I stumbled over these Posting Guidelines put forward in another Discussion Forum. And I am not going to revealing which one.
"Sciences
There will be no discussions of highly speculative subjects in the Science Forums.
Topics or responses dealing with the pixel universe, the æther, or other perennially resurgent pseudo-science will be deleted.
If a member abuses these guidelines their posting permissions for this forum will be removed, either for a probationary period or permanently, at the administrator's discretion."
Let us pray to that Mother Nature follow Scientific rules and regulations.
Wow they seem to be running a tight ship!
Sounds like the church someone wanted to be part of,but was instead not accepted.
Praying to God he asked God why he was not allowed into the church.
Gods reply:
I have been trying to get into that church for years,so don't feel bad.
Sounds like the church someone wanted to be part of,but was instead not accepted.
Praying to God he asked God why he was not allowed into the church.
Gods reply:
I have been trying to get into that church for years,so don't feel bad.
Bukh;
The idea is that the pixel universe, the aether theory and "other perennially resurgent pseudo-science " has already been debunked in a number of ways, and the site admin has little desire to see discussion of them, nor has he any desire to see his site devolve into a place like physorg was before rpenner came along.
Admittedly, there are several mods at that site to do rpenner's job (and those mods have more power than rpenner seems to have here, including the ability to communicate directly and quickly with the admin) but the amount of work which needs be done to moderate a forum in which pseudoscientific theories are permitted is beyond that which the admin can reasonably expect of himself or his mods.
By limiting the discussions to accepted physics and new theories in keeping with the scientific consensus, the admin is accomplishing several things. He is:
1. Keeping the number of people unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion down, and thereby avoiding many situations which could produce unacceptable behavior.
2. Taking away any reason aggressive debunkers and skeptics might have to engage in unacceptable behavior themselves.
3. Avoiding the pretention of being a proper medium for the advancement of science, and thereby avoiding insulting those reputable mediums which do participate in the advancement of science.
4. Acknowledging the validity and value of the scientific consensus, and thereby doing some small part to further the advancement of scientific education in the english-speaking world.
In an ideal world, even rank amateurs would be allowed to post their theories anywhere a scientist could post his, and thereby possibly contribute to scientific progress. However, this is not an ideal world. Rank amateurs who formulate their own theories are overwhelmingly incapable of admitting their mistakes, acknowledging their lack of knowledge, or engaging in rational debates. While there are some exceptions, they are just that. Exceptions.
There are killers who truly regret what they've done, would never do so again, and don't deserve the punishment they recieve from the state, but does that mean we should release all murderers from prison? Of course not.
Similarly there are good people out there who would love to posess a nuclear warhead for educational purposes. Should we make nuclear warheads freely available then? Again, of course not.
And in truth, amateurs with 'scientific' theories have an easier time of it than the remorseful killers and curious aspiring-nuclear-scientists out there in that they are permitted the same opportunities to advance their theories as mainstream scientists are. You -for instance- have every right to submit a paper based upon your theories to a peer-reviewed journal for publication,, and they will judge it not by the initials following your name, but by the quality and value of your paper itself, the same as any PhD physicist would get.
The idea is that the pixel universe, the aether theory and "other perennially resurgent pseudo-science " has already been debunked in a number of ways, and the site admin has little desire to see discussion of them, nor has he any desire to see his site devolve into a place like physorg was before rpenner came along.
Admittedly, there are several mods at that site to do rpenner's job (and those mods have more power than rpenner seems to have here, including the ability to communicate directly and quickly with the admin) but the amount of work which needs be done to moderate a forum in which pseudoscientific theories are permitted is beyond that which the admin can reasonably expect of himself or his mods.
By limiting the discussions to accepted physics and new theories in keeping with the scientific consensus, the admin is accomplishing several things. He is:
1. Keeping the number of people unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion down, and thereby avoiding many situations which could produce unacceptable behavior.
2. Taking away any reason aggressive debunkers and skeptics might have to engage in unacceptable behavior themselves.
3. Avoiding the pretention of being a proper medium for the advancement of science, and thereby avoiding insulting those reputable mediums which do participate in the advancement of science.
4. Acknowledging the validity and value of the scientific consensus, and thereby doing some small part to further the advancement of scientific education in the english-speaking world.
