Member Banned

[Fiend]

Hi! i'm Fiend, and by request of a friend of mine, i have come here to ask why he was recently banned. he claims that he was banned for no reason and can't even log in to check his private messages to find out why. um, if you guys can, explain this to me so i can get back to him and i'll get out of your hair as quick as possible. the member i am referring to is CD27.

[Pleiades]

He was probably banned under section 2.e or 2.f of the rules (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6206).

 

2.e) Content that by administrator opinion compromises the integrity of this site. This is intended to cover immature posts that do not fit other items.

 

2.f) Please refrain from discussing pseudoscience in any forum other than the designated one. If it's pseudoscience, that takes precedence over whatever it's specifically about.

 

Have a look at his posts:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=228628#post228628

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=228836#post228836

 

He basically asks the forum to design a levitation device for him, the basic principals of which he doesn’t seem to understand, even though he claims to have written a “65 page theroy-hypothesis” [sic] about it. The questions he asked display an overall lack of understanding about almost all scientific aspects of his “Classified Project”.

 

Ignorance can be tolerated, but it’s much harder when an ignorant person thinks they know everything.

 

He also claims outright to work in a field of science that is not simply not science. He defines “Psinetics” as something pertaining to “Supernatural Phenomena”. However, ‘supernatural’ by its own definition, deals with thing outside the realms of science. We can thus call “Psinetics” a pseudoscience, and discussing it outside of the pseudoscience section is against the rules.

 

That’s just my view on the matter, maybe the mod/admin who banned him will elaborate.

[Dak]

May I request a 'people who have been banned/suspended and why' thread please?

 

It would give us all (especially the newer posters) a better idea of what isn't tolerated, and -- with the moderators that we have -- would likely be hilariouse

[Fiend]

He was probably banned under section 2.e or 2.f of the rules (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6206).

 

 

 

Have a look at his posts:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=228628#post228628

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=228836#post228836

 

He basically asks the forum to design a levitation device for him' date=' the basic principals of which he doesn’t seem to understand, even though he claims to have written a “65 page theroy-hypothesis” [sic'] about it. The questions he asked display an overall lack of understanding about almost all scientific aspects of his “Classified Project”.

 

Ignorance can be tolerated, but it’s much harder when an ignorant person thinks they know everything.

 

He also claims outright to work in a field of science that is not simply not science. He defines “Psinetics” as something pertaining to “Supernatural Phenomena”. However, ‘supernatural’ by its own definition, deals with thing outside the realms of science. We can thus call “Psinetics” a pseudoscience, and discussing it outside of the pseudoscience section is against the rules.

 

That’s just my view on the matter, maybe the mod/admin who banned him will elaborate.

 

so, basically, he was banned b/c a few guys didn't like his work? here is the link to his thoery if you care to read:

 

http://www.dkoontz.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9159&PN=1

 

also his "Non-science" material is most definately SCIENCE...and has many basics from science added on to them, as well as advanced relativity and qunatum mechanics. i am one of his good friends (not one of his partners on the project he has been working on for months now-so i don't even fully know about it).

 

so, by definition of "ignorant" which was used above so fluently, i can honestly say, BANNING a member b/c someone doesn't like his work or material is completely and utterly IGNORANT.

 

a site this big, i thought better of it. but when you did this, pffftt....forget it. it's not worth it.

 

oh, and he didn't ask ANYONE to design ANYTHING for him. he's the only one (even in his group) who knows the final and MAJOR plans; the device can not work without HIS plans...so there goes your accusation. how can you accuse someone of designing a device for someone else when that person doesn't even know the exact implifications? what my friend DID ask was this:

 

well' date=' that or give me some links or something...if yo don't mind?

 

cd[/quote']

 

that "well, that..." part was about someone giving the outright answers, how is that actually hands on designing?

 

i hate to say it, but all of the accusations made against him are null and void. they don't have anything to do with what rules were written up there. he posted in an engineering forum, which is exactly what it is. if not, can you defind any other place to build such a device? whta it is able to do, that doesn't matter, engineering is not what defines it's purpose, but how to build it does, and he placed it in exactly the correct forum.

