RealityCheck: moderators are trolling and treating me unfairly

[Trippy]

Attention Please, admin, mods, everyone: Owing to the different time zone compared to most posters, my long overnight absence means I will have a number of posts to reply to all at once. So please forgive the occassional necessity for me to post a number of replies in succession perforce of this time zone caused backlog. Thanks everyone.

Alternatively, take the time to learn how to use the multi-quote function.

 

[Quantum Quack]

With respect, mate, but there is a world of difference between moderation and censorship. The art is to be able to discern the difference when moderating.

For example, more than once I merely put a hypothesis on a perfectly legitimate subject/observation involving conventional science/discoveries etc which may have implications for the current perspective on the subject matter of the hypothesis. How can one justify calling it 'pseudo-science' if the discussion of the invited replies is not allowed to proceed until it is determined one way or the other whether it was fair science discourse or not?

Preconclusionary judgements and censorship and 'painting' as pseudoscience something which has not even been discussed properly and openly are not the way to do free science discourse. I trust you agree with that reasonable approach to allowing free science discourse until the situation becomes clear on its own merits and without prior personal/professional biases and trolling etc brought into it?

I appreciate your input, but perhaps you may have the wrong end of the stick on this one? Just because there are cranks and there is pseudoscience abroad here and elsewhere, it does not automatically make every new and unusual perspective/hypothesis crank/pseudoscience. One must take time and care to discern what is actually going on before kneejerking from past experience.

It takes just one idea 'from left field' to change things and advance the subject. Such paradigm-shifting ideas have happened before in the coffee houses and clubs and other informal exchanges/venues between amateurs and professionals alike.

The next big idea may come from anywhere nowadays, simply because of the Internet Potential for information/education/exchange etc and the exponentially greater potential it affords for Synergy and Serendipitious confluence of people and ideas/perspectives from all walks of life which were hitherto effectively excluded by virtue of lack of 'access' and 'opportunity' etc in the past before the internet.

Internet fora have great potential. We have already seen some of that potential realized in recent world events and even as we speak.

To harness such potential requires discernment and vision and freedom to exchange ideas about both the net and the topics discussed thereby.

Let's not limit ourselves to kneejerking and thus missing out on the great potential the net has to offer everyone and every subject under the sun, both in science and in humanity.


Thanks for your interest, mate. I trust this has clarified a little about where I'm coming from!

Cheers!

.

I am afraid i can not agree with you here.
If you wish to propose a serious change to the way science thinks about stuff you have to do it according to the scientific method other wise it is indeed venturing beyond the parameters of the Phyics and Math forum.
Yeah it's tough mate but launching new science is meant to be tough...very tough
I feel if posters kept to their appropriate forums and not try to force members to respond we would all get along much better. [ I learned this one years ago when I first realised that the photon could possibly be a myth. hence the 500 usd challenge sometime back in pseudo science which proved one thing : that indeed the photons reality could be a myth and not is a myth]
By posting contraversy in the Physics and Math forum I would be forcing action to be taken unless that post was up to the scientific method.

 

[RealityCheck]

This is quite clearly not going to get anywhere, so I rather suspect this will be my last post in this thread. My post to farsight was hardly what I would call intimidating. It was a call to farsight to revisit a past discussion that had been had and have a think about whether he really wanted to have the same discussion again, where he clearly showed that his understanding of GR is far less advanced than he would have people believe. That was one of my posts in that thread, another one is a short warning to behave yourslef which obviously went unheeded since the thread was eventually closed and the final one was to point out to you that you were being a hypocrite telling people to stop posting off topic when you started the topic, posted 10 subsequent posts and not a single one was on topic.

I didn't read any posts as trolling until your post #12 (where you tell brucep off for pointing out the aether doesn't exist, which is a experimentally verified fact). Syne's post #15 could be considered trolling (the one you reported), maybe it wasn't the most helpful posting ever but I do agree with his assessment broadly speaking. By page 2 the bickering from you reached fever pitch.

The sum total of mod action on this thread has been to close it. We would have been justified in passing out an official warning to you (you received 2 informal warnings, one from me and one from AN which you ignored). I also would have been justified in giving a warning to emil, who posted the content of a PM without permission from the sender. We really aren't the power hungry megalomanics you are portraying us to be.

For completeness, the thread this is all about is here.



