Member feedback

[D H]

The sciforums gurus have named me as a new moderator for this sub forum. I will come up with a set of posting guidelines by early next week (I will be rather busy in the real world the next three days). Some of the rules will be obvious. Name-calling, goading, trolling, and the like will not be tolerated. You can desist from such behavior now.

Another reason for deferring a bit on issuing posting guidelines for this sub forum is that I want your input. The title of this forum is "Astronomy, Exobiology, and Cosmology". Cosmology in particular is a bit vexing. It is variously a branch of physics, astronomy, philosophy, religion -- and unfortunately, pseudoscience. Cosmology has a huge grey area. How do you members want me to treat that grey area? Keep in mind that I would have to move a lot of legitimate articles on cosmology to pseudoscience if very strict "is it science" rules are adopted.

My thoughts to kick off the discussion:
Religious cosmological arguments: Discussions of a religious nature do not belong here. Please use the religions sub forum for such discussions.

Metaphysical cosmological arguments: I don't delve into the philosophy sub forums, so I am clueless as to whether any of them can accommodate metaphysical cosmological discussions.

Pseudoscientific cosmological arguments: This is where things get vexing. Arguments that contradict scientific fact are easy to handle (bye bye). Not all pseudoscientific cosmological rguments are so easy to deal with. How hard over on "is it science" do you members want me to be?


Finally, there is one thread in this sub forum that many of you don't particularly like. Until the original poster becomes persona non gratis with the sciforums.com higher ups, that thread stays here.

[prometheus]

Congratulations on your appointment - I know you'll do a good job. :)

In my opinion astronomy and cosmology should share the rules of rigour with physics since both are regarded as branches of physics and you'll find research in both areas are done in physics departments of universities.

The thread in my mind that you know my opinion on would not be tolerated in physics and maths and the same standard should apply here in my opinion.

[quantum_wave]

Show me a cosmology other than the standard cosmology that would qualify to be discussed under Prometheus’ suggested guidelines. The standard cosmology is what it is. No one is going to change it by discussing it here. The standard cosmology is open to discussion on the Physics and Mathematics forum if I’m not mistaken.

Alternative cosmology deals with the universe from the perspective of where the standard cosmology, physics and math leave off. Where in SciForums would a discussion of an alternative Cosmology be allowed? Are all alternative cosmologies supposed to be considered non-science and everything related to them shuffled off to Pseudoscience? Is discussing the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe which is my main topic really automatically pseudoscience?

I suggest that alternative cosmology be discussed in the cosmology forum. If the alternative cosmology clearly contradicts data or observations then someone should have to point out the contradiction and allow discussion before the thread is branded pseudoscience.

[Gustav]

i see
leave the speculation to academia
leave the parroting, regurgitation and finger wagging to sciforums

well done dh

[BenTheMan]

Show me a cosmology other than the standard cosmology that would qualify to be discussed under Prometheus’ suggested guidelines. The standard cosmology is what it is. No one is going to change it by discussing it here. The standard cosmology is open to discussion on the Physics and Mathematics forum if I’m not mistaken.

How do you define ``cosmology''?

I suggest that alternative cosmology be discussed in the cosmology forum. If the alternative cosmology clearly contradicts data or observations then someone should have to point out the contradiction and allow discussion before the thread is branded pseudoscience.

Everybody would love to see a consistent, logically coherent alternative to the ``standard cosmology''.

leave the parroting, regurgitation and finger wagging to sciforums

well done dh

I think Politics and World Events has those genres covered...

[quantum_wave]

How do you define ``cosmology''?I don’t have a particularly in depth definition and the word “cosmology”. I was thinking that the guidelines for the cosmology forum would provide the acceptable usage of the word and then threads would either be deemed to comply or not.

If you do a “Google” search on, “definition of cosmology”, you get 700,000 links. Just a basic idea of my usage is, “cosmology is a description of the universe”. We know that the “universe” works, has operative physics, can be described as a physical picture, and mathematics will necessarily work out consistently across all physics if the physical picture is correct. What we don’t know is what all of those operative physics are and what the physical picture is.

[prometheus]

Show me a cosmology other than the standard cosmology that would qualify to be discussed under Prometheus’ suggested guidelines.

I'll do better than that. Here are two

Braneworld cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology)
Loop quantum cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601085)

Both are non standard and both are accepted as being valid theoretical physics. Not to say that I agree with either of them, but I accept their legitimacy.

