I can't think of any question to ask.

[JohnLesser]

I am afraid if I speak I will get banned, so dare not ask a question.

 

So maybe in the lounge, I can sit around drinking coffee and talk about anything?

 

What are the lounge rules of posting?

[hypervalent_iodine]

It's more relaxed, but the rules still apply. The lounge is really reserved for general chit chat rather than talking about absolutely anything you want.

[JohnLesser]

It's more relaxed, but the rules still apply. The lounge is really reserved for general chit chat rather than talking about absolutely anything you want.

Seemingly there is no where to discuss things on this forum then. It is more of an accept it to be true or else forum?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Seemingly there is no where to discuss things on this forum then. It is more of an accept it to be true or else forum?

No, it's more of a follow the rules or go elsewhere forum.

[Phi for All]

Seemingly there is no where to discuss things on this forum then. It is more of an accept it to be true or else forum?

 

Why do you seem to insist that our level of rigor is inappropriate? Why would you get to determine such a thing?

[JohnLesser]

No, it's more of a follow the rules or go elsewhere forum.

Then if that is the case, please explain why , if a person tries to say something of modern physics is not right, do they get banned or post closed?

 

I do not understand how you suppose to discuss if the discussion is biased towards the regulars who only ever defend present information?

 

If you disagree with them , they report you.

 

How doe's this forum allow discussion when that seems the normal run of the mill around here?

 

Why do you seem to insist that our level of rigor is inappropriate? Why would you get to determine such a thing?

I admit tingly have talked some garbage over the years on science forums, however in the thread I had closed, I was using all the science, ''science'' had taught me over the years, to discuss the possibilities of a wrong. Nobody even tried to discuss what I was saying, I understand rigor and you as a moderator have to apply some rigor, however like I said, nobody discussed what I was talking about.

You are correct I am a nobody, but you can see clearly by my efforts I am not a troll, I just ask you to determine such a thing, but remembering I am human too and people sometimes are ambiguous.

 

I need to discuss relativity and can't.

[Lord Antares]

Then if that is the case, please explain why , if a person tries to say something of modern physics is not right, do they get banned or post closed?

 

I do not understand how you suppose to discuss if the discussion is biased towards the regulars who only ever defend present information?

 

If you disagree with them , they report you.

 

How doe's this forum allow discussion when that seems the normal run of the mill around here?

 

They don't get banned by default; neither are you.

You get your threads closed because you refuse to give adequate information or answer some of the expert members' questions. Sensible discussions can be lead, even when the OP is dead wrong. You cannot just spot a flaw as trivial as yours in something as complicated as GR. The correct procedure would be to phrase it as a question, rather than a claim.

 

If you had opened the thread with ''Hi. I want to know how the speed of light can be measured as a constant everywhere if people from different reference frames measure speeds differently. Thanks.''

instead of ''here's why relativity is wrong...'' I guarantee you would have gotten more extensive and polite replies. It is always best to phrase things you don't know as questions as it leaves the possibility that you are wrong, whereas hard claims don't.

 

I hope you can learn from this experience and realize that this isn't some sort of conspiracy against you. If you are willing to listen and be open minded, you can be helped.

[JohnLesser]

 

They don't get banned by default; neither are you.

You get your threads closed because you refuse to give adequate information or answer some of the expert members' questions. Sensible discussions can be lead, even when the OP is dead wrong. You cannot just spot a flaw as trivial as yours in something as complicated as GR. The correct procedure would be to phrase it as a question, rather than a claim.

 

If you had opened the thread with ''Hi. I want to know how the speed of light can be measured as a constant everywhere if people from different reference frames measure speeds differently. Thanks.''

instead of ''here's why relativity is wrong...'' I guarantee you would have gotten more extensive and polite replies. It is always best to phrase things you don't know as questions as it leaves the possibility that you are wrong, whereas hard claims don't.

 

I hope you can learn from this experience and realize that this isn't some sort of conspiracy against you. If you are willing to listen and be open minded, you can be helped.

Thank you for your advice, noted. You obviously understood my question so why did you not step in and defend me ?

 

Please remember I have been working on my notions for several year, I perceive myself to be correct so might come in heavy handed at the start.

 

 

Your question is what I was asking, but then when/if an answer was given, I would look for flaws in the answer, that is me, I need certainty in my mind.

 

So either way I would argue back, questioning the teacher, if I think something is incorrect I am not going to lye down and take it to be the truth.

 

 

added- I tried to explain the question with the answers and details.

 

added- you want me to ask a question I feel I already know the answer too?

 

Ok, i will go over to physics and ask a question.

Edited May 4, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Phi for All]

I admit tingly have talked some garbage over the years on science forums, however in the thread I had closed, I was using all the science, ''science'' had taught me over the years, to discuss the possibilities of a wrong. Nobody even tried to discuss what I was saying, I understand rigor and you as a moderator have to apply some rigor, however like I said, nobody discussed what I was talking about.

You are correct I am a nobody, but you can see clearly by my efforts I am not a troll, I just ask you to determine such a thing, but remembering I am human too and people sometimes are ambiguous.