In an ideal world, even rank amateurs would be allowed to post their theories anywhere a scientist could post his, and thereby possibly contribute to scientific progress. However, this is not an ideal world. Rank amateurs who formulate their own theories are overwhelmingly incapable of admitting their mistakes, acknowledging their lack of knowledge, or engaging in rational debates. While there are some exceptions, they are just that. Exceptions.
There are killers who truly regret what they've done, would never do so again, and don't deserve the punishment they recieve from the state, but does that mean we should release all murderers from prison? Of course not.
Similarly there are good people out there who would love to posess a nuclear warhead for educational purposes. Should we make nuclear warheads freely available then? Again, of course not.
And in truth, amateurs with 'scientific' theories have an easier time of it than the remorseful killers and curious aspiring-nuclear-scientists out there in that they are permitted the same opportunities to advance their theories as mainstream scientists are. You -for instance- have every right to submit a paper based upon your theories to a peer-reviewed journal for publication,, and they will judge it not by the initials following your name, but by the quality and value of your paper itself, the same as any PhD physicist would get.
QUOTE (rethinker+)
Wow they seem to be running a tight ship!
Sounds like the church someone wanted to be part of,but was instead not accepted.
Praying to God he asked God why he was not allowed into the church.
Gods reply:
I have been trying to get into that church for years,so don't feel bad.
Your analogy fails upon a close inspection of the actual site. To follow the analogy, this site has not only invited God in, but made a special place for him.
Sounds like the church someone wanted to be part of,but was instead not accepted.
Praying to God he asked God why he was not allowed into the church.
Gods reply:
I have been trying to get into that church for years,so don't feel bad.
Your analogy fails upon a close inspection of the actual site. To follow the analogy, this site has not only invited God in, but made a special place for him.
MjolnirPants
You start saying that the aether theory has already been debunked in a number of ways. I assume that you are at the same time saying that the idea of a kind of "Medium" has been effectively debunked as well.
You are of course in your good right to hold this opinion. But it is not the same as saying that you are holding the "Truth"
It is committing hubris saying that a Medium is no option - to say that a medium is not up to any discussion.
But it is perfectly OK for a moderator of a forum to decide that it is not allowed to discuss a medium. With that I have no problems - because in the case that I want to discuss a medium, then I just have to select a forum where such a ban is not into effect.
Your arguments for holding such a ban is the following:
"1. Keeping the number of people unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion down, and thereby avoiding many situations which could produce unacceptable behavior.
2. Taking away any reason aggressive debunkers and skeptics might have to engage in unacceptable behavior themselves.
3. Avoiding the pretention of being a proper medium for the advancement of science, and thereby avoiding insulting those reputable mediums which do participate in the advancement of science.
4. Acknowledging the validity and value of the scientific consensus, and thereby doing some small part to further the advancement of scientific education in the english-speaking world."
I am not the one to judge your arguments - and I will let them stand as expressed above.
As a final note: What are Your water proof arguments for denying the validity of a medium ?
You start saying that the aether theory has already been debunked in a number of ways. I assume that you are at the same time saying that the idea of a kind of "Medium" has been effectively debunked as well.
You are of course in your good right to hold this opinion. But it is not the same as saying that you are holding the "Truth"
It is committing hubris saying that a Medium is no option - to say that a medium is not up to any discussion.
But it is perfectly OK for a moderator of a forum to decide that it is not allowed to discuss a medium. With that I have no problems - because in the case that I want to discuss a medium, then I just have to select a forum where such a ban is not into effect.
Your arguments for holding such a ban is the following:
"1. Keeping the number of people unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion down, and thereby avoiding many situations which could produce unacceptable behavior.
2. Taking away any reason aggressive debunkers and skeptics might have to engage in unacceptable behavior themselves.
3. Avoiding the pretention of being a proper medium for the advancement of science, and thereby avoiding insulting those reputable mediums which do participate in the advancement of science.
4. Acknowledging the validity and value of the scientific consensus, and thereby doing some small part to further the advancement of scientific education in the english-speaking world."
I am not the one to judge your arguments - and I will let them stand as expressed above.
As a final note: What are Your water proof arguments for denying the validity of a medium ?
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 16 2009, 10:22 PM)
As a final note: What are Your water proof arguments for denying the validity of a medium ?
I have no idea what you're asking me...
I have no idea what you're asking me...
MjolnirPants
Well, I just thought that You are supporting the idea that the "existence" of a "Medium" has been effectively debunked - ?
Well, I just thought that You are supporting the idea that the "existence" of a "Medium" has been effectively debunked - ?
