Why does it seem like there is no moderation in Physics and Math?

My complaint is that you side with the cuckoo-in-the-nest abusive naysayer trolls who seek to stifle discussion. You do not moderate their bile. Instead you got the best science discussion on the forum moved into a spittoon. .

The only things justifiably moved are those alternative hypothesis threads, and the people pushing them, claiming they have a ToE.
They are moved where they should be..."Alternative Theories"
 
My complaint is that you side with the cuckoo-in-the-nest abusive naysayer trolls who seek to stifle discussion. You do not moderate their bile. Instead you got the best science discussion on the forum moved into a spittoon. And instead of suspending poisonous posters like PhysBang, you have suspended Undefined repeatedly. The latest suspension is for 31 days. Because he was critical of your "moderation" in this post.

I gave the one reported post I have received from you exactly the same treatment I have given undefined.

Oh, and by the way, as demonstrated here the mere fact that he criticized me was not a factor in his banning.
 
Perhaps if there was a clear understanding of what the Physics and Math fora is actually about there would be more understanding as to what can be posted and what can not be posted.
I might be wrong but a quick check of the board shows no actual description of what the fora is primarily about...
Is it only for homework questions?
Is it about discussing leading edge Physics and Math?
Is it about educating others about Physics and Math?
Is it about working through and discussing perceived problems with mainstream thought?
Does some one HAVE to be qualified to post there?

Can only those literate in mathematics enter into discussions in this fora?

Perhaps the first thing that needs to be done, if not already, is to clearly indicate to members what are the prerequisites to posting comments or threads in the Physics and Math fora...
Perhaps this thread topic can be a starting place for a comprehensive list of prerequisites.
 
Perhaps this thread topic can be a starting place for a comprehensive list of prerequisites.
There is no single list of prerequisites: posters create their own based on the specifics of their posts. IE, if someone claims to be extending Relativity, then the prerequisite is a working knowledge of Relativity. The prerequisite level of expertise is whatever expertise a person claims (directly or indirectly) to have.
 
There is no single list of prerequisites: posters create their own based on the specifics of their posts. IE, if someone claims to be extending Relativity, then the prerequisite is a working knowledge of Relativity. The prerequisite level of expertise is whatever expertise a person claims (directly or indirectly) to have.
and does that "working knowledge" have to include mathematics or can it be language based?
Example:
If some one wished to discuss the Uncertainty Principle does it have to be done in mathematics? Or can it be discussed in language instead?
 
and does that "working knowledge" have to include mathematics or can it be language based?
Example:
If some one wished to discuss the Uncertainty Principle does it have to be done in mathematics? Or can it be discussed in language instead?

It's a mathematical principle, so if you want to make a definitive assertion about it in contradiction with the scientific mainstream, then at some level your argument has to tie into the math, or else it's simply not honest intellectual discussion. If you want to ask questions about it for your personal understanding or even muse about it without being dishonest about your level of knowledge, I don't see a problem with that.

There's a whole world of difference between "I personally think that ____" as opposed to "Einstein said that ____" or "logic clearly demonstrates that ____".
 
Yes, it is horribly poisonous to ask for a physics example to a physics theory.

Pffft, so you say. Leibniz did all the real work in math and physics, people just listened to Newton more because they liked his wig and the sound of his voice. I'll bet 3/4 of Principia Mathematica is just him talking about what he had for breakfast and what the Duke and Duchess were wearing while he was thinking about falling apples or whatever.
 
and does that "working knowledge" have to include mathematics or can it be language based?
Example:
If some one wished to discuss the Uncertainty Principle does it have to be done in mathematics? Or can it be discussed in language instead?

Math is language based. One plus one equals two. Instead of writing the words one can use symbols such as 1+1=2. With no language based meaning behind the symbols, when I write &%&^%$&-^%$^^^^^54354, you know what that means, right?

So when someone starts talking about something like electromagnetic radiation which is described mathematically, whether they realize it or not, what they say needs to fit like the last piece of a puzzle fits into its spot. If what they are talking about is a different piece, then they need to explain the entire rest of the puzzle as to how it fits to the piece they have.
 
and does that "working knowledge" have to include mathematics or can it be language based?
A "working knowledge" means being able to work with the theory. Relativity is mathematical, so a working knowledge requires being able to do the math.
Example:
If some one wished to discuss the Uncertainty Principle does it have to be done in mathematics? Or can it be discussed in language instead?
It depends on the particulars of the discussion and what is being claimed by the person who brought it up.
 
