Speculation (split from Entanglement (split from unification?))

[Schmelzer]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Well I have seen quite a few threads on the subject in SF. Furthermore they tend to be quite length ones, with no one ending up banned unless they become abusive.

You, too, have had lots of space here to put your case.

The remark was a general one, about scientific forums. Here an open letter I have written to https://www.physicsforums.com/ in protest against a violation of their own rules, which resulted in banning me. Here is what an admin wrote recently here:

"Well, then, this will be put in speculations and you will limit your discussion of this subject to this thread, and this thread alone."

So my "some move them into subforums for cranks" holds here too, and "this thread alone" is not much space.  So,  I have to care here all the time if answering honestly a particular question would violate such restrictions and get me banned here too.  Which is quite difficult, because many questions of laymen have simple answers in the Lorentz ether interpretation. (This is not questioning this decision, I fully acknowledge the right of the administration to impose whatever rules they like, it is simply a description of the situation.)

[Mordred]

Were considerably more relaxed than physicsforum. The rules are posted for our Speculation forum above and we do have  lengthy threads that are not locked even though they are modelling outside of mainstream concordance physics.

In your case your applying mathematical rigor which is one of the more lacking detail in other threads. In that sense I find your threads refreshing.

Do I feel anything I can state will change any viewpoint you have. Likely not but that doesn't prevent an intelligent discussion.

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Mordred

[swansont]

34 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

The remark was a general one, about scientific forums. Here an open letter I have written to https://www.physicsforums.com/ in protest against a violation of their own rules, which resulted in banning me. Here is what an admin wrote recently here:

"Well, then, this will be put in speculations and you will limit your discussion of this subject to this thread, and this thread alone."

I don't care, and I doubt my colleagues on staff care, either. That's between you and SF.

But if you are trying to forestall any administrative action here, pointing out you've been banned elsewhere doesn't help your case.

 

34 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

So my "some move them into subforums for cranks" holds here too, and "this thread alone" is not much space.  So,  I have to care here all the time if answering honestly a particular question would violate such restrictions and get me banned here too. 

Following the rules is not more of a burden for you than for anyone else. Mainstream science (i.e. science that is well-established and with lots of supporting evidence) is discussed in the mainstream sections. Mainstream science is used to rebut speculation.

If you have an alternative idea (which lacks the standing described above), you can discuss it in a thread in Speculations.

 

Things that get you banned here are this: breaking the rules. 

But one must take care to realize that going off-topic to complain about how you can't bring up your non-mainstream idea is a violation of the rules, as is trying to sneak the idea into a discussion.

 

 

[studiot]

It is also worth noting that this is a discussion site.

Different members use it for different types of discussion and certainly not all are cranks.

You can usually recognise cranks by the fact they are a one horse show, and do not listen (properly) even to comments about their one horse (eg Flat Earthers).

Other members use the inefficient method of learning by making a (test) statement (sometimes quite startling or provocative) and perhaps allowing others to explain why they are wrong.
This is rather than the method I (and probably you) used, which was to study the writings of  reputable persons in the field of interest.
Such people are often from non academic backgrounds, some are autisitic in some way.
These can be very frustrating and difficult to hold discussions with.
Such discussions find their proper place in Speculations and serve a useful purpose.

But the rules here allow

One subject per thread

Any one member to start one thread on a specific subject; but he can participate in as many similar threads by others as he pleases.

These are intended to prevent things getting out of hand and indirectly encourage careful writing of the opening post.

The better the OP is crafted the better the thread.

 

The fact that they are prepared to consider well presented alternative ideas speaks volumes for the site.

Either of the approaches which run

"Whilst on my last trip I had this great  idea that the universe is supported on the backs of four giant turtles, but it is for you to do the Maths to show it"

"I (the greatest) know better than the whole load of  you planks, here is my Word..."

Do not go down well.

The only person in History who managed the last one to my knowledge was Charles Parsons with the Turbinia.

 

 

 

[Strange]

 

1 hour ago, Schmelzer said:

So my "some move them into subforums for cranks" holds here too, and "this thread alone" is not much space. 

