Notices
Results 1 to 55 of 55
Like Tree25Likes
  • 2 Post By Neverfly
  • 5 Post By adelady
  • 4 Post By Quantime
  • 3 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Quantime
  • 2 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Quantime
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek
  • 1 Post By Janus
  • 2 Post By Harold14370

Thread: Is The Science Forum ruled by the mob?

  1. #1 Is The Science Forum ruled by the mob? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    I have started two threads and have had both of them closed down by a moderator. The second thread was closed down after just over one day. Both threads were still achieving many posts. The reason given in both cases was that the threads were not going anywhere. My point is that the moderators did not give them a chance to get anywhere.
    I suggested a basic tenet of science that 'A theory is only applicable when employed within the boundaries of its postulates'.
    I was about to suggest a second basic tenet but was closed down before I could. This second tenet states 'No body is any more or an less privileged than any other as a potential observer of the Laws of Nature'.

    I maintain that these tenets are fundamental but are flouted by certain aspects of Mainstream physics.
    Now this is surely a sensible point to discuss.

    But what happened? Invariably posters could not offer counter arguments to these tenets but they did not like the inevitable conclusions that resulted from them. I therefore received constant abuse and insult. These posters are aware that if they continue in that manner that a moderator will shortly say that the thread is going nowhere and close it down. This is exactly what these posters want and the moderator gives it to them. Thus we have rule by the mob encouraged by the moderators.

    What ought to happen is that the moderators should stop posters from making posts which are insulting and meaningless. This might give an opportunity for some sensible posts to appear. That is what this forum should be about.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I was about to suggest a second basic tenet but was closed down before I could. This second tenet states 'No body is any more or an less privileged than any other as a potential observer of the Laws of Nature'.
    Maybe. But some are obviously in a less-privileged position. For example, those who refuse to listen to, or even acknowledge evidence, counter-arguments or admit they might be wrong.

    But what happened? Invariably posters could not offer counter arguments
    Again: you were given very many counter-arguments (why do you think your first thread went on so long). You just chose to ignore them. That is your choice. But you cannot expect to be considered rational or be taken seriously if you simply deny that any argument has been made.


    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    But what happened? Invariably posters could not offer counter arguments to these tenets but they did not like the inevitable conclusions that resulted from them.
    It's not an insult to call you a liar. Because you are one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    To the moderators.
    Above we have two examples of which I complain and which i believe should be moderated out.

    Strange states that he has given counter arguments to my first tenet. He has not for no-one has.
    He has not given a counter argument to my second tenet simply because it is not in his current post and this is the first time he has seen it.
    Consequently this is just another of his nothing replies which force a thread to go nowhere. This what eventually shuts down a thread and denies it to more sensible posters.

    Neverfly is his usual insulting person and ought to be removed from this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    Strange states that he has given counter arguments to my first tenet. He has not for no-one has.
    I wasn't talking about the points you raised in this thread.

    But that is the problem right there: you are either seriously deluded or totally dishonest. Your proposed theory was refuted on multiple grounds, in many ways, by several different people. But you continue to deny it. This is rather sad and pathetic. I feel rather sorry for you.

    This what eventually shuts down a thread and denies it to more sensible posters.
    Presumably, a "sensible poster" would be one who said, "yes, Mr Aether, you are right." Well, unfortunately, Forrest Noble decided not to join in. Maybe you should send him a private message. You can find him in any of the other psychoceramic threads about the aether.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    You gave it your best shot. Nobody bought it. There's nothing you can do about that. Repeating the same things over and over does not help. You are only making a pest of yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    Neverfly is his usual insulting person and ought to be removed from this forum.
    You're probably right. I'm probably just as much a pest as you are.

    I'd rather be me, though.

    Because what you aim to do is hold back scientific progress in order to dishonestly inflate your own ego. You do not really care what is scientifically accurate. You only care about being right.

    And people like you are a problem. You muddle things. You confuse laymen and laymen are the voters.

    You lead them to believe that opinion and belief are what is important in science. You lead them to believe that science cannot be trusted. You don't do this for the greater good of humanity or for the empowerment of knowledge; rather you detract from those things. People like you hold society back, hold scientific progress back when you promote misunderstanding, misconceptions and ignorance.