 

as for your accusation of his word "Psinetics", you may be right there, but the study within it is in fact a science, just as relativity is a science. relativity only has mathematical and perhaps a few experiemental proofs on it, though it explains the universe in another way, it is a SCIENCE. Psinetics, that also explains the universe in another way, though it doesn't have mathematics and does not have any experiemental things (except for government and military experiements which he has used to explain what happened on them and what would happen if reconstructed).

 

the accusations against my friend are completely wrong and he has been banned for no other reason than just someone disliking him and his work.

[YT2095]

I`m fairly certain that the thread you linked to is Not the reason, as a moderator here, and one that replied in that thread, you`ll have noticed that he was given the chance to present his points and question and even given a Tip as to the best way of going about it and then awaited his reply.

so no, that would Not have been the thread that warrented a ban before you get all uptight about it.

there was nothing Bannable in there!

[Fiend]

the thread I linked is one that has not been linked on this site before. so i know that, but the one's that pladiese linked are the ones i was referring to. sorry for any confusion. i'm not trying to get "uptight", i'm trying to understand this. either my friend was banned stupidly or there is some sectret reason why he was banned...i would like to know, and so would he.

[YT2095]

I think you`ll find that the Crux of the matter is that this site is packed with many Genuine Scientists, and although we`re willing to give up our time when not working to help out here, having some newbie come here with made up words trying to claim that it`s an Equaly Genuine science, isn`t looked upon too well. although some of us are a little more patient than others, your friends approach was altogether wrong.

[Fiend]

i see...but still....banning him? that's kind of extreme measures isn't it? i just got done talking to him (we're at school, that's where we are able to get online at) and he told me that he did initially really like this site...alot of members, alot of scientists, a great change to learn new things, and bam, he's banned. if you want to talk to someone who knows him well, and knows how he acts, go talk to the admin at his home site. CD27 is a major moderator there and you'll find out quick, he stands up for what's right when he thinks it's right and he doesn't care who it is he's talking to (which someitme gets him in trouble), but it shows you what kind of person he is. he's not afraid to stand up to people, well, when he actually gets a change to, unlike here, he didn't even have a change to plead his case.

 

he told me that as soon as he logged in thsi morning that it said he had a private message, but then kept him from viewing it and said he was banned.

 

i don't know if he even said he was a "scientist"...and i would figure that scientists are all equal, as they al have to think, and analyze a subject, which CD27 does very well. he's outsmarted me several times, just by sitting back, listening to the question, and then picking it apart. i find him an amazing person, b/c he's able to do a very complex lead of thinking and picking apart in 30 minutes, as it would have taken me all day to do.

 

if you were to read his material you may get a better understanding of his views in life, as he wrote everyting in his theory originally, wiht no outside assistance. if you were to ask him himself, he could explain it better, but from what i've seen, he just seemed to already know all of this stuff. one day he's real stupid, and a few months later, he knows more about the universe than the school books do...which is pretty cool.

 

his work reminds me alot of Einstein's work. you know how Einstein saw everything in a differnt light and was ridiculed because of it? he's had laot of ridiculing in his life, but he stays strong in his beliefs. i comment him for this, and i ask the same from these fellow scientists who seem to place themselves above everyone else, simply becasue they have a degree. i find that kind of discriminate. isn't everyone equal here? if someone didn't like his work, why ban him, post your oppinion, let him know what you think he did wrong and please, tell him what he needs to do to fix it, but don't just turn your back on someone b/c they are younger than you and didn't have to go through all this schooling to know the things they do.

[danny8522003]

as for your accusation of his word "Psinetics"' date=' you may be right there, but the study within it is in fact a science, just as relativity is a science. relativity only has mathematical and perhaps a few experiemental proofs on it, though it explains the universe in another way, it is a SCIENCE. Psinetics, that also explains the universe in another way, though it doesn't have mathematics and does not have any experiemental things (except for government and military experiements which he has used to explain what happened on them and what would happen if reconstructed).

[/quote']

For a start, it is not a theory. For anything to be labelled as a theory it must be experimentally proven and mathmatically sound. His hypothesis presents nothing more than vague explanations and a bastardised version of relativity.

 

He seems to present a completely incorrent view of The Big Bang Theory, which he then refutes to his own means (strawman fallacy?). No-one ever said it was an "explosion", it is an expansion of space and time itself for a start.

 

How on Earth would surrounding an object in a wall of electricity create time travel? If this was the case then surely all our copper wiring would be jumping through time as i type this. There is certainly no explanation of how he even thought this up.

