Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 seeing scarcity of revisionist theories or alternative one, think not just as skepticism room but also for greater viewability SF should introduce adequate subforums in the main one, not that like that will pop up many pseudo scientist but if Particle Physics indeed is in vacuum definetily it wont hurt to have alternative views on the mainstream science if not else as fact-check debunking space ... ... Speculative subforum how is piled with topics from all subforums, simply is not usefull as empirical recheck of the mainstream theories, I mean I am not somehow against them but just say without skepticism for what kind of science we talk jere, elitist or arogant, instead Science should be open constantly for requestioning and reinterpretation, puting all alternative theories in bulk in one bunker just above the recycle bin think is just wrong ... ... but its not mine to judge but Yours to see that like this now You are not scietists but elitists who have final monopoly of the knowledge, altho recently that knowledge in particale physics is in question!!! so now what You will wait on new idolisation update of the mainstream standard model, or logically would open room for requetioning!? -1
Bufofrog Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 52 minutes ago, Axion said: Speculative subforum how is piled with topics from all subforums, simply is not usefull as empirical recheck of the mainstream theories, I mean I am not somehow against them but just say without skepticism for what kind of science we talk jere, elitist or arogant, instead Science should be open constantly for requestioning and reinterpretation, puting all alternative theories in bulk in one bunker just above the recycle bin think is just wrong ... This is just a forum, this is not the home seat of the scientific method, empirical checks of the mainstream are done in academia. It makes sense to keep the speculations, musings and guesses in one area. The rest of the forum can be devoted to the discussion of actual science, this is after all a science forum. If you feel that discussing science on a science forum is elitist then I suggest you go to other forums that are primarily for alternative science.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 no this is on contrary not scientific, how should be skepticism offered if there is no place for alternative theories!? just leveling the current mainstream agreement on the mainstream models!? I know it would be mess f every probable theory is presented, but how so my CBD facts ended up in the specul subforum!? this is not even speculation anyhow but scientific suggestion, still who knows why its thrown there as such!? so its not just a forum but moderated monopoly in wrong way!
Bufofrog Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, Axion said: no this is on contrary not scientific, how should be skepticism offered if there is no place for alternative theories!? There is a place, it is called Speculations. 10 minutes ago, Axion said: I know it would be mess f every probable theory is presented, but how so my CBD facts ended up in the specul subforum!? Because you speculated that CBC would protect against covid like a vaccine.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 @Bufofrog if this is scientific debate I am martian! what is your measure of truth? maybe an mainstream news alert!? please check what I propose then judge that I speculate!
Bufofrog Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 You are not a martian. 6 minutes ago, Axion said: what is your measure of truth? We are discussing science here not truth. No one who understands science thinks that theories are truth. A theory is the best description of some aspect of the universe. Newton's theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity both describe gravity in a coherent and accurate way (one is a bit more accurate), neither one is truth, they theories.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 exactly but when alternative or revisionistic views are presented and they are marked as speculation then You are selling mainstream truth i.e. scientific elite dogamtism! -1
Phi for All Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Axion said: exactly but when alternative or revisionistic views are presented and they are marked as speculation then You are selling mainstream truth i.e. scientific elite dogamtism! Read the rules again, slowly, and you'll see why your ideas don't pass any of the standards the site owners have set. If you don't think you can support your wild guesswork in this way, there are plenty of other sites that will let you dream all you like. This is a science discussion forum with strict standards (and not even the strictest). It's clear you don't understand what a theory is, how truth is treated, or even how true skepticism works. What you have is an idea you made up that makes perfect sense to you, but only you, and you can't support it scientifically, so now you're claiming we're too hidebound to mainstream ideas and not giving you a chance. You're wrong, read the rules. And this was a poor place for this rant. You should have opened up a thread in Suggestions, Comments, and Support.
