Notices
Results 1 to 94 of 94

Thread: Forum Moderation Problem?

  1. #1 Forum Moderation Problem? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    I started a thread Called, “All Science Is Wrong” here in the Philosophy sub-forum. Seemed the logical place.

    It attracted a lot of energy. It’s ideas were expressed in a logical, mathematical and unemotional terms, as a serious philosophical proposition.

    It’s been moved to “The Trash Can”. Without consultation or explanation. The Trash Can.


    I started a thread about the Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution. it attracted a lot of interest. I was attempting to cut through the BS regarding this idea, because I was interested.

    This thread was moved to pseudoscience. Which, as I presented it, certainly was not.


    What’s going on here?


    It looks to me as though The Science Forum moderators can just bin any thoughts they don’t want to see discussed. Especially the popular thoughts they don’t want to see discussed.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    If you don't like how the forum is moderated (or the fact that people here think your "logical, mathematical" points are nothing of the sort) all I can suggest is find another forum...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    >> If you don't like how the forum is moderated (or the fact that people here think your "logical, mathematical" points are nothing of the sort) all I can suggest is find another forum...

    (Well, you could note - I don't frequent this forum often. I'm 'bullshit intolerant' to quote you to you - hence this thread).


    So I'm right? The forum moderators 'gate' which ideas can be talked about, based on personal whim. Not science.



    You said: "or the fact that people here think your "logical, mathematical" points are nothing of the sort)"

    When you say 'people'...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    >> If you don't like how the forum is moderated (or the fact that people here think your "logical, mathematical" points are nothing of the sort) all I can suggest is find another forum...

    (Well, you could note - I don't frequent this forum often. I'm 'bullshit intolerant' to quote you to you - hence this thread).


    So I'm right? The forum moderators 'gate' which ideas can be talked about, based on personal whim. Not science.



    You said: "or the fact that people here think your "logical, mathematical" points are nothing of the sort)"

    When you say 'people'...?
    We are guests here. So look after the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    It looks to me as though The Science Forum moderators can just bin any thoughts they don’t want to see discussed. Especially the popular thoughts they don’t want to see discussed.
    If moderators don't want to see something discussed, they either lock or delete the thread in question - this usually happens in extreme cases, e.g. someone attempting to dispense medical advice, or content including violence, racism, religious proselytising etc etc. I don't think that is what happened here.

    Your grievance seems to be about how a thread is categorised, i.e. which section of the forum it appears in, which isn't the same thing as preventing a discussion - if you choose to stop participating solely based on where a thread has been relocated to, then quite frankly that choice is yours and yours alone, because the thread remains open nonetheless. You can certainly disagree with a moderator's choice of categorisation, but you cannot blame him/her for your own decision to stop participating as a result of it. That's down to yourself.

    As for the act of categorisation - yes, that is not just at a moderator's sole discretion, it is in fact his duty. Without this type of intervention the forum would be a mess after a very short time, which diminishes its value to everyone; forums are not democracies, they are private property, and unmoderated forums just don't work. You must also remember that this is a two-way process - sometimes threads evolve from pure garbage to very interesting and meaningful discussions, and then get relocated from pseudo or trash to one of the hard science forums.

    The forum moderators 'gate' which ideas can be talked about, based on personal whim.
    See above.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; August 29th, 2014 at 04:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    I started a thread Called, “All Science Is Wrong” here in the Philosophy sub-forum. Seemed the logical place.

    It attracted a lot of energy. It’s ideas were expressed in a logical, mathematical and unemotional terms, as a serious philosophical proposition.

    It’s been moved to “The Trash Can”. Without consultation or explanation. The Trash Can.


    I started a thread about the Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution. it attracted a lot of interest. I was attempting to cut through the BS regarding this idea, because I was interested.

    This thread was moved to pseudoscience. Which, as I presented it, certainly was not.


    What’s going on here?


    It looks to me as though The Science Forum moderators can just bin any thoughts they don’t want to see discussed. Especially the popular thoughts they don’t want to see discussed.
    Yes, these threads attracted a lot of interest, mostly because other forum members rushed to tell you how wrong you are. Moderators do have the authority to bin threads based on their judgement of the type and quality of the material posted. Do you have another way you think it should work?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    When you say 'people'...?
    the ones who pointed out your logical fallacies...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    From the duplicate thread
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight
    I don't think, "Leave if you don't like it" qualifies as a response anyone can respect.
    ...and how much respect do you think staying and whining when you disagree with the mods is worth?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    I started a thread Called, “All Science Is Wrong” here .....
    It’s been moved to “The Trash Can”. Without consultation or explanation. The Trash Can....
    I started a thread about the Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution. ....
    This thread was moved to pseudoscience. .....
    What’s going on here?.......
    Sometimes threads degenerate and devolve into something unintended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    It’s been moved to “The Trash Can”. Without consultation or explanation. The Trash Can.
    I just checked the thread and there was an explanation of why it was moved. Check Lynx_Fox's last post on the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    We are guests here.
    It all boils down to this, really.

    This is not a protected platform to discuss whatever you wish. This forum serves a specific purpose and if you don't follow the guidelines, your input can be removed as can you.

    You wouldn't go into someone's house and demand they change their decor or rearrange their furniture, so you don't get to come into a forum and demand they change the rules to suit your needs. It just doesn't work that way.

    If you play by the rules, the mods here are very fair and lenient beyond what I think most of us would be.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    I started a thread Called, “All Science Is Wrong” here in the Philosophy sub-forum. Seemed the logical place.

    It attracted a lot of energy. It’s ideas were expressed in a logical, mathematical and unemotional terms, as a serious philosophical proposition.

    It’s been moved to “The Trash Can”. Without consultation or explanation. The Trash Can.


    I started a thread about the Aquatic Ape Theory of human evolution. it attracted a lot of interest. I was attempting to cut through the BS regarding this idea, because I was interested.

    This thread was moved to pseudoscience. Which, as I presented it, certainly was not.


    What’s going on here?


    It looks to me as though The Science Forum moderators can just bin any thoughts they don’t want to see discussed. Especially the popular thoughts they don’t want to see discussed.
    Yes, these threads attracted a lot of interest, mostly because other forum members rushed to tell you how wrong you are. Moderators do have the authority to bin threads based on their judgement of the type and quality of the material posted. Do you have another way you think it should work?
    Well these other forum members are pretty good at doing the embolded part alright. I never read the topics and don't want to , but I could probably guess the ones that attacked the poster and called it woo and troll and crank and ignorant, hey and I am not even psychic, but Tigers don't often change their stripes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Well Echelon Eight and Myflow, i became interested in this science forum for 2 reasons :

    -Learn about mainstraim physics > excellent score for this forum on that.

    -Find a platform to exchange information, a breeding ground for new concepts,
    have a dynamic going that will help new ideas grow into more mature and usefull ideas
    by means of complementary skilled people working on it, brainstorming... > zero points on that for this forum


    Most of the mods and seniors on this forum haven't got a clue on how creativity needs to be guided into usefull concepts,
    i spent 20 years doing that. Instead they apply the conservative schoolmasters' approach, leading to zero progress.

    They don't realise how their attitude and decisions severely empoverish the group intelligence.
    Sticking strictly to mainstream and not questioning it, can only lead to the same mainstream,
    and that is called stagnation.


    Just had to get that out of my system before taking a break, get some air, charge those batteries elsewhere,
    because it takes a lot of energy to turn ideas into usefull concepts, and here the energy level is almost inexistant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Well Echelon Eight and Myflow, i became interested in this science forum for 2 reasons :

    -Learn about mainstraim physics > excellent score for this forum on that.

    -Find a platform to exchange information, a breeding ground for new concepts,
    have a dynamic going that will help new ideas grow into more mature and usefull ideas
    by means of complementary skilled people working on it, brainstorming... > zero points on that for this forum


    Most of the mods and seniors on this forum haven't got a clue on how creativity needs to be guided into usefull concepts,
    i spent 20 years doing that. Instead they apply the conservative schoolmasters' approach, leading to zero progress.