Sorry but can someone say exactly what the argument is about the medium?
I know I can look it up,but just wondered what you think or know the actual disagreement is.
Is it that the scientific community actually has finalized that the medium has no substance?
I will look around for more on this,but just thought I would ask the question beings we were on this again!
I know I can look it up,but just wondered what you think or know the actual disagreement is.
Is it that the scientific community actually has finalized that the medium has no substance?
I will look around for more on this,but just thought I would ask the question beings we were on this again!
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 16 2009, 12:12 AM)
I stumbled over these Posting Guidelines put forward in another Discussion Forum. And I am not going to revealing which one.
"Sciences
There will be no discussions of highly speculative subjects in the Science Forums.
Topics or responses dealing with the pixel universe, the æther, or other perennially resurgent pseudo-science will be deleted.
If a member abuses these guidelines their posting permissions for this forum will be removed, either for a probationary period or permanently, at the administrator's discretion."
Let us pray to that Mother Nature follow Scientific rules and regulations.
It appears from the posting on that forum that physics is moving towards a quantized aether model.
I forget what the steps are regarding the rejection or denial to acceptance process but that's around the 3rd step or so. I'd guess within 10-20 years such a model will be considered to have been self-obvious all along and they'll grab someone famous who'd opposite up until the end and label it after them
"Sciences
There will be no discussions of highly speculative subjects in the Science Forums.
Topics or responses dealing with the pixel universe, the æther, or other perennially resurgent pseudo-science will be deleted.
If a member abuses these guidelines their posting permissions for this forum will be removed, either for a probationary period or permanently, at the administrator's discretion."
Let us pray to that Mother Nature follow Scientific rules and regulations.
It appears from the posting on that forum that physics is moving towards a quantized aether model.
I forget what the steps are regarding the rejection or denial to acceptance process but that's around the 3rd step or so. I'd guess within 10-20 years such a model will be considered to have been self-obvious all along and they'll grab someone famous who'd opposite up until the end and label it after them
QUOTE (rethinker+)
Sorry but can someone say exactly what the argument is about the medium?
I know I can look it up,but just wondered what you think or know the actual disagreement is.
Is it that the scientific community actually has finalized that the medium has no substance?
I will look around for more on this,but just thought I would ask the question beings we were on this again!
The primary issue is over whether or not a flow in such a medium can be detected locally. The speed of light appears constant because it conveys information regarding the structure of space itself. If we have a fluid medium similarly conveying information regarding the structure of space, then you can't directly measure such a flow locally because you're moving with it.
The best model appears to be one in which an observer is treated as stationary within such a fluid - just as you can't move faster than light, you can't move faster than a surrounding aether so you can't directly measure anything "out there" in the same way that you can't watch a photon travel through space under relativity, and you'd similarly have varied densities and reflections in such a space be able to bend the path of light just like warped spacetime in relativity. Relativity appears almost identical to an aether model, IMO. The mistake was in the interpretations of some experimental results assuming that such an aether was not fundamental in the construct of space itself - they tried to measure a flow through space, but detecting that would have required that there be yet some other property of space holding things stationary relative to it so that such an aether could flow. In an aether is the lowest level of structure for space, then you can't directly detect it flowing but instead look for things like bent pathways of light and reflections etc. and in that case it appears an aether model still works fine as well. An aether would propagate information through it and provide delays just like relativity etc. There's really little difference and relativity was derived during a period when aether models were being developed, so it's founded in the same ideas.
The primary advantage to aether models is that they have computational mechanisms that allow for greater complexity to be derived from them so it's more compatible with matter and quantum mechanics, whereas relativity doesn't provide insights into mechanisms that allow non-linear computational processes in space.
I know I can look it up,but just wondered what you think or know the actual disagreement is.
Is it that the scientific community actually has finalized that the medium has no substance?
I will look around for more on this,but just thought I would ask the question beings we were on this again!
The primary issue is over whether or not a flow in such a medium can be detected locally. The speed of light appears constant because it conveys information regarding the structure of space itself. If we have a fluid medium similarly conveying information regarding the structure of space, then you can't directly measure such a flow locally because you're moving with it.