    I'm not a great person. I'm not especially nice or diplomatic. I can be a real jerk sometimes. I'd still rather be me than you. Because I just tick people off.
    But you hold back humanity to flatter yourself.
    KALSTER and John Galt like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    But what happened? Invariably posters could not offer counter arguments to these tenets but they did not like the inevitable conclusions that resulted from them. I therefore received constant abuse and insult.
    People did offer counter arguments. You dismissed them without discussion or consideration of their merits.

    You were not abused when other posters persisted with criticisms and opposition to your propositions. There's a reason why we do that. Right now, I just checked, there are 309 users on the site only 18 of whom are members of the forum.

    It. is. our. duty. to not allow unscientific unsupported theories to stand unchallenged, otherwise we risk people checking out the forums for scientific information and being misled.

    If you feel insulted or offended by such criticisms and challenges you should be grateful that this is not a forum of working physicists. They are a much tougher bunch than we are.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I have started two threads and have had both of them closed down by a moderator. The second thread was closed down after just over one day. Both threads were still achieving many posts.
    This isn't really a reason to continue a thread, it could have a million posts and contain utter tripe. Could you point us to the two threads please? The moderators would not have closed the threads had the discussion gone into total unintellectual dissent, and they usually have a LOT of patience.

    The reason given in both cases was that the threads were not going anywhere. My point is that the moderators did not give them a chance to get anywhere.
    This depends, sometimes the best thing is for a thread to die instead of continually posting inane drivel or responding to others inane drivel in the hopes that it will continue, if you make a point and they do not offer anything in return or someone comes along offering the same nonsense there is no point in continuing usually.

    I suggested a basic tenet of science that 'A theory is only applicable when employed within the boundaries of its postulates'.
    I was about to suggest a second basic tenet but was closed down before I could. This second tenet states 'No body is any more or an less privileged than any other as a potential observer of the Laws of Nature'.

    I maintain that these tenets are fundamental but are flouted by certain aspects of Mainstream physics.
    Now this is surely a sensible point to discuss.
    They perhaps are as indeed discussing special relativity is, or developmental psychology is. The difference comes when context is changed and the theme of the thread becomes, again sometimes it descends to nothing and that is quite natural. No sense in beating a dead horse....

    But what happened? Invariably posters could not offer counter arguments to these tenets but they did not like the inevitable conclusions that resulted from them. I therefore received constant abuse and insult. These posters are aware that if they continue in that manner that a moderator will shortly say that the thread is going nowhere and close it down. This is exactly what these posters want and the moderator gives it to them. Thus we have rule by the mob encouraged by the moderators.
    I don't think this is the case at all, I have looked at your thread 'basis of science' and it seems you are acting immaturely and irresponsibly, you didn't like people's response to you and you got upset about it. Indeed this can be quite natural but the difference is returning with debate constructively and not either return with passive aggressive behaviour or resort to persistence in a lost cause the only thing you are defending is your ego, under a disguise. Your disguise is 'science'.

    What ought to happen is that the moderators should stop posters from making posts which are insulting and meaningless.
    Well what ought to happen isn't the way things are, moderators can't STOP insulting and meaningless posts but they can deter anyone who descends into that, you might thusly want to look at why your argument was shut down and the thread locked

    This might give an opportunity for some sensible posts to appear. That is what this forum should be about.
    Sensible posts. You got hurt, this is nothing more than a wailing that you aren't happy about it and that's fine, but just see where you are going wrong firstly. That's what I do, I see if I am being an ass and if I am swallow my pride... if I can't do that, I leave and don't bother others until I cool down or chill the f**k out which I suggest you do too.That isn't patronising advice either, it's just advice, relax.
    KALSTER, Strange, adelady and 1 others like this.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Might close this thread down after while too.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    I put forward two basic tenets of science which are described in my first post on this thread.
    I repeat that i have not yet seen an argument to deny them.
    Merely saying that they are wrong is no argument.
    Also insulting me is no argument.

    To Quantime.
    I dont like replies which are just saying I am wrong without giving a reasoned argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,863
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I put forward two basic tenets of science which are described in my first post on this thread.
    I repeat that i have not yet seen an argument to deny them.
    Merely saying that they are wrong is no argument.
    Also insulting me is no argument..
    Many counterarguments were offered, and you merely ignored them, then falsely claimed that no one had refuted your statements.

    You are either a crank, or a dishonest crank. Your complaints have no merit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I just hope that anybody criticising and highlighting psuedo science actually knows what they are talking about and isn't deluded about there own grasp of the subject.

