Would you like to have a "Theory development forum" separate from the Physics & Math forum, for the free and uncritical discussion of "alternative" physical and mathematical theories?

James R.,

I wanted to vote yes for unconventional theories should be able to undergo conventional tests, except we see what is tested. It isn't the physics as much as it becomes personalities, so I had to forego the nominal answer which is they should stand the test.

The personalities only get into the mix when something is explain over and over and over and over and over and over and over.. and then yet again... and they continue to argue around the point and not understand.

Persol,


I have to take exception to your post. In general perhaps but as a practical matter you are incorrect.

The attacks start immediately. 1st responders attack, if one dare suggest Relativity is flawed. In spite of the fact that there are many other QUALIFIED physicist that also favor LR over SR or GR.

But the attack isn't over the difference between favored theories in the science community it is leveled at the poster that has less credentials, even if what is being said is a quote from other members of the qualified science community.

To wit: My 3rd post and first contact with chroot. I really hate to keep throwing his name out because I understand that agitates him but I see no other choice.:

I haven't found my 1st and 2nd post but they were this same night and comperable in content.


quote:
******************
v = c limit
Gentlemen.

This is my 3rd post so go easy OK? - ha.

You each have a problem. You keep talking about velocity of light and frames of reference. Consider this.

Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity.

So then how do you propose to set a limit on absolute velocity?

You can't limit what you claim does not exist. Simple as that.

[[******Now if I had stopped here my reception might have been different, because I still believe the above is a legimate challenge but I continued********]]]]

Relativity is bunk flat out. And all these problems arise from a mis-interpretation of the M-M light paradox.

Light in my opinion is produced as a function of energy via the Chiral Condensate (instantaneous signal carrier involved in particle entanglement).

As photons are produced in quantums of energy the observers velocity is addative or subtractive to the signal from the light source; hence light "Appears" to have constant velocity but you aren't seeing the same photon.

No light paradox - no need for Relativity and all those fun paradoxes or Relativity vanish. wahla.

********************

First response from chroot:
***************************
chroot
1889 posts
Re: v = c limit

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacM
Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


False. Relativity says there is only one absolute velocity -- that of light. The speed of light will be measured the same, c, by all observers.

The rest of your post is crap.

- Warren

********************

The only response he made to the issue was in fact off point as he admits a few entries later, in that he was misinterpreting the intended reference to "Absolute Velocity", but he immediately continued to the personal attack.

So it is not a response that has been earned as you suggest via the refusal to accept an answer.

The problem is much deeper than that. It has to do with the "Ace" syndrome, referring to how many can you shoot down and how can I create laughs among my many friends by flexing my smarts.

Sorry chroot but I call them like I see them. And that is they way it appears from here.

Considering you had a misunderstanding (as you subsequently admit) do you not see the error in calling the post "Crap".

Even the reference here by me regarding the Chiral Condensate, later became an issue wherein chroot stated flat out no such thing existed and I was talking through my a_s.

This went on for some time and I carefully tried to explain what I had read and the fact that those working in the area didn't even know its true meaning, yet I was pressured to tell all about it or shut up.

Finally GundamWing searched the web and found indeed it is some pretty interesting stuff going on there.

No need to rehash all that has transpired but I did want to refresh your memory a bit as to the actual trend on this MSB and why I feel it is important to consider the "Alternative Science" forum.

There at least more time can be dedicated to working through misunderstandings and not clutter bonifide conventional threads trying to get answers to misunderstandings., etc.

Thanks

The problem starts here:

You each have a problem.
Just because you do not like the theory does not mean we have a problem.

Then you make false statements:
Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity. You can't limit what you claim does not exist. Simple as that.

Then you full out attack a theory which you do not fully understand:

Relativity is bunk flat out.

Then you make a suggestion that it is a function of something you don't understand
Light in my opinion is produced as a function of energy via the Chiral Condensate (instantaneous signal carrier involved in particle entanglement).

Then you say this fixes all our supposed problems without any proof
No light paradox - no need for Relativity and all those fun paradoxes or Relativity vanish. wahla.

There is no science in that post. Hence it is psuedoscience. There is a vague question in there... but the rest is an attack on a theory you don't understand.

I think that is a great idea, James! Some people don't realize that this is how things get discovered in the first place. I would be all for it because I don't believe that my theory is far off the mark! I think you know what I mean, James.

Persol,

I really would like to address your points but I don't want to do so here. I thought of a private message but then I believe I have decided it might be more fruitful to have it open for other to add there two cents.

