Off topic posts from "Anti-dark matter"

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by brucep, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    No, that's not what Prom is fed up with. Read the posts again. The nonsense of the self energy of gravity. The self energy of the self energy of gravity. The self energy of the self energy of the self energy of gravity ............................... I would have thought you'd have the deductive reasoning skills to figure out he's not being banned for saying WIMP's don't exist as real natural phenomena.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It's not clear that what Farsight says is something that can be correct. Farsight's claims might actually be without content, since he has never put forward any way to actually do physics with his theory. He is dishonest in his approach not because he hasn't worked out some details but because he hasn't worked out anything. He makes claims attacking contemporary cosmologists without bothering to learn what they are saying. Does that not seem mean-spirited and dishonest?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I prefer to go with the dictionary definition of a lie, on the understanding that someone who is a liar, is a liar because the tell lies.

    From Merriam-Webster.
    lie
    verb \ˈlī\
    liedly·ing
    Definition of LIE
    intransitive verb
    1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
    2: to create a false or misleading impression

    Farsight creates a "false or misleading impression" with his statements, therefore his statements are lies, which makes him a liar - at least according to the dictionary.

    What he is doing is no different to the scenario where a tourist stops and asks directions of someone and that someone gives them a set of directions rather than admit they don't know where the destination is.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    OK, but sticking with your analogy is the person giving directions a liar if they are less certain than they proclaim to be but "happen" to provide the correct set of directions? In other words, are you calling him a liar because what he's saying is WRONG (and you can prove it) or because he's saying it with an arrogance that you find offensive? I'm finding contradictions here; you and PhysBang claim that there are calculations that have been done by others which prove that Farsight is WRONG, but earlier PhysBang also said Farsight is a liar because his claims are currently unfalsifiable or at least unknowable.
     
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    It's not that there are calculations that prove Farsight is wrong, it is that Farsight is making claims about calculations that Farsight admittedly has not examined on the basis of physical results the calculations for which Farsight has admittedly not done.
     
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I think you are wrong in the above assessment. As far as I can tell, Farsight believes what he is argueing. Thus there is no intent to deceive involved.

    As example, in the late 1800s and even early 1900s, Lorentz and Poincare defended the Luminiferous aether and promoted an aether model of physics and reality. No one calls them liars, though all but a few we exile to the fringe and pseudoscience, dismiss their ideas and arguements as wrong.

    The point is, it does seem to me that Farsight does believe what he posts. He is not ignorante or stupid, so we believe he should know better, but that is a reflection of our judgement, not his intent. Without an intent to deceive or mislead, I do not believe the title of liar, is appropriate.

    As far the ban is concerned, that is likely largely due to to his continued insistence on posting his beliefs in the Physics and Math forum. Under the umbrella of Alternative Theries or Pseudoscience, he would have been safe. This is almost a certainty, as even now there are discussions there, which make Farsight's (wrong) ideas and beliefs, seem almost mainstream.
     
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    This does not make him a liar in and of itself. It does support the decision that his posts are not up to the standards required by this folder, Physics and Math.
     
  11. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    If he has admittedly not done the calculations then he is not a liar. Call me pedantic on this point if you wish, but without being able to prove him wrong the worst you could call Farsight is "unjustifiably certain of his views".
    This is well put OnlyMe. I recall a period in the last year where Tach was fighting the world tooth-and-nail, insisting he was right, plagiarizing the work of others, changing history to erase his mistakes, being an abrasive ass and refusing to admit defeat even when it was obvious; I do not recall that he was ever banned (I may be wrong on this point). Contrast that with Farsight who is generally polite and mature, making claims that are apparently plausible but seem to rub a few people the wrong way. My belief is that Tach got a pass because he was or is a proper Physics student, while Farsight is not. One thing is for sure: if Farsight behaved the way Tach did, the Sciforum mods would be petitioning the Internet to have him and his family perma-banned from cyberspace completely!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    So the objectively observed and experimentally proven 'mod-troll' combo 'pattern' continues, despite all that has been pointed out to you/everyone about same in open forum. I had already effectively withdrawn from posting for a few weeks, but this was too blatant and disheartening of human nature and scientific integrity to let pass without observation of the facts in open forum.

    This is again a jack-booted, egoistic, elitist power trip intrusion made even more egregious by lack of proper full and open justification before expediently proceeding to ban so as to deny common right of self-defence. Another blatant case of abusing the rules to make unsupported accusations of 'lying' etc etc from mod-trolls having personal bias/baggage and prejudice and double standards. A perfect illustration of the oft-observed intimidatory/personal censorship/tactics to skew/shut down the open discourse and obligingly satisfying the troll-mod agenda.

    Do better. Much.
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    GR proves he's wrong. He needs to prove he's right if he continues to say GR is wrong. The fact that you're defending his position means you don't understand what he's saying or GR. He can't demonstrate he understands the theoretical predictions of GR or the experimental evidence confirming the predictions. He continues to misrepresent his opinion as fact. For the most part you're doing much the same thing by defending Farsight's right to continue misrepresenting the science and scientists [Kevin Brown] just because he wants to. Farsight is an intellectually dishonest liar because he keeps up with the nonsense.

