Moderators suppressing some discussion

[s1eep]

I think that moderators suppress discussion on some things because they are unorthodox, I think that this forum suppresses your right of free speech. I believe in Timecube and I understand it, and moderators here are inexperienced with Timecube--they don't know anything about it, they haven't gave it a chance, and they call it stupid, like children, blocking it off from the rest of us. We cannot discuss it and give it true reconciliation because the moderators suppress our right to, just because we might prove them false, on the offhand.

 

Some things may be hidden from you to keep you submissive...

-wisdom.

[ydoaPs]

I think that moderators suppress discussion on some things because they are unorthodox, I think that this forum suppresses your right of free speech. I believe in Timecube and I understand it, and moderators here are inexperienced with Timecube--they don't know anything about it, they haven't gave it a chance, and they call it stupid, like children, blocking it off from the rest of us. We cannot discuss it and give it true reconciliation because the moderators suppress our right to, just because we might prove them false, on the offhand.

 

Some things may be hidden from you to keep you submissive...

-wisdom.

The timecube thread was closed because we already have threads about that nonsense. Furthermore, you have no right to free speech here. You have the right to play by the rules.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

1. This is a privately owned forum. You don't get free speech here.

2. Don't even think about trying to make this into a thread about Time Cube. I will not hesitate to close this if it gets brought up again.

Edit: We have a number of threads that do already address your problem.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53881-freedom-of-speech

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68123-censorship

For example

[s1eep]

!

Moderator Note

1. This is a privately owned forum. You don't get free speech here.

 

2. Don't even think about trying to make this into a thread about Time Cube. I will not hesitate to close this if it gets brought up again.

I will not break the rules, but I think you're suppressing discussion that isn't against the rules.

[hypervalent_iodine]

The Speculations forum has a rule that demands you provide evidence to support your assertions. Time Cube is so left of centre from reality that any threads discussing it could not possibly hope to keep to this rule and therefore, do not belong here.

[s1eep]

The Speculations forum has a rule that demands you provide evidence to support your assertions. Time Cube is so left of centre from reality that any threads discussing it could not possibly hope to keep to this rule and therefore, do not belong here.

I provided logical evidence in the thread I posted. Your opinion that is was "nonsense" was not supported by reasoning why, and was ultimately irrational. If you gave it enough time for others will less sequitur intelligence, to post, they would have made sense of it, and a discussion onto deeper subjects would have emerged. The idea does not concur with modernized science, but it is scientific, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; I think you're playing with the word 'intellectual'.

Edited November 19, 2013 by s1eep

[Strange]

I provided logical evidence in the thread I posted.

 

Of course you didn't. You just repeated the same insane guff that Ray spouts.

What next "−1 x −1 = +1 is stupid and evil" ?

[hypervalent_iodine]

I provided logical evidence in the thread I posted. Your opinion that is was "nonsense" was not supported by reasoning why, and was ultimately irrational. If you gave it enough time for others will less sequitur intelligence, to post, they would have made sense of it, and a discussion onto deeper subjects would have emerged. The idea does not concur with modernized science, but it is scientific, science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment; I think you're playing with the word 'intellectual'.[/size]

I believe my last mod note mentioned that this is not to turn into a time cube thread. If your other thread stays closed, it is the result of group consensus amongst staff and not my individual opinion.

[s1eep]

 

Of course you didn't. You just repeated the same insane guff that Ray spouts.

What next "−1 x −1 = +1 is stupid and evil" ?

I also linked a different website, and wrote a clear explanation myself that has not been refuted. Your inability to see the true intellect behind the post is an act of perversion (for others can and will); stupidity should not be in a position above anyone, intelligence should. You are unintelligent to not see and address the evidence provided, under the impression it's nonsensical evidence.

 

EDIT: And okay, I will leave it at that.

 

May you strip the part of my thread where I provided my own evidence and make a new thread different to Timecube, just the suggestion of four days.

Edited November 19, 2013 by s1eep

[Bignose]

and wrote a clear explanation myself that has not been refuted.

It is not up to science to refute every single notion that someone should happen to come up with.

 

Science works in that when someone has a notion and wants others to believe in that notion, they provide objective, clear cut, statistically significant evidence to support their notion.

 

A trivial example: If I told you that I kept an invisible pet dinosaur in my garage, are you really going to believe that until it is refuted? Science would demand that I provide overwhelming evidence of Scruffy until anyone should believe me.

[s1eep]

It is not up to science to refute every single notion that someone should happen to come up with.

 

Science works in that when someone has a notion and wants others to believe in that notion, they provide objective, clear cut, statistically significant evidence to support their notion.

 

A trivial example: If I told you that I kept an invisible pet dinosaur in my garage, are you really going to believe that until it is refuted? Science would demand that I provide overwhelming evidence of Scruffy until anyone should believe me.

I used real subjects. The Earth, and people.

[dimreepr]

I used real subjects. The Earth, and people.

 

Comprehension really isn't your strength, is it?

