Physics Forum

[sox]

I have noticed in the physics forums that there seem to be alot of rather repetitive threads, usually about SR despite the sticky thread on the subject.

Also there are users who clearly don't know what they're talking about and who post rather confused questions as a result. On top of that, certain members have rather poor English (much worse than what I present here).

My question is directed to admin, but also to Harold the physics Mod, and it is this: would it be possible to check each thread before it reaches the board?

If this was going to be viable then I think the number of threads being created would have to be kept reasonably low. I think in order to achieve this it would be necesary to modify the guidelines for the physics board.

For example there is a thread in the physics forum where someone is asking about the concept of angular momentum. That in itself is not a problem. Angular momentum is a rather trivial idea in physics however so one would assume that the person starting the discussion is just starting out in physics. However the same user then started a thread on SR and tried to enter into debate in which he clearly isn't qualified for.

I think that if there were strict guidelines stating that users should only start and participate in debates on topics in which they are conversent and experienced in we could start to reduce the number of low quality threads and make existant threads easier to read aswell.

This would result in threads at an introductory level, intermediate level and an advanced level.

Users new to physics would still be able to read threads that interest them, but they would not "muddy the waters" of the more advanced threads.

I hope this hasn't came across as a rant, as that was not my intent. But I feel that the physics forum is in need of a shake up, and I think some restrictions need to be applied for the good of the board.

Thoughts?

sox

[wallaby]

While the question wasn't directed at me i thought I'd add my two cents.

Moderators checking each new thread before it reaches the board sounds like extra effort to fix something that isn't broken, isn't it just easier to just skip over posts by people who don't contribute meaningfully to discussion? Might it be easier instead to have the people who make the thread select the level of discussion they intend to have? So the thread is displayed as "Beginner", "intermediate" etc.

I agree that the range of topics in the physics forum is somewhat limited and only a select group seem to know what they're talking about, hell i'd have asked a whole bunch of questions on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance if i thought i'd get an answer, but that seems to be the way it's always been around this corner of the web.

[sox]

Might it be easier instead to have the people who make the thread select the level of discussion they intend to have? So the thread is displayed as "Beginner", "intermediate" etc.

Good suggestion.

[Harold14370]

I think that reviewing the message before allowing them to be posted would cause unacceptable delays.

For some reason, special relativity seems to be a burr under a lot of people's saddles, even if they don't really understand the subject. Perhaps, it is because they don't understand it, and get frustrated because of that. That, along with the big bang theory are topics that people seem to get emotional about, for reasons I don't completely understand, and they feel they need to get their two cents in.

From time to time it has been proposed to have a separate sub-forum for the more advanced members, so that they could carry on their high-level discussions, without being interrupted by stupid questions. That may be something to consider.

Wallaby had a good idea, to skip over the threads by certain members whose post you find uninteresting. The "ignore user" feature may help there.

[MeteorWayne]

The danger in that is having neophytes misled by those who have made no effort to undertand the science they are dismissing and arguing against. In a forum, it will always be the thankless duty of the erudite to prevent that.

[sox]

The danger in that is having neophytes misled by those who have made no effort to undertand the science they are dismissing and arguing against.

People like aquaponics...

[brane wave]

maybe attribute a reputation status per user could solve this dilemma? i have seen this elsewhere...based on helpful answers etc. a mine-field for the mods-ratings etc but if the mods are ok with it?....a definate workload....maybe that could be solved by a user input,but that means admin would have to alter the coding,and thats where i enter the realm of,is this achievable?(no disrespect meant) as i know very little about that how easy/difficult that is

[wallaby]

Or we could take a page out of the book of yahoo and implement a "was this helpful?" button on each response to the OP...actually i think there's already a "like" button, maybe users can like posts containing accurate or useful explanations?

[logic]

Also there are users who clearly don't know what they're talking about and who post rather confused questions as a result. On top of that, certain members have rather poor English (much worse than what I present here).
For example there is a thread in the physics forum where someone is asking about the concept of angular momentum. That in itself is not a problem. Angular momentum is a rather trivial idea in physics however so one would assume that the person starting the discussion is just starting out in physics. However thesame userthen started a thread on SR and tried to enter into debate in which he clearly isn't qualified for.
This would result in threads at an introductory level, intermediate level and an advanced level.
I hope this hasn't came across as a rant, ..Thoughts?