    They don't realise how their attitude and decisions severely empoverish the group intelligence.
    Sticking strictly to mainstream and not questioning it, can only lead to the same mainstream,
    and that is called stagnation.


    Just had to get that out of my system before taking a break, get some air, charge those batteries elsewhere,
    because it takes a lot of energy to turn ideas into usefull concepts, and here the energy level is almost inexistant.
    Well I cannot disagree with any of this, but the forum could use new ideas and some new and fresh air - and it may happen yet if enough people like yourself don't get discouraged by a handful of old grumps calling you childish names in the name of science.

    I will add this. The only two I have seen having really great grasps on classical physics here are Janus and Markus, and they also seem to act classy as gentlemen. However, I have seen no one here who is really doing anything to teach anyone or help anyone to understand anything, or trying to learn and think in new ways. The ones who do that get poo-pood and get called names by the less classy (cough-cough) gentlemen here. That's fine, but what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    When I got interested in his translations on ancient Chinese translations of transcendental poetry, the topic went no further than my topics about ITER, dark energy and matter, Outernet, and any ideas out of the mainstream.

    Summary: There are disappontments and challenges in life, and these are things the strong use as bulding blocks. Never give up Noa, your heart is good. Listen to it as I do to mine.
    Last edited by Mayflow; August 29th, 2014 at 08:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    Well Echelon Eight and Myflow, i became interested in this science forum for 2 reasons :

    -Learn about mainstraim physics > excellent score for this forum on that.
    But you are NOT here to learn. You are here to push your anti-relativity, fringe agenda. If you think that you are fooling us, you aren't fooling anybody, except yourself.

    Sticking strictly to mainstream and not questioning it, can only lead to the same mainstream,


    Sorry to burst your bubble, no discovery EVER comes from the ignorants that deny basic, mainstream science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    That's fine, but what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    Mayflow, I have no recollection of this - can you please link me to the thread you are referring to ? I am not usually in the habit of ignoring this type of request, unless I happened to be very busy in real life at the time, which is possible. But if you can link me to the original thread, I shall see what I can do.

    In this context, I need to remind everyone here that I have a family to look after, work two jobs, and do volunteer work as well, not to mention some hobbies other than science - in short, I lead a busy life outside of Internet forums. Also, TSF and TPF are not the only forums I moderate and administer, so at times I get a little overwhelmed with the sheer workload and just don't have the resources to address every single thread I am subscribed to on every single forum. If you don't get a reply to something you posted or asked me, please rest assured that this is not for personal reasons but rather the result of a lack of time, or possibly it might quite simply have slipped under my radar. These things happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    Relativity is a very extensive subject, and the people who post here usually have lives outside of the forum and are generally too busy to write what could be a textbook worth of material. Also, there are plenty of textbooks out there on the subject of relativity, so it seems pointless to spend a large amount of precious time re-writing what can be found in the textbooks. Furthermore, if a person hasn't attempted to learn relativity for themselves from the available textbooks, then they haven't demonstrated the sincerity that they genuinely want to learn relativity, and therefore cannot reasonably expect the people here to devote a large amount of precious time to teach them.

    My observation is that Markus does go to great lengths to pass on his knowledge to people who request it, so I believe that you are being unreasonable in your expectations.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My observation is that Markus does go to great lengths to pass on his knowledge to people who request it, so I believe that you are being unreasonable in your expectations.
    QFT.
    (No, not quantum field theory.)
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That's fine, but what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    Mayflow, I have no recollection of this - can you please link me to the thread you are referring to ? I am not usually in the habit of ignoring this type of request, unless I happened to be very busy in real life at the time, which is possible. But if you can link me to the original thread, I shall see what I can do.

    In this context, I need to remind everyone here that I have a family to look after, work two jobs, and do volunteer work as well, not to mention some hobbies other than science - in short, I lead a busy life outside of Internet forums. Also, TSF and TPF are not the only forums I moderate and administer, so at times I get a little overwhelmed with the sheer workload and just don't have the resources to address every single thread I am subscribed to on every single forum. If you don't get a reply to something you posted or asked me, please rest assured that this is not for personal reasons but rather the result of a lack of time, or possibly it might quite simply have slipped under my radar. These things happen.
    O heck, I have no idea where I asked that, but I did run across your Relativity primer, and neither of us would have the time to go over that. You say something about basics and then start out with a math formula that I have no idea about. I only have high school algebra. The math would not be something I would ask to be taught, as I do have friends who could help me with that if I get interested enough. I would like just a basic description of what GR and SR are about and what they are useful for, for us. To me, it fits in with Noa's desires to see how some of this can be put to use, and I suppose how some of it has been put to use. Layman's terms, pretty please? I'll speak more on this topic later, but it is Saturday and I have to finish an anechoic chamber validation this morning and it will demand full attention and I want to get out of work as early as I can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That's fine, but what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    Mayflow, I have no recollection of this - can you please link me to the thread you are referring to ? I am not usually in the habit of ignoring this type of request, unless I happened to be very busy in real life at the time, which is possible. But if you can link me to the original thread, I shall see what I can do.

    In this context, I need to remind everyone here that I have a family to look after, work two jobs, and do volunteer work as well, not to mention some hobbies other than science - in short, I lead a busy life outside of Internet forums. Also, TSF and TPF are not the only forums I moderate and administer, so at times I get a little overwhelmed with the sheer workload and just don't have the resources to address every single thread I am subscribed to on every single forum. If you don't get a reply to something you posted or asked me, please rest assured that this is not for personal reasons but rather the result of a lack of time, or possibly it might quite simply have slipped under my radar. These things happen.
    O heck, I have no idea where I asked that, but I did run across your Relativity primer, and neither of us would have the time to go over that. You say something about basics and then start out with a math formula that I have no idea about. I only have high school algebra. The math would not be something I would ask to be taught, as I do have friends who could help me with that if I get interested enough. I would like just a basic description of what GR and SR are about and what they are useful for, for us. To me, it fits in with Noa's desires to see how some of this can be put to use, and I suppose how some of it has been put to use. Layman's terms, pretty please? I'll speak more on this topic later, but it is Saturday and I have to finish an anechoic chamber validation this morning and it will demand full attention and I want to get out of work as early as I can.
    1. Special Relativity requires only basic algebra, so, IF you had algebra in school, as you claim, you should have understood Markus' excellent primer on the subject.

    2. Markus' primer is excellent on the subject of teaching you relativity (SR and GR). You will not understand GR because you do not have the mathematical background.

    3. Basic applications of relativity are:

    a) GPS (would not work without the GR corrections, when they tried it without the corrections , the receivers were off by a block)
    b) All gun electron TV tubes (CRTs and plasma). If you do not correct the equations of motion for relativistic effects the electron beams no longer get deflected correctly
    c) All particle accelerators will not work without the SR equations of motion for charged particles

    4. Please do not lie about Noa's intentions, he has no interest in learning, his only interest is pushing his anti-relativity crank agenda. I have a lot of experience with the likes of Noa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I would like just a basic description of what GR and SR are about and what they are useful for, for us.
    Ok, fair enough, let's see what I can do.