[Phi for All]

I think that moderators suppress discussion on some things because they are unorthodox, I think that this forum suppresses your right of free speech. I believe in Timecube and I understand it, and moderators here are inexperienced with Timecube--they don't know anything about it, they haven't gave it a chance, and they call it stupid, like children, blocking it off from the rest of us. We cannot discuss it and give it true reconciliation because the moderators suppress our right to, just because we might prove them false, on the offhand.

 

Some things may be hidden from you to keep you submissive...

-wisdom.

 

I'm always a little stunned that some folks don't realize the sheer numbers of man-hours that go into scientific research at all levels and all subjects, and that this somehow leads them to believe that somebody like Gene Ray could make the claims he does without it being tested by hoards of scientists all over the world. If there was EVER verifiable science going on there it would be noted and acted upon. Science respects results, it can't argue with reality, and if folks like Gene Ray had anything viable then others would be reporting similar results.

 

You can't keep so many people from sharing success and knowledge. If a concept is non-mainstream, it doesn't mean it's sitting undiscovered, waiting to be seized by someone who will just give it half a chance. It means it's fallen short in its ability to explain a phenomenon, or it's been trivially refuted due to poor methodology, or it doesn't explain reality better than another hypothesis. It means that people who've spent their lives studying to be experts in their chosen profession have taken a serious look at this idea and they all say it has no merit.

 

As for our part here at SFN, when topics are opened and immediately start receiving negative replies, it tells us that the thread is destined to be flame-bait. When the OP can't produce any evidence, such threads are typically ridiculed, simply because the poster is usually adamant in their assertions despite the lack of evidence. Historically, if we didn't do anything about these threads, they'd just go back and forth with no resolution (how can there be?), page after page, with tempers flaring and normally civil posters getting frustrated enough to break the rules. That's why we shut down the worst of them, when they show no signs of being productive.

[s1eep]

 

I'm always a little stunned that some folks don't realize the sheer numbers of man-hours that go into scientific research at all levels and all subjects, and that this somehow leads them to believe that somebody like Gene Ray could make the claims he does without it being tested by hoards of scientists all over the world. If there was EVER verifiable science going on there it would be noted and acted upon. Science respects results, it can't argue with reality, and if folks like Gene Ray had anything viable then others would be reporting similar results.

 

You can't keep so many people from sharing success and knowledge. If a concept is non-mainstream, it doesn't mean it's sitting undiscovered, waiting to be seized by someone who will just give it half a chance. It means it's fallen short in its ability to explain a phenomenon, or it's been trivially refuted due to poor methodology, or it doesn't explain reality better than another hypothesis. It means that people who've spent their lives studying to be experts in their chosen profession have taken a serious look at this idea and they all say it has no merit.

 

As for our part here at SFN, when topics are opened and immediately start receiving negative replies, it tells us that the thread is destined to be flame-bait. When the OP can't produce any evidence, such threads are typically ridiculed, simply because the poster is usually adamant in their assertions despite the lack of evidence. Historically, if we didn't do anything about these threads, they'd just go back and forth with no resolution (how can there be?), page after page, with tempers flaring and normally civil posters getting frustrated enough to break the rules. That's why we shut down the worst of them, when they show no signs of being productive.

A part in my own writing stands as evidence. I used the Earth, and the geometry of the Earth. An expert does not have power over human observation, people have the capacity to choose whether or not they think something is true. The evidence I've provided says something is true--this hasn't been refuted. It's possible to discuss and stimulates the intellect, it is intelligible; you're the one who is unintelligent for the inability to comprehend the evidence I supplied without directing insults at the creator. Evidence was ignored.

 

The part that was evidence, where I used the Earth and points on the Earth, can it be cut off and put into a new thread that discusses four days?

More evidence I supplied via link is different to the originator and holds merit beyond the originator, and shouldn't be associated directly to him, even though I don't think even he is insane.

Edited November 19, 2013 by s1eep

[Bignose]

I used real subjects. The Earth, and people.

The same rules still apply. Clear cut, objective, statistically significant evidence.

[s1eep]

The same rules still apply. Clear cut, objective, statistically significant evidence.

Doesn't mean it's not science, it just doesn't agree with some preferred scientific theories. It's not the egotistical conformed science, but it's still science, and isn't stupid. The evidence is still evidence, it is not contradicted by more evidence, you've yet to provide any reason as to why it's incorrect.

 

EDIT: Where is this evidence? In your head? The evidence I supplied was credible and intelligible evidence...

Edited November 19, 2013 by s1eep

[swansont]

The thread in question didn't even come close to the threshold of supplying evidence or a testable model, as required by speculation rules. One can't really say it agrees or disagrees with accepted science when there are no testable claims that it makes.

[Arete]

Doesn't mean it's not science, it just doesn't agree with some preferred scientific theories. It's not the egotistical conformed science, but it's still science, and isn't stupid. The evidence is still evidence, it is not contradicted by more evidence, you've yet to provide any reason as to why it's incorrect.

 

I think this is why you're fundamentally missing the point.

 

The logic of science flows in the opposite direction - your test or new hypothesis is only accepted when it can be shown to have significant support.

