Jump to content

What is the correct way to use a science based forum ?


Recommended Posts

I am clueless because personal opinion and comments seem to get a suspension or a ban . Are we meant to just ''preach'' present information ? Is there any point to a discussion if there is no neurological diversity , meaning alternative answers ? 

My started threads keeps getting closed down as soon as somebody doesn't like my opinions , so please tell me , what is the correct way to use a science based forum ? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

what is the correct way to use a science based forum ? 

I've found that the following seems to work pretty well for me:

- Read, understand and apply the forum rules when contributing to discussions.
- Try to understand and act according to the spirit of the forum. 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

I am clueless because personal opinion and comments seem to get a suspension or a ban . Are we meant to just ''preach'' present information ? Is there any point to a discussion if there is no neurological diversity , meaning alternative answers ? 

My started threads keeps getting closed down as soon as somebody doesn't like my opinions , so please tell me , what is the correct way to use a science based forum ? 

 

 

If you talk nonsensical crap, you must expect to get closed down. You have been banned over and over agin, from so many forums, that this message must have sunk in by now. The only explanation for you continuing as you do must be either that you have some  insane compulsion to talk crap or that you are doing it for fun, as a wind-up.  I incline to the latter view, as you know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is experimentally proven knowledge gathered over hundreds and thousands of years of human development. If the thread is closed, you are most likely making up things that are not mainstream science and/or even contradict common knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

My started threads keeps getting closed down as soon as somebody doesn't like my opinions

No, this is not true, (though this is a common response) but it shows that you aren’t really paying attention to what’s going on. Your threads that have been closed were closed because you didn’t follow the rules. You were asked to comply, and you did not do so. If you had provided the information that the rules require, the threads would have remained open.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

My started threads keeps getting closed down as soon as somebody doesn't like my opinions , so please tell me , what is the correct way to use a science based forum ? 

No. Everything you say is pulled out of your anatomy. You don't answer to any objections, and just keep pushing your "ideas."

For example, you keep saying "eigenstate" and "eigenvector" as if you learnt those words in a dream...

Socialization - That word you keep using... I don't think it means what you  think it means... — Kindred Companions LLC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, this is not true, (though this is a common response) but it shows that you aren’t really paying attention to what’s going on. Your threads that have been closed were closed because you didn’t follow the rules. You were asked to comply, and you did not do so. If you had provided the information that the rules require, the threads would have remained open.

 

 

I don't understand where your forum allows for advancement of science then and/or new notions . Most of the questions I ask and I am trying to find an answer to,  doesn't presently have an answer . None of you answer my questions because you don't know the answer ! 

You aren't allowing for any sort of new terminology , I don't get how this suppose to be a discussion forum when discussion isn't been allowed . 

 

 

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

No. Everything you say is pulled out of your anatomy. You don't answer to any objections, and just keep pushing your "ideas."

For example, you keep saying "eigenstate" and "eigenvector" as if you learnt those words in a dream...

Socialization - That word you keep using... I don't think it means what you  think it means... — Kindred Companions LLC

I learnt the words and meaning off google, then used my own mind to think about those words . My ideas are objective , it is just people  must be failing to understand ! 

36 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Science is experimentally proven knowledge gathered over hundreds and thousands of years of human development. If the thread is closed, you are most likely making up things that are not mainstream science and/or even contradict common knowledge.

What about new science , new terminology , proofs that overturn existing science ? 

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ned said:

My ideas are objective , it is just people  must be failing to understand ! 

objective

 adjective
 
/əbˈdʒektɪv/
 
/əbˈdʒektɪv/
  1.  
     not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts
  2. SYNONYM unbiased
    • an objective assessment of the situation
    • objective truth/facts/reality
    • objective criteria/measures/measurements
    • He doesn't even pretend to be impartial and objective.
    • It's hard to remain completely objective.
    OPPOSITE subjective

From: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/objective_2

No. On the contrary (same source https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/subjective😞

subjective

 adjective
 
/səbˈdʒektɪv/
 
/səbˈdʒektɪv/
  1. based on your own ideas or opinions rather than facts and therefore sometimes unfair
    • a highly subjective point of view
    • Everyone's opinion is bound to be subjective.
    OPPOSITE objective (1)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joigus said:

objective

 adjective
 
/əbˈdʒektɪv/
 
/əbˈdʒektɪv/
  1.  
     not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts
  2. SYNONYM unbiased
    • an objective assessment of the situation
    • objective truth/facts/reality
    • objective criteria/measures/measurements
    • He doesn't even pretend to be impartial and objective.
    • It's hard to remain completely objective.
    OPPOSITE subjective

From: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/objective_2

No. On the contrary (same source https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/subjective😞

subjective

 adjective
 
/səbˈdʒektɪv/
 
/səbˈdʒektɪv/
  1. based on your own ideas or opinions rather than facts and therefore sometimes unfair
    • a highly subjective point of view
    • Everyone's opinion is bound to be subjective.
    OPPOSITE objective (1)

I'm well aware of what objective and subjective means but thank you for showing others . I do not make stuff up in my  head , I can envision most physics and actually draw the process . I've a good understanding of present physics and insome areas present physics isn't totally objective . 