    SR is quite simply a model that tells us how, disregarding any effects of gravity, measurements of space and time are related between observers in relative motion, and also how space is related to time and vice versa. It tells us that lengths and clock readings are not absolute, but rather relative to some point of reference; for example, if you stand still and a clock passes by you at a very high speed, you will see this clock go slower as compared to a clock that is stationary with you. Likewise, if you see a ruler pass you by at a very high speed, you will see this ruler to be shorter in the direction of travel as compared to a ruler stationary with you. SR as a mathematical model tells us exactly how the measurements in the two frames are related; this relationship is not arbitrary, but instead works in just such a way that it leaves the laws of physics unchanged. In other words - SR ensures that the laws of physics are the same for all ( inertial ) observers. If you measure the speed of light here in a lab, you get exactly c. If you measure it in a spacecraft moving at relativistic speeds, you also get exactly c. If you turn on the TV in your living room it works just the same as it would if you were in a fast moving rocket. And so on. The laws of physics are the same for everyone, and in order for this to be possible, motion trades space for time and time for space, leaving the separation between physical events unchanged, and hence the laws of physics invariant. There is no local experiment you can perform that would tell you if you are in uniform motion or not unless you have an outside point of reference - precisely because everyone experiences the same physics, so there is no intrinsic difference between a frame in motion and one at rest, all that can change is the relationship between frames in space-time.

    So once you cut out all the complicated thought experiments and mathematics and philosophical arguments, the basic notion behind SR is really very simple - it ensures that there is only one set of laws of physics which is valid for all observers, regardless of their state of ( uniform ) relative motion. Your toaster works on earth just as well as it does if you were in a fast moving rocket, because it is subject to the same laws of physics. SR can also be somewhat generalised to include any arbitrarily accelerated motion; what we find then however is that the beautiful symmetry of inertial frames is no longer there, and the relationship between observers becomes more complicated, both conceptually and mathematically.

    SR does a good job in modelling the relationship between any observers in otherwise empty space; where it fails is in cases where gravity becomes relevant. For example, if you have an observer very very far out in empty space, and an observer somewhere very close to a massive object such as the Sun, then SR still works fine locally at the locations of each observer, but it no longer works if we try to relate these two frames to one another, over an extended region with a gravitational field in it. And this is where GR comes in - it allows us to relate measurements between observers at different points in the vicinity of sources of gravity. These sources can be mass ( planets, stars etc ), but also less tangible things such as very strong electromagnetic fields. It tells us how test particles behave over time when in a region with gravitational sources, and it therefore provides a model for gravity itself. Unlike in the old Newtonian mechanics which uses forces, the formalism used by GR is a purely geometric one - it tells us how measurements of space and time are affected by sources of energy-momentum. The basic result is that once such sources are present, then lines which ran parallel very far away cannot remain parallel as they approach the gravitational source - not as the result of any forces, but because the geometry of space and time itself is affected. This works a little like longitudinal lines on the surface of the earth - they are parallel at the equator, but as you go north ( or south ) they slowly approach, and eventually meet at the poles; not because of forces, but because of the geometry of the earth's surface. Same with gravity - the world lines of massive particles approach as they age into the future, because space-time between them is no longer flat, but curved, just like the earth's surface is curved.

    The main consequence of GR is that concepts of space and time are valid only locally, and specific to each observer. This is best demonstrated with a concrete example - consider a black hole ( or any other small body ) with a mass equivalent to that of the Sun. We have two astronauts in a rocket very far away from the body, and they draw a map of what they see outside their window. For that purpose they draw concentric spheres at equal intervals around the central body : r=1km, r=2km, r=3km... and so on. It is not hard to see that for such far-away astronauts, the spheres at r=4km and r=5km from the central mass are exactly 1km apart. Now one of the astronauts wants to check whether this is actually true, so he jumps into a shuttle and proceeds to the sphere at r=5km; he leaves a small probe at this point that continuously fires a thruster so that it remains stationary there. He attaches a cable to the probe, and then allow himself to freely fall downwards, towards the next sphere at r=4km. How much cable will be needed ? When he was far away these two spheres where only 1km apart - but now he finds that he falls and falls and more and more cable is being unspooled, and in fact it takes 1723km of physical cable to reach the previously mapped r=4km sphere ! So somehow what is 1km from the point of view of someone very far away suddenly becomes 1723km for someone who is actually there and travels from r=5km to r=4km. Ditto for clock measurements. That is the meaning of curvature - that measurements of space and time are not absolute and universal, but depend on where you are. They are local notions, and not shared by all observers; you cannot apply the far-away notions of time and space to the physics close to the body and expect everything to work out fine. This relationship between measurements at different points and times is gravity, and is modelled as being the result of curvature of space-time - GR tells us how exactly this geometry is related to sources of energy-momentum.

    So - SR gives relationships between observers in otherwise empty space; GR gives relationships between observers anywhere, including in regions with sources of gravity. In both cases the relationship works in just such a way that everyone sees the same local laws of physics - SR formulates the laws in a form that does not change when observers move, and GR formulates them in a form that does not change when gravity is present. It turns out that SR and GR are actually the same model - SR is merely a special case of GR for scenarios where there is no curvature, i.e. in flat space-time.

    As for actual applications, I give you two examples - the electrons in old cathode ray tube TVs move at relativistic speeds, so without accounting for the laws of relativity, these old-style TVs quite simply would not work. Another very concrete example is that without the laws of relativity, gold would actually have a dull silvery colour - this is due to relativistic effects in the quantum mechanics of the electron orbitals in gold atoms and molecules ( the details are pretty complicated, but you get the idea ).

    Hopefully this makes a little sense. I won't be writing any more at this point, but rather leave you to ask specific questions if you have them. You might also be interested in reading up how all of this came to be, and you will find that relativity arose not as an isolated and purely theoretical idea, but rather as an attempt to explain concrete and empirical observations, mainly about electromagnetism and light. See here : History of special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That's fine, but what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    Mayflow, I have no recollection of this - can you please link me to the thread you are referring to ? I am not usually in the habit of ignoring this type of request, unless I happened to be very busy in real life at the time, which is possible. But if you can link me to the original thread, I shall see what I can do.

    In this context, I need to remind everyone here that I have a family to look after, work two jobs, and do volunteer work as well, not to mention some hobbies other than science - in short, I lead a busy life outside of Internet forums. Also, TSF and TPF are not the only forums I moderate and administer, so at times I get a little overwhelmed with the sheer workload and just don't have the resources to address every single thread I am subscribed to on every single forum. If you don't get a reply to something you posted or asked me, please rest assured that this is not for personal reasons but rather the result of a lack of time, or possibly it might quite simply have slipped under my radar. These things happen.
    O heck, I have no idea where I asked that, but I did run across your Relativity primer, and neither of us would have the time to go over that. You say something about basics and then start out with a math formula that I have no idea about. I only have high school algebra. The math would not be something I would ask to be taught, as I do have friends who could help me with that if I get interested enough. I would like just a basic description of what GR and SR are about and what they are useful for, for us. To me, it fits in with Noa's desires to see how some of this can be put to use, and I suppose how some of it has been put to use. Layman's terms, pretty please? I'll speak more on this topic later, but it is Saturday and I have to finish an anechoic chamber validation this morning and it will demand full attention and I want to get out of work as early as I can.
    1. Special Relativity requires only basic algebra, so, IF you had algebra in school, as you claim, you should have understood Markus' excellent primer on the subject.

    2. Markus' primer is excellent on the subject of teaching you relativity (SR and GR). You will not understand GR because you do not have the mathematical background.

    3. Basic applications of relativity are:

    a) GPS (would not work without the GR corrections, when they tried it without the corrections , the receivers were off by a block)
    b) All gun electron TV tubes (CRTs and plasma). If you do not correct the equations of motion for relativistic effects the electron beams no longer get deflected correctly
    c) All particle accelerators will not work without the SR equations of motion for charged particles

    4. Please do not lie about Noa's intentions, he has no interest in learning, his only interest is pushing his anti-relativity crank agenda. I have a lot of experience with the likes of Noa.
    This to me the most relative post I have seen you make to me. To just call me or Noa or others names is not relative to any conversation. It just irritates others and serves no purpose. Now, did Einstein first come up with the idea of special relativity, or general relativity?