    I think the Mods are pretty reasonable, most of the time. That is supposed to be a compliment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I put forward two basic tenets of science which are described in my first post on this thread.
    The first point was repeatedly refuted in both your previous threads.

    (I disagree with your second tenet but I am only interested in discussing it with somebody sane.)

    I repeat that i have not yet seen an argument to deny them.
    The first point was repeatedly refuted in both your previous threads.

    Merely saying that they are wrong is no argument.
    The detailed reasons why your first point is wrong were explained in great detail in both your previous threads.

    I dont like replies which are just saying I am wrong without giving a reasoned argument.
    The detailed reasons why your theory is wrong were explained in great detail in both your first thread.

    The detailed reasons why your first point is wrong were explained in great detail in both your previous threads.

    And now, I would like to invite Mr Aether to the stage. I believe he has a few words to say about how no one has ever refuted anything he has ever said.
    adelady likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I suggested a basic tenet of science that 'A theory is only applicable when employed within the boundaries of its postulates'.
    I was about to suggest a second basic tenet but was closed down before I could. This second tenet states 'No body is any more or an less privileged than any other as a potential observer of the Laws of Nature'.
    I don't know what threads you refer to, by this affirmation is a Tautology, and as such does not have any value for discussion.
    Your points are part of the foundation on which science is build. So everybody will just speculate on why your are on a science forum to define what science is.

    You are not the only one that miss some important feature about science, keep searching, keep learning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    To Quantime.
    I dont like replies which are just saying I am wrong without giving a reasoned argument.
    Look this isn't a witch hunt against you Aether, people will claim you are wrong and sometimes not give argument and they certainly won't give it if you are percieved to be an ass by them. Moreover they are giving you an argument you just refuse to see it as reasoned because it doesn't agree with you.

    I personally see you as a bit senstiive to some peoples posts. Yes it is frustrating when people don't see your point of view but the point is that not everyone is going to and it would be more than foolish to get defensive and emotional in retatliation at them. It will only do you harm and make others more annoyed at you as well, further escalating the situation. Sometimes it is best to quit while you are ahead instead of digging a hole for yourself. If not for others sake, then at least your own.
    John Galt likes this.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    tk421.
    I keep hearing that counter arguments were given, I deny that. If you are correct then why not repeat them to prove that you are correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    question for you
    No-one is talking pseudo-science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    If you are correct then why not repeat them to prove that you are correct.
    Your theory incorrectly calculates the precession of Mercury.

    How many times will you ignore this point?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Strange.
    I do not say that no-one has disagreed with what I have said.
    Listen to my words. I say that no-one has put up an argument against my tenets. Posters have merely said they are wrong but have given no reasons.
    If you have reasons then why dont you state them. Your silence tells me that you do not have any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    How many times will you ignore this point?
    Apparently every time.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quantine.
    I don't expect people to agree with me. I merely expect a reasoned argument. You posters are merely filling this thread with your usual waffle on the hope that the moderator will say that the thread is going no-where and close it down. That way you delude yourselves that you have beaten me. It is akin to punching your opponent on the nose when you are losing the verbal argument.

    The proper solution is to explain why my two tenets are wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    AlexG.
    I am currently requesting explanations as to why my two tenets are wrong. Mercury is a long way away in both senses. If you cant make a sensible reply to my tenets then stop filling this thread with irrelevant stuff.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quantine. I feel that I had started talking to you in my last post as though I was talking to the others. I apologise. I respect the sincerity in your post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    I have to say that I do not think that a single one of you has the intelligence to sensibly argue against my two tenets.
    You call me stupid, ignorant etc ad infinitum but the truth is that you are all incapable of proper reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    AlexG.
    I am currently requesting explanations as to why my two tenets are wrong. Mercury is a long way away in both senses. If you cant make a sensible reply to my tenets then stop filling this thread with irrelevant stuff.
    The fact that your theory yields incorrect results is not irrelevant.

    You might like to pick a specific point and argue it, but in the end, your theory produces incorrect results, and so should be discarded.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    Quantime.
    I don't expect people to agree with me. I merely expect a reasoned argument. You posters are merely filling this thread with your usual waffle on the hope that the moderator will say that the thread is going no-where and close it down.
    So now you are making accusations that we all have ulterior motives to shut down a thread? A moderator is perfectly capable in judgement to do so, we don't have to do anything to persuade them at all that is why they have been elected as moderators as they demonstrated ability of tact AND patience who give plenty of opportunity for a member to rectify any questionable behaviour they are exhibiting.