 

I could go on but basically the explantion will probably be "God did it".

[YT2095]

ya know, you were Kinda doin` OK up until the Einstein thing

 

I`m leaving this thread, I`ve said all I wanted to say.

 

edit: actualy No Damnit, Einstein had something your friend really lacked... Humility!

[doG]

Here's an example of his behavior elsewhere...http://www.scienceforums.com/physics-mathematics/489-theory-flexon-energy.html

[Fiend]

For a start' date=' it is not a theory. For anything to be labelled as a theory it must be experimentally proven and mathmatically sound. His hypothesis presents nothing more than vague explanations and a bastardised version of relativity.

 

He seems to present a completely incorrent view of The Big Bang Theory, which he then refutes to his own means (strawman fallacy?). No-one ever said it was an "explosion", it is an expansion of space and time itself for a start.

 

How on Earth would surrounding an object in a wall of electricity create time travel? If this was the case then surely all our copper wiring would be jumping through time as i type this. There is certainly no explanation of how he even thought this up.

 

I could go on but basically the explantion will probably be "God did it".[/quote']

 

if i'm correct, i believe his theory says that using a thought/program to tell the electricity what to do will do this. i don't know..hold on let me ask him for sure....yea,t hat's it..it's under they section callled "A Thoughtfull Pull".

 

i'm sorry if i offended anyone, that is not my intention, my intention is to figure out what really happened here and attemt to clear things up. sorry again if i offended anyone.

 

yes, you are absolutely correct, this is a hypothesis, not a theory. sorry my missuse of words.

[Fiend]

Here's an example of his behavior elsewhere...[url']http://www.scienceforums.com/physics-mathematics/489-theory-flexon-energy.html[/url]

 

dude...that was so long ago...how can you even hold that against him? he was barely even known to himself, much less anything else. he's tried multiple times to communicate with that site and appologize for his misbehavior...but they have kept ignoreing him.

[Klaynos]

Psinetics' date=' that also explains the universe in another way, though it doesn't have mathematics and does not have any experiemental things (except for government and military experiements which he has used to explain what happened on them and what would happen if reconstructed).

[/quote']

 

Science | Sci"ence |

n. F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,

p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious,

Nice.

 

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained

truth of facts.

1913 Webster

 

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the

creation, to be extended to all and every part of

the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his

science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity

on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

1913 Webster

 

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental

philosophy. --Coleridge.

1913 Webster

 

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been

systematized and formulated with reference to the

discovery of general truths or the operation of general

laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,

life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or

philosophical knowledge.

1913 Webster

 

All this new science that men lere teach.

--Chaucer.

1913 Webster

 

Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having,

in point of form, the character of logical

perfection, and in point of matter, the character of

real truth. --Sir W.

Hamilton.

1913 Webster

 

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical

world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and

forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living

tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and

physical science.

1913 Webster

 

Voltaire hardly left a single corner of the field

entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history,

philosophy. --J. Morley.

1913 Webster

 

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge

considered as a distinct field of investigation or object

of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or

of mind.

1913 Webster

 

Note: The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar,

rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and

astronomy; -- the first three being included in the

Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.

1913 Webster

 

Good sense, which only is the gift of Heaven,

And though no science, fairly worth the seven.

--Pope.

1913 Webster

 

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of

knowledge of laws and principles.

1913 Webster

 

His science, coolness, and great strength. --G. A.

Lawrence.

1913 Webster

 

Note: Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a

knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained,

accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes,

or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,

causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all

applications. Both these terms have a similar and

special signification when applied to the science of

quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact

science is knowledge so systematized that prediction

and verification, by measurement, experiment,

observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and

physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

1913 Webster

 

Comparative sciences, Inductive sciences. See under

Comparative, and Inductive.

1913 Webster

 

Syn: Literature; art; knowledge.