Comparing sciforums to the coffee houses of old is a joke. I challenge you and anyone else to find a single scientific paper that originated from a forum discussion (research of web forums themselves are excluded, of course). As I said, look through mine or AN's thread history and you will see a bunch of questions relating to the work we are doing, but I can state with almost 100% certainty that there has never been a collaboration that has started on a web forum with a question asked by a non scientist that has led to real science being done. What sciforums does it does well, but scientific research is really not one of those things. Thinking you can come of the street with little or no scientific training or education and pose a question that will lead to new research being done is not only extremely arrogant on your part, it's also pretty insulting to those of us who have worked hard for many years don't you think?

I repeat, in science all opinions are equally valid - they're equally irrelevant. If you have an uneducated opinion then voicing it on here is going to lead to no change in our scientific understanding whatsoever. If you can't back up your idea / opinion / whatever you want to call it with evidence (and that means published and peer reviewed work, or a mathematical derivation) then your opinion means nothing, and you might as well make up a fairy story - at least that might have some entertainment value.

But, since past decisions/warnings by you/AN etc are the very point and part of the pattern of mod-troll combination which has caused the problems we are now discussing, how can you then have recourse to those very examples involving the problems with your actions rather than any fault of mine? The framing was obvious. The outcome predictable. The pattern/combination as usual. So how can you use that very problematic thing for you to justify your error then and now? Inadmissable at best; more proof for my case at worst (for you). I wouldn't attract attention to your past actions in this vein if I were you, mate.

And like I pointed out before when you said that no science could ever come out of a science forum, your negativity and dismissive approach in the first instance effectively disqualifies any claim to scientific objectivity/judgements on your part when doing moderating, since you are obviously not aware of the internet potential and sites like these in particular. Your own and AN's et al preconceptual attitudes and biased readings make all your inputs/modding suspect deserving of more than a second look by someone not so negative and dismissive of everything you expect to find/come from this internet forum.

Your obvious elitist preference for ONLY (oops!!, I meant only) professional sites moderated by professionals for professionals etc etc, just makes it obvious that you think only professionals should be discussing ideas and amateurs/outsiders 'not allowed' (even though some amateurs/outsiders may be brilliant and more perspicacious of the next advance than you who have 'studied' to become 'professional' but yet miss the obvious potential of the internet for everything under the sun).

Not a great qualification/attitude for a mod in a science discourse site, is it, to be s dismissive and disdaining of the very people/discussions/hypotheses/OPs which you then pretend to be 'moderating' but actually kneejerking and encouraging same in trolls and spoilers because you don't really care for 'internet forum science' open to 'the rabble'?


Mate, how can you be so certain that nothing has ever come of exchanges/discussions on forums like this? Are you some divine being with all-seeing/all-knowing powers? How do you know where the initial 'seed' of an idea was plantd that eventually came out into 'professional circles' for you to crow over? It could have come from anywhere and anybody nowadays, simple because 'it's in the air' more now than ever before the internet. Don't become an elitist exclusionist who would dismiss the very source of new ideas just because they are not 'in' with your crowd. OK?

Good luck. No hard feelings, mate!

Cheers!

.

 

[RealityCheck]

I am afraid i ca not agree with you here.
If you wish to propose a serious change to the way science thinks about stuff you have to do it according to the scientfic method other wise it is indeed veneturing beyond the parametters of the phyics and Math forum.
Yeah it's tough mate but launching new science is meant to be tough...

I in turn must respectfully disagree with your take on that, QQ.

This is not a peer review site of professionally presented work. It is an ideas exchange/discussion site. Else it would be a peer-review journal, not a discussion forum. Yes?

Hypotheses presented for general discussion is not "launching new science". While others may be trying to do so, I can only speak for myself. I presented hypotheses and asked questions and posed challenges. That's it.

I only want to hear all sorts of perspectives on the OP/ideas and then discuss them accordingly. That is a necessary prelude to the formal scientific process/review which comes later down the line when someone is trying to 'launch new science' and must then stand the scrutiny accordingly.

Until then, I just want to discuss hypotheses and ideas openly and without fear or favour being attached to what respondents could have contributed without unnecessary kneejerking and prejudicial/premature action by the mod-troll pattern which starts up irrespective of the science/merits involved?

I hope I have made clear the difference between whomever's actual crank/pseudoscience attempts etc and my own genuine wish to discuss new ideas/observations/interpretations in science without being trolled and accused of trying to 'launch new science'? Others must speak for themselves. I can only speak for my part.