I really still feel you hve missed the meaning of that post. It may be my poor presentation but frankly I think it is more than that and if you would accommodate me, I am going to open a string Re-Hash.

It may be useful to all to find out why the mis-communication has been so rampant.

Thanks.

James,

You should have made your poll multiple choice. :)

Here are my answers:

"Yes. I disagree with conventional physics and I would like to post my theories there."

This is sometimes true for me.

"No. Unconventional theories should be freely posted in the Physics forum."

I agree, but other people don't.

"Yes. I agree with conventional physics and I think an alternate forum would be better."

I also agree with this statement, for the sake of others.

"No. Unconventional theories should be dealt with on the Physics forum."

I also agree with this.

"No. Alternative theories should be able to stand up to criticism on a science forum."

I agree with this, as well.

Tom

Originally posted by Prosoothus
This is sometimes true for me.
I agree, but other people don't.
I also agree with this statement, for the sake of others.
I also agree with this.
I agree with this, as well.

Tom God damn... are you running for office? :D

Other:

Yes, there should be a Theory Development forum.

The case for Theory Development

1. Students. Students who come to these message boards are looking for people to help with conceptual or technical difficulties in their coursework. They are likely to go to the Physics and Math forum, and not so likely to go to the Theory Development forum.

2. Postgraduates and Scientists. The more advanced members come here to find others with whom to discuss science. Coming to a message board and seeing nothing but a bunch of junk will discourage them from contributing, and the board will eventually denigrate into a pseudoscientific free-for-all.

3. It is aptly named. The threads which I know everyone here has in mind for a TD forum are, in fact, developing theories, whereas SR, QM, E+M, GR, QFT, etc are develop-ed theories. While it is true that physics is never a finished book, we still don't go around adding the new chapters until they have been proofread and tested.

4. It works. Physicsforums has proven that the science forums can be cleaned up considerably by a Theory Development forum, which is distinct from the Pseudoscience forum (they have that, too). 'Theory developers' are loath to call their work "pseudoscience", but all parties can agree that the theory is, in fact, "in development".

Tom

Tom2,

The threads which I know everyone here has in mind for a TD forum are, in fact, developing theories, whereas SR, QM, E+M, GR, QFT, etc are develop-ed theories.

SR and GR are models that explain certain experimental data. This doesn't mean that there aren't other models that can explain the same experimental data equally well, or better. Nor can you assume that these alternate models are "less developed" than SR or GR.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
SR and GR are models that explain certain experimental data.


Of course.


This doesn't mean that there aren't other models that can explain the same experimental data equally well, or better.


Two things:

1. If other models account for the data equally well (I mean if there is no way to distinguish the models experimentally), then they are the same theory, just in different guises.

2. If other models account for the data better than SR and GR, then we're all ears.

However, it is those theories that do not account for experimental data and/or that are not internally consistent that are under consideration here.


Nor can you assume that these alternate models are "less developed" than SR or GR.

Yes, I can.

What you don't realize is just how robust these theories are. Mountains of journal articles have been written, and are still being written, in the development of relativity (hell, even classical mechanics). If any alternative theory proffered by some internet looney is as well developed as relativity, I'll eat my hat.

I'll even do it in the hat's rest frame, so it is not length contracted. :D

Tom

Tom2,

If any alternative theory proffered by some internet looney is as well developed as relativity, I'll eat my hat.

Check out my theory:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16733

You just have to read the first post to get a basic understanding of it.

Do you want some salt on your hat?? :)

LOL

I made my 'hat' challenge having read most of the theories at sciforums (yours included), physicsforums, and the MSN boards. I'll be keeping my hat in the freezer so it doesn't spoil, cause it's gonna be a looooong time before I have to pay up.

Tom

I like the “Unconvention theories” sub-forum idea: move all unproven, untested theorize on a science field to this sub-forum. As for more supernatural based ideas like UFOs and Alien invasion, X animals, Creationist, ect… those go in pseudoscience sub-forum hands down!

So basically:

“Physic and Math” sub-forum: for question on known and proven of evidence holding theories only.

“Unconventional Theories” sub-forum: More hypnotically based ideas and proposals must be testable and follow proven logic and evidence.

“Pseudoscience” sub-forum: Crap pots!!! Not provable or supernatural based.

Can we get this shit on the road, please?

- Warren

chroot,



Can we get this shit on the road, please?