    I don't have the education that many here do, but I don't go around calling others names in areas where I may know more than them. Maybe manners could be better on this forum, pretty please? Not for fear of getting into trouble, but just to converse like decent human beings. So, how does an electron beam get deflected, and what deflects it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,889
    Einstein developed SR first in 1905. GR came in 1915. GR is more comprehensive, SR being a subset of GR.

    An electron is a charged particle, it is attracted to its opposite charge (+), and repelled by a like charge (-). Charged particles also experience force in an orthogonal direction to magnetic field lines. In the 19th century James Clerk Maxwell derived a set of equations that rigorously defined these behaviors, and proved that electricity, magnetism, and light were all aspects of one another. Maxwells equations also predicted the existence of radio waves. The calculus of vectors is required to understand these equations. Maxwells equations also predicted a specific speed for light (or any other frequency of electromagnetic radiation), which led to Einstein proposing that space and time were malleable so as to preserve the speed of light as an invariant.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Einstein developed SR first in 1905. GR came in 1915. GR is more comprehensive, SR being a subset of GR.

    An electron is a charged particle, it is attracted to its opposite charge (+), and repelled by a like charge (-). Charged particles also experience force in an orthogonal direction to magnetic field lines. In the 19th century James Clerk Maxwell derived a set of equations that rigorously defined these behaviors, and proved that electricity, magnetism, and light were all aspects of one another. Maxwells equations also predicted the existence of radio waves. The calculus of vectors is required to understand these equations. Maxwells equations also predicted a specific speed for light (or any other frequency of electromagnetic radiation), which led to Einstein proposing that space and time were malleable so as to preserve the speed of light as an invariant.
    Thanks man. What is "orthogonal?" also you don't seem like a Giant Evil at all to me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That's fine, but what disappoints me is that when I asked Markus to teach me about his understandings about relativity, there was no answer.
    Mayflow, I have no recollection of this - can you please link me to the thread you are referring to ? I am not usually in the habit of ignoring this type of request, unless I happened to be very busy in real life at the time, which is possible. But if you can link me to the original thread, I shall see what I can do.

    In this context, I need to remind everyone here that I have a family to look after, work two jobs, and do volunteer work as well, not to mention some hobbies other than science - in short, I lead a busy life outside of Internet forums. Also, TSF and TPF are not the only forums I moderate and administer, so at times I get a little overwhelmed with the sheer workload and just don't have the resources to address every single thread I am subscribed to on every single forum. If you don't get a reply to something you posted or asked me, please rest assured that this is not for personal reasons but rather the result of a lack of time, or possibly it might quite simply have slipped under my radar. These things happen.
    O heck, I have no idea where I asked that, but I did run across your Relativity primer, and neither of us would have the time to go over that. You say something about basics and then start out with a math formula that I have no idea about. I only have high school algebra. The math would not be something I would ask to be taught, as I do have friends who could help me with that if I get interested enough. I would like just a basic description of what GR and SR are about and what they are useful for, for us. To me, it fits in with Noa's desires to see how some of this can be put to use, and I suppose how some of it has been put to use. Layman's terms, pretty please? I'll speak more on this topic later, but it is Saturday and I have to finish an anechoic chamber validation this morning and it will demand full attention and I want to get out of work as early as I can.
    1. Special Relativity requires only basic algebra, so, IF you had algebra in school, as you claim, you should have understood Markus' excellent primer on the subject.

    2. Markus' primer is excellent on the subject of teaching you relativity (SR and GR). You will not understand GR because you do not have the mathematical background.

    3. Basic applications of relativity are:

    a) GPS (would not work without the GR corrections, when they tried it without the corrections , the receivers were off by a block)
    b) All gun electron TV tubes (CRTs and plasma). If you do not correct the equations of motion for relativistic effects the electron beams no longer get deflected correctly
    c) All particle accelerators will not work without the SR equations of motion for charged particles

    4. Please do not lie about Noa's intentions, he has no interest in learning, his only interest is pushing his anti-relativity crank agenda. I have a lot of experience with the likes of Noa.
    This to me the most relative post I have seen you make to me. To just call me or Noa or others names is not relative to any conversation.
    You mean RELEVANT. Not only that you don't know science, your English is horrendous as well.

    It just irritates others and serves no purpose. Now, did Einstein first come up with the idea of special relativity, or general relativity?
    Look, I answered your question, so what are you ranting about?

    I don't have the education that many here do, but I don't go around calling others names in areas where I may know more than them. Maybe manners could be better on this forum, pretty please? Not for fear of getting into trouble, but just to converse like decent human beings.
    Give it a rest, stop ranting.

    So, how does an electron beam get deflected, and what deflects it?
    You have the impertinence to ask more questions after your rant? The Lorentz force, they teach that in high school.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    xyzt, nevermind and go away please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    xyzt, nevermind and go away please.
    You should go away and STAY away. You are not only ignorant, you are also proud about being ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow
    Thanks man. What is "orthogonal?" also you don't seem like a Giant Evil at all to me!
    The "Evil" part is where I tell you that if you want to know what orthogonal means then google* is your friend.

    *I don't actually think google is anybodys friend but their own. But it's an ubiquitous search engine.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    xyzt, nevermind and go away please.
    You should go away and STAY away. You are not only ignorant, you are also proud about being ignorant.
    Well, if you quit posting at me, the elegant solution is I won't have any post at me to reply to from you, so your request is then self fulfilled. Not much chance I will find a post or topic from you if it is not directly aimed towards me and calling me stupid and that sort of stuff that you seem to like doing to people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow
    Thanks man. What is "orthogonal?" also you don't seem like a Giant Evil at all to me!
    The "Evil" part is where I tell you that if you want to know what orthogonal means then google* is your friend.

    *I don't actually think google is anybodys friend but their own. But it's an ubiquitous search engine.
    So you don't want to tell me what orthogonal means, or you don't want to? Is it like perpendicular?

    Incidentally, Bing is a good search engine as well, and you can actually get a bit of money for using it. I think I have made about 50 bucks so far. It almost paid for my new guitar!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    xyzt, nevermind and go away please.
    You should go away and STAY away. You are not only ignorant, you are also proud about being ignorant.
    Well, if you quit posting at me, the elegant solution is I won't have any post at me to reply to from you, so your request is then self fulfilled. Not much chance I will find a post or topic from you if it is not directly aimed towards me and calling me stupid and that sort of stuff that you seem to like doing to people.
    I answered your questions, you answered with a rant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    xyzt, nevermind and go away please.
    You should go away and STAY away. You are not only ignorant, you are also proud about being ignorant.
    Well, if you quit posting at me, the elegant solution is I won't have any post at me to reply to from you, so your request is then self fulfilled. Not much chance I will find a post or topic from you if it is not directly aimed towards me and calling me stupid and that sort of stuff that you seem to like doing to people.
    I answered your questions, you answered with a rant.
    Isn't that classic, the first one who introduces personal insults is now hoping for moderation!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    xytz, I tried to make friends with you and you said you did not wish to, and you had your friends here on the forum. Please speak to your friends and not to me, unless you are willing to stop being a jerk towards me, ok?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    xyzt, nevermind and go away please.
    You should go away and STAY away. You are not only ignorant, you are also proud about being ignorant.
    Well, if you quit posting at me, the elegant solution is I won't have any post at me to reply to from you, so your request is then self fulfilled. Not much chance I will find a post or topic from you if it is not directly aimed towards me and calling me stupid and that sort of stuff that you seem to like doing to people.
    I answered your questions, you answered with a rant.
    Isn't that classic, the first one who introduces personal insults is now hoping for moderation!
    Where do you see me "hoping for moderation"? I answered your buddy's questions, she started ranting <shrug>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    xytz, I tried to make friends with you and you said you did not wish to, and you had your friends here on the forum. Please speak to your friends and not to me, unless you are willing to stop being a jerk towards me, ok?
    Pointing out your ineptitudes doesn't mean being "a jerk towards you". I answered your questions, you started ranting. Your problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    xyzt, I've stopped responding to (or reading) posts by the resident whack jobs (we all know who they are), you should try it, you waste less time and it makes the forum a much more pleasant environment...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    There you go xytz, now maybe you and the Demon get your own gig going, but if you keep hounding me and others and calling us bad names, I would suggest you desist. Discuss amongst yourselves as you wish, but I am not happy with you calling me and others bad names. You are supposed to be over 13 to be here, so start acting like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    xyzt, I've stopped responding to (or reading) posts by the resident whack jobs (we all know who they are), you should try it, you waste less time and it makes the forum a much more pleasant environment...
    Good point, let them bask in the bliss of their ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Understandings. According to psychologist Carl Jung, people have certain ways of understandings (yes I have a mind that can think) and am not only my body and my looks, Surprise surprise! I would be considered by his theories to be INFP - To me personally (all the quackeries about me being a crank, a troll, inane, and ignoramus, and all else aside) I actually do have a mind that can think.

