If we did create a Theory Development forum separate from Physics & Math, with relaxed standards of evidence and uncritical discussion of alternative physics and/or maths theories, would you post there?
Yes James, Absolutely. One way to appease other members and move us out of the mainstream. I would hope that they would come over, time permitting and contribute some "Test Book" overview. But at least it would become optional and not in their face if they didn't want to participate. Thanks for your on going consideration.
1) If people who are knowledgeable of mainstream theories browse and more importantly comment on threads in this new forum, then what was the point of breaking from the main Physics forum? 2) If only those who want to avoid mainstream critique post here, then how valuable is the science? (ie, yet another pseudoscience forum) I just don't see why we have to have two Physics forums if they are technically both playing by the scientific method...and if one isn't, well, we have a spot for that already. And my answer would be no...if I had an idea that I wanted to test the waters with and see how it held up, I'd take it right to those who already know the established science areas, and see what they thought. I may disagree with them, but at least I'd know what areas my theory was weak on in confronting current science. I see an alternate theory forum as more of a "let me talk without showing my mistakes" place.
Originally posted by Jaxom 1) If people who are knowledgeable of mainstream theories browse and more importantly comment on threads in this new forum, then what was the point of breaking from the main Physics forum? One of the main arguments is that people post alternate and unreviewed theories to threads that are clearly focused on a mainstream theory. I would hope that seperating the two would cut down on this, and someone coming to the site for answers could quickly decide what is percieved as the current right answer by going to the physics&math forum. Right now there are threads on here that are complete fantasies, but someone might not realize this if they are not somewhat knowledgable on the subject. 2) If only those who want to avoid mainstream critique post here, then how valuable is the science [...] I just don't see why we have to have two Physics forums if they are technically both playing by the scientific method...and if one isn't, well, we have a spot for that already. I agree with you here, but they'd probably refuse to post in the pseudoscience forum.... Aslo some people do not agree or understand the scientific method. And my answer would be no...if I had an idea that I wanted to test the waters with and see how it held up, I'd take it right to those who already know the established science areas, and see what they thought. I may disagree with them, but at least I'd know what areas my theory was weak on in confronting current science. I see an alternate theory forum as more of a "let me talk without showing my mistakes" place. You've hit the root of the problem. When a mistake is pointed out in most of these theories the author argues that it's not a mistake but a better sense of reality. Then it turns into an argument over why the current theory is wrong and the alternate theory is right... and this usually has none of the evidence or logic required by the scientific method. Basically the 'alternate theory' forum would be to remove those who do not understand/use the scientific method without them complaining.
Speaking for Myself Perol & Jaxom, Again I can only speak for myself. regardless of the ultimate dispensation of my work but assuming it typical of what i see getting channeled into the "Alternative Science" catagory, my purpose of having it there would be for learning but only if the skilled that came over for a look around dealt with the issues without the personal badgering. Hell I'm not thin skinned but I'm here for a purpose and that purpose and the issues at hand get lost in all the side issues that are interjected. As a seperate place to work out of I would hope that the tone could be more conducive to discussion of the issues at hand and forget the name calling even if perhaps that could be justified. I really do feel Alternative theories should be able to stand the scientific method but the Math & Physics threads are not the place to test that if you want nothing but proveable enteries on that board in the first place. The other board simply is not conducive to serious evaluation and noone that feels they have a serious concept is going to post there, me included.
Re: Speaking for Myself You ignore all of the valid arguments presented to you. You are not here because you'd like to learn. The descent into personal attacks naturally follows. Please learn to be accountable for your own actions -- realize that the personal attacks are a result of your actions. - Warren
chroot, If you had even a small amount of wisdom you would realize that there is no excuse for personal attacks. If you disagree with someones statements, then explain to them why you think they are wrong. If they choose not to learn, then simply ignore them. You think that you're impressing people with your personal attacks, but, in reality, the only thing that you're doing is displaying your insecurities.
chroot, If it only comes down to two option, personally attacking me or ignoring me, then I would prefer that you ignore me.
Attacks chroot, I am not here to argue with you but frankly I think you have become a bit shell shocked and don't yield any tolerance for anyone that disagrees with you. I dare say if I were a PHD in physics and held LR to be more correct than GR or SR you wouldn't spout off quite so loudly. If you would then what does that say about your arguement. Most of my opinions are in fact alive and well in the scientific community by qualified physicists. They may be in the minority but that group is growing rapidly. Your tendancy to attack persons such as myself is not going to change that and personally I believe Relativity's days are numbered. But aGAIN ONLY TIME WILL TELL. Pun intended As far as being told numerous times and rejecting your answers that is feloneous and a view you have developed in your own mind. You need only to look at my post entitled "Re-Hash" to see your first (1st) response to my posts on this forum. Not the 2nd, nor the 3rd but the 1st. It was an attack before you had any opportunity to discover what I might have to offer. I'll grant you I came on to strong and made statements that were based on opinion and not proof. That was my mistake. Your mistake is assuming you are right and that Relativity is right beyond question. Hell you didn't even know what the Chiral Condensate was.
Re: Attacks Originally posted by MacM Your mistake is assuming you are right and that Relativity is right beyond question. I doubt that any of us believe this. We do velieve however that it is pointless for someone who can not do the math of it to attack it. Hell you didn't even know what the Chiral Condensate was. I'm just going to assume that was supposed to be ironic.
It would be a waste of my time... Because without opposition, fantasy and ignorance have a way perpetuating.
Some Agreement Persol, MacM Persol Actually I have let this go without challenge to many times but it is kinda of silly. I don't do calculus. But I don't see much calculus in Relativity. I can and have done a lot of Relavistic algebra. MacM Persol Actually it is. Because it isn't up to me to know all about it since nobody does. But at least I was popping off with: chroot (paraphrase) "The "Vacuum isn't any kind of condensate and there is nothing Chiral" about it", yda, yda , yda., like he knew the subject. MacM Fluidity I have no problem with your statement. I do have a problem when the attacks are not on point or even over an issue. And what does it have to do with thisPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! MacM So it is OK for him to say anything he pleases, true or not? chroot
MacM, You took this quote out of context At the time you were talking about the vacuum of space, and this isn't what that chiral condesate seems to be about.
Perhaps Perhaps, I would have to go back and make sure my comments were out of place or not because I do believe I have already posted some information in response to GundamWing's search of the subject after this diatribe occured and it indeed was referring to the vacuum of space and called it the "Chiral Condensate". Here is that post: http://www.sciencenews.org/20000826/bob1.asp and the definition, "Sharing the****** vacuum***** with those short-lived visitors is an also-ghostly but enduring structure that permeates****** space*****, scientists propose. This structure, called a ****chiral condensate*****, consists of quark-antiquark pairs, but only certain types of quarks pair up with certain types of antiquarks." **** Added by me
I would have chosen “I agree with most conventional science, and I think such a forum would be a waste of my time” except that I find that sometimes the best way to learn conventional science is to say how I understand it in a way that differs, so that someone else might support the conventional science viewpoint and lead me to a better understanding. I wouldn’t want to have to go to a separate theory dev forum to use that method. Nor would I want to have to go somewhere else to speculate on physics topics that the physics community widely acknowledges are not satisfactorily answered. After all, if scientists can speculate on those topics, I can too, right? As long as I could still do that in the physics & math forum, I’m all for a separate theory dev forum.
