Open letter to "sagaistrue"

[James R]

Dear sagaistrue,

First of all, welcome to sciforums. Please take a moment or two to familiarise yourself with our site posting guidelines before you post to our forum again. You can find them in the "Site Feedback" subforum under "Sciforums site rules". Here's a helpful extract from the introduction:

Sciforums is an intelligent community that encourages learning and thoughtful discussion. We expect and welcome contributions that inform as well as stimulate discussion and debate. .... [W]e retain in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method, which demands critical analysis, clear thinking and evidence-based argument. Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty.​

​

A few general pointers for you, going forward:

• Good manners and basic courtesy means, among other things, not spamming the site with AI slop. Please don't do that in future.
• Critical analysis means that you need to think for yourself. Don't hand your thinking over to an AI, and don't parrot whatever an AI says about a topic unless you have taken the time to understand what it is saying and - more importantly - why.
• Evidence-based argument means that your fantastical ideas should, at some point, connect with real-world facts and scientific knowledge (because this site retains in all areas of debate an ethos of respect for the scientific method).

Now, it looks like you've got off to a poor start in your time with us here, for various reasons. I hope you can do better in future. I guess we'll see, one way or another.

I would like you to know that most, if not all, of the people who post to this forum have access to AI chatbots, just like you do. If we want to debate an AI, we can all do that any time. But I think it is fair to say that most of us come here because we enjoy interacting with other real human beings.

I think I can safely say that most of the regular members here would be much more interested to discuss your own ideas with you than they would be in trying to respond to huge screeds of error-laden, AI-generated pseudoscientific garbage. Certainly, I'm not going to bother responding to your AI-generated posts in any great detail.

If you are interested in science and would like to learn something about real science from people who actually know some things about it, then this might be the place for you. Please feel free to ask questions.

On the other hand, if you imagine that AI-generated content can adequately substitute for actual scientific knowledge and thereby allow you to score imaginary "points" in debating on topics that you don't personally understand, then this is probably not the place for you. Or, rather, you're probably not the sort of person we are likely to be embracing into our little online community with open arms.

You come across as very young and immature. Rather than strutting around the forum, metaphorically speaking, and trying to pretend that you've solved all the problems of the universe with your amazing ability to prompt an AI chatbot, you'd probably do better to take a little time to read some of the existing discussion threads here. Don't feel like you must jump in immediately to express your AI's opinion on every topic. Instead, try to get a feel for how mature human beings with more education and life experience than you go about interacting on a discussion forum like this. If you read some of our threads, you will see some excellent examples of critical thinking at work. You'll also see some examples of grown adults acting like silly little kids, throwing temper tantrums and the like. You need to learn how to tell the difference between those two things. Also - importantly - take a moment to appreciate how mature adults react to nonsense and juvenile posturing. You'll find that, in the adult world, you'll very quickly be dismissed as a lightweight poseur if you act like you know it all, while obviously relying on other people (or AI) to do all your thinking for you.

One last piece of advice: have a little humility. You don't know everything. And you don't have the scores on the board to assert any kind of superiority over any of our members, yet. Respect must be earned. You're not entitled to it just because your Mom told you that you are a special flower.

Going forward, please make sure that you:

• do not spam AI-generated content to the forum.
• do not start multiple threads on the same topic.
• do not post pseudoscientific nonsense in our subforums under the category "Science".
• Understand everything that you are posting before posting it (unless you're asking legitimate questions).
• post your own thoughts, not those of an AI bot, on content areas that you have zero knowledge in.
• treat other members of the forum with basic civility and good manners.

With all that said, I will be closing all of your existing threads. We will start over. Pretend that you just signed up to the forum. Let's see if you can do better than the first time around.

In the next post or two, I will take the opportunity to reply to a few specific points you raised in your previous posts, to better guide you on what to do and what not to do when you resume posting here. I hope you can take this constructive criticism on board.