    BTW Tach knows more about the science of physics than you do. The Mods know that also.
    Prove this is a true statement:
    "One thing is for sure: if Farsight behaved the way Tach did, the Sciforum mods would be petitioning the Internet to have him and his family perma-banned from cyberspace completely!"
    You're trolling.
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Same thing goes for RJBerry and OnlyMe. Defending Farsight's right to continue to post unsubstantiated nonsense as science. Farsight is a liar by omission.
     
  15. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I have a decent grasp of GR but I've already said I don't have an opinion on anything Farsight has said. It isn't the point; I would make the same defense of him if I thought he was full of beans as a matter of subjectivity. If I could correct him objectively I would do so. You say that his views are incompatible with GR, and Trippy says that he has seen calculations disproving Farsight, while PhysBang says his claims are unfalsfiable. Your stories are not consistent. The only thing the three of you seem to agree on is that "Farsight is a liar, somehow!!"
     
  16. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    I find it pretty surprising that you think this, as I have been quite open about moderating action I have taken with Tach. Prior to this ban I have given farsight 3 warnings (he received a total of 4). Tach on the other hand has been banned 3 times by me, and as he was going through the ban cycle the bans were getting progressively longer up to a 2 weeks I think. I have also given him 7 warnings. I find farsight to be generally polite as well, so I actually think the moderators have been too lenient with him. Tach is often wrong but also right more often than farsight, but his attitude has led to run ins with the mods on a number of occasions.

    Does this in any way go beyond reading some pop science books? If it doesn't (and even if it does actually) you probably don't have a decent grasp of GR. We've been back and forth with farsight about various shortcomings in his understanding of GR and his desire for people to think these shortcomings don't exist. This thread contains a number of examples of this - gravitational self energy is one and his comments on inhomogeneous space (again) is another. Gravitational self energy would need quantum gravity to calculate, so farsight is quite clearly throwing buzzwords around.
     
  17. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    My apologies, I stand corrected. I really only notice that someone is banned when their name has a strike-through in the font; this is something I've never seen with Tach.
    See, I wish you hadn't mentioned that last part, because now it makes me believe that PhysBang's criticism of Farsight is the correct one (i.e. that it rests upon the unproven, speculative theory of quantum gravity and is currently unknowable). This is a LOT different than Trippy and brucep's assertions that Farsight's claims are provably WRONG.

    Technically speaking, how is throwing around a currently unfalsifiable theory any different than talking about, say, String Theory? What this all comes back to is what I've said three times now: you guys are offended that he speaks with unjustified authority, NOT that what he's saying is (always) necessarily wrong. I'm not convinced that a tone of unjustified authority is grounds for banning.
     
  18. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    He has done both, and the throwing around an unfalsifiable theory is worse than you make it sound. String theory is currently untestable in experiment inasmuch as you can't devise an experiment where the string theory prediction of the result differs from all other theories. String theory is falsifiable in the sense that if it does not agree with all previous experiments in GR, quantum field theory etc, then it is dead and much of the work that has been done on string theory had been to make sure that string thoery reduces for GR and ordinary QFT in the right limits. Farsight's theories are nothing more than word salad so the are completely unfalsifiable in that they don't have any predictions at all. He can't possibly have any notion of the self energy of a gravitational system because that would require calculating the loop corrections due to gravitational interactions, and that requires quantum gravity.

    The reason a ban is justified is that he has been told all of this many times before by many users and he keeps on coming back with the same or slightly modified verbiage. It is the entire method that is the problem with him, he knows it so from my point of view him coming back repeatedly to P&M with minor changes to his fairytale the way that he does counts as trolling.
     
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Now your lying.

    Here's what I actually said:
    Here's the important part:
    Note the bolded portion.

    If it turns out that the calculations have not, in fact, been done then I am simply wrong. Being wrong doesn't make one a liar, a point that I am amazed at the calibre of posters confounding.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Probably because it's a new optional feature that's only come about since the new software (and even then at the moderators request IIRC).
     
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Believing what you're saying doesn't mean that what you're saying isn't a lie. There's the innocent lie, for example.

    Besides which, the issue of intent is neccessarily moot (at least in my opinion) by the second definition "Lie: to create a false or misleading impression".

    Simply being wrong doesn't neccessarily make one a liar.

    I understand your position, however, I disagree with it.
     
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    First I would argue you're stretching the analogy.

    Then I would point out your confounding the action with the consequence. Your question amounts to "Is a lie still a lie if I get away with it?"

    You tell me. Is a lie still a lie if you get away with it?

    No, that's not what I claimed.

    Here is what I actually claimed:
    Note the bolded part. I went to the effort of deliberately including that caveat, you could at least put some effort into understanding its significance. There's a good reason for including it, my recollection could be wrong and as such I am averse to making absolute statements on matters such as this.
     
  23. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    So...basically there may or may not be calculations "out there somewhere" which you have never seen yourself but, if they exist, then Farsight would be proven wrong...therefore you conclude he's wrong and a liar? Your evidence is qualified yet you judge with certainty. Pretty thin, Trippy.
     

Share This Page