2nd that.:bugeye:

Now that I think about it: Maybe it would be better to leave all valid hypothesis questioning in their respected science sub-forum and move the more crap-pot questions into the pseudoscience sub-forum. It would be more efficient and I don’t know about you but I would not want to moderate an unconventional theories sub-forum and have to sort everything into there respected sub-forums. Think about it: right now its 2 forums to move a thread to: pseudoscience or (if worthy) the proper science sub-forum… so it’s a black and white choose. If we add an un-conventional theories sub-forum for the mid ground threads that adds three and more thought and time for the moderator as well as more confusion and complaining from the users.

Fuck yes! I stopped bothering with physics and math because of all the "alternative" shite. It'd be nice if James could move all the "RELATIVITY IS WRONG" crap to a sub-forum and leave this to legitamate science.

If your going to make this new sub-forum then lets all vote on some kick ass name for it!

Crackpot's Crazy Corner?

a new forum would be nice. Im going to hold off on the really crazy ideas for a while

Hmm...

14 respondents think a "Theory development" forum separate from Physics & Math would be a good idea.
7 respondents think that a separate forum is unnecessary.

On the other hand, when asked who would post if a separate forum was created...

8 people say they would post to the new forum.
8 say they would not bother.

Of those in favour of a separate "Theory Development" forum, the people who agree with most conventional science seem mainly to want to reduce the amount of pseudoscience on the Physics & Math forum. They don't really care where it goes. The frontier scientists, on the whole, seem to want free reign and essentially no scientific criticism.

Of those against the separate forum, the conventional science people think pseudoscience should be rebutted by real science, and the frontier science people at least want science-trained people to look at their ideas.

Am I wrong?

I wonder:

* How would a "Theory Development" forum be fundamentally different from the current "Pseudoscience" forum?

* Would it be sufficient to rename the Pseudoscience forum to something like "Frontier science" or "Pseudoscience and Alternative theories"?

I suspect that the main objection that "alternative" theorists have to the current setup is that if they post initially to Pseudoscience their theories are, in essence, immediately labelled as crank theories - and they don't want that.

Originally posted by James R
[B]Would it be sufficient to rename the Pseudoscience forum to something like "Frontier science" or "Pseudoscience and Alternative theories"? That sounds reasonable.

James R.,

I believe your are generally correct.

I don't think it is so much (although enough) that posters reject the pseuo-science as it is that getting buried in with ideas already committed to that area means people would have to sort through it all over again to try and find something not already deemed suited for that catagory.

It makes sense to me that until classed, something new but not conventional or wholly supported should be aired independantly.

How would a "Theory Development" forum be fundamentally different from the current "Pseudoscience" forum?

Pseudoscience is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions tending to deceive.

If “theory development” is to be defined this way then there should be only one forum for both.

Q,

I believe there is substantial difference in fallacious assumptions and assumptions that are not conventional. If not you are right and I am wrong and science has come to the end of its road since nothing new can ever be surmized.

It seems totally irrational to believe that all new theories must use the same assumptions as current theories.

The assumptions must be scientifically sound, and that is all.

Originally posted by Tom2
LOL

I made my 'hat' challenge having read most of the theories at sciforums (yours included), physicsforums, and the MSN boards. I'll be keeping my hat in the freezer so it doesn't spoil, cause it's gonna be a looooong time before I have to pay up.

Tom

Well stated.

I agree with relativity, and the baove post stating simply "it is bunk" is a hot fresh slice of idiocy. I had this similar point on the culture board, things like religion, and other various products of imaginations not experimentations are like strainers...one must see all the leaks in this fantasy or and plug them as they are constantly pointed out...and with some luck, after 1000's of years like with religion, it will become almost leakproof (thanks to the scientific dodge called omnipitence (sp)) But with a theory like the claims made against relativity above, testing and mathmatics starts you out with a bowl, not a strainer. And you work with it until perhaps the day comes when the leak is found. I dont beliee that more than perhaps a few concepts of what we "KNOW" are going to eventualy be agreed as correct in the far future. But at least when it is well thought out, those people who disprove us will agree it is correct with the information and variables we had available to us at that time.

Again, i dont disagree, but doesnt the fact that light has mass contradict the fact that it is able to travel at the SOL? I am sure this has been touched on 10 million times.....but I missed it, so please enlighten me on theis one question, and hopefully find nothing else to bash in my post.

Clint Eastwood is God.

Hi 3finger,

"Again, i dont disagree, but doesnt the fact that light has mass contradict the fact that it is able to travel at the SOL? I am sure this has been touched on 10 million times.....but I missed it, so please enlighten me on theis one question, and hopefully find nothing else to bash in my post."

No objects with a rest-mass m₀ > 0 can travel at or faster than SOL ... according to relativity...

Bye!

Crisp