Best wishes,

James R
sciforums Administrator

 

[James R]

For reference, here are the links to sagaistrue's initial threads (now closed):

Why Dark Matter Can Now Be Detected on Earth

I. Fundamental Cosmic Matrix: Yin-Yang Hydrogen Vibration Fields as the Foundation of Earth’s Barrier The hydrogen vibration field is the most primal fundamental energy field in the universe, existing in two interdependent and interlocked states: Yin and Yang. The Yang hydrogen vibration field...

www.sciforums.com

Ancient Lattice & Ley Line System Collapse and Modern Life Degradation: Internal vs. External Damage

Abstract Since modern times, global ecological collapse, biological population degradation, a sharp decline in human fertility, frequent childhood cancers, and a dramatic increase in extreme geological and meteorological disasters have become worldwide century-old puzzles that mainstream...

www.sciforums.com

Magnetic Field Imbalance and Atmospheric Cloud Instability (Observed Data and Mechanism)

Global geomagnetic field attenuation and regional field imbalance are ongoing planetary-scale physical phenomena with continuous satellite and ground observation data spanning more than 170 years. These underlying field structure anomalies directly affect atmospheric ionization, cloud nucleation...

www.sciforums.com

LHC High-Energy Collisions and Einstein Rings

Correspondence between Boson Decay Forms and Astronomical Ring/Cross Images 1. Higgs boson decay (\boldsymbol{H\rightarrow\gamma\gamma}) Corresponds to: Standard Einstein rings & horseshoe-shaped arcs Cause: Two photons diverge and deflect, forming continuous ring-shaped light spots. 2. Higgs...

www.sciforums.com

The Cosmic Golden Egg

The Cosmic Golden Egg Ⅰ. Cosmology: Myths, Past and Present 0. The universe is a single fertilized giant egg. 1. Earth-Moon region (≈ 0.00272 AU). The Earth-Moon system acts as the field of DNA skeletal chains, with the Moon responsible for generating skeletal chains. 2. Earth-Sun region (≈...

www.sciforums.com

Brief Introduction to the Solar System Global Lattice Anchor System

Brief Introduction to the Solar System Global Lattice Anchor System The Unified Operating Mechanism Linking Celestial Bodies and Microscopic Life Preface: This is merely a conceptual speculation, which inevitably contains imperfections. We will not delve into specific data and underlying...

www.sciforums.com

Paradoxes of Traditional Mineralization Theory & the Ancient Lattice System

Logical Paradoxes of the Mainstream Fracture-Hydrothermal Mineralization Theory and the Rationality of a New System I. Core View of the Mainstream Theory Mainstream modern geology holds that plate movement creates crustal fractures. High-temperature hydrothermal fluids generated by...

www.sciforums.com

 

[James R]

sagaistrue:

As I said, I am not going to bother reading or responding to the AI slop you posted. I would like to respond to some of your thoughts and comments, however. These are taken from the threads linked above.

Sorry for posting these in the wrong place. These are my personal theories/ideas, not standard science content.

They do not seem like your theories or ideas at all. They seem like AI-generated content that you most likely do not understand. Try expressing ideas in your own words in future. Also realise that before you can have original ideas, you need some actual knowledge.

I built 90% of the logical framework and original assertions myself. The AI only helped polish and flesh out the text based on my core ideas...

Sorry, but I don't believe you. What you say is implausible, based on the difference in expression between your own thoughts and the obviously-AI-generated material.

I am describing a planetary-scale, closed-loop resonant field that every atom, every crystal, and every instrument on Earth is already part of.

Your instruments cannot detect it, not because it does not exist, but because they are inside the field itself. They vibrate and resonate in lockstep with the system, so they have no way to act as an independent observer to measure it.

Your undetectable "resonant field" is not a scientific concept, then. There's no reason at all to suspect that it is real.

 

[James R]

sagaistrue:

First of all, out of respect for your so-called "science", I moved my post to another section where such topics are allowed.

By 'your so-called "science"', you actually mean "science". Right?

Why would you want to try to disparage science, while you also demonstrate no understanding of it?

Shouldn't you learn about it first, before trying to argue against it?

Please go find the actual data on the internet before you speak.

You didn't go find any "actual data" on the internet, so why expect the people you are conversing with to do that? If you're the one making the grandiose claims, it's up to you to collect the "actual data" to support them.

Bro, do you know what version iteration is?

I don't. What is it, and why is it important? Please explain.

To be honest, single-discipline scholars often can’t even find a point of entry for this kind of discussion, simply because they lack a global, integrated perspective.