Thanks, QQ. I appreciate your genuine discourse and attitude to all this and more. Kudos.

Cheers!

.

 

[RealityCheck]

I've got three words that will solve this whole mess: The Golden Rule.

Hear! Hear!

Whether atheist or religionist. Whether professional or lay person. Whether young or old. Whether on the internet or 'out here'. Apply that rule and you can't go too far wrong!

Kudos and thanks for that timely reminder, Mazulu!

 

[RealityCheck]

Alternatively, take the time to learn how to use the multi-quote function.

What do you mean, Trippy?

 

[Quantum Quack]

I in turn must respectfully disagree with your take on that, QQ.

This is not a peer review site of professionally presented work. It is an ideas exchange/discussion site. Else it would be a peer-review journal, not a discussion forum. Yes?

Hypotheses presented for general discussion is not "launching new science". While others may be trying to do so, I can only speak for myself. I presented hypotheses and asked questions and posed challenges. That's it.

I only want to hear all sorts of perspectives on the OP/ideas and then discuss them accordingly. That is a necessary prelude to the formal scientific process/review which comes later down the line when someone is trying to 'launch new science' and must then stand the scrutiny accordingly.

Until then, I just want to discuss hypotheses and ideas openly and without fear or favour being attached to what respondents could have contributed without unnecessary kneejerking and prejudicial/premature action by the mod-troll pattern which starts up irrespective of the science/merits involved?

I hope I have made clear the difference between whomever's actual crank/pseudoscience attempts etc and my own genuine wish to discuss new ideas/observations/interpretations in science without being trolled and accused of trying to 'launch new science'? Others must speak for themselves. I can only speak for my part.

Thanks, QQ. I appreciate your genuine discourse and attitude to all this and more. Kudos.

Cheers!

.

let me ask you this If I may:

say you question the validity of the photon effect model [using those words ok ] and suggest that possibly the exchange of energy is by way of resonance across a void of infinte dimensional zero space.
Which forum do you feel would be best to use? so that you avoid confusing the public reader and other members about what is held by conventional science and what is not?
I have a good idea what AN and Pro would say...as they woud already know you could not possibly understand the answer they would be obliged to give [chuckle]

 

[Trippy]

What do you mean, Trippy?

This button:

At the bottom right hand corner of each post is the multiquote button.

In a situation where you are expecting to reply to multiple posts, if you click on that button for each post you want to reply to, and then click the "Reply with quote" button, it will quote all of the posts you have selected.

That way, you can reply to multiple posts without the accusation of spamming the thread.

---

Addendum
Apparently you can no longer include the buttons as inline images in your posts.
It's got the quote bubble with a little + sign beside it.

 

[RealityCheck]

let me ask you this If I may:

say you question the validity of the photon effect model [using those words ok ] and suggest that possibly the exchange of energy is by way of resonance across a void of infinte dimensional zero space.
Which forum do you feel would be best to use? so that you avoid confusing the public reader and other members about what is held by conventional science and what is not?
I have a good idea what AN and Pro would say... [ chuckle]

Hmmm. Did you mean the 'photo-electric' effect or the photon particle/wave propagation effect?

Also (whichever it turns out to be, that or some other 'effect') I would ask whether that is a hypothesis based on the past/latest scientific observations or only on a personal 'hunch' etc based on some perspective of your own irrespective of current/other theory?

If it is made clear that it is 'alternative theory' not related to existing scientific knowledge, then obviously it should go into alternative theory section.

However, if it turns out that, after initial requests for clarification, the hypothesis is logical and valid given the current/past scientific observation/discoveries which may change the current theory if properly investigated/discussed, then it should remain in the main section until it is determined otherwise by fair and open discussion/determination.

Under no circumstances should there be trolling and kneejerking of the OP hypothesis. Either it stands or it falls on its own merits or otherwise depending on the discussion/exploration of it in open forum without preconceptual attitudes/actions from any quarter.

That is my brief take on that 'what if', mate! But then, I am not fussed either way unless there is something worth pursuing for my own insterets and in the interests of science. What a moderator would have to say etc is their business. I just hope and trust that they take proper time/care to get it right before acting in that capacity.



Cheers!

.