I have pointed out these errors on several occasions but of course they'd rather continue with subjectiveness . 

I'm humble and don't know everything but what I present is actual physics . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Ned said:

I don't understand where your forum allows for advancement of science then and/or new notions . Most of the questions I ask and I am trying to find an answer to,  doesn't presently have an answer . None of you answer my questions because you don't know the answer ! 

You aren't allowing for any sort of new terminology , I don't get how this suppose to be a discussion forum when discussion isn't been allowed . 

You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model. Or to present results of novel experiments, and discuss how they might imply new science. Just like anybody else doing science.

Science isn't done with poorly-explained drawings (which are not experiments, BTW) and terminology that is unexplained, unnecessary or misappropriated from established science.

You might notice that your first speculative thread was not shut down immediately. It was after you ignored questions that were put to you. Complaining about not having a discussion has to include your refusal to participate; it seems your "discussion" is just you lecturing, and that's not our idea of discussion. You can go get a blog somewhere for that.

27 minutes ago, Ned said:

I...don't know everything but what I present is actual physics . 

I'm an actual physicist and I do not agree with your assessment. Using terminology from physics is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing actual physics. Actual physics requires equations (derived from physics principles, not pulled out of one's ass)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have an opportunity to present mathematical models of how nature might behave, and present ideas for experiments that would test the model. Or to present results of novel experiments, and discuss how they might imply new science. Just like anybody else doing science.

Science isn't done with poorly-explained drawings (which are not experiments, BTW) and terminology that is unexplained, unnecessary or misappropriated from established science.

You might notice that your first speculative thread was not shut down immediately. It was after you ignored questions that were put to you. Complaining about not having a discussion has to include your refusal to participate; it seems your "discussion" is just you lecturing, and that's not our idea of discussion. You can go get a blog somewhere for that.

I came up with an experiment to test for an Aether which was closed down . You had no idea whether or not the experiment would of worked or not . I based that on the Casimir effect . I attempt to provide math then get told its gibberish , I get no help in trying to correct the math . I thought my drawings were self explanatory , they were labelled . 

That's the problem see, new science and terminology doesn't necessary conform to established physics because it doesn't have too . I think this forum really missed out when I posted about the neurolgical reference frame (The mind) and the thread was closed . 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ned said:

That's the problem see, new science and terminology doesn't necessary conform to established physics because it doesn't have too . I think this forum really missed out when I posted about the neurolgical reference frame (The mind) and the thread was closed . 

 

That's where you're wrong --among many other places. Newtonian mechanics can be obtained from relativistic mechanics as an approximation. Classical relativistic, or non-relativistic, mechanics can be obtained from quantum mechanics as an approximation. Newton's theory of gravity can be obtained from general relativity as an approximation. Etc.

In all of those theoretical steps, the reason why we believed the previous idea, but were unable to see the new one, is made transparent.

Test number one for a new theory, even before it makes it to the laboratory, is that everything we already know is implied there, as an approximation.

Then you must come up with a way to test how it could be proven wrong.

The experiments are the other, and final, judge of whether your idea is sound. It doesn't matter how beautiful your idea is to you, or others. If it contradicts the experiment, it's out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

I came up with an experiment to test for an Aether which was closed down . You had no idea whether or not the experiment would of worked or not . I based that on the Casimir effect . I attempt to provide math then get told its gibberish , I get no help in trying to correct the math . I thought my drawings were self explanatory , they were labelled . 

Funny how you never mentioned the Casimir effect, nor provided any equations related to it. Actually that second part isn't all that surprising, since the Casimir force depends on the fourth power of separation distance of the conducting plates, and is hard to see even with micron-level separations, so making it more than a million times bigger means the effect is 10^24 times smaller. And that's one reason why the math is important: so we can quickly rule out wild supposition.