 

I didn't say you were a nobody. I was questioning why you challenge a level of rigor ordained by our site administrators/owners rather comply with it, or why not simply take your ideas to a science forum with lower standards? We're certainly less formal than PhysicsForums, but more than Sciforums, perhaps. Surely there are places you can discuss your ideas where you won't be held to standards you object to?

[Sensei]

Then if that is the case, please explain why , if a person tries to say something of modern physics is not right, do they get banned or post closed?

If something in modern physics is not right, you should come up with evidence..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence."

 

Section "Evidence in science"

"In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis."

"One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim. Within science, this translates to the burden resting on presenters of a paper, in which the presenters argue for their specific findings. This paper is placed before a panel of judges where the presenter must defend the thesis against all challenges."

"When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used by science are collected systematically in an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal evidence."

 

People on forum are banned because they're starting being pissed off and starting acting crazy after members of forum don't want to listen to their "wonderful pet theories changing the world"..

while discussion with them about trivial science subjects, reveal that they're pretty incompetent, in classic physics, quantum physics, or even subjects they put on the plate by themselves and want to overthrow (like Relativity).

Edited May 4, 2017 by Sensei

[Raider5678]

So either way I would argue back, questioning the teacher, if I think something is incorrect I am not going to lye down and take it to be the truth.

I question a lot of things and generally don't agree with everybody on the forum, especially not all the senior residents. They'll attest to this.

But when presented with evidence I can't argue against, or having had proved me wrong, I have no hard feelings about backing down. I have a weird sense of what I accept as hard evidence and not, but I do back down when I realize I'm wrong.

Either way, I have never had a thread blocked, nor have I ever gotten a warning. And I have opened a number of controversial threads. Especially my first few ones.

The key is simple.

When proven wrong, admit that you are wrong.

 

You won't get banned for protesting against evidence, but give a reason for why you're protesting it. For example, if you don't trust the source say "I don't agree with that because they say light is the fastest thing in the universe, I don't see how that's possible." Someone will reply explaining why light is the fastest thing in the universe, and you can learn from that. On top of that, you no longer have a quarrel with the evidence, therefore, you know you're proven wrong. Which means it's time to admit such, and move on.

When you're proven wrong, you learn.

It's not something bad.

 

Although there is one particular senior member who I dislike because when you do admit you're wrong he goes "Wait a second. At first you said this, now you're admitting you made a mistake. What's up with that? How can we trust anything you say?"

And I'm sure there's members you dislike. But just because I dislike him doesn't mean I dismiss everything he says if he disagree's. He's still far more intelligent then I am.

 

Another thing you have to understand, is that science is science.

You can disagree, but if they have evidence that you're wrong, they won't believe you.

 

And often, they have evidence that proves you wrong. In a good portion of your threads, I noticed a lot that it wasn't so much that you provided no evidence, its that evidence actually contradicted what you said.

 

 

Now, people like you who come up with outlandish theories are usually smarter then the general populace. You have a huge capacity to learn, if you'll only accept that you might not be the smartest person there.

I wish you luck, I truly do. It's so easy to be the smartest person you know in person, but having your ego submit to knowledge is hard. But it will definitely result in you becoming multitudes more intelligent.

[hypervalent_iodine]

If you have genuine questions, please feel free to ask them. Your thread that was closed did not read this way, however. I didn't see a single question mark in your OP. Heck, even the title was a bold assertion. People did reply to you, with actual science, and your reply to them was that they needed to rethink or to listen. Instead of bullheadedly screeching the same point over and over, and ignoring the perfectly valid math and science others did in fact try to share with you, perhaps you should take some of your own advice and rethink your stance from an objective standpoint. We won't tolerate any less here (we are a science forum, after all), and yes, you will be banned if that's how you plan on using this forum in the future.

[JohnLesser]

 

I didn't say you were a nobody. I was questioning why you challenge a level of rigor ordained by our site administrators/owners rather comply with it, or simply take your ideas to a science forum with lower standards? We're certainly less formal than PhysicsForums, but more than Sciforums, perhaps. Surely there are places you can discuss your ideas where you won't be held to standards you object to?

I do not object to being moderated, I am not rude and always remain polite, I do not have notions such as giant lizard people , I have genuine interest and genuine discussion. But to discuss, both sides have to be taken into consideration. I am already on other sites, naked science forum and philosophy and physics forum, I believe they are presently stuck for answer to my notions.

Quoting present information is not really an answer to my notions in my opinion.

I

When proven wrong, admit that you are wrong.

 

Quoting present information did not prove me wrong, the point is most forum members won't admit if they have it wrong. If anyone in the world can prove my premise to be wrong, then I would admit I was wrong. But, members ignored my premise and discussed other things.

 

If something in modern physics is not right, you should come up with evidence..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

 

I provided evidence, your own information, it was ignored

[Lord Antares]

You obviously understood my question so why did you not step in and defend me ?

 

I wanted to let the experts explain it to you, as it can get complicated when you go in more detail.

The easy and simple to understand answer is that nothing can add to the speed of light. If someone is riding a train and pointing a laser forward, we know that the added velocity will still be c, whereas this is not true of anything that is travelling with a velocity lesser than c. Therefore, the speed of light is constant. Strange dropped hints about this very early on in the thread.