You know what to do if you don't like it: concentrate on getting on getting your papers published in proper peer reviewed journals instead of wasting your time trying to convince random members of an internet forum.

If you don't want to be treated like a crank, then don't behave like one.

[Schmelzer]

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

You know what to do if you don't like it: concentrate on getting on getting your papers published in proper peer reviewed journals instead of wasting your time trying to convince random members of an internet forum.

The theories have been published in proper peer-reviewed journals.

This does not help at all, they have been (and predictably will be) simply ignored.  The funny thing is that the standard argument against cranks is "publish your theory in a peer-reviewed journal, then ...".  But in reality nothing changes.  My ether theories have been published, but nothing has changed. (In fact, in the old days of sci.physics.research I had more and qualitatively better communications with mainstream physicists.)  

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Schmelzer said:

The theories have been published in proper peer-reviewed journals.

This does not help at all, they have been (and predictably will be) simply ignored.  The funny thing is that the standard argument against cranks is "publish your theory in a peer-reviewed journal, then ...".  But in reality nothing changes.  My ether theories have been published, but nothing has changed. (In fact, in the old days of sci.physics.research I had more and qualitatively better communications with mainstream physicists.)  

You can't make things go quicker than they do. Be happy that you have your papers in arxiv where, one day, they might get picked by some competent person(s) with an interest in your subject, who may look to give a further critique. I'm no scientist but I do know people taking an interest can take decades. Just get on with your next bit of interest and enjoy continuing on your journey.

[Schmelzer]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

But if you are trying to forestall any administrative action here, pointing out you've been banned elsewhere doesn't help your case.

I don't try. I simply explain the situation.  If the admins decide to ban me, such is life.  

Quote

Following the rules is not more of a burden for you than for anyone else.

Indeed. But this is only half of the problem. The other half is what the moderators think about it.  In another thread, where the Newtonian definition of time was discussed, and I have given an answer to your question ("You didn't answer my question. Is my coordinate time the same as yours?"), I have received the following reaction:  

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Please consider the members who actually want to learn mainstream physics. Please consider how confusing it is to them to have you bringing up your unsupported pet theory in a section clearly marked as a mainstream topic. The only place for speculation is in the Speculation section. This is why we have the rule you broke, and why you're being warned yet again for thread hijacking. 

We expect you to follow the rules you agreed to when you joined.

 

I care a lot about the members who actually want to learn mainstream physics. I follow in these question the recommendations given by Bell in this paper 

Bell, J.S. (1976). How to teach special relativity. Progress in Scientific Culture 1(2), reprinted in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics:

Quote

It is my impression that those with a more classical education, knowing something of the reasoning of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare, as well as that of Einstein, have stronger and sounder instincts. I will try to sketch here a simplified version of the Larmor-Lorentz-Poincare approach that some students might find helpful.

And I fully agree with Bell - it is better to teach students those interpretations which are more compatible with classical common sense.  Like the realistic and causal interpretations of QT as well as the Lorentz ether interpretation of special relativity.  Which is, BTW, the original interpretation, the spacetime interpretation was proposed only later by Minkowski. 

Whatever, my evil "pet theory" had not even been mentioned. I was not bringing up it, I simply answered a question of another moderator, who insisted on an answer. It did not help. 

This is, again, not about evil moderators handling me in an unjust way. It is simply an illustration of an obvious problem: Forum rules are far from certain because they cannot be certain, they always require interpretation. I have moderated forums too, so that I know such problems from the other side too.  And I also know about the role of agreement about the content. It is important that moderators feel morally obliged to follow only the rules and to be fair to opponents.  But it is really hard to follow these rules in reality. If one participates in forums where one is in conflict with the administration about the content, the burden of following the rules becomes automatically heavier.  This is simply a fact of life, no reason to whine about. 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe not say anything about it.

So that people have to think that I simply ignore their reasonable questions, maybe because I'm unable to answer them?