But you don't go through any mathematical justification whatsoever. Nada. Zilch.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

Funny how you never mentioned the Casimir effect, nor provided any equations related to it. Actually that second part isn't all that surprising, since the Casimir force depends on the fourth power of separation distance of the conducting plates, and is hard to see even with micron-level separations, so making it more than a million times bigger means the effect is 10^24 times smaller. And that's one reason why the math is important: so we can quickly rule out wild supposition.

But you don't go through any mathematical justification whatsoever. Nada. Zilch.

 

 

I do give mathematical justification but I guess you and others don't understand it . I never got chance mention the Casimir effect, I was closed  down when the conversation had just begun . 

The physics comes before the maths always and nobody here is attempting to understand . 

You said previously , '' I'm an actual physicist and I do not agree with your assessment. Using terminology from physics is a necessary but insufficient condition for doing actual physics. Actual physics requires equations (derived from physics principles, not pulled out of one's ass)''. 

Some of your present physics isn't correct , how do you explain that then ? Use broken physics to derive physics ? 

 

 

1 hour ago, joigus said:

That's where you're wrong --among many other places. Newtonian mechanics can be obtained from relativistic mechanics as an approximation. Classical relativistic, or non-relativistic, mechanics can be obtained from quantum mechanics as an approximation. Newton's theory of gravity can be obtained from general relativity as an approximation. Etc.

In all of those theoretical steps, the reason why we believed the previous idea, but were unable to see the new one, is made transparent.

Test number one for a new theory, even before it makes it to the laboratory, is that everything we already know is implied there, as an approximation.

Then you must come up with a way to test how it could be proven wrong.

The experiments are the other, and final, judge of whether your idea is sound. It doesn't matter how beautiful your idea is to you, or others. If it contradicts the experiment, it's out.

 

No offense but you probably believe space is expanding and before the big bang nothing existed , not even space . Science isn't perfect and has errors and unanswered questions . I have answered unanswered question that science could not provide me with answers , maths is an add on to the physics . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ned said:

No offense but you probably believe space is expanding and before the big bang nothing existed , not even space . Science isn't perfect and has errors and unanswered questions . I have answered unanswered question that science could not provide me with answers , maths is an add on to the physics . 

None taken. If nothing else, you've proven to be respectful to others, and I appreciate that and would like to answer you in kind.

Swansont has just given you an impeccable reasoning why your idea is probably very much misguided.

Appealing to mathematics is absolutely essential. That doesn't mean you have to use the most powerful mathematical tools at hand. Many times it's good enough to do some sanity checks that go in the mathematical direction. Those are well known, and invaluable tools. Check for:

Units

Orders of magnitude

Simple arguments about symmetry, what depends on what, what shouldn't depend on what, etc.

Approximations: this is small in comparison to that, etc.

Please keep in mind that, even though criticism from people who know more than you can be hard to swallow, it is a necessary step in building up to bigger things.

They're actually doing you a favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

None taken. If nothing else, you've proven to be respectful to others, and I appreciate that and would like to answer you in kind.

Swansont has just given you an impeccable reasoning why your idea is probably very much misguided.

Appealing to mathematics is absolutely essential. That doesn't mean you have to use the most powerful mathematical tools at hand. Many times it's good enough to do some sanity checks that go in the mathematical direction. Those are well known, and invaluable tools. Check for:

Units

Orders of magnitude

Simple arguments about symmetry, what depends on what, what shouldn't depend on what, etc.

Approximations: this is small in comparison to that, etc.

Please keep in mind that, even though criticism from people who know more than you can be hard to swallow, it is a necessary step in building up to bigger things.

They're actually doing you a favour.

I understand this and if present math represented what I discuss then I'd be using that . However, present math already has uses that aren't the uses I am explaining . 

What I am explaining has no units because it is new and we haven't given it a unit this far . Magnitude is dynamic in my discussion , don't forget I brought a new force into the ''equation'' , a conservation of energy force . F=? this far . Science can't answer my questions so how can their present math support unanswered questions ? It can't 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ned said:

Some of your present physics isn't correct , how do you explain that then ? Use broken physics to derive physics ?

Here's a big part of YOUR problem. When physics is correctly applied, when the right models are chosen to explain a specific phenomenon, the physics is correct. It's correct because it follows what we observe, within the framework of the situation. Somewhere in your studies you learned that some theories are incomplete, and you mistakenly took that to mean they're wrong, or incorrect. Just because you need to first figure out if you need to use General Relativity or Special Relativity doesn't mean either are incorrect, it just means that, like ALL theories, they have specific areas where they're applicable. 