[quantum_wave]

I'll do better than that. Here are two

Braneworld cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology)
Loop quantum cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601085)

Both are non standard and both are accepted as being valid theoretical physics. Not to say that I agree with either of them, but I accept their legitimacy.As do I.

Both of them introduce new physics for which there are no tests. By your definition both can be discussed in the Physics and Mathematics Forum if I'm not mistaken. They are scientific in that universities are investing funds to study them but they are not the only alternative theories that universities are studying. The requirement that a university is studying them is fine, but should SciForums discussions be limited to what is being studied at universities? Should that be in the guidelines?

[prometheus]

Both of them introduce new physics for which there are no tests. By your definition both can be discussed in the Physics and Mathematics Forum if I'm not mistaken. They are scientific in that universities are investing funds to study them but they are not the only alternative theories that universities are studying. The requirement that a university is studying them is fine, but should SciForums discussions be limited to what is being studied at universities? Should that be in the guidelines?

Both theories produce predictions that can be tested by observation. The criterion is not that science is studied at university, although that would probably be a reasonable one. The criterion is that it is science. It starts with postulates or axioms and proceeds to predictions and experiment. Science is not only done in universities and I would never suggest that it was, especially observational sciences like astronomy.

[quantum_wave]

Both theories produce predictions that can be tested by observation. The criterion is not that science is studied at university, although that would probably be a reasonable one. The criterion is that it is science. It starts with postulates or axioms and proceeds to predictions and experiment. Science is not only done in universities and I would never suggest that it was, especially observational sciences like astronomy.You are describing the scientific method. At what point do you think ideas have to have proceeded to be discussed. Can we say that ideas should lead to hypotheses. Is hypothesis far enough to be permitted for discussion in the Cosmology Forum? Couldn't the community then look at the hypothesis and pass judgment on it from the stand point that I suggested. The rules would be that if the alternative cosmology clearly contradicts data or observations then someone should have to point out the contradiction and allow discussion before the thread is branded pseudoscience.

[prometheus]

The rules would be that if the alternative cosmology clearly contradicts data or observations then someone should have to point out the contradiction and allow discussion before the thread is branded pseudoscience.

You're trying to be clever here, and using that classic crank warcry "prove me wrong." Since QWC does not predict anything, or even have any postulates then it doesn't satisfy your criterion to be moved to pseudoscience, and cannot be proved wrong, however, it's obviously pseudoscience because it's not falsifiable. DH is a smart guy - I'm sure he can exercise his discretion when there is a grey area but this is not one of them.

[BenTheMan]

Both of them introduce new physics for which there are no tests.

How do you define ``tests''?

[BenTheMan]

At what point do you think ideas have to have proceeded to be discussed. Can we say that ideas should lead to hypotheses. Is hypothesis far enough to be permitted for discussion in the Cosmology Forum?

I think that would be a great criterion.

The rules would be that if the alternative cosmology clearly contradicts data or observations then someone should have to point out the contradiction and allow discussion before the thread is branded pseudoscience.

What do you mean ``clearly'', and what do you mean ``data or observations''? For example, I can make the observation that general relativity describes gravity, to the level at which it has been tested. One of the inputs into GR is the fact that we live in 4 space-time dimensions. Thus, consistency of results from GR require that we live in 4 space-time dimensions, OR that you explain to me how the 4-d picture emerges from a more fundamental theory. Thus, a claim that the universe is actually three dimensional, and that gravity has nothing to do with space-time :

Quantum wave cosmology on the other hand operates in three dimensions and does not require spacetime coupling.

is wrong by the observation that we live in 4-d and that GR is correct.

So you should clarify: what do ``data'' and ``observation'' mean?

[quantum_wave]

How do you define ``tests''?I’m referring to the tests that are a part of the scientific method, i.e. controlled experiments for example.

[quantum_wave]

You're trying to be clever here, and using that classic crank warcry "prove me wrong." Since QWC does not predict anything, or even have any postulates then it doesn't satisfy your criterion to be moved to pseudoscience, and cannot be proved wrong, however, it's obviously pseudoscience because it's not falsifiable. DH is a smart guy - I'm sure he can exercise his discretion when there is a grey area but this is not one of them.I listed the basis for my threads, i.e. what is the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe.

I described my methodology and the first idea that serves as the start of QWC, i.e. the idea that our expanding universe might have been preceded by a big crunch and I asked for other ideas and discussion.