 

That is, if you have a speculation, you design an experiment or determine a set of observations that will substantiate it. You then determine the a priori level of support required to accept that speculation, although in many cases this will be determined by what level of support it will take to convince your peers of your speculation. You then carry out your experiment or observations. You then determine the level of statistical support they offer to your speculation. If they meet your a priori requirements, you then may claim evidence to support your speculation. Usually, several corroborating experiments will be necessary before it is widely accepted. An example in my field would be the hygiene hypothesis. Despite a lot of corroboratory evidence, the proof is not definitive, so the hypothesis remains somewhat speculative, awaiting confirmation through additional observation.

 

Before this point, your speculation is unsupported. You don't get to make a speculation and then demand others prove it wrong, and still get to claim to be "scientific" because that is the opposite to how the scientific method works. The "evidence" in your post was a speculation. Until you make observations to support your speculation, it remains a speculation. It is up to you to prove your speculation through experiment and observations, and not up to others to disprove it.

[Bignose]

you've yet to provide any reason as to why it's incorrect.

Do you really want to play this game?

 

Ok, I will. You've yet to provide any reason not to believe in my invisible pet dinosaur. Scruffy's feelings were really hurt when you implied he wasn't real.

 

If you don't believe in Scruffy, and not posting any real reason not to, explain why your story is more believable than mine.

[s1eep]

 

I think this is why you're fundamentally missing the point.

 

The logic of science flows in the opposite direction - your test or new hypothesis is only accepted when it can be shown to have significant support.

 

That is, if you have a speculation, you design an experiment or determine a set of observations that will substantiate it. You then determine the a priori level of support required to accept that speculation, although in many cases this will be determined by what level of support it will take to convince your peers of your speculation. You then carry out your experiment or observations. You then determine the level of statistical support they offer to your speculation. If they meet your a priori requirements, you then may claim evidence to support your speculation. Usually, several corroborating experiments will be necessary before it is widely accepted. An example in my field would be the hygiene hypothesis. Despite a lot of corroboratory evidence, the proof is not definitive, so the hypothesis remains somewhat speculative, awaiting confirmation through additional observation.

 

Before this point, your speculation is unsupported. You don't get to make a speculation and then demand others prove it wrong, and still get to claim to be "scientific" because that is the opposite to how the scientific method works. The "evidence" in your post was a speculation. Until you make observations to support your speculation, it remains a speculation. It is up to you to prove your speculation through experiment and observations, and not up to others to disprove it.

You're still not comprehending the fact that it's still science; supporting evidence exists that was found via observation. You have ignored evidence. I am correct in saying it's not "modernized science". Evidence is still evidence, ignorance of such evidence is suppression of possibly intellectual discussion. Why don't we separate my evidence from the thread and you refute it--the evidence I gave is enough to support my speculation--it's not driven by other theories, and is unorthodox, but evidence provided is real evidence and should be taken seriously.

Do you really want to play this game?

 

Ok, I will. You've yet to provide any reason not to believe in my invisible pet dinosaur. Scruffy's feelings were really hurt when you implied he wasn't real.

 

If you don't believe in Scruffy, and not posting any real reason not to, explain why your story is more believable than mine.

You provided no evidence.

Edited November 19, 2013 by s1eep

[Arete]

You're still not comprehending the fact that it's still science; supporting evidence exists that was found via observation.

 

Are we an agreement that this quote is your "evidence"?

 

 

 

if we square the equator, each edge of the square experiences it's own separate twenty-four hour day, and four days are occurring simultaniously on four extremes of the planet.

 

The above is a speculative statement. without empirical observations to support it, it is a speculation. If you think the above statement represents evidence, then I don;t think you understand what empirical evidence actually is.

[s1eep]

 

Are we an agreement that this quote is your "evidence"?

 

 

 

 

The above is a speculative statement. without empirical observations to support it, it is a speculation. If you think the above statement represents evidence, then I don;t think you understand what empirical evidence actually is.

The Earth exists. What's not evident about Earth's geometry? I'm simply applying a different kind of Math to the provided evidence of Earth. Earth, as a being, exists. It was my evidence, I suggested that it has rotational extremes, and that's why the equator was squared, because this is a way we can observe these extremes.

[Bignose]

You provided no evidence.

I stated he existed. That's the level of evidence you provided. You simply stated that there are 4 days. I think my 'evidence' is just as good as yours. How is my evidence really different?

[Arete]

The Earth exists. What's not evident about Earth's geometry? I'm simply applying a different kind of Math to the provided evidence of Earth. Earth, as a being, exists. It was my evidence, I suggested that it has rotational extremes, and that's why the equator was squared, because this is a way we can observe these extremes.

 

If you want to claim that there are four simultaneous days on earth you need to tell us what measurements will support this model, how you measured them and what the results are.

 

At the moment the "evidence" provide makes as much sense as "If the earth were a banana it would taste good, therefore monkeys."

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Guys - this isn't gonna be allowed to turn into a timecube by proxy thread. If you want to discuss, condemn or condone the actions of the moderators in supposedly suppressing science then do so - but the thread on timecube was closed so please do not revisit the particulars of that nonsense.