    That way you delude yourselves that you have beaten me.
    This isn't a battle, nobody here is an enemy of another, your ego is attempting to make everyone here seem your enemy but this is not the case.

    It is akin to punching your opponent on the nose when you are losing the verbal argument.
    It's an effective detterent for shutting someone up.

    The proper solution is to explain why my two tenets are wrong.
    You have chosen to escalate this matter far beyond your two tenets and continually use this to justify this behaviour of total disregard for others opinions of you. People are offering helpful constructive criticism in this thread. If your tenets hold to scrutiny then you would find we wouldn't be having this discussion. You made a claim, others challenged it and then you got upset when you refused to see their point of view, you accused them of being unscientific and they accused you of being ignorant. This got out of hand and you got yourself emotionally involved when you should have offered counter arguments, you didn't and then everyone else began to stop taking you seriously as you replaced your arguments with emotion and fabricated this conspiracy by us to end your threads. It's ridiculous and paranoid thinking, I know because I've been down there before.

    It doesn't help, sooner or later you have to accept you're wrong and it hurts. But you LEARN, and with that learning you become a greater person. Tell that to your ego and he might shut up and leave you alone for a while.

    PS I just read this other post of yours after I had written the above:

    Quantime. I feel that I had started talking to you in my last post as though I was talking to the others. I apologise. I respect the sincerity in your post.
    I am hoping I am helpful, I am trying to poke you at the same time to make sure you don't see me as friend or enemy, but rather some stranger with a little insight that might help, its never us that makes us seem dickish at times it is always our egos, the part we need to protect because of our fragile nature. Sensitive nature.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    AlexG
    Still no reply to my two tenet question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    MrAether

    Still no reply to the fact that your theory has been proven wrong.

    Except for ignoring it.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quantime
    You are wrong about me. I am not trying to escalate the argument. I do not mind if people disagree with me.
    I am actually trying to simplify the argument to whether posters agree or disagree with my two tenets. But if they disagree then they must give sensible reasoned argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    MrAether, maybe you need to try another forum that is not populated by ignorant boors and yahoos.

    I can recommend CosmoQuest; they have a very rigorous approach to science so you should like it there. They also don't allow any of the banter and insults you have to put up with here.

    not that I am trying to get rid of you or anything ...
    KALSTER and Neverfly like this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I am actually trying to simplify the argument to whether posters agree or disagree with my two tenets. But if they disagree then they must give sensible reasoned argument.
    Sensible, well-reasoned and detailed explanations why people disagree with your first one were given in your previous two threads. Is it worth me copying one here? Or will you just ignore it again?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Strange.
    I will look into CosmoQuest. That was the best post you have ever done.
    Its very strange that posters state that arguments against my tenets were previously put forward. They generally take up twice the space to say that as it would take to repeat the argument.
    Just look at Quantime's post. It is about 15ins long slagging me off, when he could have answered my question on the two tenets in a half the space.
    I repeat, there have been no replies to my tenet question other than the stupid one of 'they are wrong'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    I will now sum up the position.
    There have been no arguments against either of my two tenets.
    I think that you probably suspect that either of those tenets sinks SR completely. So you have no SR to support.
    I have offered you a theory of relativity effects which is acceptable to the two tenets. You have refused to read or understand it.
    Your defense to my arguments has been the 'hand over the ears defense'. You appear to be frightened of arguing scientifically with me.
    You are obviously afraid of being found to be wrong in your attachment to Einstein and his theories so you have crawled into your comfort zones and retaliated with the only weapon you have---insults.
    You have put up a very poor show-- and against a 'crank' at that.

    Moderators please close this thread down. Oh, and the Science Forum as well, for it serves no useful purpose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    Its very strange that posters state that arguments against my tenets were previously put forward. They generally take up twice the space to say that as it would take to repeat the argument.
    Just look at Quantime's post. It is about 15ins long slagging me off, when he could have answered my question on the two tenets in a half the space.
    I repeat, there have been no replies to my tenet question other than the stupid one of 'they are wrong'.
    MrAether, the reason no one has refuted your claims in this thread is because your original thread was closed.
    Once it was closed, you have tried, in two separate threads to re-hash your claims. If anyone continues offering refutations, then you only will ignore them and get away with submitting your hypothesis outside of its proper area, twice after your thread was closed.
    The refutations stand in your original thread. Those posts weren't erased, it's not blown over or swept under the rug. Anyone that wonders if you're making a valid point may go review that thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I will now sum up the position.
    There have been no arguments against either of my two tenets.
    I think that you probably suspect that either of those tenets sinks SR completely. So you have no SR to support.
    I have offered you a theory of relativity effects which is acceptable to the two tenets. You have refused to read or understand it.
    I will sum up the situation as I see it.