The best model appears to be one in which an observer is treated as stationary within such a fluid - just as you can't move faster than light, you can't move faster than a surrounding aether so you can't directly measure anything "out there" in the same way that you can't watch a photon travel through space under relativity, and you'd similarly have varied densities and reflections in such a space be able to bend the path of light just like warped spacetime in relativity. Relativity appears almost identical to an aether model, IMO. The mistake was in the interpretations of some experimental results assuming that such an aether was not fundamental in the construct of space itself - they tried to measure a flow through space, but detecting that would have required that there be yet some other property of space holding things stationary relative to it so that such an aether could flow. In an aether is the lowest level of structure for space, then you can't directly detect it flowing but instead look for things like bent pathways of light and reflections etc. and in that case it appears an aether model still works fine as well. An aether would propagate information through it and provide delays just like relativity etc. There's really little difference and relativity was derived during a period when aether models were being developed, so it's founded in the same ideas.
The primary advantage to aether models is that they have computational mechanisms that allow for greater complexity to be derived from them so it's more compatible with matter and quantum mechanics, whereas relativity doesn't provide insights into mechanisms that allow non-linear computational processes in space.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Feb 16 2009, 03:18 PM)
Bukh;
The idea is that the pixel universe, the aether theory and "other perennially resurgent pseudo-science " has already been debunked in a number of ways, and the site admin has little desire to see discussion of them, nor has he any desire to see his site devolve into a place like physorg was before rpenner came along.
Admittedly, there are several mods at that site to do rpenner's job (and those mods have more power than rpenner seems to have here, including the ability to communicate directly and quickly with the admin) but the amount of work which needs be done to moderate a forum in which pseudoscientific theories are permitted is beyond that which the admin can reasonably expect of himself or his mods.
By limiting the discussions to accepted physics and new theories in keeping with the scientific consensus, the admin is accomplishing several things. He is:
1. Keeping the number of people unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion down, and thereby avoiding many situations which could produce unacceptable behavior.
2. Taking away any reason aggressive debunkers and skeptics might have to engage in unacceptable behavior themselves.
3. Avoiding the pretention of being a proper medium for the advancement of science, and thereby avoiding insulting those reputable mediums which do participate in the advancement of science.
4. Acknowledging the validity and value of the scientific consensus, and thereby doing some small part to further the advancement of scientific education in the english-speaking world.
In an ideal world, even rank amateurs would be allowed to post their theories anywhere a scientist could post his, and thereby possibly contribute to scientific progress. However, this is not an ideal world. Rank amateurs who formulate their own theories are overwhelmingly incapable of admitting their mistakes, acknowledging their lack of knowledge, or engaging in rational debates. While there are some exceptions, they are just that. Exceptions.
There are killers who truly regret what they've done, would never do so again, and don't deserve the punishment they recieve from the state, but does that mean we should release all murderers from prison? Of course not.
Similarly there are good people out there who would love to posess a nuclear warhead for educational purposes. Should we make nuclear warheads freely available then? Again, of course not.
And in truth, amateurs with 'scientific' theories have an easier time of it than the remorseful killers and curious aspiring-nuclear-scientists out there in that they are permitted the same opportunities to advance their theories as mainstream scientists are. You -for instance- have every right to submit a paper based upon your theories to a peer-reviewed journal for publication,, and they will judge it not by the initials following your name, but by the quality and value of your paper itself, the same as any PhD physicist would get.
The idea is that the pixel universe, the aether theory and "other perennially resurgent pseudo-science " has already been debunked in a number of ways, and the site admin has little desire to see discussion of them, nor has he any desire to see his site devolve into a place like physorg was before rpenner came along.
Admittedly, there are several mods at that site to do rpenner's job (and those mods have more power than rpenner seems to have here, including the ability to communicate directly and quickly with the admin) but the amount of work which needs be done to moderate a forum in which pseudoscientific theories are permitted is beyond that which the admin can reasonably expect of himself or his mods.
By limiting the discussions to accepted physics and new theories in keeping with the scientific consensus, the admin is accomplishing several things. He is:
1. Keeping the number of people unwilling to participate in a reasonable discussion down, and thereby avoiding many situations which could produce unacceptable behavior.
2. Taking away any reason aggressive debunkers and skeptics might have to engage in unacceptable behavior themselves.
3. Avoiding the pretention of being a proper medium for the advancement of science, and thereby avoiding insulting those reputable mediums which do participate in the advancement of science.
4. Acknowledging the validity and value of the scientific consensus, and thereby doing some small part to further the advancement of scientific education in the english-speaking world.