Do you consider yourself a multi-discipline scholar?

In which disciplines are you trained, exactly? Where did you get your "global, integrated perspective"?

Do you really speak for all of science?

Think about it. Do you really think that one person could "speak for all of science"? A moment's reflective thought should be enough for you to discover the answer to your question. Failing that, you could ask your AI friend.

I think you simply don’t have the mental bandwidth to engage with these actual issues.

Insulting people when you've only just got here is hardly going to endear you to anybody. Didn't your parent or guardian teach you any manners? Have a little humility.

I’m surprised my work triggers this kind of resistance from you.

What "work"?

Do you consider spending 5 minutes typing queries into an AI chatbot, so that you can cut-and-paste its responses to this forum, to be "work"? Really?

By the way, have you figured out who built the Stonehenge in your avatar? Or do you know? Tell me!

It was the paleolithic people who lived in England at the time they built it.

Do you think differently? Why?

 

[James R]

There's no escaping Galaxy Explosion. Accept reality!

If you provide some evidence for it, maybe somebody will accept it.

Until then, you're not entitled to call it "reality".

 

[James R]

I'm sagaistrue, and I hold no academic titles.

You said you're a kid. Are you still in primary or secondary school, then? Do you have a job?

Lattice energy resonance is a quantum effect, so it cannot be easily detected by conventional methods.

How can it be detected? Please specify.

In my view, lattice resonance is governed mainly by magnetic interactions. The piezoelectric effect within crustal mineral lattices converts electric fields into magnetic fields. This unique coupling mechanism confines and stabilizes the magnetic field of Earth’s geodetic veins.

Why do you hold this view?

Furthermore, the rotation direction of space and time controls the magnetic poles.

How can "space and time" have a "rotation direction"? Please explain.

The Northern Hemisphere hosts a large number of energy nodes. This is exactly why most of Earth’s landmass lies here and stays stable.

What is an "energy node"?

And can you please explain how an energy node can stabilise a landmass?

I also believe academia has become too fragmented.

Why do you believe that?

Most scholars are deeply focused on their own narrow fields, which makes it hard to see the bigger picture and grasp the root of the problem.

How do you know this is true?

Second, it’s clear you haven’t read my entire series of posts.

To be fair, there are only two or three posts written by you, so far. The rest has been AI slop. (Yes, I'm exaggerating a little, but only a little.) I'm replying to the posts I think were most likely written by you, while I ignore the AI slop.

You accuse me of "disrespecting the methods of science," yet you haven’t addressed a single piece of data, paradox, or mechanism I’ve presented.

So far, you haven't cited a single scientific paper, as far as I am aware. So what's all this about "pieces of data" and paradoxes, then?

"Mechanisms" that don't refer to anything real are irrelevant. Aren't they? Fine as science fiction or fantasy, maybe, but beyond that....?

The real scientific spirit is to face unexplained phenomena, not attack the person who raises them.

How do you know what the "real scientific spirit" is?

If you’re willing to read all of my posts and then question specific claims, data, or logic, I’d be happy to have a rational discussion.

I've read all your posts so far. Unfortunately, I felt obliged to do that, because I received some complaints about them. I look forward to having rational discussions with you, without the involvement of your AI friend. I hope you can manage it.

What I am discussing is a quantum-scale, planetary-level system effect that conventional instruments and models are not designed to detect or interpret.

How did you detect it? Did you use unconventional instruments? Explain.

Your tools are not neutral; they are inside the very field you are trying to detect.

Do you have tools that are outside the very field you are trying to detect? If so, what are they?

We are simply operating on two different levels of understanding.

It seems so. On the one hand, our other members have been operating on the level that uses critical thinking and the scientific method. On the other hand, you have been operating on a level of feeding fantasy prompts to AI chatbots and then mindless posting the AI output, apparently without any particular understanding.

Your criticism is valid within your classical, reductionist paradigm, but it does not apply to the system I am describing.

Are you using a non-classical, holistic paradigm? Please explain in more detail how this is beneficial.

You love to lecture me about “correlation vs causation” and demand absolute proof, yet let’s talk about the age of the universe.

Did somebody demand absolute proof? Where?

Do you know what a straw man is?

And do you understand the difference between correlation and causation?