    INFP is intuitive, and introspective, and feeling and perceptive. And this mind does not like people calling me and others names just because they cannot understand how I or they think.
    Last edited by Mayflow; August 30th, 2014 at 06:06 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Nice, but you are not a Dallas cowboy fan are you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I would like just a basic description of what GR and SR are about and what they are useful for, for us.
    Ok, fair enough, let's see what I can do.

    SR is quite simply a model that tells us how, disregarding any effects of gravity, measurements of space and time are related between observers in relative motion, and also how space is related to time and vice versa. It tells us that lengths and clock readings are not absolute, but rather relative to some point of reference; for example, if you stand still and a clock passes by you at a very high speed, you will see this clock go slower as compared to a clock that is stationary with you. Likewise, if you see a ruler pass you by at a very high speed, you will see this ruler to be shorter in the direction of travel as compared to a ruler stationary with you. SR as a mathematical model tells us exactly how the measurements in the two frames are related; this relationship is not arbitrary, but instead works in just such a way that it leaves the laws of physics unchanged. In other words - SR ensures that the laws of physics are the same for all ( inertial ) observers. If you measure the speed of light here in a lab, you get exactly c. If you measure it in a spacecraft moving at relativistic speeds, you also get exactly c. If you turn on the TV in your living room it works just the same as it would if you were in a fast moving rocket. And so on. The laws of physics are the same for everyone, and in order for this to be possible, motion trades space for time and time for space, leaving the separation between physical events unchanged, and hence the laws of physics invariant. There is no local experiment you can perform that would tell you if you are in uniform motion or not unless you have an outside point of reference - precisely because everyone experiences the same physics, so there is no intrinsic difference between a frame in motion and one at rest, all that can change is the relationship between frames in space-time.

    So once you cut out all the complicated thought experiments and mathematics and philosophical arguments, the basic notion behind SR is really very simple - it ensures that there is only one set of laws of physics which is valid for all observers, regardless of their state of ( uniform ) relative motion. Your toaster works on earth just as well as it does if you were in a fast moving rocket, because it is subject to the same laws of physics. SR can also be somewhat generalised to include any arbitrarily accelerated motion; what we find then however is that the beautiful symmetry of inertial frames is no longer there, and the relationship between observers becomes more complicated, both conceptually and mathematically.

    SR does a good job in modelling the relationship between any observers in otherwise empty space; where it fails is in cases where gravity becomes relevant. For example, if you have an observer very very far out in empty space, and an observer somewhere very close to a massive object such as the Sun, then SR still works fine locally at the locations of each observer, but it no longer works if we try to relate these two frames to one another, over an extended region with a gravitational field in it. And this is where GR comes in - it allows us to relate measurements between observers at different points in the vicinity of sources of gravity. These sources can be mass ( planets, stars etc ), but also less tangible things such as very strong electromagnetic fields. It tells us how test particles behave over time when in a region with gravitational sources, and it therefore provides a model for gravity itself. Unlike in the old Newtonian mechanics which uses forces, the formalism used by GR is a purely geometric one - it tells us how measurements of space and time are affected by sources of energy-momentum. The basic result is that once such sources are present, then lines which ran parallel very far away cannot remain parallel as they approach the gravitational source - not as the result of any forces, but because the geometry of space and time itself is affected. This works a little like longitudinal lines on the surface of the earth - they are parallel at the equator, but as you go north ( or south ) they slowly approach, and eventually meet at the poles; not because of forces, but because of the geometry of the earth's surface. Same with gravity - the world lines of massive particles approach as they age into the future, because space-time between them is no longer flat, but curved, just like the earth's surface is curved.

    The main consequence of GR is that concepts of space and time are valid only locally, and specific to each observer. This is best demonstrated with a concrete example - consider a black hole ( or any other small body ) with a mass equivalent to that of the Sun. We have two astronauts in a rocket very far away from the body, and they draw a map of what they see outside their window. For that purpose they draw concentric spheres at equal intervals around the central body : r=1km, r=2km, r=3km... and so on. It is not hard to see that for such far-away astronauts, the spheres at r=4km and r=5km from the central mass are exactly 1km apart. Now one of the astronauts wants to check whether this is actually true, so he jumps into a shuttle and proceeds to the sphere at r=5km; he leaves a small probe at this point that continuously fires a thruster so that it remains stationary there. He attaches a cable to the probe, and then allow himself to freely fall downwards, towards the next sphere at r=4km. How much cable will be needed ? When he was far away these two spheres where only 1km apart - but now he finds that he falls and falls and more and more cable is being unspooled, and in fact it takes 1723km of physical cable to reach the previously mapped r=4km sphere ! So somehow what is 1km from the point of view of someone very far away suddenly becomes 1723km for someone who is actually there and travels from r=5km to r=4km. Ditto for clock measurements. That is the meaning of curvature - that measurements of space and time are not absolute and universal, but depend on where you are. They are local notions, and not shared by all observers; you cannot apply the far-away notions of time and space to the physics close to the body and expect everything to work out fine. This relationship between measurements at different points and times is gravity, and is modelled as being the result of curvature of space-time - GR tells us how exactly this geometry is related to sources of energy-momentum.

    So - SR gives relationships between observers in otherwise empty space; GR gives relationships between observers anywhere, including in regions with sources of gravity. In both cases the relationship works in just such a way that everyone sees the same local laws of physics - SR formulates the laws in a form that does not change when observers move, and GR formulates them in a form that does not change when gravity is present. It turns out that SR and GR are actually the same model - SR is merely a special case of GR for scenarios where there is no curvature, i.e. in flat space-time.

    As for actual applications, I give you two examples - the electrons in old cathode ray tube TVs move at relativistic speeds, so without accounting for the laws of relativity, these old-style TVs quite simply would not work. Another very concrete example is that without the laws of relativity, gold would actually have a dull silvery colour - this is due to relativistic effects in the quantum mechanics of the electron orbitals in gold atoms and molecules ( the details are pretty complicated, but you get the idea ).

    Hopefully this makes a little sense. I won't be writing any more at this point, but rather leave you to ask specific questions if you have them. You might also be interested in reading up how all of this came to be, and you will find that relativity arose not as an isolated and purely theoretical idea, but rather as an attempt to explain concrete and empirical observations, mainly about electromagnetism and light. See here : History of special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Thanks Markus. I honestly appreciate you trying, and that unlike many here, being a decent human being, but I don't think other than that, I understood any of what you were saying. Relativity to me would mean something is in motion compared to something else, and that something else is moving compared to something else ad infinitum. I am also not that overly convinced of the speed of light being a constant, because there are other things than vacuums and I am not even convinced there are actually vacuums in space itself, as there may be other forces and such in space that have effects on all of relativity as well. Just because someone can make up mathematical systems, just does not make the math to me true to anything other than the system the creators of the math believe to be true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am also not that overly convinced of the speed of light being a constant, because there are other things than vacuums and I am not even convinced there are actually vacuums in space itself, as there may be other forces and such in space that have effects on all of relativity as well. Just because someone can make up mathematical systems, just does not make the math to me true to anything other than the system the creators of the math believe to be true.
    You claimed that you are not posting anti-mainstream BS. You can't help it, can you? Nor can you help lying. Markus and I just wasted our time on you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am also not that overly convinced of the speed of light being a constant, because there are other things than vacuums and I am not even convinced there are actually vacuums in space itself, as there may be other forces and such in space that have effects on all of relativity as well. Just because someone can make up mathematical systems, just does not make the math to me true to anything other than the system the creators of the math believe to be true.
    You claimed that you are not posting anti-mainstream BS. You can't help it, can you? Nor can you help lying. Markus and I just wasted our time on you.
    Let me make this straight for you. I respect Markus, I do not respect you. Does not mean I understand either of you, but he acts with respect and care towards all, and you simply do not.