In an ideal world, even rank amateurs would be allowed to post their theories anywhere a scientist could post his, and thereby possibly contribute to scientific progress. However, this is not an ideal world. Rank amateurs who formulate their own theories are overwhelmingly incapable of admitting their mistakes, acknowledging their lack of knowledge, or engaging in rational debates. While there are some exceptions, they are just that. Exceptions.
There are killers who truly regret what they've done, would never do so again, and don't deserve the punishment they recieve from the state, but does that mean we should release all murderers from prison? Of course not.
Similarly there are good people out there who would love to posess a nuclear warhead for educational purposes. Should we make nuclear warheads freely available then? Again, of course not.
And in truth, amateurs with 'scientific' theories have an easier time of it than the remorseful killers and curious aspiring-nuclear-scientists out there in that they are permitted the same opportunities to advance their theories as mainstream scientists are. You -for instance- have every right to submit a paper based upon your theories to a peer-reviewed journal for publication,, and they will judge it not by the initials following your name, but by the quality and value of your paper itself, the same as any PhD physicist would get.
QUOTE (rethinker+)
Wow they seem to be running a tight ship!
Sounds like the church someone wanted to be part of,but was instead not accepted.
Praying to God he asked God why he was not allowed into the church.
Gods reply:
I have been trying to get into that church for years,so don't feel bad.
Your analogy fails upon a close inspection of the actual site. To follow the analogy, this site has not only invited God in, but made a special place for him.
Wow! That sounds like a good site to me.
Is it a secret?
Sounds like the church someone wanted to be part of,but was instead not accepted.
Praying to God he asked God why he was not allowed into the church.
Gods reply:
I have been trying to get into that church for years,so don't feel bad.
Your analogy fails upon a close inspection of the actual site. To follow the analogy, this site has not only invited God in, but made a special place for him.
Wow! That sounds like a good site to me.
Is it a secret?
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 16 2009, 12:12 AM)
I stumbled over these Posting Guidelines put forward in another Discussion Forum. And I am not going to revealing which one.
That wouldn't happen to be the lovely little site called Sapo's Joint, would it?
That wouldn't happen to be the lovely little site called Sapo's Joint, would it?
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 16 2009, 10:39 PM)
MjolnirPants
Well, I just thought that You are supporting the idea that the "existence" of a "Medium" has been effectively debunked - ?
Well, I just thought that You are supporting the idea that the "existence" of a "Medium" has been effectively debunked - ?
Mjolnir Pants
"MM-experiment" !!!
It is fair to say that the interpretation of that experiment is controversial -
If one believe that mass is something that "flows" through an aether - MM cannot demonstrate the existence of such an aether - so one can decide to believe that physical world pops into existence out from nothingness -
But if one believe that the aether is a medium - is the everything out from which all physical expressions are being created - then MM in its design will not be able to demonstrate the existence of such and aether -
So I guess that you stick to the first assumption.
"MM-experiment" !!!
It is fair to say that the interpretation of that experiment is controversial -
If one believe that mass is something that "flows" through an aether - MM cannot demonstrate the existence of such an aether - so one can decide to believe that physical world pops into existence out from nothingness -
But if one believe that the aether is a medium - is the everything out from which all physical expressions are being created - then MM in its design will not be able to demonstrate the existence of such and aether -
So I guess that you stick to the first assumption.
The "medium" is spacetime... we just haven't figured out how it works yet. 
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 18 2009, 07:46 PM)
Mjolnir Pants
"MM-experiment" !!!
It is fair to say that the interpretation of that experiment is controversial -
Only among those who lack an education in physics. That is quite telling.
http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/s...Relativity.html
First, if there is a medium through which mass moves, special relativity would have been disproven long ago. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive, and the aether was not posited as a medium through which mass moves, but one through which light propogates.
Second, to say that this means one must believe the physical world pops into existance from nothingness is a non-sequiter. Mainstream science (which I am defending here) posits the Big Bang, and implies that the physical world has always existed, albiet in a different form than we currently observe.
http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/s...Relativity.html
First, if there is a medium through which mass moves, special relativity would have been disproven long ago. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive, and the aether was not posited as a medium through which mass moves, but one through which light propogates.
Second, to say that this means one must believe the physical world pops into existance from nothingness is a non-sequiter. Mainstream science (which I am defending here) posits the Big Bang, and implies that the physical world has always existed, albiet in a different form than we currently observe.
But if one believe that the aether is a medium - is the everything out from which all physical expressions are being created - then MM in its design will not be able to demonstrate the existence of such and aether -
This quote makes little sense. You're changing the definition of the word "aether" in order to make it ameniable to the MME, which does nothing to invalidate the MME.