The “scientific consensus” on the universe’s age has been revised multiple times, each time based on incomplete data and assumptions.

Do you think we will ever have "complete data" on this? Please explain.

Do you have a problem with science revising its tentative conclusions in the light of new data? If so, please explain what the problem is with that.

- It went from billions to 13.8 billion years, based on models that rely on the same kind of correlational data you dismiss.

13.8 billion years is billions of years, isn't it?

- No one has ever “observed” the entire timeline of the universe. It’s an inference built on the interpretation of cosmic background radiation, redshift, and a set of assumptions that are still debated today.

Yes. And so...?

That’s the so-called “rigor” of mainstream science: draw definitive conclusions based on correlational data and models, then revise them when new evidence contradicts them.

"Definitive" conclusions, eh? Does it do that, though? Examples?

You’re using a double standard: when it suits you, it’s “science”; when it doesn’t, it’s “just correlation”.

I get the impression you don't have a clue about what you're trying to discuss. You seem lost when you're not pasting AI slop.

The greenhouse of modern science is on the verge of collapse.

What do you mean by that? Please explain. And why do you believe that?

So please calm down and think carefully.

Good advice! Have you tried it yourself?

Sorry, my knowledge far exceeds yours.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Einstein himself once said:
"Space and time are not conditions in which we live, but modes in which we think."

Only he didn't say that, apparently.

Have you learned anything from this, sagaistrue? If so, tell me what you learned.

Modern physics has long moved beyond the old reductionist paradigm.

Has it? Can you please explain when the move happened and what the state of play in modern physics is now, briefly?

Your criticism of "numerology" and your insistence on single-dimensional data only reveal that you are still trapped in an outdated, fragmented way of thinking.

Who insisted on "single-dimensional data"? And what does that mean, exactly?

What type of data do you prefer, and why?

The deeper, integrated patterns of the universe require a perspective that considers time, space, and their interplay as a whole.

How do you know?

To put it simply: even by the standards of probability theory, the odds of life emerging by pure chance are effectively zero.

Please show me your probability calculation. Note: your probability calculation, not your AI friend's.

This only reinforces that the Earth is a precisely tuned system, not a random accident.

Who or what do you think tuned the system?

If I were a tenured professor or a mainstream academic, I’d already be boxed in by the system — and I would never have had the eyes to see this pattern in the first place.

How do you know? Have you ever been a tenured professor or mainstream academic?
Have you ever met a tenured professor or a mainstream academic?
Have you met any non-tenured or anti-mainstream academics? If so, can you tell me how they avoided being boxed in by "the system"?
What's "the system", anyway? Can you explain?

I came here to present a perspective with an open, inclusive attitude for exchange — not to get sidetracked and bicker endlessly.

You've certainly presented a perspective. Mission accomplished, then?

Look at my ID. Saga is true.
Why do you think you’re even here to argue with me?

You came to us. We didn't come to you.

The Great Sphinx is simply a basic form of symbolic encryption formed by the triple combination of human beings, the Leo constellation and lion worship. I suppose you cannot understand this either.

I can understand it. What reasons do you have to think that's true?

 

[James R]

The ancients were already doing what they could to reduce entropy.

In what way? Examples?

Do you really think you are superior today?

Superior in what way? Be specific.

Acknowledging individual differences is a reality we all have to face. But individual differences do not represent a hierarchy of life levels. Essentially, all lives are equal.

"Equal" in what way? Be specific.

The "knowledge" you defend is merely a collection of speculations.

Not the knowledge I defend. Maybe this applies to the "knowledge" you defend.

I express my views with a questioning attitude, unlike those who speak with absolute certainty!

Do you think that? So far, you've made lots of lofty claims and sweeping generalisations, but I've seen you ask very few questions that aren't rhetorical. Your mind seems to be made up about a lot of things.

You don't have to be so insecure and powerless, unable to even calm down. Brother, you need to be brave, masculine, and steady!

Do you have a problem with femininity, as well as with science? That would be a real pity in somebody so young.

I’m not some self-absorbed, brainless player with a protagonist complex.

All indications so far are to the contrary. But maybe there's more to you than what I've seen so far. Here's hoping.

You resist AI simply because you cannot take control of it.

