swansont

Motor Daddy has earned an automatic three-day suspension for his latest infractions, for inappropriate remarks and trolling. ————————— Tsolkas has been suspended for two months, for opening a new thread on exactly the same topic as a thread that was locked, and the old thread was locked because the user would not engage in discussion on the topic, ignoring corrections and objections. The suspension is unusually long because the user makes only an occasional hit-and-run post, and a short suspension would have no effect on behavior. —————————————————— Chandrakanth has been banned, after admitting that the user is merely drumming up buzz for a new book, and that no discussion of claims was being contemplated.

Motor Daddy has been suspended for one week for trolling. This includes deliberately dragging out discussions to an absurd degree. This disruptive behavior persisted after being warned several times.

But one must take into account how many people you have to share your lab with.

Having posts moved to Pseudoscience & Speculations is not a punishment; it is meant to provide, for any casual reader, a clear divide between mainstream science and that which is still inadequately tested. By posting you have invited objective criticism, and if your post is moved, consider that one critique. Most posts moved here often fall under one or more of the following: No maths. Science requires specific predictions to be made so that a theory may be tested and falsified if it is wrong. Work that needs but lacks a legitimate mathematical framework is almost certain to be moved. Incomprehensible. Science uses well-defined terminology, so if you have made up your own, or you have equations and calculations but they are not explained so that anyone can understand them, the material will be moved. The burden is upon you to present the material using the framework that already exists. You are contradicting accepted science. Accepted science has a large amount of data supporting it, so if your thesis runs contrary to experimental results, you have basically pre-falsified your work. If you are proposing a new theory, it has to do better than the one it's supplanting. Remember, you have to be consistent with all of what has been observed, not just some small subset of it. No evidence. You have presented no scientific evidence to support your claims. In this context, this means data or observations consistent with your thesis, and also not predicted or explained by accepted science. Vague predictions that can be satisfied by a wide range of results carry little weight. No physical basis A reasoned rationale to justify the hypothesis must exist. A bunch of unconnected numbers or unjustified statements is not science. Obvious errors. A quick inspection shows statements that are not true. Your conclusion can't be valid if based on a flawed argument. It's not science. Science concerns itself with empirically describing how nature behaves. There must be a means by which the hypothesis can be proven false. Philosophy and metaphysics are separate topics, and for these purposes, considered speculation. I have evidence, from this book and article Books, especially by someone writing outside of their area of expertise, and popular articles, are not peer-reviewed. Anybody can write them. They often carry little or no weight in a discussion. When you are asked for a citation to support a claim, these are not what are being requested. Edit (10/20/10): X is wrong! posts are likely candidates to be moved, if X is a well-established theory, such as relativity, quantum mechanics or evolution. Such posts typically ignore the vast amount of evidence in support of the theories, and fail to cite any actual contradictory experimental evidence. Edit (10/4/16): We generally draw a distinction between posts that ask a question and posts that make an assertion that is contrary to mainstream science. "Is the moon made of green cheese?" is a question that can be addressed by science, and so it is legitimate to post in the appropriate science subforum. The answer happens to be no, and we have evidence that can be cited to support that answer. "The moon is made of green cheese!" is an assertion, and something that would be moved to speculations, where it would be refuted, though the author would be expected to post evidence in support of his/her claim.

Graviphoton suspended for seven days for personal attacks/flaming.

DavyJonesLoquet suspended (3 days) for multiple counts of thread hijacking.

graviphoton suspended for three days for a combination of recent violations: flaming, thread hijacking, and copyright violation

tsolkas suspended for one week for continued trolling; violations of rule 2.8: posting essentially duplicate messages without engaging in discussion of the original topic.

tsolkas has been suspended for repeated violations of rule 2.8: posting without engaging in discussion of the original topic

Zephir again suspended for multiple rules violations, 2.3.5b and 2.5. Two weeks

Zephir again suspended for thread hijacking in violation of rule 2.5.

This will be a listing of users that have been banned or suspended for rules violations (other than spambots that have been immediately deleted) Automatic suspensions for exceeding the 25-point limit of infractions are three days. (edit: points system no longer in use) Other suspensions and bans are from explicit moderator action. "Sabbatical" refers to a user-requested suspension/ban (update 4/24/09) ———————————————————— Zephir has been suspended for 1 week for repeated highjacking via off-topic posts of alternative theories in the physics section (including violations of rule 2.5, use of scientific threads to advertise a personal theory)

Infinite thermal capacity is impossible.

That's a classical calculation. That's the point of several discussions on the matter — classical descriptions of the electron fail. You have to use QED.

That doesn't jibe with what I was able to read on Google books. The book continually points out that the electron is a point, and you only get indications of size when it's interacting, and that these are clearly quantum effects.

4000-5000 per second. Average person has ~140 g of potassium, of which ~16.5 mg will be K-40. I get 4400 for that number. http://fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/RadioactiveHumanBody/RadioactiveHumanBody.html http://www.rerowland.com/K40.html The second link confirms my calculations that an average banana is radioactive at ~12 dps. Back when I was trapping K-37, I came up with the "banana equivalent" for the amount of atoms trapped. Sometimes it was a frustratingly small number (with a half-life of 1.226 sec, one banana of K-40 is equivalent is ~21 atoms of K-37)

Note: recent discussion on science philosophy and the supposed failings of the standard model have been moved http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30673

I'll need some clarification and supporting evidence for this one. ~3000 from C-14, and at least that many from K-40, I think.

Elas, I moved you last post to the thread you linked to; discussion of your work beongs there, not here.

Blue is a primary color, and more manly. Seriously, though, I think it's more from narrowing the choices to red-green-blue, rather than ROYGBIV.

Gyros are already used in this fashion to keep things pointed in a desired direction, e.g. in satellites.

What part of "composite" is giving you trouble here? composite: made up of distinct parts As opposed to elementary particles, which are not made up of distinct parts. Nobody is advancing the hypothesis that fractional hall states are elementary particles (except, perhaps, you). Every time you have presented a paper title or abstract, it has been in terms of composite states. When someone says particle, they do not automatically mean elementary particle; an atom is referred to as a particle, but it is also a composite.

You do not need a force to keep spinning things pointed in the same direction, just as you do not need a force to keep things moving. An object moving in a straight line will continue to do so until acted upon by an external force, and when that happens, its momentum will change. But if it has a large momentum, a small force will not cause much deviation (whether that is in speed or direction). A spinning top is the same, but in a rotational sense: it has angular momentum, and the only thing that can cause a change in that angular momentum is a torque. But with a given torque that the earth can exert, a fast-spinning object will not deviate as much (in speed, or in this case direction, which is along the spin axis)

You have gotten substantial feedback, from physicists no less, much of which you have brushed aside. My evaluation of your material as speculative is based on the fact that, um, it is! What you have is based on conjecture; you have not proposed how to test this conjecture and have no data that supports you at the exclusion of established theories. Further, you have made predictions that are contrary to actual experimental results (e.g. that the classical electron radius is the actual size of an electron, and that a neutron is comprised of 5 particles) And it certainly doesn't help your complaint about being moved to speculations that one of your most prominently displayed bits of evidence you felt supported your conjecture was based on misunderstanding the fractional quantum hall effect discovery to be elementary particles rather than quantum fluid composite states, and that this gaffe has apparently not changed your thesis one bit.

The guts of two new fountain clocks, under vacuum.