The moderator keeps locking some of my threads

[Windevoid]

The moderator keeps locking some of my threads, so I can't get more replies or show new evidence to investigate.

[Unity+]

That is probably either because they are posted in the wrong sections, there are duplicates, or other reasons that violate the forum board guidelines. Maybe you should private message the moderators instead of posting this question in the wrong section.

[Windevoid]

That is probably either because they are posted in the wrong sections, there are duplicates, or other reasons that violate the forum board guidelines. Maybe you should private message the moderators instead of posting this question in the wrong section.

I didn't see a better section to post at. But if you have an idea, the moderators can move it.

[Unity+]

I didn't see a better section to post at. But if you have an idea, the moderators can move it.

Well, here is how I would answer your question(though the moderators would probably answer better).

 

In one section about asking the question of "Was the Law of Conservation of Energy ever proven for electricity?" which was then responded by a user which stated:

 

 

Yes, it's one part of Noether's theorem. Conservation laws arise from symmetries; in this case it's the time translation symmetry of the Lagrangian. The result is that energy is conserved. And it's a mathematical proof (i.e. a theorem, not a theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

 

In which, in reply, you stated:

 

 

 

I don't agree too much with LOCOE or was it Noether's theorem.

 

That is the trigger button of getting your threads locked. Speculation is not another word for "Denying the observable facts". It is creating an idea that does NOT contradict any other model that exists and adding onto the ideas of today.

 

 

 

Scientific speculation is a legitimate part of the scientific process that develops early ideas that are not yet robust enough to be a testable, falsifiable or worthy of being a more formal "hypothesis". Scientific speculations are grounded in established knowledge in a field, but generally go beyond what is defensible. Speculations are not permitted in peer review literature, or are severely limited by editors and peer reviewers. However, speculations can point the way to future research in an area.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Suggestions, Comments and Support.

 

Can you give links to the threads in question? Usually when a Mod closes a thread, they leave an explanation why. It's most often done when the discussion runs into problems with evidence or other lack that inevitably leads to wasted time and uncivil behavior. If it's in Speculations, there are some very clear rules about advancing your ideas, and often the OP can't offer enough to support an explanation. We close those threads so it's not an endless pile-on for every new person who reads the thread, or a place to bump and reiterate ad infinitum.

 

If you seriously have new evidence that helps you support an idea in a closed thread, we can re-open it. Please make sure what you have is serious, since you only get so many chances before we'll stop believing you when you say you have new evidence.

[Windevoid]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Suggestions, Comments and Support.

 

Can you give links to the threads in question? Usually when a Mod closes a thread, they leave an explanation why. It's most often done when the discussion runs into problems with evidence or other lack that inevitably leads to wasted time and uncivil behavior. If it's in Speculations, there are some very clear rules about advancing your ideas, and often the OP can't offer enough to support an explanation. We close those threads so it's not an endless pile-on for every new person who reads the thread, or a place to bump and reiterate ad infinitum.

 

If you seriously have new evidence that helps you support an idea in a closed thread, we can re-open it. Please make sure what you have is serious, since you only get so many chances before we'll stop believing you when you say you have new evidence.

It seems to just be an issue of no "evidence".

 

What exactly is "evidence" then?

[Unity+]

It seems to just be an issue of no "evidence".

 

What exactly is "evidence" then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

And don't be the user that says the crackpot concept that the scientific community has had it wrong, that Galileo is an example of this, the Catholic church hid the truth kind of thing. It will definitely hurt your reputation here. This isn't meant to be an insult in any form.

 

We encounter this kind of thing a lot on scientific forums, especially with me going around science forums, and there are users who constantly sign up to say they have the truth and that the government is after your work and all that.

 

Look around at what we have here, post about questions. Then, from there, you can maybe start making threads about articles you found that may be interesting. Scientific ideas take a long time to make that are sound and work around current models. Be patient and work slowly up to a point where you can make a sound speculative idea and then form a hypothesis. Follow the scientific method. Once you do, people will listen.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Unity+

[swansont]

In the example to which Unity+ refers, you were specifically reminded about the requirement for evidence. You then followed up with your "I don't agree with Noether's theorem" post, which contained no explanation or justification.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you didn't even provide ordinary evidence. Just argument from incredulity. When you are called on to provide evidence, you should not waste your posts bringing up more nonsense.

[Phi for All]

It seems to just be an issue of no "evidence".

 

What exactly is "evidence" then?