 

[Quantum Quack]

One of the main problem I feel is that persons such as AN And Pros etc can not and will not drop their game to suit someone elses ignorance. They are obliged to do the best they can and the question that i suggested would frustrate them endlessy. Of course they or any one with knowledge of science cannot answer it with out taking the poster through 5 years of university education and then some.
reminds me of Homer Simpson approaching the QikyMart Guru on the top of the mountain:
Guru: "you have three questions son"
Homer: "... but?
Guru: "You have two questions son"
Homer: "...how am I?
Guru: "You have one question my son"
Homer: "... but?"
Guru: "Thank you for calling, please come again"

 

[Quantum Quack]

Hmmm. Did you mean the 'photo-electric' effect or the photon particle/wave propagation effect?

hey I dunno possibly I meant lumanescent theory

Also (whichever it turns out to be, that or some other 'effect') I would ask whether that is a hypothesis based on the past/latest scientific observations or only on a personal 'hunch' etc based on some perspective of your own irrespective of current/other theory?

why would I ask that when I already know that it isn't.

If it is made clear that it is 'alternative theory' not related to existing scientific knowledge, then obviously it should go into alternative theory section.

yep you got it...pseudo forum for you...no questions asked.

However, if it turns out that, after initial requests for clarification, the hypothesis is logical and valid given the current/past scientific observation/discoveries which may change the current theory if properly investigated/discussed, then it should remain in the main section until it is determined otherwise by fair and open discussion/determination.

but now these erudite members can entertain a little decrete speculation if they choose to only.

Under no circumstances should there be trolling and kneejerking of the OP hypothesis. Either it stands or it falls on its own merits or otherwise depending on the discussion/exploration of it in open forum without preconceptual attitudes/actions from any quarter.

yep ....arbitary and immediate before any discussion move to pseudo is what should normally happen.

That is my brief take on that 'what if', mate! But then, I am not fussed either way unless there is something worth pursuing for my own insterets and in the interests of science. What a moderator would have to say etc is their business. I just hope and trust that they take proper time/care to get it right before acting in that capacity.

and I am sure that they actually want to if the poster can understand their position.

see?

 

[Quantum Quack]

RC try posting a post you would expect to be acceptable in physics and math here and lets discuss what would be the outcome...if there was no conspiracy to attack hacks and cranks,
Lets assume that is is you very first post to sciforums. [no prior knowledge or posting history]

 

[RealityCheck]

One of the main problem I feel is that persons such as AN And Pros etc can not and will not drop their game to suit someone elses ignorance. They are obliged to do the best they can and the question that i suggested would frustrate them endlessy. Of course they or any one with knowledge of science cannot answer it with out taking the poster through 5 years of university education and then some.
reminds me of Homer Simpson approaching the guru on the top of the mountain:
Guru: "you have three questions son"
Homer: "... but?
Guru: "You have two questions son"
Homer: "...how am I?
Guru: "You have one question my son"
Homer: "... but?"
Guru: "Thank you for calling, please come again"

Agreed. That is the problem faced by any such positions. The art is to use discernment and fairness in the first instance, before making kneejerk and impatient dismissals/decisions which may defeat the very purpose of the site and of the moderation process itself.

That is why when some constantly stressed/dissatisfied because they have insufficient time; or because they are not being paid for their mod duties; or because of personal problems with others etc etc, should not get involved in making decisions which bear no relation to the facts....and then come and make excuses which do not make up for the damage done (sometimes irreparable if the idea is 'lost' to noise and trolling and the potential value/person involved is not fully realized as it should have been...and the advance delayed thereby for possibly many years).

It is a qustion of who has the time. patience and talent to spot the gems among the dross. We all face this problem, but it is particularly crucial that in science there is no excuse for actively working against the scientific discourse which may possibly lead to the next breakthrough. This may come from anywhere at any time. Even HERE at Sciforums or another forum.

Who can tell? There is so many intellects and ideas swirling around that it's like Einstein's time all over again. Who knows where and in whose brain the idea that will change things is residing among the billions now connected by the internet, even as we speak?

It's a tough job, moderating properly. But it's better not done at all rather than it be done destructively and possibly being responsible for the loss of the next big idea just because the trolls and mods get in the way unfairly and unnecessarily, for whatever personal/other reasons.


That's my take on moderation. Either it is done properly or not at all (just get rid of spam etc and leave the forum to moderate itself if the official mods don't have the time/patience/inclination etc to do it right).