    There have been arguments against the first of your tents in both of your previous threads. They were ignored. No one wants to go through the same pointless exercise again, which is probably why they have not repeated them here.

    No one has presented an argument against your second tenet. Presumably because they realise that a discussion with you is futile.

    Neither of your tenets have any effect on SR, which still works.

    You have offered a theory of relativity which has been severely criticised on grounds ranging from its postulates to its results. These have also been ignored. You also refuse to acknowledge the existence of GR.

    You made some blatantly false statements about the nature of SR and GR and refused of accept any corrections of your basic misunderstandings.

    This thread might as well be closed because you refuse to engage in rational discussion.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Ok, before moderators (if they do) close this thread down, I want to answer your tenets:

    'A theory is only applicable when employed within the boundaries of its postulates'.
    So you are saying that a theory can only be used to explain something of which it is predicting, in other words gravity can only be used to explain gravity, Maxwell's equations can only be used to explain electromagnetism. Well that sounds reasonable, but it can be expanded upon and a common example of that is Einsteins field equations expanding upon Newtons Laws of motion helping for one for us to understand the perhilion of Mercury. All theories can be expanded upon if they hold to scrutiny and that expansion and new theory can that comes with it holds up to scrutiny as well.

    But the point is what is your point? Are you trying to say that certain theories that exist are not able to explain everything and that is therefore an 'in' for your theory? Anyone could use that argument.

    'No body is any more or an less privileged than any other as a potential observer of the Laws of Nature'.
    Well that is true, but again what is your point? Do you think that you are not being allowed, or respected enough for people to listen to you? You are also not any less priveleged for people to call you on your opinions and ask for you to answer their questions about your theory. You have had your Tenets answered by Strange and by others, they then offered counter arguments for you on your claims. You denied them saying that they didn't give you a 'proper answer' on them. They have you just did not like what they said because it doesn't agree with you.

    That is my answer on your tenets.

    First one: Yes you are right.
    Second one: Yes you are right.

    The difference comes when you start making criticisms of well established and well PROVEN theories, when you do that and claim it is wrong you are going to have to back that statement up or nobody is going to listen to you, mostly when they don't and you keep then saying 'My tenets haven't been answered!'. Well they have and now you are being called on your claims and you are falling back them 'not answering my tenets' instead of answering their questions.

    When we observe a phenomenon for which we have no explanation it is encumbent upon us in the name of Science to attempt to explain the underlying reasons driving the phenomenon.
    Yes, asking questions to find answers. Have not other members tried to do this with you already?

    The time proven process is to postulate a cause, then to construct a theory upon that postulate or postulates.
    Yes but it has to make sense on what is being observed, in fact it has to be so specific that it is directly testable AND it has to explain all of the science we already know as well, because what would be the point in saying 'I've explained what causes spooky action at a distance!' but I've kind of screwed up all other breakthroughts since 1903 and don't have an answer for them'. We can't just throw away 110 years of science because your theory suddenly makes sense... to YOU.

    The object of the theory is to predict an out come hopefully identical to the original observation.
    Well I wouldn't call it hope I'd call it confident, I am confident that my theory predicts a certain behaviour and then when tested it does, if not change it and again if not keep modifiying it until learning more you either admit it may be wrong and build a new one, or expand on the one you have.

    If the prediction is identical to the observation then the new theory together with its postulates stands.The theory continues to hold until it fails to predict an observation which is accepted to be within the orbit of its postulates.
    Well it doesn't fail as a whole, just in explaining somethings we don't understand. Newton's laws and equations didn't explain a lot of phenomena for 100s of years but even so, it was still only Newtons equations that got us to the Moon in 1969.