It seems like you've given yourself over to AI, to the extent that you believe that AI can do your thinking for you.

Do you also imagine that you're controlling it?

Nor can you tell the difference between content created by people dominated by AI and those who master it.

I think I can tell the difference, for the time being. Want to guess which category I'm leaning towards putting you in, based on your posts to this forum so far?

Just like many people who use AI programming tools, they have now lost their ability to think and don't even bother to look at the underlying principles.

Do you use AI programming tools?

Therefore, much of the software developed with these tools is far less efficient.

Are you a programmer? i.e. do you know how to program without relying on AI?

Many of them simply don't know that AI is only suitable for writing functions and building ready-made frameworks!

You have data on what many of them simply don't know, do you? Can you show me that data?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: For the members, I should note that I have taken the unusual step of temporarily banning sagaistrue for 1 day.

He has had free reign over the past week to essentially spam the forum with AI slop, in many separate threads - often with several threads on the same topic.

The aim of this temporary ban is to allow time for sagaistrue to reflect on his behaviour since signing up to this forum and to carefully consider the helpful feedback and advice that he has been given by our members so far.

This is where we wipe the slate clean, so sagaistrue can turn over a new leaf. [Yes, mixing my metaphors, there!] I think he can do it, if he tries. He's young and perhaps not set irredeemably on a bad path. So, a new beginning and a second chance...

 

[Luchito]

Moderator note: For the members, I should note that I have taken the unusual step of temporarily banning sagaistrue for 1 day.

He has had free reign over the past week to essentially spam the forum with AI slop, in many separate threads - often with several threads on the same topic.

The aim of this temporary ban is to allow time for sagaistrue to reflect on his behaviour since signing up to this forum and to carefully consider the helpful feedback and advice that he has been given by our members so far.

This is where we wipe the slate clean, so sagaistrue can turn over a new leaf. [Yes, mixing my metaphors, there!] I think he can do it, if he tries. He's young and perhaps not set irredeemably on a bad path. So, a new beginning and a second chance...

I have a question.

The poster sagaistrue was making threads in the forums for "pseudoscience".

My understanding is that this section is indeed related to science but a kind of science that can be based on or related to beliefs, different kind of claims by someone, and other situations not necessarily conditioned to or by the scientific method.

I have been reading from other participants demanding of scientific evidence or proper background and or similar. I have no idea why those demands were made to a topic that practically is entertainment and not so a valid scientific approach regardless of the claims of the poster.

If I make a joke of science in the humor section, I won't expect others demanding scientific explanation or scientific details backing up the joke itself, right?

Pseudoscience is not humor but is not to be taken "that" seriously as well.

My question is, what is the proper place in these forums to start a topic related to science but without the need to use established or conventional scientific background supporting the topic. And even if this background is used, the topic itself to be discussed without making demands as if the theme is a serious research that can change the whole accepted knowledge of science.

 

[exchemist]

I have a question.

The poster sagaistrue was making threads in the forums for "pseudoscience".

My understanding is that this section is indeed related to science but a kind of science that can be based on or related to beliefs, different kind of claims by someone, and other situations not necessarily conditioned to or by the scientific method.

I have been reading from other participants demanding of scientific evidence or proper background and or similar. I have no idea why those demands were made to a topic that practically is entertainment and not so a valid scientific approach regardless of the claims of the poster.

If I make a joke of science in the humor section, I won't expect others demanding scientific explanation or scientific details backing up the joke itself, right?

Pseudoscience is not humor but is not to be taken "that" seriously as well.

My question is, what is the proper place in these forums to start a topic related to science but without the need to use established or conventional scientific background supporting the topic. And even if this background is used, the topic itself to be discussed without making demands as if the theme is a serious research that can change the whole accepted knowledge of science.

You have somehow missed the point. That poster fired off a scattergun series of posts that were just AI slop.

AI slop is unwelcome in any subforum here.

 

[exchemist]

I have a question.

The poster sagaistrue was making threads in the forums for "pseudoscience".

My understanding is that this section is indeed related to science but a kind of science that can be based on or related to beliefs, different kind of claims by someone, and other situations not necessarily conditioned to or by the scientific method.