StringJunky Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Axion said: exactly but when alternative or revisionistic views are presented and they are marked as speculation then You are selling mainstream truth i.e. scientific elite dogamtism! So, you think your ideas, that were spawned casually, should be given the same gravitas as someone who has jumped all the educational hurdles and done diligent research spanning years/decades? Edited March 9, 2021 by StringJunky
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 @StringJunky @Phi for All Please I dont throw ideas but in case of CBD offered scientific evidence, and in case of Extended Field Theory I've asked is it possible the 3rd equation to be extended if standard model is over [1][1] as it could be seen from this I am not inventing new hot water but saying there is big room for revisionism, and this is not negation of someones research over the years nor what I understand what theory is, but definitely says big time People you should open room for skepticism and revisionistic if not alternative debate, tho its not minde to judge why how and when You'll do that, but can just encourage You be openminded not elitists! -1
StringJunky Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Axion said: @StringJunky @Phi for All Please I dont throw ideas but in case of CBD offered scientific evidence, and in case of Extended Field Theory I've asked is it possible the 3rd equation to be extended if standard model is over [1][1] as it could be seen from this I am not inventing new hot water but saying there is big room for revisionism, and this is not negation of someones research over the years nor what I understand what theory is, but definitely says big time People you should open room for skepticism and revisionistic if not alternative debate, tho its not minde to judge why how and when You'll do that, but can just encourage You be openminded not elitists! You can't revise something in science you are not an expert in. The days of amateurs advancing physics ended over a hundred years ago. It's too hard and specialized now.
swansont Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 54 minutes ago, Axion said: exactly but when alternative or revisionistic views are presented and they are marked as speculation then You are selling mainstream truth i.e. scientific elite dogamtism! Mainstream science is backed with a large amount of evidence. It is subject to change if you come up with a better model, supported by more evidence. It is not dogma. Calling it dogmatic isn’t a good faith argument. At best it shows a lack of understanding of science. 1 hour ago, Axion said: no this is on contrary not scientific, how should be skepticism offered if there is no place for alternative theories!? just leveling the current mainstream agreement on the mainstream models!? I know it would be mess f every probable theory is presented, but how so my CBD facts ended up in the specul subforum!? this is not even speculation anyhow but scientific suggestion, still who knows why its thrown there as such!? so its not just a forum but moderated monopoly in wrong way! It should be offered in speculations, following the rules of that forum, which includes requiring evidence. It is not the WAG forum.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, StringJunky said: You can't revise something in science you are not an expert in. The days of amateurs advancing physics ended over a hundred years ago. It's too hard and specialized now. hm did You understand what those two footnotes imply, I dont claim but scientists claim that the standard model is wrong by their measurement, now good response would be yes it should revision in place how we understand particle physics [1] but telling me You are amateur its just proving that the current scientific dogmatism is even rudely imposed, and why, so You would say for alternative and revisionistic theories there is no room in SF, hm but what now when eg. the standard model became suddenly not empirically proven thus speculation!? 1 minute ago, swansont said: Mainstream science is backed with a large amount of evidence. It is subject to change if you come up with a better model, supported by more evidence. It is not dogma. how large is large I provided in the CBD thread think enough studies that supports the fact that CBD is T-Cell booster, and still You moved the thread in the Specul subforum!? so You follow in this respect some dogma but elitism, the scientific dogma would be the current standard model and how when is opposed by someone that someone is ridiculed and distanced, as Tesla was in case with his logic about the aether theory,and now what when the same standard model didnt give the expected empiricism, will be the same revisited, if so that means wide room for many alternative theories, but as I can see at least on this forum there is not such will ... -1
Phi for All Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 16 minutes ago, Axion said: I am not inventing new hot water but saying there is big room for revisionism, and this is not negation of someones research over the years nor what I understand what theory is, but definitely says big time People you should open room for skepticism and revisionistic if not alternative debate, This is why I say you don't understand skepticism. It's not a fence you sit on forever. If you question a part of science, you need to support your counter-claims with the same rigor, dig deep, find the evidence that supports your stance. If you find it, you present it, and you're no longer a skeptic. If you can't find it, you admit it and accept the mainstream explanation as the best current one, and you're no longer a skeptic. Either way, the preponderance of evidence is what should be influencing any assessment of your ideas. Nobody here has simply dismissed you, they've instead given detailed reasoning which you ignore because you think it's dogma. Too bad for you, really.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Phi for All said: Nobody here has simply dismissed you, they've instead given detailed reasoning which you ignore because you think it's dogma. Too bad for you, really. yeah throwing the threads in specul subforum its not dismiss its adio greeting!
Phi for All Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Axion said: yeah throwing the threads in specul subforum its not dismiss its adio greeting! Our rules don't require you to stay if you don't get anything meaningful from the experience. The rules are there so the rest of us don't have to waste time on ideas that show no merit.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 @Phi for All hm, merit to what, I didnt ridiculed noone, nor I posted gibberish theory in case of CBD or suggested fake thesis in case of magnetic monopoles, point me what rule I've broke ... anyway here in this thread we got oftopic from my first suggestion Why There Is No adequate revisionistic and alternative theory subforum in every particular forum board, in that way science can only advance i.e. those alternatives debated and debunked if they are bogus, the science should mosaic of possibilities, especially on popular eForum, I'll understand if this was academic university eforum to be imposed strict rules, but on science waffle forum to dismiss opposition thats wrong, especially now when the standard model is in deep hole i.e. speculation as You would prefer to call all theories that are not experimentally proven ...
iNow Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 This thread has obviously become just another venue for Axion to spam their unsupported ideas and needs to be split / merged with the 12 other existing threads on this topic / just trashed along with his posting permissions /2cents
MigL Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 Yet here you are, trying to revise the standard model, when you don't seem to understand that the 'standard model' has been a work in progress for the better part of a century. You don't provide an alternate model, just vague notions that, as currently implemented, the standard model fails at some boundaries. Well so does GR. So does QFT. Should we scrap them and start from scratch ? No, we make use of the 'useful' parts, and keep working to better the model. The Speculations forum would be perfectly fine, if it wasn't for the many people who use it to regurgitate nonsense, without evidence, and then claim Science is elitist and not open to new ideas. We call those people cranks. Don't be one of them.
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 @MigL no I dont say that try to revise it, I pointed how other claim is dead! why then is crank to say that the same is also speculation? anyway, my point was how there should be more room for alternative and revisionistic theories, who knows maybe better like parallel sf-forum as alt-copy of this one but only for revisinistic and alt theories, still it would need neat moderation so debate wouldnt cross in spiritual alike metaphysics ... eg. where should be debated aether postulated model long and wide, now just in the specul subforum, even there but there is no neat categorization of the topics even less that to be atractive place for reasoning!
dimreepr Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Axion said: anyway, my point was how there should be more room for alternative and revisionistic theories, That's like asking for more room to fart... 1
Axion Posted March 9, 2021 Author Posted March 9, 2021 yeah I am choked by the mainstream exceptional smell, so rather place where I would escape from mainstream lobotomizing!
dimreepr Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 2 minutes ago, Axion said: yeah I am choked by the mainstream exceptional smell, so rather place where I would escape from mainstream lobotomizing! You mean escape from reality; there's not much I can do about that... 😉 1
MigL Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 You just joined this forum, and agreed to our rules. We did not join your forum. Seems a little early to start demanding rule changes.
Prof Reza Sanaye Posted March 9, 2021 Posted March 9, 2021 48 minutes ago, MigL said: Yet here you are, trying to revise the standard model, when you don't seem to understand that the 'standard model' has been a work in progress for the better part of a century. You don't provide an alternate model, just vague notions that, as currently implemented, the standard model fails at some boundaries. Well so does GR. So does QFT. Should we scrap them and start from scratch ? No, we make use of the 'useful' parts, and keep working to better the model. The Speculations forum would be perfectly fine, if it wasn't for the many people who use it to regurgitate nonsense, without evidence, and then claim Science is elitist and not open to new ideas. We call those people cranks. Don't be one of them. GR and QFT , so well-hammered out in view of "some" people , are , in point of fact , clashing badly against one another. Any physicist can see that. Regurgitating nonsense without evidence is also part of modern-day physics. It is Mr Wizard Peer-review that makes it not seem nonsense. CERN guys are synthetically producing particles and sub-sub-particles , smashing previous particles into each other somewhere near the speed of light !! simply to read out their own version of particle physics. Only a blind one cannot possibly see how synthetic ( and overly theorized/mathematized) the whole business goes there in Switzerland/France. -2
Recommended Posts