Thanks again, QQ.



PS: Perhaps we could allow a thread starter to determine who will be allowed to respond to his thread? That way any obvious trolls and spoilers will have been prevented from intruding from the get-go? That power to determine the respondents should not extend to the power to delete replies from those respondents. That way a happy medium may be struck between excluding known spoilers and trolls, and including everything that a genuine respondent/debater has to offer to the OP/discussion? Your thoughts, QQ, anyone?

 

[Quantum Quack]

RC try posting a post you would expect to be acceptable in physics and math here and lets discuss what would be the outcome...
edit: not easy yes?

 

[RealityCheck]

This button:

At the bottom right hand corner of each post is the multiquote button.

In a situation where you are expecting to reply to multiple posts, if you click on that button for each post you want to reply to, and then click the "Reply with quote" button, it will quote all of the posts you have selected.

That way, you can reply to multiple posts without the accusation of spamming the thread.

---

Addendum
Apparently you can no longer include the buttons as inline images in your posts.
It's got the quote bubble with a little + sign beside it.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble, mate.

I have used multi-quote posts before whenever I thought it appropriate (like when splitting a posters' own post in order to answer each point separately). However, I try not to use multi-quote posts involving different respondents because it usually ends up in misunderstandings and cross-purpose replies etc etc. So I leave that function well enough alone if I can possibly avoid it.

Thanks again, Trippy. Cheers!

.

 

[Quantum Quack]

PS: Perhaps we could allow a thread starter to determine who will be allowed to respond to his thread? That way any obvious trolls and spoilers will have been prevented from intruding from the get-go? That power to determine the respondents should not extend to the power to delete replies from those respondents. That way a happy medium may be struck between excluding known spoilers and trolls, and including everything that a genuine respondent/debater has to offer to the OP/discussion? Your thoughts, QQ, anyone?

and how do you feel this improves the ability for the poster to entertain contradictory opinion?
this method has proved totally useless due to the OP poster censoring others from opnions that may be contra to his own.
A bit like having a debate were one team selects their opposition and then has the right to dump then if they don't fit their agenda. A bit like pseudo 1 party democracies

 

[Quantum Quack]

RC try posting a post you would expect to be acceptable in physics and math here and lets discuss what would be the outcome...


edit: not easy yes?

 

[RealityCheck]

RC try posting a post you would expect to be acceptable in physics and math here and lets discuss what would be the outcome...


edit: not easy yes?

Not at all, mate. I was just searching back for an actual example already in the record. Just bear with me for a moment and I'll find it and post it here asap........




Ah, here's one....

.

We infer 'recession' from all the 'redshifted' light we receive here in our galaxy NOW (ie, in the form of 'CMB' and 'Standard Candle Supernovae' radiation wavelengths/frequencies).

Consider: If Dark Matter content in galaxies earlier in the mass/gravity evolutionary period of all galaxies (including ours) was GREATER than it is NOW, then our own galaxy would not 'blueshift back all the way' the photons received from far away when the photons left a much stronger gravity well due to that earlier MUCH GREATER MASS from Dark Matter which has since dispersed/reduced to what we have now in OUR galaxy.


So, HYPOTHESIS ONLY:

Since the source gravity well redshift is not matched here and now by an equally counteracting 'blueshift' (since our spiral galaxy and all relatively 'settled' spiral galaxies have lost most of their dark matter content SINCE the time of emission from distant galaxies) then the 'redshift' may be due to a gravity well MISMATCH between emission gravity well strengths THERE/THEN and detection gravity well strength HERE/NOW in our galaxy. Hence any distant galaxy will look 'redder' because it WAS REDDER at the time compared to NOW. Hence it is possible that the distant galaxies look NOW much like ours does NOW, except that we only see them as they were THEN, so we infer recession instead of CHANGE IN GRAVITY strengths since then.


Question: If the dark matter content variation in galaxies is significant enough over time between then and now, are 'cosmological redshift' values merely a measure of the PAST DARK MATTER MASS/GRAVITY states of distant galaxies compared to ours now? And if so, then perhaps 'cosmological recession' that is 'inferred' from such redshift values may not be 'evidence of recession' after all (or at least not to the extremes 'inferred')?

I am sorry, but I must leave again. I may not be back for some time. I will try to come back asap to check for any ON TOPIC ONLY PLEASE responses regarding this HYPOTHESIS. Anyone interested or having any thought/view on this matter is welcome to contribute to this thread.

