Why does it seem like there is no moderation in Physics and Math?

[PhysBang]

And now Farsight has gone and insulted the forum by posting another obvious alternative theory in the physics section.

He needs help.

I recently stumbled across this gem: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8194020&postcount=1066

"I didn't lose anybody who understands general relativity. Not at that point, anyway.

But I lost you."

 

[lpetrich]

If one wants to discuss was Einstein had theorized, certainly, but it's "how did we discover that?" history rather than Einstein's writings as revealed truth that are binding on practicing physicists.

Going back to the original whatever may not be a good idea for another reason. The original statement of some theory may be very awkward by present-day standards. That was the case for Newtonian mechanics in Newton's Principia; it was all done with Euclid-style geometric constructions rather than with algebra. Likewise Maxwell's original version of his equations were written out component-by-component rather than in vector form, as Heaviside was to do.

Wikibooks is a site with open-content textbooks, so you can see what textbook writers prefer to write. Its discussion of Newtonian mechanics would seem very odd to dear old Sir Isaac. It's all algebra, and it uses vectors. Even worse for him, for calculus operations, it uses Leibniz's notation a lot. Newton and Leibniz had had an infamous fight over who invented this bit of mathematics.


My point with this discussion and my previous post is to show that Farsight's methods are rather far from mainstream scientific methodology. Thus, what he advocates fully deserves to be put in some "On the Fringe" forum like "Alternative Theories".

 

[Baldeee]

Thanks for the clarification.

So how is that different from what exists now, besides taking from moderators and giving to the members the power to move threads to the appropriate forum or delete if content is not appropriate?

Where have I suggested that non-mods would get to move threads or delete content?
Why should content be deleted merely for being wrong, for example?
It just needs someone to point out that it is wrong (and support their position etc).
The deletion of content would/should only be on grounds of behaviour, IMO.

And same question applies: how exactly would that work? One of the exact issues of the thread: a thread got moved from physics to alternative: how, in your way of doing things, would that happen?

If the subject of the thread has no peer-reviewed papers to support the technical notions discussed, why should it not go in Alternative until such time as it becomes mainstream?
Is that not what it means to be alternative?
Is Alternative only to be seen as a derogatory term?

Also, in the thread in question, Farsight admitted he generated the graph and admitted he did it without math. So that's "failure to provide support" and the thread should be closed, right?

Where have I said that failure to provide support should result in thread closure?
The person should get moderated for behaviour, and all matters regarding content can be left in the thread.
Even it requires the mod to insist on inclusion (by edit) of caveats regarding the "evidence" presented (e.g. "Mod note - date xx/xx/xx - this graph has been identified as being created by the poster with no maths behind it").
I see this as part of moderation of behaviour.
The members, including any experts in the field, can self-moderate the content merely by calling the poster out and highlighting the issues in what they post, and asking for the poster to provide evidence etc.

The mod could then either close the thread if he deems it dead, or move it the Alternative forum (or even cesspool) until such time as support for the notions under discussion are forthcoming.
But I do not see the need in any of this for the mod to be an expert in the field.

 

[Farsight]

PhysBang/lpetrich: just address the physics I provide. If you can't or won't, calling for censorship cuts no ice. It's a discussion forum. Not a magisterium:

"In Catholicism, the magisterium is the authority that lays down what is the authentic teaching of the Church.[1][2] For the Catholic Church, that authority is vested uniquely in the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.[3] Sacred Scripture and Tradition 'make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church'".

 

[PhysBang]

PhysBang/lpetrich: just address the physics I provide.

I do. For example, I have asked you to provide a simple example to show how your ideas work. You never answer these questions.

This is a personal failing of yours that should be addressed: you are trying to avoid the details of the physics by an escape to appeals to authority. If you understand the physics, then help us by showing us specific examples. If you can't show us, then you need to reavaulate your mental state, probably with the helo of a professional.