I posted my steps of speculation and asked if any one knew of any reasons, data, observations that those steps of speculation were inconsistent with.

Are you saying that in this entire document ( http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt) you can't find anything that is inconsistent with data or observations of science? And if you can't then your argument is that it qualifies as pseudoscience anyway because I'm using that classic crank "warcry" "prove me wrong?

I don't see it that way. I see it as a case of a sincere poster and proud member of the community asking for discussion about the possible causes of the Big Bang. That is a discussion I thought belonged in the Cosmology Forum.

D H is going to decide that and I will comply with his decision if it is to move the thread as I'm sure you will if he leaves my thread in Cosmology.

[quantum_wave]

I think that would be a great criterion.



What do you mean ``clearly'', and what do you mean ``data or observations''? For example, I can make the observation that general relativity describes gravity, to the level at which it has been tested. One of the inputs into GR is the fact that we live in 4 space-time dimensions. Thus, consistency of results from GR require that we live in 4 space-time dimensions, OR that you explain to me how the 4-d picture emerges from a more fundamental theory. Thus, a claim that the universe is actually three dimensional, and that gravity has nothing to do with space-time :



is wrong by the observation that we live in 4-d and that GR is correct.

So you should clarify: what do ``data'' and ``observation'' mean?Is this going to turn into the Chinese water tourture method of saying what your position is on the matter of quidelines for the Cosmology Forum. I don't have any special definition of "data" and "observation". If the writing of the guidelines are dependent on me defining simple terms then the quidelines should be stated as simply as I have suggested.

If a challenger to my statements (that I offer for discussion in an effort to mention my ideas and get ideas back in return) has some data or observation that are accepted by science, and if that data or observation means that an idea I have mentioned as speculative is inconsistent with that data then the idea fails.

[quantum_wave]

Here is a link that discusses science, pseudoscience, pre or emerging science and protoscience.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/conptt.html
WHAT IS "EMERGING SCIENCE"?

Emerging Science Defined: Emerging science (or "protoscience") may be defined as a "near science". A protoscience tends to conform to most of the CONPTT criteria but typically falls short in one or more of the criteria. A protoscience differs from a science in that consistent observations and predictions may be limited by knowledge and/or technology.
For example, let's look at parapsychology. This includes such phenomena as clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. Scientists generally consider parapsychology a pseudoscience because its phenomena conflict with known physical laws. However, at least one member of the parapsychology family, mental telepathy (thought transmission directly from one brain to another), might be worthy of scientific consideration. Mental telepathy, then, could be considered as a "protoscience".
NOTE: See Arthur Strahler, Science and Earth History (1987), page 55 regarding mental telepathy as a protoscience; pages 46-47 for more information about extraterrestrial visitors; and pages 47-49 for more information about UFOs and UFOlogy.


WHAT IS "NON-SCIENCE"?

Non-Science Defined: Non-science may be defined as an area of knowledge which does not meet the criteria of science (CONPTT). Non-science topic areas may be very logical and based on good reasoning, but simply do not fall within the realm of science. They would include any belief system, e.g., religious beliefs, philosophy, personal opinions or attitudes, a sense of esthetics, or ethics.


WHAT IS "FALSE SCIENCE"?

False Science Defined: False science ("pseudoscience") may be defined as a non-science which is portrayed and advertised as a legitimate science by its followers and supporters. Good examples of a pseudoscience would include "astrology" (as presented by some of its supporters), and "creation science". (See Strahler, page 525).


SUMMARY

Science is a limited discipline that studies only naturally occurring events, while offering natural explanations for the phenomenon under study. The data must be consistent, observable, predictable, and testable, while any conclusions or theories must be tentative.

[prometheus]

I described my methodology and the first idea that serves as the start of QWC, i.e. the idea that our expanding universe might have been preceded by a big crunch and I asked for other ideas and discussion.

I posted my steps of speculation and asked if any one knew of any reasons, data, observations that those steps of speculation were inconsistent with.

The responsibility is with you to provide evidence for your own conjecture, not with others to disprove it.


Are you saying that in this entire document ( http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgzb43gp_4fhmcdcgt) you can't find anything that is inconsistent with data or observations of science?
I've tried to read it and it's almost unreadable. You misuse scientific words left, right and centre. There's never a clear point and it's always very obvious that you're simply pulling it out of your ass.