    A theory may not be employed to make predictions outside the limits, to any degree, of its postulates.
    Of course it can, it expands itself into a greater theory. Remember:

    'No body is any more or an less privileged than any other as a potential observer of the Laws of Nature'.
    You just don't like the idea this theory will continue alongside yours, you want to rebuke relativity because it doesn't agree with your theory or doesn't give your theory consideration which so happens to be believed and followed by mainstream science. If your theory is right show some evidence or predictions of phenomena that still explains phenomena we can explain with theory, (perhelion of Mercury for instance)

    I really don't know why you are arguing with us MrAether, if you believe your theory is grand and explains all you claim is wrong with current science then write a thesis and submit it for peer review and see what happens, talking to us and at least in this manner won't help your cause at all.
    adelady likes this.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    I really don't know why you are arguing with us MrAether, if you believe your theory is grand and explains all you claim is wrong with current science then write a thesis and submit it for peer review and see what happens, talking to us and at least in this manner won't help your cause at all.
    One reason for posting a new hypothesis on a forum like this might be to get some feedback and criticism in order to improve it before publishing it more widely. However, it appears that 99% of the people who post ideas to forums like this don't want any criticism at all.

    So I don't know what the point is.
    Quantime likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Using a different system of coordinates does not change the original theory, nor does it change the postulates.

    If a situation can be described using the same postulates but a different coordinate system, it is entirely within the bounds of those postulates.

    This is the case with accelerating frames in Special Relativity. All Rindler did was come up with a different coordinate system in which to apply those same postulates.

    From the wiki on The History of Special Relativity:

    Einstein (1908) tried - as a preliminary in the framework of special relativity - also to include accelerated frames within the relativity principle. In the course of this attempt he recognized that for any single moment of acceleration of a body one can define an inertial reference frame in which the accelerated body is temporarily at rest.

    It follows that in accelerated frames defined in this way, the application of the constancy of the speed of light to define simultaneity is restricted to small localities. However, the equivalence principle that was used by Einstein in the course of that investigation, which expresses the equality of inertial and gravitational mass and the equivalence of accelerated frames and homogeneous gravitational fields, transcended the limits of special relativity and resulted in the formulation of general relativity.

    Nearly simultaneously with Einstein, also Minkowski (1908) considered the special case of uniform accelerations within the framework of his space-time formalism. He recognized that the world-line of such an accelerated body corresponds to a hyperbola. This notion was further developed by Born (1909) and Sommerfeld (1910), with Born introducing the expression "hyperbolic motion". He noted that uniform acceleration can be used as an approximation for any form of acceleration within special relativity.

    In addition, Harry Bateman and Ebenezer Cunningham (1910) showed that Maxwell's equations are invariant under a much wider group of transformation than the Lorentz-group, i.e., the so-called "conformal transformations". Under those transformations the equations preserve their form for some types of accelerated motions. A general covariant formulation of electrodynamics in Minkowski space was eventually given by Friedrich Kottler (1912), whereby his formulation is also valid for general relativity.

    Concerning the further development of the description of accelerated motion in special relativity, the works by Langevin and others for rotating frames (Born coordinates), and by Wolfgang Rindler and others for uniform accelerated frames (Rindler coordinates) must be mentioned.
    All statements in bold are using the postulates in an unaltered state. NOWHERE is there a postulate that precludes the theory from describing the relative motions caused by acceleration.

    MrAether, you should know all this already, before you start claiming you have discredited SR. You need to understand the history of the theory you are arguing against.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I repeat that i have not yet seen an argument to deny them.
    Don't you understand ? This statement is the very reason why your threads were closed down. You completely refuse to acknowledge any of the points brought up against your so-called "theory". Because of this the discussions did not move forward, but went in circles. Circular threads are closed as a matter of course, because they are simply a waste of time for everyone involved.

    You are obviously afraid of being found to be wrong in your attachment to Einstein and his theories so you have crawled into your comfort zones and retaliated with the only weapon you have---insults.
    See ? You are doing it again. I have shown you, and you have been told repeatedly, that your theory makes the wrong predictions. You are completely ignoring this. Only once have you actually replied to my pointing out to you that your precession value of 55 arc sec/100y is way off the mark - and your response was "you read my paper wrong", which was clearly not the case. Furthermore, you have been asked repeatedly to perform a simple calculation, which you ignored, and it has been pointed out that there is no evidence for the existence of aether, which you also ignored.

    So, just to make things clear to any reader who mightn't have had the displeasure of your other two threads : MrAether has come up with a model which he says needs to replace Special Relativity. It is based on the existence of an aether. There is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing as aether exists. Period. Furthermore, MrAether's model made a prediction for the perihelion precession of Mercury. His model's prediction was wrong by a large margin.