Cheers!

.

PS: I was going to add this to my other 'dark matter' thread but it may be best to start a clean thread for the hypothesis which was in the offing when I started that other thread. By the way, I'd like to thank waitedavid137 and Robbitybob1 for their posts/replies which have served to 'firm' this hypothesis of mine. Thanks guys for your polite discourse! Much appreciated.

.

I started with that 'hypothesis' post in my thread under the Cosmology etc..... section, but it could just as easily have been put under the physics and maths section. I was just trying to concentrate everyone's attention to the cosmological implications/interpretations to be discussed after everyone had had their on-topic input (not rolling/spoiling etc) for the express purposes of the OP/discussion as intended.

I based the hypothesis on the latest astronomical discoveries/observations available in the literature/news under the subject matter concerned, and which anyone who can google/wiki could find for themselves easily and quickly if they were interested. Naturally any discussion may take it into the physics and maths section. No problem. All I wanted was contributions which could be discussed after everyone had their say so that I could come to a conclusion based on all the perspectives/arguments have been put and discussed. Sometimes real world affairs get in the way of my being able to spend time on the internet. So I ask everyone, and you now, to please understand if and when I am absent for some time.


So, QQ, I trust the above example hypothesis post for discussion will do for your illustrative purposes here?

I have to leave for the day, everyone. See you in a day or two if I can. Stay well!

Cheers!


PS: Oh, before I go, here is the thread reference: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Redshift-amp-Dark-Matter-Variations-Over-Time

 

[RealityCheck]

and how do you feel this improves the ability for the poster to entertain contradictory opinion?
this method has proved totally useless due to the OP poster censoring others from opnions that may be contra to his own.
A bit like having a debate were one team selects their opposition and then has the right to dump then if they don't fit their agenda. A bit like pseudo 1 party democracies

Just caught this as I was leaving.

Quickly then, the thrust of that is to allow as many genuine posters who have proven to be genuine and not just trolls and spoilers. The post histories will tell a thread starter whether anyone should be excluded from their thread. This does not allow a thread starter to censor genuine posters once they are included 'up front' for thread participation. The thread starter cannot delete posts/posters once they are included in the thread up front. Otherwise it would be as you say, the thread starter could exclude/delete as the discussion progressed, and that would not be good. I only suggested a one-off up-front exclusion list to keep out proven trollers/spoilers. No power to modify the discussion thereafter is suggested at all. Naturally, mods could come and go as they pleased and as necessary in order to keep the discussion on-topic etc and make whatever decisions they think appropriate about any poster who was included up front but who may be a troll/spoiler in that thread. Just a rough idea. Cheers and goodnight, QQ, everyone.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Not at all, mate. I was just searching back for an actual example already in the record. Just bear with me for a moment and I'll find it and post it here asap........




Ah, here's one....



I started with that 'hypothesis' post in my thread under the Cosmology etc..... section, but it could just as easily have been put under the physics and maths section. I was just trying to concentrate everyone's attention to the cosmological implications/interpretations to be discussed after everyone had had their on-topic input (not rolling/spoiling etc) for the express purposes of the OP/discussion as intended.

I based the hypothesis on the latest astronomical discoveries/observations available in the literature/news under the subject matter concerned, and which anyone who can google/wiki could find for themselves easily and quickly if they were interested. Naturally any discussion may take it into the physics and maths section. No problem. All I wanted was contributions which could be discussed after everyone had their say so that I could come to a conclusion based on all the perspectives/arguments have been put and discussed. Sometimes real world affairs get in the way of my being able to spend time on the internet. So I ask everyone, and you now, to please understand if and when I am absent for some time.


So, QQ, I trust the above example hypothesis post for discussion will do for your illustrative purposes here?

I have to leave for the day, everyone. See you in a day or two if I can. Stay well!

Cheers!


PS: Oh, before I go, here is the thread reference: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Redshift-amp-Dark-Matter-Variations-Over-Time

My first reaction If I was a moderator would be to immediately move it to pseudoscience.
why?
The Hypothesis is not worded in a way that minimises confusion, and ambiguities and the question is unable to be answered in a way that would serve you or the rest of the community.
So I would ask posters respondants to suggest a better way of puting forward your hypothesis and questions so that they can be answered and dealt with adequately.


What say you?