And if you can't then your argument is that it qualifies as pseudoscience anyway because I'm using that classic crank "warcry" "prove me wrong?

I suggest you go back and reread what I put. The thread should be moved to pseudoscience because QWC is pseudoscience, not because you are a crank.


I don't see it that way. I see it as a case of a sincere poster and proud member of the community asking for discussion about the possible causes of the Big Bang. That is a discussion I thought belonged in the Cosmology Forum.

I am of the opinion that it would be a very bad thing if someone genuinely wanted to learn something about cosmology and found your thread. They could assume there was some sort of legitimacy because it is still in this forum despite there being good moderation in other forums and get a false impression that this is some sort of genuine cosmological theory.

[quantum_wave]

The responsibility is with you to provide evidence for your own conjecture, not with others to disprove it.
That explains why you have never addressed the ideas or steps and have repeatedly asked for proof. Maybe that requirement can be worded into the guidelines for the Cosmology thread. Do you have suggested wording for that part of the guidelines? My input would be that if we are taking about speculative ideas as part of a thread on a discussion about the cause of expansion of our observable universe in the Cosmology Forum it should not be expected that there would be proof.

I've tried to read it and it's almost unreadable. You misuse scientific words left, right and centre. There's never a clear point and it's always very obvious that you're simply pulling it out of your ass.
The words I use are in the QWC lexicon. They are simple English and you should be able to read the simple English it is written in.

I suggest you go back and reread what I put. The thread should be moved to pseudoscience because QWC is pseudoscience, not because you are a crank.
I have made a responsible effort to state my case. You are not likely to change your mind and it shouldn’t be necessary to keep up the same back and forth about the concept that there is a distinction between pseudoscience and emerging protoscience. Ultimately that is what D H will decide.

I am of the opinion that it would be a very bad thing if someone genuinely wanted to learn something about cosmology and found your thread. They could assume there was some sort of legitimacy because it is still in this forum despite there being good moderation in other forums and get a false impression that this is some sort of genuine cosmological theory.
So your agenda is to save those people from my ideas which are clearly stated as speculation about the cause of the initial expansion of our observable universe. Is someone you know going to take the time to follow my thread who doesn’t understand that science does not know the answer and that my thread is meant to discuss the possibilities?

[Enmos]

The sciforums gurus have named me as a new moderat..

Whatever..




:p

Congrats man :)

[leopold99]

How hard over on "is it science" do you members want me to be?

science isn't "hard over" at all, it's as pliant as that pile of clay you got sitting around. what is "true" today in science may not necessarily be "true" tomorrow.

"science" is nothing more than mans attempt to explain his surroundings in a reasoned and logical manner.

math can be considered the only "facts" in science.

it doesn't actually answer your question but it does give you my feedback, such as it is.

[D H]

I promise to develop a cogent set of guidelines soon. Pending that, some initial guidelines:

You read an article on astronomy, exobiology, or cosmology in a lay science site or a lay science magazine that puzzles you? Ask away! Please provide a link if at all possible.
Notable exceptions: You read something about Planet Niburu, Planet X, or the year 2012? Please don't ask. That stuff is not even pseudoscience.


You want to know more about NASA or ESA or one of the other space agencies? Ask away.
Notable exception: We really did send people to the moon 40 years ago, no ifs ands or buts.


You found some ultra-cool astronomy photo you would like to share? Post it. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Notable exception: Some pictures are worth a million words, easily. Please do not post *huge* images using the [ img ] tags capability. Instead, make a compressed version of the image. Post the compressed image as an [ img ] tag and post a link to the full-sized image as a [ url ] tag. How to make a compressed image? One way to do that is to go to http://www.TinyPic.com, paste in the URL to the oversized image, select "Message Board (640x480)" from the resize menu, and click the Upload button. Presto chango, you have a compressed version of the big picture suitable for embedding.


You want to discuss theoretical aspects of astronomy, exobiology, or cosmology? Discuss away! Several members at sciforums.com are knowledgeable in various aspects of the underlying theories.
Notable exception: You *know* with a certainty that basic aspects of special relativity, general relativity, or the age of the universe are wrong? The answer to the ultimate question is not 42? You have your own pet theory of the origin of the universe? The appropriate venue for such discussions is the pseudoscience sub forum, not here.

[prometheus]

Thank you DH, you're doing an excellent job so far. :)