This is already close to the main problem:  People write all the time things which are plainly wrong.  Once the wrong claim is written in a given thread, discussing that wrong claim is on-topic.  So I think it is necessary to correct such wrong claims.  And in this case one is obliged to give some evidence that the claim is wrong.  The evidence has not yet been discussed in that thread, else the wrong claim would not have been made, so the evidence may be classified as off-topic. What to do?  Leave the wrong claims unquestioned?  Claim that they are wrong, without presenting any evidence?  (BTW, what to do if, which often happens, claims are made about the nonexistence of theories if my evil pet theory is a straightforward counterexample?)  

So my choice in such a situation is to correct the wrong claims, and, if it seems problematic to present the evidence, then to tell about this. But this requires to say something about it.

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

You can't make things go quicker than they do. Be happy that you have your papers in arxiv where, one day, they might get picked by some competent person(s) with an interest in your subject, who may look to give a further critique. I'm no scientist but I do know people taking an interest can take decades. Just get on with your next bit of interest and enjoy continuing on your journey.

I have already accepted that it will take at least decades.  Last but not least, the first decade of complete ignorance is already over - the paper was published 2009:

Schmelzer, I.: A Condensed Matter Interpretation of SM Fermions and Gauge Fields, Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, 1, p. 73 – 107 (2009), arXiv:0908.0591; 

During the first years, I was surprised by the complete ignorance by the scientific community, and that the publication has changed nothing in the negative reactions in forums, despite the results reached in the paper. But I have essentially already accepted that it will be completely ignored forever.  Everything else would be an unexpected surprise. Such is life. Given the actual general developments in science, I think one can be happy if science simply survives the next decades and preserves what has been reached. 

 

 

[michel123456]

As Max Planck famously remarked, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Quoted from footnotes of chapter 4 of Progress in Science here

[Schmelzer]

 

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Stop bringing your pet theory into every discussion. You already have three threads open for this purpose. (And one to complain about the fact.) Please follow the rules. This is not your blog.

 

As now already usual, I have got another warning for "bringing my pet theory" into a discussion where nothing in my post has any relation to my pet theories.  These pet theories are, first, an ether theory of gravity, arxiv:gr-qc/0205035, and, second, an ether model for the SM arXiv:0908.0591.  

The thing I have introduced was, instead, the Lorentz ether interpretation, which is the classical, original interpretation of special relativity before Minkowski proposed his spacetime interpretation 1908, as explained in the posting itself.

It looks like in this sense even https://www.physicsforums.com/ is more moderate - they at least openly declare that the Lorentz ether is forbidden, here there is no such rule forbidding the Lorentz ether but it looks I will receive warnings until I get banned simply for discussing the original interpretation of SR.  

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

IAnd I fully agree with Bell - it is better to teach students those interpretations which are more compatible with classical common sense.  Like the realistic and causal interpretations of QT as well as the Lorentz ether interpretation of special relativity.  Which is, BTW, the original interpretation, the spacetime interpretation was proposed only later by Minkowski. 

Whatever, my evil "pet theory" had not even been mentioned. I was not bringing up it, I simply answered a question of another moderator, who insisted on an answer. It did not help. 
 

That’s not the topic of this thread.x

8 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

This is, again, not about evil moderators handling me in an unjust way. It is simply an illustration of an obvious problem: Forum rules are far from certain because they cannot be certain, they always require interpretation. I have moderated forums too, so that I know such problems from the other side too.  And I also know about the role of agreement about the content. It is important that moderators feel morally obliged to follow only the rules and to be fair to opponents.  But it is really hard to follow these rules in reality. If one participates in forums where one is in conflict with the administration about the content, the burden of following the rules becomes automatically heavier.  This is simply a fact of life, no reason to whine about. 

It may be hard, but others do it rather successfully.

 

8 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

So that people have to think that I simply ignore their reasonable questions, maybe because I'm unable to answer them?

This is already close to the main problem:  People write all the time things which are plainly wrong.  Once the wrong claim is written in a given thread, discussing that wrong claim is on-topic. 
 

And the correction to it is mainstream science, not some alternative to it.

 

8 hours ago, Schmelzer said:

So I think it is necessary to correct such wrong claims.  And in this case one is obliged to give some evidence that the claim is wrong.  The evidence has not yet been discussed in that thread, else the wrong claim would not have been made, so the evidence may be classified as off-topic.
 

Evidence means an experimental result, not conjecture.