    What more is there to say. Personally I find it ridiculous that now a third thread is open with the same old nonsense. How much more crackpottery do we have to endure ?
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Where Mr Aether went wrong:

    Instead of going to the physics forum and asking the question "How can Special Relativity deal with accelerated frames if its postulates only apply in inertial frames?", he went to physics forum and declared "Special Relativity is wrong because I don't understand it properly!".

    If you don't understand why the scientific community has applied Special Relativity to accelerated frames for the past century or so, the sensible path is to ask, rather than assume that all relativistic science over the past century is wrong.
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; November 30th, 2012 at 02:50 PM. Reason: typo
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    At this point, I think it is time to issue a warning to MrAether. Do not post any more on this subject, or start a new thread, unless you have something NEW to say about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I think a few words about special relativity and accelerated frames are in order at this point, for the benefit of the casual reader. Of course it is perfectly acceptable to have accelerated frames, even under SR, just as it is acceptable to have accelerated frames in classical mechanics ( which is also based on inertial observers ! ).

    To compare distances and times between inertial and uniformly accelerated observers consider firstly the relation between coordinate time and proper time ( this is a copy-and-paste from an old discussion we have had with former member chinglu about this very same subject matter ) :



    and then the relativistic velocity relation



    Now differentiate the velocity to get proper acceleration



    which has a magnitude of



    Since the acceleration is constant, this simply becomes



    which can now easily be integrated to get the relationship for distance



    It is then straightforward to do the same with proper time. I could have obtained the same result by using Rindler coordinates, but I thought the above is a little more clear for most people.

    So no, this forum is not ruled by the mob. Instead, it is made up of people who know a lot more about relativity and mainstream science in general than does our friend MrAether.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    To Harold 14370
    I did post something very new on this thread and the previous thread.
    I posted two important tenets of science and asked whether posters accepted then or not and if not why not. The ONLY sensible reply that I received came from Quantime who deserves a decent reply. I will not reply to his post until i have heard from you as you have warned me against posting further.
    What you are doing here is to close this thread down not because I did not post something new but because 99% of the other posters refused to sensibly respond to my post. Frankly you are not moderating this forum for any benefit to the advancement of science but instead for the benefit of mindless re-actionaries who dare not have their beliefs questioned in case it damages their fragile egos.
    I recognise the futility of standing up against this mob. I have already stated that I do not see the point of posting further. But it is a great shame that the moderators have acted as they have done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    I did not post something new but because 99% of the other posters refused to sensibly respond to my post.
    If it's you against 99%, logic dictates you should examine yourself, not everyone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    This is not about mob rule, it is about someone coming to a science forum and promoting an incorrect interpretation of SR as a reason why SR is invalid.

    As I pointed out above, Einstein himself understood how you can apply the postulates of an inertial frame to an accelerating frame.

    So, your argument against SR is invalid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    Frankly you are not moderating this forum for any benefit to the advancement of science but instead for the benefit of mindless re-actionaries who dare not have their beliefs questioned in case it damages their fragile egos.
    This statement pretty much sums all there is to know about you and your hypothesis.
    Thank you for posting this.

    I have already stated that I do not see the point of posting further.
    Very good. Now, if you would like to experience what abuse really means then I would recommend trying to publish this crap in a scientific journal...
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; December 3rd, 2012 at 02:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    To Harold 14370
    I did post something very new on this thread and the previous thread.
    I posted two important tenets of science and asked whether posters accepted then or not and if not why not. The ONLY sensible reply that I received came from Quantime who deserves a decent reply. I will not reply to his post until i have heard from you as you have warned me against posting further.
    What you are doing here is to close this thread down not because I did not post something new but because 99% of the other posters refused to sensibly respond to my post. Frankly you are not moderating this forum for any benefit to the advancement of science but instead for the benefit of mindless re-actionaries who dare not have their beliefs questioned in case it damages their fragile egos.
    I recognise the futility of standing up against this mob. I have already stated that I do not see the point of posting further. But it is a great shame that the moderators have acted as they have done.
    I disagree. In both of your previous threads you expounded in great detail your philosophical views concerning the use of a theory outside the boundary of its postulates, specifically using SR for accelerated bodies. This was responded to at great length by a number of members. You didn't like the responses, but that is all you are about to get from anyone else on this forum. Repeating these arguments ad infinitum serves no purpose, even if you did happen to have a valid argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    Frankly you are not moderating this forum for any benefit to the advancement of science but instead for the benefit of mindless re-actionaries who dare not have their beliefs questioned in case it damages their fragile egos.
    This statement pretty much sums all there is to know about you and your hypothesis.
    Thank you for posting this.
    Indeed. Though I do agree that ego has been the major problem in these threads. However, If MrAether truly wants to track down the source of this ego problem, I suggest that he need look no further than his own mirror.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Janus
    Frankly, I am far too old to have much of an ego left.