I gave the one reported post I have received from you exactly the same treatment I have given undefined.
I've reported a great many posts. I've just reported two more, on this very thread. Here we have a discussion about the sciforums problem, and as ever we have the abusive ad-hominem naysayers. Escaping moderation. In a thread entitled Why does it seem like there is no moderation in Physics and Math?

Oh, and by the way, as demonstrated here the mere fact that he criticized me was not a factor in his banning.
That's utterly unconvincing.
 
It's a mathematical principle, so if you want to make a definitive assertion about it in contradiction with the scientific mainstream, then at some level your argument has to tie into the math, or else it's simply not honest intellectual discussion. If you want to ask questions about it for your personal understanding or even muse about it without being dishonest about your level of knowledge, I don't see a problem with that.

There's a whole world of difference between "I personally think that ____" as opposed to "Einstein said that ____" or "logic clearly demonstrates that ____".

Why do you presume a discussion has to be about something that is attempting to expose a contradiction?
 
and does that "working knowledge" have to include mathematics or can it be language based?

It depends on the claim. If a poster says, to invent an example, "the masses of particles arise from their internal motions", and expects to persuade me of the truth of that claim, then I'd need to see a pretty well worked out mathematical model to justify that. I see that as a healthy, skeptical approach; claims are numerous, truths are few and you need to be picky about what you accept. If I reject the claim because it lacks a mathematical formulation which I can pick up and weigh against other models in an objective way, I really don't see how the poster has grounds to complain.

On the other hand, if a poster says "I think that the spacetime interpretation of special relativity is false," and has some other philosophy (e.g. presentism) which reproduces all the same observable results, then mathematics is not required, IMO.
 
...On the other hand, if a poster says "I think that the spacetime interpretation of special relativity is false," and has some other philosophy (e.g. presentism) which reproduces all the same observable results, then mathematics is not required, IMO.
perhaps initially but after gaining general "in principle" agreement, mathematical exposition would be a must, I would imagine..
 
On the other hand, if a poster says "I think that the spacetime interpretation of special relativity is false," and has some other philosophy (e.g. presentism) which reproduces all the same observable results, then mathematics is not required, IMO.
How does one know it makes all the same mathematical predictions if no math is offered? Often, peoples' "philosophical" musings have mathematical implications.
 
It was just an example - but one relevant for comparison with Farsight's nonsense.
I think Cpt Bork has the right to answer for him/herself..CB's post was in response to mine and not Farsight, however maybe CB was posting to me yet indirectly referring to Farsight?

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
and does that "working knowledge" have to include mathematics or can it be language based?
Example:
If some one wished to discuss the Uncertainty Principle does it have to be done in mathematics? Or can it be discussed in language instead?
It's a mathematical principle, so if you want to make a definitive assertion about it >>the HUP in contradiction with the scientific mainstream, then at some level your argument has to tie into the math, or else it's simply not honest intellectual discussion. If you want to ask questions about it for your personal understanding or even muse about it without being dishonest about your level of knowledge, I don't see a problem with that.

There's a whole world of difference between "I personally think that ____" as opposed to "Einstein said that ____" or "logic clearly demonstrates that ____".
apart from the presumption of conflict I see nothing seriously wrong with what CB has posted above..
 
I think Cpt Bork has the right to answer for him/herself..CB's post was in response to mine and not Farsight...
Right - in response to your response to me. It's an open/multiparty conversation. He can respond to posts addressed to me and I can respond to posts addressed to him. We do appear to be on the same page though.
 
It depends on the claim. If a poster says, to invent an example, "the masses of particles arise from their internal motions", and expects to persuade me of the truth of that claim, then I'd need to see a pretty well worked out mathematical model to justify that.
Here's one right here. As is customary the author put a questionmark on the end of his title to flag up the highly speculative nature of what he's saying. One for the "alternative theories" section no doubt.
 
Back
Top