 

As to why this is so is a different matter and I couldn't explain it to you fully.

Maybe one of these links might help you:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ln4t5/why_is_the_speed_of_light_the_same_to_all/

 

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae558.cfm

 

I hope this helps.

 

By the way, I don't think it's fair to accuse him of ignoring evidence, because he doesn't do it on purpose. It's not that he's unwilling (or at least it isn't clear that he is) to accept the science behind relativity, it is that he doesn't understand it. I can understand that he would want to accept it only after he has understood it. There is nothing wrong with that. There are other wrongs he is guilty of, but that's a different story.

[swansont]

I provided evidence, your own information, it was ignored

Assertions are not evidence.

[Manticore]

The question you should be asking (of yourself) is: "If all these people who are far more intelligent and better educated than me say I am wrong, then why do I still insist I am right?"

When you can answer that in a manner satisfactory to everyone, you may begin to actually learn something.

Edited May 4, 2017 by Manticore

[Strange]

Quoting present information is not really an answer to my notions in my opinion.

 

 

It is when your opinion is based on a very obvious misunderstanding and refusal to even try and understand.

 

The present scientific theories are accepted because they work; i.e. they are consistent with the evidence. You can't show them to be wrong simply by misrepresenting them or misusing the mathematics of the theory.

 

 

 

Quoting present information did not prove me wrong, the point is most forum members won't admit if they have it wrong.

 

I am frequently shown to be wrong. I always thank the person (and give them a +1 vote).

 

 

 

If anyone in the world can prove my premise to be wrong, then I would admit I was wrong. But, members ignored my premise and discussed other things.

 

No one will every be able to prove you wrong because you refuse to listen and understand where your errors lie.

 

Despite the fact they are trivially obvious. So it is hard to understand why anyone would cling to them so desperately. (Which is why you get accused of trolling; people find it hard to believe that anyone can be so impervious to simple explanations of a very simple error.)

[rangerx]

So either way I would argue back, questioning the teacher, if I think something is incorrect I am not going to lye down and take it to be the truth.

 

 

That teacher told me electrons were tiny charged particles that can kill. I'm a two hundred pound man. That teacher is wrong. Tiny particles cannot kill something exponentially larger than itself, no less without weapons or poison.

 

That teacher never held so-called live wires for great lengths of time, therefore has no opinion on the matter nor the experience to dispute my theory, even though they're a certified educator.

 

 

See the absurdities? Just because something seems logical or is presented as factual, expounding on fallacies and/or ignoring known trials doesn't make them so. Attacking the person or group, instead the problem doesn't either.

 

Conspiracy theories, especially claims that random members are targeted by default are nothing short of idiotic.

 

Crackpots always think they're right. It's usually because they like to believe they're smarter than scientists, but either too lazy or too inept to learn correctly. Self indulgent. Controls freaks. Always the victim.

 

Narcissism, arrogance and martyrdom aren't scientific fields. They're personality disorders. This forum has no obligation to coddle any of them.

 

 

Standing corrected, or just silently lurking are how we learn in this group. Put up or shut up is the rule here. Joining affirms it. Defying or attempting to usurp it, gets the boot. Period.

[Strange]

So either way I would argue back, questioning the teacher, if I think something is incorrect I am not going to lye down and take it to be the truth.

 

 

That is a good attitude. Until you take it to the extreme of never accepting explanations or facts, because they disagree with your opinions.

 

 

 

added- you want me to ask a question I feel I already know the answer too?

 

That is often a good idea. You may find out that the answer you "know" turns out to be incorrect. (Can you imagine that as a possibility?)

[JohnLesser]

 

 

That is a good attitude. Until you take it to the extreme of never accepting explanations or facts, because they disagree with your opinions.

 

 

That is often a good idea. You may find out that the answer you "know" turns out to be incorrect. (Can you imagine that as a possibility?)

I can imagine that yes, that is why I try to use only axioms, tried and tested axioms on my friends. I understand ambiguity of answers, I try to clean up the answers to remove ambiguity.

The question you should be asking (of yourself) is: "If all these people who are far more intelligent and better educated than me say I am wrong, then why do I still insist I am right?"

When you can answer that in a manner satisfactory to everyone, you may begin to actually learn something.

When somebody can prove my premise wrong I will admit I am wrong. Axioms do not lie.

Assertions are not evidence.

There was no assertions, I used vectors etc, all ''your'' own science from Wiki.

[Strange]

When somebody can prove my premise wrong I will admit I am wrong. Axioms do not lie.

 

You will never accept that either your premises or your conclusions are wrong. Even when the evidence says you are wrong, you just ignore it.

 

 

There was no assertions, I used vectors etc, all ''your'' own science from Wiki.

 

But you used them wrong.

[swansont]

 

There was no assertions, I used vectors etc, all ''your'' own science from Wiki.

 

 

It's kinda silly to insist on revisionist history when all we have to do is go back and look at your posts. Unless the point here is you actually think that what you posted constitutes evidence, in which case you might want to start a thread on what is evidence and what is not. And then listen to what people tell you, rather than insist you know what you're talking about.