 

Here's where most speculators go wrong. They make assertions, like "Einstein was wrong", and then they mistake the resulting replies as defense of Einstein, rather than a reaction to an assertive statement made with nothing to back it up. "Einstein was wrong because he screwed up this equation right here" is at least attempting to show where the problem is, with the math being the evidence needed for someone to check the work. Even saying "It seems to me that Einstein was wrong about Special Relativity" allows this to be your opinion, and while people will still ask you to explain, at least you won't be getting immediate defensiveness like you would with a blanket assertion.

[swansont]

Here's where most speculators go wrong. They make assertions, like "Einstein was wrong", and then they mistake the resulting replies as defense of Einstein, rather than a reaction to an assertive statement made with nothing to back it up. "Einstein was wrong because he screwed up this equation right here" is at least attempting to show where the problem is, with the math being the evidence needed for someone to check the work. Even saying "It seems to me that Einstein was wrong about Special Relativity" allows this to be your opinion, and while people will still ask you to explain, at least you won't be getting immediate defensiveness like you would with a blanket assertion.

 

Beyond this, though, one must acknowledge the 100+ years of experimental confirmation that says Einstein was not wrong. To ignore that body of evidence is another huge mistake.

[Windevoid]

 

Beyond this, though, one must acknowledge the 100+ years of experimental confirmation that says Einstein was not wrong. To ignore that body of evidence is another huge mistake.

Is there a link to those 100 experiments on Einstein? I only found a page with about 25, and they all seemed to be different versions of the exact same experiment.

And Wikipedia has like 4 more, but they seem to be explainable by alternative means.

[ydoaPs]

Is there a link to those 100 experiments on Einstein? I only found a page with about 25, and they all seemed to be different versions of the exact same experiment.

 

And Wikipedia has like 4 more, but they seem to be explainable by alternative means.

JSTOR brings up about 1700 for GR and over 1200 for SR.

[Klaynos]

100 years worth. Every time GPS is used it is a testimont to how well sr and gr work. It is ignoring everyday evidence like that that tends to lead to thread closure.

[Strange]

Is there a link to those 100 experiments on Einstein? I only found a page with about 25, and they all seemed to be different versions of the exact same experiment.

And Wikipedia has like 4 more, but they seem to be explainable by alternative means.

 

Some may be different versions of the same basic idea in order to eliminate other possible explanations, or to increase the accuracy.

 

There are also many thousands of tests which are equivalent to directly testing SR, for example tests of Lorentz invariance. Some of these have been done to extraoridinary levels of accuracy.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Strange

[swansont]

Is there a link to those 100 experiments on Einstein? I only found a page with about 25, and they all seemed to be different versions of the exact same experiment.

And Wikipedia has like 4 more, but they seem to be explainable by alternative means.

 

I said 100 years, but why is 25 an insufficient number? I can't think of a reason why there should be a magic number of experiments that must test an idea before it's considered correct.

 

Also, that number undoubtedly is for direct tests. There would be more that simply rely on relativity being correct.

[Strange]

 

There would be more that simply rely on relativity being correct.

 

As does much modern technology. Most modern semiconductors are now at the point where quantum effects need to be taken itno account in the design of manufacturing processes and the design of the individual components (transistors, LEDs, wiring, etc) on the chip. If quantum theory were wrong it would be very obvious. And this depends on SR being correct.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

As far as I can tell, this wasn't about GR or SR, so let's keep that particular line of discussion out of this thread.

[Windevoid]

In my tests of parallel circuitry just now, with 12 resistors, it seems that each resistor in parallel with each other resistor in the circuit was having the exact same amps as the input amperage, so I suppose it's like 2 amps in with 24 amps useable.

 

And a resistor LED measured at 150 kohms

lit up, parallel with 11 resistors with resistances between 100 ohms and 8 kohms.

 

It's as if the very resistance itself was being negated as a concept in this circuit.

Volts seem have the same effect.

Did somebody just say that LEDs only depend on voltage?

[John Cuthber]

Given this
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77792-where-do-i-find-the-experimental-tests-of-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy/#entry758360

 

I wonder what will happen next

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

As hypervalent_iodine just pointed out, keep the thread on topic. Failure to do so may result in thread closure.

Also, if you see thread hijacking or other rule breaking, please use the report function as moderators can't scan all of the threads all of the time.

!

Moderator Note

Upon further moderator review, this thread is closed.

[Windevoid]

Hm? It looks like the thread got unlocked? Lucky?

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Locked.