But this also points out the problems with your approach. Your "physics" is demonstrably flawed, and people have shown you where it fails, but you seem to ignore them. You keep pushing your version without addressing the flaws mentioned, and that's called soapboxing. And we're used to evidence in support of assertions, and you don't have any, where mainstream science has tons. That's what you're up against when you reject the knowledge of science humans have accumulated over the centuries. If you want to dispute so much learning, you have to at least attempt to be as diligent as the giants who've gone before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Here's a big part of YOUR problem. When physics is correctly applied, when the right models are chosen to explain a specific phenomenon, the physics is correct. It's correct because it follows what we observe, within the framework of the situation. Somewhere in your studies you learned that some theories are incomplete, and you mistakenly took that to mean they're wrong, or incorrect. Just because you need to first figure out if you need to use General Relativity or Special Relativity doesn't mean either are incorrect, it just means that, like ALL theories, they have specific areas where they're applicable. 

But this also points out the problems with your approach. Your "physics" is demonstrably flawed, and people have shown you where it fails, but you seem to ignore them. You keep pushing your version without addressing the flaws mentioned, and that's called soapboxing. And we're used to evidence in support of assertions, and you don't have any, where mainstream science has tons. That's what you're up against when you reject the knowledge of science humans have accumulated over the centuries. If you want to dispute so much learning, you have to at least attempt to be as diligent as the giants who've gone before us.

Thank you for your explanation and my claim is to have advanced physics and present understanding based on previous giants work . However , everytime I try to point out errors in these incomplete works , I get closed down because simply people aren't understanding . 

However , you won't let me run a thread explaining these errros because science ''can't be wrong'' . 

Additionally everytime I try to run an unanswered science question thread , they also get shut down . 

I can't advance previous giants works if I'm  never going to be allowed to explain the errors or explain the advanced findings . 

I'm trying to explain to you and science that science already has all the answers but they just haven't linked it all together to answer the unanswered questions . Often science has very poor semantics . 

I'll start a thread in physics section asking a question , I'll keep it simple . 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ned said:

I am clueless

Totally agree. Thank you for acknowledging this. 

 

21 minutes ago, Ned said:

I get closed down because simply people aren't understanding

Nope, not even close to correct, and in fact already addressed repeatedly right here in this very thread within the last few hours. There is clearly a comprehension problem afoot, more likely a willful one, but the source is in your mirror, not your audience. 

 

22 minutes ago, Ned said:

you won't let me run a thread explaining these errros because science ''can't be wrong'' . 

So few words, yet so little accuracy. You're super funny, in an annoying "thank goodness you'll be gone soon" kinda way. 

 

23 minutes ago, Ned said:

I can't advance previous giants works

Again, totally agree. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ned said:

Thank you for your explanation and my claim is to have advanced physics and present understanding based on previous giants work . However , everytime I try to point out errors in these incomplete works , I get closed down because simply people aren't understanding . 

You point out what you THINK are errors, you get corrected by replies but then you ignore them. People have been trying to explain that theories cover specific areas of application, and just because they're incomplete doesn't mean they're in error. The LCDM model doesn't explain the origin of the universe, but that doesn't mean it's in error.

31 minutes ago, Ned said:

However , you won't let me run a thread explaining these errros because science ''can't be wrong'' . 

This is a very basic misunderstanding of science. Science expects to be wrong, because MOST ideas are wrong. In fact, the best science happens when someone comes up with an idea and then does everything they can to show that it's wrong. If an idea can withstand such a rigorous review, based on solid science we rely upon every day, then the idea probably has merit and deserves more of an examination. 

Just to take one example, you explained in one thread (still open and unanswered) how you found some math symbols off the internet that you used to explain the shifting frequency of caesium. You asserted that the physics of this was correct, but couldn't support that with any evidence. This is exactly the kind of "leap of logic" science tries to avoid. It's become very obvious that you're just making it all up and expecting to be taken seriously. This kind of soapboxing just wastes the time of those who'd love to help you actually learn some science.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Some of your present physics isn't correct , how do you explain that then ? Use broken physics to derive physics ? 

You are free to make a compelling argument as to what this incorrect physics is, and why this is the case.

But given your track record, I'm skeptical that you will do so. (I expect we will get more vague drawings)

1 hour ago, Ned said:

Science isn't perfect and has errors

Science is also self-correcting, in the long run

1 hour ago, Ned said:

and unanswered questions

which is one reason why scientists have jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are free to make a compelling argument as to what this incorrect physics is, and why this is the case.

But given your track record, I'm skeptical that you will do so. (I expect we will get more vague drawings)

Science is also self-correcting, in the long run

which is one reason why scientists have jobs.

I've started a thread on the semantics of time dilation in the physics section . Wish me luck . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.