I have been reading from other participants demanding of scientific evidence or proper background and or similar. I have no idea why those demands were made to a topic that practically is entertainment and not so a valid scientific approach regardless of the claims of the poster.

If I make a joke of science in the humor section, I won't expect others demanding scientific explanation or scientific details backing up the joke itself, right?

Pseudoscience is not humor but is not to be taken "that" seriously as well.

My question is, what is the proper place in these forums to start a topic related to science but without the need to use established or conventional scientific background supporting the topic. And even if this background is used, the topic itself to be discussed without making demands as if the theme is a serious research that can change the whole accepted knowledge of science.

In fact, just to add to my previous post, sagaistrue seemed to be a mere "meat proxy".

DaveC426913 there you go........

 

[geordief]

In fact, just to add to my previous post, sagaistrue seemed to be a mere "meat proxy".

DaveC426913 there you go........

Did @inow on the other site use the term "meat computer" to describe an (erroneous) approach to human thought processing?

I wonder if one term spawned the other.

(I have on occasion noticed myself writing things that I thought were original only to see that I had obviously lifted it from someone else)

 

[TheVat]

Did @inow on the other site use the term "meat computer" to describe an (erroneous) approach to human thought processing?

Moi. I've often used this or a similar term to denote faulty attempts to model the brain as a digital computer employing only algorithms.

 

[geordief]

Moi. I've often used this or a similar term to denote faulty attempts to model the brain as a digital computer employing only algorithms.

Not just people,monuments too

'Locked to the Sun and Moon': The startling 1960s theory that Stonehenge was a prehistoric computer

In August 1966, a US astronomy professor shared his astonishing findings with the BBC. He believed that the Neolithic stone circle was built to predict eclipses.

www.bbc.com

 

[James R]

Luchito:

The poster sagaistrue was making threads in the forums for "pseudoscience".

My understanding is that this section is indeed related to science but a kind of science that can be based on or related to beliefs, different kind of claims by someone, and other situations not necessarily conditioned to or by the scientific method.

The traditional definition of pseudo-science is that it consists of claims that sound scientific but which have little, if any, actual scientific basis or content. To put it another way, pseudoscience is fake science - very often nonsense trying to gain a cachet by masquerading as science.

Typically, pseudoscientific claims are backed only by anecdotal evidence, if they are backed by any evidence at all.

If you have beliefs that are not backed up by any evidence, we have subforums in which you are very free to discuss them. (The Free Thoughts forum comes to mind, for one. We also have a Religion forum that gets a lot of that kind of traffic. And a Politics forum. And so on.) If you want to discuss pseudoscientific claims, the Pseudoscience forum is an excellent place to do that. And if you want to post unevidenced claims and pretend they are scientific, chances are good that your claims will find their way to the Pseudoscience forum, sooner or later.

I have been reading from other participants demanding of scientific evidence or proper background and or similar.

"Backgrounds" (qualifications and the like) are rarely that important, since everybody here is pseudo-anonymous. The only time such things become an issue is when people claim to have credentials or a "background" or expertise when it is fairly clear they don't have those things (i.e. clear to some here who do have a relevant background, credentials or whatever).

Believing only things that you have evidence for, on the other hand, is almost always a good policy to adopt, if you ask me.

I have no idea why those demands were made to a topic that practically is entertainment and not so a valid scientific approach regardless of the claims of the poster.

To which "demands" are you referring? Please be specific.

If I make a joke of science in the humor section, I won't expect others demanding scientific explanation or scientific details backing up the joke itself, right?

You will expect what you will expect, I suppose.

Pseudoscience is not humor but is not to be taken "that" seriously as well.

I'm glad you and I are on the same page. Realise, however, that although you might not believe in non-sensical pseudoscientific claims, a lot of other people do take them seriously, and that can and does often lead to real-world harms. So, pseudoscience is not as harmless as you might think.

To mention just one example, think about anti-vaccine pseudoscience. Now, I'm sure you aren't stupid enough to believe the pseudoscience that says that common vaccines are harmful. But surely you can't be unaware that a lot of people (and/or their children) have actually died because they believed that nonsense.

See what I mean?

My question is, what is the proper place in these forums to start a topic related to science but without the need to use established or conventional scientific background supporting the topic.

Questions posted in good faith are always welcome in our Science sections.