    I hardly need to be a rocket scientist to tell a decent and caring person from one who just wants to call others bad names.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    xyzt, see my earlier post you are just giving a certain uneducatable poster more time than they are worth..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am also not that overly convinced of the speed of light being a constant, because there are other things than vacuums and I am not even convinced there are actually vacuums in space itself, as there may be other forces and such in space that have effects on all of relativity as well. Just because someone can make up mathematical systems, just does not make the math to me true to anything other than the system the creators of the math believe to be true.
    You claimed that you are not posting anti-mainstream BS. You can't help it, can you? Nor can you help lying. Markus and I just wasted our time on you.
    Let me make this straight for you. I respect Markus, I do not respect you. Does not mean I understand either of you,
    What does this have to do with your continuing to post anti-relativity BS and lying that you stopped? You just posted your standard woo-poo again. What is wrong with you?
    I couldn't care less about you disrespecting me. This is about you CONTINUING to post anti-mainstream BS AND lying about it.

    but he acts with respect and care towards all, and you simply do not.
    I despise hardened cranks, live with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    xyzt, see my earlier post you are just giving a certain uneducatable poster more time than they are worth..
    I wish they banned this lying crank.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    fingers crossed, she's been suspended often enough for being an ignorant nuisance, hopefully the next one will be permanent...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I am also not that overly convinced of the speed of light being a constant, because there are other things than vacuums and I am not even convinced there are actually vacuums in space itself, as there may be other forces and such in space that have effects on all of relativity as well. Just because someone can make up mathematical systems, just does not make the math to me true to anything other than the system the creators of the math believe to be true.
    You claimed that you are not posting anti-mainstream BS. You can't help it, can you? Nor can you help lying. Markus and I just wasted our time on you.
    Let me make this straight for you. I respect Markus, I do not respect you. Does not mean I understand either of you,
    What does this have to do with your continuing to post anti-relativity BS and lying that you stopped? You just posted your standard woo-poo again. What is wrong with you?
    I couldn't care less about you disrespecting me. This is about you CONTINUING to post anti-mainstream BS AND lying about it.

    but he acts with respect and care towards all, and you simply do not.
    I despise hardened cranks, live with it.
    I don't care. Markus is a nice guy and you are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I don't care. Markus is a nice guy and you are not.
    Don't become like them Mayflow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    I don't care. Markus is a nice guy and you are not.
    Don't become like them Mayflow.
    Oh god forbid. You are nice and Markus is nice, and I hope I can stay nice too! I don't want to fall into a trap of calling others bad things, but I just wish they would magically turn nice. Seems doable, yes?

    I apologize to xytz and PHDemon. You have your right to your points of view. I just wish you would grant me mine, and other theirs and quit calling us bad names. I really do not think that is too much to ask.
    Last edited by Mayflow; August 30th, 2014 at 09:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow
    You have your right to your points of view. I just wish you would grant me mine,
    People might have a right to their own opinions, but no one has a right to their own facts. And If you would use the computer in front of you to go to Wikipedia and research some things for yourself, then you would understand that certain things like the speed of light is a physical fact. As fully real as a loaded semi on a busy highway.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow
    You have your right to your points of view. I just wish you would grant me mine,
    People might have a right to their own opinions, but no one has a right to their own facts. And If you would use the computer in front of you to go to Wikipedia and research some things for yourself, then you would understand that certain things like the speed of light is a physical fact. As fully real as a loaded semi on a busy highway.
    So, some wikipedia thingy is an absolute fact, yeah I don't buy that anymore than that annoying Holliscem shise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,889
    @^
    Well, the Wiki generally does have some little numbers next to some of its citations in its articles. At the bottom is the list of information sources indexed by those numbers. Those are tools you can use to judge the chain of evidence for yourself. Of course that requires effort.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    @^
    Well, the Wiki generally does have some little numbers next to some of its citations in its articles. At the bottom is the list of information sources indexed by those numbers. Those are tools you can use to judge the chain of evidence for yourself. Of course that requires effort.
    I am sure it does, but it won't be mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    @^
    Well, the Wiki generally does have some little numbers next to some of its citations in its articles. At the bottom is the list of information sources indexed by those numbers. Those are tools you can use to judge the chain of evidence for yourself. Of course that requires effort.
    You are wasting your breath on Mayflow, she'd just bask in her ignorance than learn.
    Learning is hard, spamming the forum with her BS is much easier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    So, some wikipedia thingy is an absolute fact, yeah I don't buy that anymore than that annoying Holliscem shise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    @^
    Well, the Wiki generally does have some little numbers next to some of its citations in its articles. At the bottom is the list of information sources indexed by those numbers. Those are tools you can use to judge the chain of evidence for yourself. Of course that requires effort.
    I am sure it does, but it won't be mine.
    You admit that you don't understand physics.
    You admit that you don't understand maths.
    You admit you don't believe anyone else's claims.
    You admit that you are too lazy to learn for yourself.

    You are just an idiot with a forum login.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    So, some wikipedia thingy is an absolute fact, yeah I don't buy that anymore than that annoying Holliscem shise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    @^
    Well, the Wiki generally does have some little numbers next to some of its citations in its articles. At the bottom is the list of information sources indexed by those numbers. Those are tools you can use to judge the chain of evidence for yourself. Of course that requires effort.
    I am sure it does, but it won't be mine.
    You admit that you don't understand physics.
    You admit that you don't understand maths.
    You admit you don't believe anyone else's claims.
    You admit that you are too lazy to learn for yourself.

    You are just an idiot with a forum login.
    I would make a slight correction:

    instead of :

    "You admit you don't believe anyone else's claims"

    I would say:

    "You deny mainstream science, no matter where the reference comes from. You'd much rather substitute your own version of BS"

    The rest is dead on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Hopefully this makes a little sense. I won't be writing any more at this point, but rather leave you to ask specific questions if you have them. You might also be interested in reading up how all of this came to be, and you will find that relativity arose not as an isolated and purely theoretical idea, but rather as an attempt to explain concrete and empirical observations, mainly about electromagnetism and light. See here : History of special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Markus, thanks greatly for your efforts. It really is appreciated :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    Relativity to me would mean something is in motion compared to something else, and that something else is moving compared to something else ad infinitum
    That is of course true, but that's not all there is to the theory of relativity

    I am also not that overly convinced of the speed of light being a constant
    It's not a constant, it is an invariant - that's not quite the same thing.

    because there are other things than vacuums
    You are right, the speed of light is dependent on the medium - it is different in vacuum than it is in glass, or water ( which is why it is not a constant ). The point however is that within any given medium, it is invariant - all observers in water see the same speed of light, as do all observers in glass, or in vacuum.

    I am not even convinced there are actually vacuums in space itself
    Yes, you are right here too. Strictly speaking, the vacuum is not really a pure vacuum; there are interstellar gases and ionised particles, and even in pure vacuum there are certain quantum effects to consider. Nonetheless, for the most part the notion of a perfect vacuum is a good approximation.