    I note Gladstone's quote. At the age of 74 I do not have a heated mind. Instead I apply the chill touch and relentless scrutiny of logic.
    Last edited by MrAether; December 5th, 2012 at 05:14 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    Quantime
    Your posts are very long so I shall just pick out a part.
    I note that you accept both of my tenets. Frankly I fail to see how anyone can argue with them. Yet they do and constantly but without any contrary logical argument.
    But I must take issue with you when you say that I am wrong to apply my logic to PROVEN theories.

    I must inform you that NO theory is proven correct.
    Theories can only be proven wrong. Every theory hold only until it is proven wrong.

    You are also totally wrong to suggest that a basic principle of science, such as those I have described, should be applied to some theories but not to all.
    Scientific anarchy lies along that route.
    The problem with posters on this forum is that they dare not accept all the consequences of logic and reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    133
    I now recap on the problems with SR that i have already given and I also list a few more.

    1) SR is not allowed to apply to real non-inertial bodies by its postulates.
    2) SR does not predict the observations of real bodies. Eg. In the Hafele-Keating experiment one clock observes the other to be fast. This requires Time Contraction which SR cannot predict.
    3) SR requires a time dimension. Time is not a dimension
    4)SR requires an infinity of IRFs overlapping each other at every point in Space. This picture of the Universe is not credible.
    5)A theory of relativity effects exists with none of these limitations. (the Aether theory)

    Moderators. There is much to discuss on this subject. This thread should surely go back into the Alternative Theories category.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    1) SR is not allowed to apply to real non-inertial bodies by its postulates.
    Answered (repeatedly) in all three threads.

    2) SR does not predict the observations of real bodies. Eg. In the Hafele-Keating experiment one clock observes the other to be fast. This requires Time Contraction which SR cannot predict.
    Explained to you several times, very slowly. Perhaps you might reconsider where the problem lies.

    3) SR requires a time dimension. Time is not a dimension
    Argument from incredulity/ignorance.

    4)SR requires an infinity of IRFs overlapping each other at every point in Space. This picture of the Universe is not credible.
    Argument from incredulity/ignorance.

    Moderators. There is much to discuss on this subject. This thread should surely go back into the Alternative Theories category.
    Why? You are not willing/able to engage in rational discussion.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    1) SR is not allowed to apply to real non-inertial bodies by its postulates.
    Tell that to Einstein, who showed us how an accelerating frame can be considered instantaneously inertial, as I have previously and repeatedly explained. You are wrong here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    2) SR does not predict the observations of real bodies. Eg. In the Hafele-Keating experiment one clock observes the other to be fast. This requires Time Contraction which SR cannot predict.
    All three clocks show time dilation (not contraction) relative to an inertial frame. Again you are wrong here.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    3) SR requires a time dimension. Time is not a dimension
    What is your evidence for this assertion?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    4)SR requires an infinity of IRFs overlapping each other at every point in Space. This picture of the Universe is not credible.
    Argument from incredulity. The universe does not care what you find credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrAether View Post
    5)A theory of relativity effects exists with none of these limitations. (the Aether theory)
    You have shown no limitations in SR, only limitations in your understanding of SR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    It seems MrAether has ignored my warning and turned this into yet another thread that rehashes the same old arguments. He has a one track mind, and does not appear to be able to change. He's gone.
    Lynx_Fox and Markus Hanke like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family
    By Holmes in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 13th, 2009, 11:55 AM
  2. Obama is a fake ruled by wall street?
    By leohopkins in forum Politics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 12:14 PM
  3. Why was this ruled out?
    By deadcat in forum Physics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 10th, 2009, 12:15 AM
  4. Thank you Science Forum!
    By williampinn in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2008, 01:24 AM
  5. No science fiction fans on a science forum?
    By Silas in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 27th, 2005, 05:43 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •