums here where you can toss around just about any way you like, but you're saying that you don't want to post your ideas in the Fringe section because there's a stigma associated with it. As far as ascertaining scientific fact is concerned, what differentiates your speculative posts from the other posts in those sections that are generating the stigma?
     
  11. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I know that, and though you characterize my activity from your perspective, I am clear about my hobby, and I spend a lot of time on it. As for the posting the number of views, I explained it and you choose to characterize it differently; as gloating. Fine, but for me, it is a way of knowing the general "unseen" activity, which gives me data that I want to have in regard to the interest in the thread.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    My point in the earlier description of the current status of SciForums was that there is no member participation in the Fringe, and I grow my so called model by having it attacked and criticised. You may note that there is almost never any post that points out the internal inconsistencies or that show any of it to be inconsistent with scientific observations and data. True, there of hundreds of flames and posts with disparagement and disdain toward me, but no actual help. You may think it is a help to tell me why it is wrong according to your rigorous understanding of consensus theories, but the reason I even have a "so called model" is that, for a layman science enthusiast, I have a pretty good grasp of the popular media on the consensus theories, and the inconsistencies, and my hobby is to hypothesize about reconciling them, while the scientific community does its real science toward that end. So shoot me, lol.
     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    We cannot help what is intrinsicly crackpot. Your so-called "theory" contains no mathematical formalism, so, it does not qualify as a theory. It qualifies as babbling.
    Go get educated, write up a mathematical formalism for your "theory", then we'll talk. Same applies to the other cranks with "theories": hansda, Farsight, Undefined.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Word salad, with Italian which I think is your preference. I am educated and I continue to get educated daily on what interests me. You on the other hand only deal with properly formalized theory, and I don't call my so called model theory, which you well know. It is a straw man to say I characterize it as theory, but that is beside the point. You are willing to play math games, and I am wiling to play "so called" model games. I pointed out one distinction between us and that has to do with my civility and you incivility. This willingness to play "so called" model games, that address ideas that you have no interest in, is what I'm interested in. Your welcome to waste your time flaming me where ever I post and in any thread I post in, and as I did in my last thread, I am welcome to ignore you.
     
  15. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I imagine most of the criticism you would get for posting your ideas in this section isn't because people here are interested in evaluating your model, but rather because they see it as distracting from more relevant topics and because it can appear misleading to laymen who would have trouble distinguishing between what actually does and doesn't constitute our true scientific understanding. If you need help with a math problem of some sort or you have questions about mainstream physics then you can always come ask it here. But if you think a knowledgeable individual here would actually be interested in helping you out to construct your own model, there's no reason they couldn't find you over in Alternative Theories or wherever else if that's the kind of thrill they're looking for.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    That brings us right back on topic. SciForums; do we close the door and shut out the lights? Do we change it to a Physics Forums format and enforce it. The elephant in the room is that there is no active moderation, and I haven't seen even a clue from the administrator as to whether or not there is any plan to keep the doors open.

    I'm quite alright with posting my threads in the main science forum until there is some resolution. It would be like talking to an empty room for me to make suggestions for changes that might start to bring back active participation, but in the mean time, flames are the rule, no code of conduct is enforced. Me posting my threads in P&M might be what it takes to get some attention to the fixes, or it might just go like with my last thread, moved to Pseudo by a moderator who seems to still have disdain for a particular member.
     
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    @QW
    As an ex accountant, what do you make of these figures from Alexa.com?
     
  18. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Wow, I LIKE it. I am familiar with some of the available analytics, but I don't really have any website that I follow, not even my old blog site that Cheezle links to once in awhile. That uses Google analytics, and for a web manager or forum administrator, I think it would be valuable. Is the data available to the general public or is it by subscription? That is a great graphic.
     
  19. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    If you go to Alexa.com, you can compare any sites you like.
    Here's Amazon vs ebay Global Ranking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265

    It is exactly this impertinent attitude of denialism that generates the responses to your incessant babble.

    Certainly not in terms of physics. And it shows.



    Well then, call it for what it is, babble. Models contain mathematical formalisms, yours doesn't.

    ...but they belong to Fringe.
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I meant my posts were word salad to you, and you expressed a preference for Italian dressing.
     
  22. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Thanks, how about one more? SciForums and The Science Forum
     
  23. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I see, I agree with this statement.
     

Share This Page