    Just because someone can make up mathematical systems, just does not make the math to me true to anything other than the system the creators of the math believe to be true.
    Beliefs do not come into this - in physics we make models of the world ( such as the theory of relativity ), and we then subject these models to the scientific method. If it passes the scientific method, we have a good model and can go and test it further; if not, we reject or amend it accordingly. Relativity is not born out of abstract mathematics, it is born out of empirical observations - we don't just "believe" that the laws of electrodynamics are independent of the emitter's state of motion; that is an empirical observation, which first sparked off the development of the theory that can explain this observation. Relativity falls right out of this ( see the link to the history I gave in my post ), and it has passed every single experimental test we have thrown at it for the past 100 years. It is an extraordinarily good and useful model, though we understand of course that - like any other model in physics - it has limitations, so it is obviously not the final word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The point however is that within any given medium, it is invariant - all observers in water see the same speed of light, as do all observers in glass
    I don't think this is true in any meaningful way. The speed of light in a moving medium obeys the relativistic velocity addition formula for the speed of light in the non-moving medium and the velocity of the medium. Also, the speed of light in a medium depends on the frequency (which complicates the derivation of the speed of light in a moving medium due to the Doppler effect).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I don't think this is true in any meaningful way. The speed of light in a moving medium obeys the relativistic velocity addition formula for the speed of light in the non-moving medium and the velocity of the medium. Also, the speed of light in a medium depends on the frequency (which complicates the derivation of the speed of light in a moving medium due to the Doppler effect).
    Ooops, you are right...I did not consider those effects. I am too used to thinking of the vacuum situation ! Please disregard my comment - my bad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I don't think this is true in any meaningful way. The speed of light in a moving medium obeys the relativistic velocity addition formula for the speed of light in the non-moving medium and the velocity of the medium. Also, the speed of light in a medium depends on the frequency (which complicates the derivation of the speed of light in a moving medium due to the Doppler effect).
    Ooops, you are right...I did not consider those effects. I am too used to thinking of the vacuum situation ! Please disregard my comment - my bad.
    Markus, you truly are a gentleman, well relative to some others! :-) I really appreciate your input and certainly the inputs of Implicate order, and KJW as well. The term Invariant makes more sense to me than constant does. I have to try to understand things from my own sets of perspectives and those sets of perspectives when I look into my mind are certainly not a constant, but my mind is the only thing I can use to try to understand the world, and while I really love my mind, the one invariant I see is that it is constantly changing. I want the general trends of the mental movements to be in good ways, and of course "good" is certainly subjective, but what to us can be purely objective when our minds are of the nature of being subjective?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    Markus Hanke,

    You blocked any discussion of this topic in the ‘general issues’ sub-forum – another way of stopping people seeing this discussion. Or being aware that it’s an issue. Confining it to the ‘philosophy’ forum is one step away from binning to to the “trash can”.

    You seem to be suppressing dissent. (Well, duh, one might think, but someone should say it out loud).


    You wrote:

    >>As for the act of categorisation - yes, that is not just at a moderator's sole discretion, it is in fact his duty.

    To decide what he or she like and doesn’t personally like?

    And send the latter to “the trash can”? On their personal whim? Again, both instances cited can in no rational circumstances be ‘categorised’ as ‘trash’, or ‘pseudo-science’. Both were just a shameful abuse of moderator’s power.

    I know you won’t attempt to defend those decisions, because they’ve been made. And they’re indefensible.


    (Note: this post will not appear in General Issues forum - because it's been deleted there. Less people will see it, here. Trash Can)


    I expected more from The Science Forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    You seem to be suppressing dissent.
    So philosophy is suppressing dissent ? That's certainly a new one
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    >>> So philosophy is suppressing dissent ? That's certainly a new one

    No, unfortunately it's a very old one. People abusing their power, and smiling about it - is very old.

    Moving a biology topic to pseudoscience is suppressing dissent.
    Moving a philosophy topic to "the trash can" is suppressing dissent.


    You wrote:

    >>As for the act of categorisation - yes, that is not just at a moderator's sole discretion, it is in fact his duty.

    To decide what he or she like and doesn’t personally like?

    I know you won’t attempt to defend those decisions, because they’ve been made. And they’re indefensible.
    Last edited by Echelon Eight; September 12th, 2014 at 03:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    >>> So philosophy is suppressing dissent ? That's certainly a new one

    No, unfortunately it's a very old one. People abusing their power, and smiling about it - is very old.

    Moving a biology topic to pseudoscience is suppressing dissent.
    Moving a philosophy topic to "the trash can" is suppressing dissent.


    You wrote:

    >>As for the act of categorisation - yes, that is not just at a moderator's sole discretion, it is in fact his duty.

    To decide what he or she like and doesn’t personally like?

    I know you won’t attempt to defend those decisions, because they’ve been made. And they’re indefensible.
    Get over it. We won in the end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    Well, actually this is something I once discussed with Markus elsewhere, and I am pretty sure he feels that philosophy and science are complements of one another. Markus is big on general and Special relativity, and the associated maths, but that does not mean he in any way looks down on philosophy and philosophy has also much to say and think about on the ideas of all things being relative to one another. I also find no problem in dissention - we get very little new learnings if everyone agrees that all the previous ways of thinking are the ONLY ways of thinking. Categorizations don't really mean very much, except for a way to try to organize - so if a topic is in philosophy, it is more likely to attract those leaning a bit towards the philosophic interests.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    >>> So philosophy is suppressing dissent ? That's certainly a new one

    No, unfortunately it's a very old one. People abusing their power, and smiling about it - is very old.
    You seem to be conflating two distinct statements here:
    1. Philosophy is suppressing dissent and has been going on for a long time.
    2. People abuse their power and smile about it.

    As to the first, I share Markus's puzzlement at your assertion that philosophy is a means of suppressing dissent. Actually, your claim is absurd. You have a point of view. You have been granted the privilege of expressing that view on this private forum. If your idea is a sound one it should gain traction where-ever it is placed. Like many other members I rarely seek for posts within a specific sub-forum, but check New Posts. Consequently I am oblivious as to where any particular thread has been placed. I - and any fair minded reader - is interested in the contents of the thread, not the categorisation of it by an individual who may get it wrong.

    Which brings us to point 2. It is the responsibility of the moderators and admins on this and other forums to facilitate the smooth operation of the forum. Their decisions will not meet with agreement of all members, but to suggest that they make these decisions as an exercise in power is just silly. I am a moderator here and frankly there is no power to abuse. This is an internet forum, not an operating theatre, or an M1 tank in the heat of battle, or an interview panel reviewing candidates. Those are places where power and the decisions flowing from it have real impact on the lives of people. This is just a few people chatting down the pub. You accord the forum and the power of the moderators much greater weight than they merit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Moving a biology topic to pseudoscience is suppressing dissent.
    Moving a philosophy topic to "the trash can" is suppressing dissent.
    Your observations and thoughts are still accessible. They have not been deleted. So, how have your notions of dissent been suppressed. It seems to me you are annoyed because your ineffectual arguments have been ignored.


    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    >>As for the act of categorisation - yes, that is not just at a moderator's sole discretion, it is in fact his duty.

    To decide what he or she like and doesn’t personally like?

    I know you won’t attempt to defend those decisions, because they’ve been made. And they’re indefensible.
    No, to make decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the forum.

    Look, it is really rather simple. The primary function of this forum is to encourage an interest in science by informing people about current scientific thinking and holding discussions on it. It is not intended, primarily, to explore radical new ideas, or ideas that are on the fringe of current science. In order to meet the primary objective of the forum it is important that neophytes are introduced to accepted science and the scientific method.

    As a secondary function, the opportunity exists for members to introduce new, or non-standard ideas and have these discussed. In the sub-fora devoted to these secondary functions you are free to express yourself, as long as you respect the scientific method and follow a few simple rules you agreed to when you joined the forum.