"MM-experiment" !!!
It is fair to say that the interpretation of that experiment is controversial -
Only among those who lack an education in physics. That is quite telling.
QUOTE
If one believe that mass is something that "flows" through an aether - MM cannot demonstrate the existence of such an aether - so one can decide to believe that physical world pops into existence out from nothingness -
http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/s...Relativity.html
First, if there is a medium through which mass moves, special relativity would have been disproven long ago. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive, and the aether was not posited as a medium through which mass moves, but one through which light propogates.
Second, to say that this means one must believe the physical world pops into existance from nothingness is a non-sequiter. Mainstream science (which I am defending here) posits the Big Bang, and implies that the physical world has always existed, albiet in a different form than we currently observe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If one believe that mass is something that "flows" through an aether - MM cannot demonstrate the existence of such an aether - so one can decide to believe that physical world pops into existence out from nothingness - |
http://stason.org/TULARC/education-books/s...Relativity.html
First, if there is a medium through which mass moves, special relativity would have been disproven long ago. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive, and the aether was not posited as a medium through which mass moves, but one through which light propogates.
Second, to say that this means one must believe the physical world pops into existance from nothingness is a non-sequiter. Mainstream science (which I am defending here) posits the Big Bang, and implies that the physical world has always existed, albiet in a different form than we currently observe.
But if one believe that the aether is a medium - is the everything out from which all physical expressions are being created - then MM in its design will not be able to demonstrate the existence of such and aether -
This quote makes little sense. You're changing the definition of the word "aether" in order to make it ameniable to the MME, which does nothing to invalidate the MME.
"The "medium" is spacetime... we just haven't figured out how it works yet."
For Sure - it can be a delicate issue to discuss spacetime without being allowed discussing spacetime.
For Sure - it can be a delicate issue to discuss spacetime without being allowed discussing spacetime.
Mjolnir Pants
"Only among those who lack an education in physics. That is quite telling."
OK - then allow me to enjoy my lack of education in physics - and likewise - enjoy Yours.
"Only among those who lack an education in physics. That is quite telling."
OK - then allow me to enjoy my lack of education in physics - and likewise - enjoy Yours.
Oh my dear - for the sake of clarification - what I intended to communicate was - that I wish you to enjoy your education in physics.
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 18 2009, 10:03 PM)
Mjolnir Pants
"Only among those who lack an education in physics. That is quite telling."
OK - then allow me to enjoy my lack of education in physics - and likewise - enjoy Yours.
In fact, I do have an education in physics. An autodidactic education is still an education even when it fails to compete with a formal education in quantity of knowledge, so long as it agrees with a formal education on all included points, which mine surely does.
I have thus far maintained a civil tone with you because you have yet to give me a reason not to. I'd appreciate maintaining that status quo, but if you are incapable of disagreeing with me civilly, I will happily pick apart every sentence you say to me for every mistake -be it logical or factual- you make and use that to make a case for your ignorance and unintelligence with all the zeal you may have seen me show in doing this to others on this site.
"Only among those who lack an education in physics. That is quite telling."
OK - then allow me to enjoy my lack of education in physics - and likewise - enjoy Yours.
In fact, I do have an education in physics. An autodidactic education is still an education even when it fails to compete with a formal education in quantity of knowledge, so long as it agrees with a formal education on all included points, which mine surely does.
QUOTE
Oh my dear - for the sake of clarification - what I intended to communicate was - that I wish you to enjoy your education in physics.
I have thus far maintained a civil tone with you because you have yet to give me a reason not to. I'd appreciate maintaining that status quo, but if you are incapable of disagreeing with me civilly, I will happily pick apart every sentence you say to me for every mistake -be it logical or factual- you make and use that to make a case for your ignorance and unintelligence with all the zeal you may have seen me show in doing this to others on this site.
Now you may have me excused - I politely tried to remedy my flaw - to remedy what could potentially be mis-interpreted - I have no reason to believe that you have no physic education - be it autodidact or more formal - on the contrary.
And I gladly invite you to treat me with all the harshness that you can mobilize - in order to demonstrate my ignorance and lack of intelligence -
And I gladly invite you to treat me with all the harshness that you can mobilize - in order to demonstrate my ignorance and lack of intelligence -
QUOTE (bukh+Feb 16 2009, 12:12 AM)
I stumbled over these Posting Guidelines put forward in another Discussion Forum. And I am not going to revealing which one.