Hallo sox, I do have a "thought", a "trivial idea" about who that "someone" might be, have you, by any chance? I'll use irony, because my cultural background and good manners do not allow me to be rude: You have chosen the wrong part of the idiom "rant and rave", it seems.!
You claim you live in UK, I hope you are not a native speaker, because your comprehension of English is really poor if you do not understand what "the concept of angular momentum" means, if you say it is a "trivial idea", (but you admit you have problems with abstract "stuff", don't you.?)

If you ever make that level distinction, please sox, add another level: "fool" so I can make threads, and remember the saying: "a fool can ask a wiseman a question he can't answer". I am that fool, and a wise and noble man tried valiantly to give an answer he couldn't give.

I wanted to make a thread to thank Harold in public, but I hesitated, I was shy [Pisces]. I thought it was in bad taste. I thank your dastardly [I carefully typed-spelled it] post, because it gave me the opportunity to do so. I apologized to him in private, I said I regretted if I embarassed him [Pisces, I guess], but I thought, as a fool, that that debate was not diminishing for him, that he was showing great competence and valour, defending a lost cause.

I told him I am leaving this forum anyway, because I am deeply and sincerely sorry, if I sounded not respectful to him. And if he does not take my questions any more it is pointless to post here.

Now, if you know physics, sox, besides math and group theory, I challenge you, before I leave, come to the arena and continue discussion, instead of slurring [people behind their backs]: now I am teaching you manners, there I might teach you some physics too: we'll start from there: momentum is inertia but has no math definition, angular momentum has no definition but has math definition and its math definition is the math definition of Planck's unit of action. Now, tell me to my face: what is this concept, this "trivial idea" of angular momentum?

[sox]

Also there are users who clearly don't know what they're talking about and who post rather confused questions as a result. On top of that, certain members have rather poor English (much worse than what I present here).
For example there is a thread in the physics forum where someone is asking about the concept of angular momentum. That in itself is not a problem. Angular momentum is a rather trivial idea in physics however so one would assume that the person starting the discussion is just starting out in physics. However thesame userthen started a thread on SR and tried to enter into debate in which he clearly isn't qualified for.
This would result in threads at an introductory level, intermediate level and an advanced level.
I hope this hasn't came across as a rant, ..Thoughts?

Hallo sox, I do have a "thought", a "trivial idea" about who that "someone" might be, have you, by any chance? I'll use irony, because my cultural background and good manners do not allow me to be rude: You have chosen the wrong part of the idiom "rant and rave", it seems.!
You claim you live in UK, I hope you are not a native speaker, because your comprehension of English is really poor if you do not understand what "the concept of angular momentum" means, if you say it is a "trivial idea", (but you admit you have problems with abstract "stuff", don't you.?)

If you ever make that level distinction, please sox, add another level: "fool" so I can make threads, and remember the saying: "a fool can ask a wiseman a question he can't answer". I am that fool, and a wise and noble man tried valiantly to give an answer he couldn't give.

I wanted to make a thread to thank Harold in public, but I hesitated, I was shy [Pisces]. I thought it was in bad taste. I thank your dastardly [I carefully typed-spelled it] post, because it gave me the opportunity to do so. I apologized to him in private, I said I regretted if I embarassed him [Pisces, I guess], but I thought, as a fool, that that debate was not diminishing for him, that he was showing great competence and valour, defending a lost cause.

I told him I am leaving this forum anyway, because I am deeply and sincerely sorry, if I sounded not respectful to him. And if he does not take my questions any more it is pointless to post here.

Now, if you know physics, sox, besides math and group theory, I challenge you, before I leave, come to the arena and continue discussion, instead of slurring [people behind their backs]: now I am teaching you manners, there I might teach you some physics too: we'll start from there: momentum is inertia but has no math definition, angular momentum has no definition but has math definition and its math definition is the math definition of Planck's unit of action. Now, tell me to my face: what is this concept, this "trivial idea" of angular momentum?

I'll repeat what I stated in my opening post. I really wasn't trying to offend anybody.

I will also repeat that as physics goes, angular momentum is a very straight-forward (excuse the irony) idea. It's taught in first year university physics, and quite often in advanced courses at high school level.

As to saying I don't understand it, well I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but I get the impression I have a much better understanding of angular momentum than you do; Having studied angular momentum in classical dynamics (both newtonian and lagrangian formalisms) and in quantum theory.

You are clearly confused about the topic, as you say momentum is inertia. That is wrong. You need to go away and think about it a bit more.