    So, really, your attitude here of outraged indignation is really rather silly. On one thing we are agreed. I won't attempt to defend the decisions, because they need no defense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    John Galt the self professed GOD has spoken yet again. All hial, er I mean hail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    John Galt the self professed GOD has spoken yet again. All hial, er I mean hail.
    I'm not familiar with the word "hial." Perhaps you meant something else.

    In any case, John has shown considerable restraint, which you have failed to acknowledge. In the post above, he goes to great and patient lengths to explain his point. And your response is the typical, petty, content-free, infantile knee-jerk acting-out that we have unfortunately had to suffer here. Please stop.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    John Galt the self professed GOD has spoken yet again. All hial, er I mean hail.
    When Jesus was asked whether they should pay tax to the Romans he said give me a coin. Then he asked whose head is thereon, and they replied it is Caesar's. So Jesus said, "to Caesar you give to Caesar what's his, and what belongs to Galt you honour Galt".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,041
    And then Jesus turned the water into wine. This is the philosophy section of the forum I believe and a bit of Christian gnosticism seems to be appropriate as nourishment of the soul. Thus the water is turned into wine, and hopefully people don't try to control or crucify the wine, but even if so the wine of life will still flow, for men cannot nail the wine of life to a cross, like they can to another man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    And then Jesus turned the water into wine. This is the philosophy section of the forum I believe and a bit of Christian gnosticism seems to be appropriate as nourishment of the soul. Thus the water is turned into wine, and hopefully people don't try to control or crucify the wine, but even if so the wine of life will still flow, for men cannot nail the wine of life to a cross, like they can to another man.
    I prefer the water actually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    A Better Place Than I deserve
    Posts
    50
    Robittybob1 wrote, addressed to me:

    “We won in the end.”



    Pretty much proves what I said.

    There's a "we".


    And We must "win".


    A perfect proof of my point.


    You "win" by actively suppressing those who are not "we".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Robittybob1 wrote, addressed to me:

    “We won in the end.”



    Pretty much proves what I said.

    There's a "we".


    And We must "win".


    A perfect proof of my point.


    You "win" by actively suppressing those who are not "we".
    "We" in that case were those arguing for the correctness of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. I'm sure "we won" that one. We were those that were arguing the affirmative.
    Last edited by Robittybob1; September 28th, 2014 at 03:09 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Robittybob1 wrote, addressed to me:
    “We won in the end.”
    Pretty much proves what I said.
    There's a "we".
    And We must "win".
    A perfect proof of my point.
    You "win" by actively suppressing those who are not "we".
    It is as if someone had put two Furbies next to each other.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    I started a thread Called, “All Science Is Wrong” here in the Philosophy sub-forum. Seemed the logical place.

    It attracted a lot of energy. It’s ideas were expressed in a logical, mathematical and unemotional terms, as a serious philosophical proposition.

    It’s been moved to “The Trash Can”. Without consultation or explanation. The Trash Can.
    The title is flawed to begin with. Just posting it contradicts the philosophy you proposed. Science enabled you to post your views here but you are saying they got it wrong. The only thing that is totally wrong is your statement title, not all science. You shot yourself down in the time it took to type 4 words.

    I think this thread is a good moderator/candidate test and it was interesting to see some of their comments.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Echelon Eight View Post
    Robittybob1 wrote, addressed to me:
    “We won in the end.”
    Pretty much proves what I said.
    There's a "we".
    And We must "win".
    A perfect proof of my point.
    You "win" by actively suppressing those who are not "we".
    It is as if someone had put two Furbies next to each other.
    Whoever thought of Furbies must have made a mint. Aren't they fun.
    We won not by suppressing the others but promoting our ideas. It was very positive all round.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    "We" in that case were those arguing for the correctness of the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. I'm sure "we won" that one. We were those that were arguing the affirmative.
    Except that you didnt, you just drowned out the thread with gishgalloping
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    gishgalloping
    Good word, I like it, evocative of spraying BS about and wallowing in it, as is Bob's wont...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    gishgalloping
    Good word, I like it, evocative of spraying BS about and wallowing in it, as is Bob's wont...
    Gishgallop or not we won!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    gishgalloping
    Good word, I like it, evocative of spraying BS about and wallowing in it, as is Bob's wont...
    Gishgallop or not we won!
    People abandoning a thread in sheer frustration at the refusal to understand points being made is not "wining"
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    Looks like confirmation (if it were needed) that Bob is a pigeon chess grandmaster...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,629
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Looks like confirmation (if it were needed) that Bob is a pigeon chess grandmaster...
    So I was wrong -- he has a second superpower...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Looks like confirmation (if it were needed) that Bob is a pigeon chess grandmaster...
    So I was wrong -- he has a second superpower...
    More than that too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Looks like confirmation (if it were needed) that Bob is a pigeon chess grandmaster...
    So I was wrong -- he has a second superpower...
    More than that too!
    Of that, I have no doubt. I do suspect, though, that your list and mine might not have a 100% correlation...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Of that, I have no doubt. I do suspect, though, that your list and mine might not have a 100% correlation...
    Statistics isn't one of them. That's enough about me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    If you don't like how the forum is moderated (or the fact that people here think your "logical, mathematical" points are nothing of the sort) all I can suggest is find another forum...
    In other words, we're left-wing atheists and we have standards, but they only apply to those we disagree with. If you don't like that, get the hell out.

    You asked for feedback, and the man gave it to you. In your imitable style, you reject anything contrary to your condescending, arrogant, know-it-all narrative.
    You can be as rude as you wish, and so can your fellow know-it-all atheist leftist friends, for all opponents are ignorant rubes.

    "If we all worked on the assumption that what is true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." - Orville Wright

    "Heaver-than-air flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, 1895
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In the sub-fora devoted to these secondary functions you are free to express yourself, as long as you respect the scientific method and follow a few simple rules you agreed to when you joined the forum.

    So, really, your attitude here of outraged indignation is really rather silly. On one thing we are agreed. I won't attempt to defend the decisions, because they need no defense.
    You moderators do not follow the very rules you preach to the rest of us. Disgraceful. Unintelligent.

    You moderators move threads while expressing condescension, and indignation. But your actions are absolute. Members must either get in line with your leftist atheist dogma, or suffer the consequences, which you pretend are wise and just.

    Pride - the original sin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,528
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    In the sub-fora devoted to these secondary functions you are free to express yourself, as long as you respect the scientific method and follow a few simple rules you agreed to when you joined the forum.

    So, really, your attitude here of outraged indignation is really rather silly. On one thing we are agreed. I won't attempt to defend the decisions, because they need no defense.
    You moderators do not follow the very rules you preach to the rest of us. Disgraceful. Unintelligent.

    You moderators move threads while expressing condescension, and indignation. But your actions are absolute. Members must either get in line with your leftist atheist dogma, or suffer the consequences, which you pretend are wise and just.

    Pride - the original sin.
    Asking you to provide data and citations for the assertions you are posting is absolutely in line with the forum rules. you have not actually provided any citations or verifiable data in any of your thread responses yet.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,962
    Quote Originally Posted by RenaissanceMan View Post
    In other words, we're left-wing atheists and we have standards, but they only apply to those we disagree with. If you don't like that, get the hell out.
    Nope. Just the latter part - if you don't like this place you are free to leave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,345
    The sooner the better, if RenaissanceMan wants to fertilize the internet with bullshit this is not the place...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,889
    Necrodrama... (sigh)...
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The Problem with the Religious Forum
    By Absum! in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: March 17th, 2009, 09:25 AM
  2. Biology Forum Moderation Standards
    By paralith in forum Biology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2009, 11:55 AM
  3. In Moderation
    By Selene in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 4th, 2008, 08:45 AM
  4. Moderation
    By DaBOB in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 7th, 2008, 06:28 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
  •