"Sciences
There will be no discussions of highly speculative subjects in the Science Forums.
Topics or responses dealing with the pixel universe, the æther, or other perennially resurgent pseudo-science will be deleted.
If a member abuses these guidelines their posting permissions for this forum will be removed, either for a probationary period or permanently, at the administrator's discretion."
Let us pray to that Mother Nature follow Scientific rules and regulations.
If, in fact, this is the case, this has very much the flavor of church edicts of the 15th Century:
============================================================
During the often stormy relationship between science and religion, no other event has proved so troublesome as the Roman Catholic Church's denunciation of Galileo Galilei. In 1633, at the age of 69, the noted Italian scientist was judged by the Inquisition to have violated a church edict against espousing the controversial Copernican view that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the universe. For the last nine years of his life, Galileo lived under house arrest.
In an age when heretics were sometimes burned at the stake, Galileo was treated relatively leniently...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,921612,00.html
============================================================
That crazy Galileo, apparently, felt the Ptolemaic view of the Cosmos unacceptable. Go figure...
Best,
Raphie
"Sciences
There will be no discussions of highly speculative subjects in the Science Forums.
Topics or responses dealing with the pixel universe, the æther, or other perennially resurgent pseudo-science will be deleted.
If a member abuses these guidelines their posting permissions for this forum will be removed, either for a probationary period or permanently, at the administrator's discretion."
Let us pray to that Mother Nature follow Scientific rules and regulations.
If, in fact, this is the case, this has very much the flavor of church edicts of the 15th Century:
============================================================
During the often stormy relationship between science and religion, no other event has proved so troublesome as the Roman Catholic Church's denunciation of Galileo Galilei. In 1633, at the age of 69, the noted Italian scientist was judged by the Inquisition to have violated a church edict against espousing the controversial Copernican view that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the universe. For the last nine years of his life, Galileo lived under house arrest.
In an age when heretics were sometimes burned at the stake, Galileo was treated relatively leniently...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,921612,00.html
============================================================
That crazy Galileo, apparently, felt the Ptolemaic view of the Cosmos unacceptable. Go figure...
Best,
Raphie
There is a subtle difference between a religious/political institution forbidding 'heresy' on the grounds of an interpretation of a book of myth, and a discussion forum instituting 'riot control' to reduce this kind of garbage from cluttering the place up, on the grounds of verified evidence (open to interpretation ofc, but much less so than the book...)
Kind of an unfair comparison on your part, Mr Frank.
Kaeroll
Kind of an unfair comparison on your part, Mr Frank.
Kaeroll
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Mar 16 2009, 11:32 PM)
There is a subtle difference between a religious/political institution forbidding 'heresy' on the grounds of an interpretation of a book of myth, and a discussion forum instituting 'riot control' to reduce this kind of garbage from cluttering the place up, on the grounds of verified evidence (open to interpretation ofc, but much less so than the book...)
Kind of an unfair comparison on your part, Mr Frank.
Kaeroll
Hi Kaeroll,
Without respect to the reason those quotes may have been posted, did you REALLY just link to a post with quotes by, uh... ALBERT EINSTEIN to support your point?
???
Speaking of quotes, below are a couple by Primatologist Frans de Waal. 40 years ago or so, when first he began espousing such views, under such guidelines as this "other forum" is apparently holding its posters to, he would likely have been banned from the forum because it was "well known" that animals (of the non-human kind) were incapable of feeling emotion.
===========================================================
"I've argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. Dogs are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that's why we like them so much, even though they're large carnivores."
"To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental, about both animals and us."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal
===========================================================
His view is now, by and large, the prevailing view.
Best,
Raphie
TYPO CORRECTION:
Kind of an unfair comparison on your part, Mr Frank.
Kaeroll
Hi Kaeroll,
Without respect to the reason those quotes may have been posted, did you REALLY just link to a post with quotes by, uh... ALBERT EINSTEIN to support your point?
???
Speaking of quotes, below are a couple by Primatologist Frans de Waal. 40 years ago or so, when first he began espousing such views, under such guidelines as this "other forum" is apparently holding its posters to, he would likely have been banned from the forum because it was "well known" that animals (of the non-human kind) were incapable of feeling emotion.
===========================================================
"I've argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. Dogs are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that's why we like them so much, even though they're large carnivores."
"To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental, about both animals and us."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal
===========================================================
His view is now, by and large, the prevailing view.
Best,
Raphie
TYPO CORRECTION:
QUOTE (Raphie Frank+Mar 16 2009, 11:14 PM)
If, in fact, this is the case, this has very much the flavor of church edicts of the 15th Century:
This, of course, should have read "17th Century"
This, of course, should have read "17th Century"
It's not the initial post I was referring to, but later arguments over nothing by, I suspect, precisely the kind of folks the guidelines are designed to deter. Forget the content, look at the style of "debate" (I hesitate to use that term). If you'd prefer I can find some other topics of similar quality or lack thereof.
With regard to your example, while I understand your concern I feel there's a difference still, as that was a cultural attitude without an empirical basis (unlike, say, the laws of thermodynamics vs. perpetual motion or MM vs. the aether).
In any case- I wasn't intending to weigh in on either side of this debate (though I see how my post may be construed that way). I was simply questioning your comparison.
Kaeroll
With regard to your example, while I understand your concern I feel there's a difference still, as that was a cultural attitude without an empirical basis (unlike, say, the laws of thermodynamics vs. perpetual motion or MM vs. the aether).
In any case- I wasn't intending to weigh in on either side of this debate (though I see how my post may be construed that way). I was simply questioning your comparison.
Kaeroll
Hi All,
I'm not especially comfortable with such categories. Taking the categories of faulty science first, a little thought suggests that there are a number of ways that some scientific idea or hypotheses can be wrong.
But "bad science" is something worse than mistaken. It is an idea or hypothesis that is based on errors in methodology or reasoning or understanding that a competent scientist simply should not make, given available knowledge at the time
I'm not especially comfortable with such categories. Taking the categories of faulty science first, a little thought suggests that there are a number of ways that some scientific idea or hypotheses can be wrong.
But "bad science" is something worse than mistaken. It is an idea or hypothesis that is based on errors in methodology or reasoning or understanding that a competent scientist simply should not make, given available knowledge at the time
aether bad, quantum Space-Time bad, I see It has been decided by the powers that be that the universe (empty space at least is Nothing)
Yeah the theory of nothing wins.
The SPACE IS NOTHING argument has officially won!!!!!
The space-time between objects does not exist it is an illusion. a mathematical aberration.
Well it is good to know that the mystery is solved finally.
so much for the great thought experiment.
I suppose that Gravity or at least the mechanism that causes Gravity does not exist either. It too is a mathematical aberration. I didn't really want to know what the mechanism was anyway.
Everyone should be really excited there will be no more thinking on this subject as the outcome of such debate has been decided by the all mighty powers that be.
On a side note Superconductivity hits 233K -40C -40F
Yeah the theory of nothing wins.
The SPACE IS NOTHING argument has officially won!!!!!
The space-time between objects does not exist it is an illusion. a mathematical aberration.
Well it is good to know that the mystery is solved finally.
so much for the great thought experiment.
I suppose that Gravity or at least the mechanism that causes Gravity does not exist either. It too is a mathematical aberration. I didn't really want to know what the mechanism was anyway.
Everyone should be really excited there will be no more thinking on this subject as the outcome of such debate has been decided by the all mighty powers that be.
On a side note Superconductivity hits 233K -40C -40F
The problem with the Aether universe or even the pixel is the same problem we all have with the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in our garage.
To really confuse the issue.
This statement is false.
Illogical highly Illogical.
As long as the human race refuses to explore the universe the universe will be out of reach to the human race.
Screw it, as far as Physforum.com is concerned Space-Time is nothing more than a mathematical construct and reality = null
I am the king of nothing.
I think therefore I AM.
To really confuse the issue.
This statement is false.
Illogical highly Illogical.
As long as the human race refuses to explore the universe the universe will be out of reach to the human race.
Screw it, as far as Physforum.com is concerned Space-Time is nothing more than a mathematical construct and reality = null
I am the king of nothing.
I think therefore I AM.
All Dissension that strays from the Predetermined standard will be henceforth banned.
Seek Heil
Seek Heil
QUOTE (Ed Wood+Mar 26 2009, 04:46 AM)
All Dissension that strays from the Predetermined standard will be henceforth banned.
Seek Heil
It's spelt "sieg".
Kaeroll
Seek Heil
It's spelt "sieg".
Kaeroll
Sieg Heil
I stand corrected
I stand corrected
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.