 

Usage: Science, Literature, Art. Science is literally

knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and

orderly arrangement of knowledge. In a more

distinctive sense, science embraces those branches of

knowledge of which the subject-matter is either

ultimate principles, or facts as explained by

principles or laws thus arranged in natural order. The

term literature sometimes denotes all compositions not

embraced under science, but usually confined to the

belles-lettres. See Literature. Art is that which

depends on practice and skill in performance. "In

science, scimus ut sciamus; in art, scimus ut

producamus. And, therefore, science and art may be

said to be investigations of truth; but one, science,

inquires for the sake of knowledge; the other, art,

for the sake of production; and hence science is more

concerned with the higher truths, art with the lower;

and science never is engaged, as art is, in productive

application. And the most perfect state of science,

therefore, will be the most high and accurate inquiry;

the perfection of art will be the most apt and

efficient system of rules; art always throwing itself

into the form of rules." --Karslake.

1913 Webster

 

 

Not a particually great deffinition of science from a science perspective but... please without experimental evidence it IS NOT SCIENCE.

[timo]

What´s your point in debating here Fiend? Write a PM to one of the moderators why you were banned and wait for an answer (note: Due to the mods not being paid for being online 24h hours a day it can take a few moments to get the answer). What´s the point in arguing that this and that cannot/shouldn´t have been the reason when you don´t even know (at least if one can trust your words in this case) what the ban was for?

[Fiend]

intersting...well..then, by that definition, i guess it is not science. but, neither is anything that is recently being studied (whether by scientists or not) whcih does not have proof...but the study is to provide proof. correct? well, by that definition it is. but, people still call it "Science" or for better terming "A Scientific Study".

 

either way, that's enough to BAN someone from a site?

[danny8522003]

No again…good ole Einstein proved that when things are in free-fall time dilation takes place and they neither move through time nor space. He tested this with two synchronized clocks. One clock he placed on the floor; the other he hung on the ceiling. Under the clock hanging on the ceiling he drilled a hole through his floor and placed a pillow under the hole. He then dropped the clock through the hole. He then retrieved his clock and viola! Time dilation had taken place. Each clock was off by a little bit, not much, not even a second, but they were no longer synchronized. So, obviously running the sphere through an electrical current would also prove insufficient.

I dont think Einstein would have dropped an atomic clock through a hole in the floor onto a pillow .

 

Also, motion itself relative to an observer causes time dilation...

[Fiend]

What´s your point in debating here Fiend? Write a PM to one of the moderators why you were banned and wait for an answer (note: Due to the mods not being paid for being online 24h hours a day it can take a few moments to get the answer). What´s the point in arguing that this and that cannot/shouldn´t have been the reason when you don´t even know (at least if one can trust your words in this case) what the ban was for?

 

my point in debating it here is b/c i don't know who or what moderator banned my FRIEND not ME. i won't be on here much longer. i'm only here to figure out what's going on and if there is any way ot solve the problem. since i do not know who banned him, i will post it "publicly" for all to see including the one who banned him, in hope that the one who banned him will come out of hiding and confront the problem.

 

Edit:

 

Danny, i'm quite sure he realizes that now. teh theory is written in a very specific way you cna only fully understand it from reading it from front to back. he said he wrote it this way so that others can catch the train of though and see it the same way he did, making it easier to understand...wait, yea, he just told me he made a mistake from putitng that one up there. he was wrong and needs to fix it, hasn't gotten around to it yet.

[danny8522003]

I really should type faster...

 

His hypothesis is not science because not only is it untestable, it also goes against things we already know. As i've been trying to explain.

 

Things being investigated at the moment ARE science because they have been predicted mathematically and are being investigated.

[doG]

my point in debating it here is b/c i don't know who or what moderator banned my FRIEND not ME. i won't be on here much longer. i'm only here to figure out what's going on and if there is any way ot solve the problem. since i do not know who banned him' date=' i will post it "publicly" for all to see including the one who banned him, in hope that the one who banned him will come out of hiding and confront the problem.

 

Edit:

 

Danny, i'm quite sure he realizes that now. teh theory is written in a very specific way you cna only fully understand it from reading it from front to back. he said he wrote it this way so that others can catch the train of though and see it the same way he did, making it easier to understand...wait, yea, he just told me he made a mistake from putitng that one up there. he was wrong and needs to fix it, hasn't gotten around to it yet.

 

cd

 

 

cd[/quote']

 

How telling...now you're signing your posts as cd. Me thinks fiend=cd27. I wonder what a comparison of ip addresses and/or email addresses might reveal.

[Fiend]

sorry about the CD thing...i was typoing a post to someone else about this stupid Cd that keeps freezing in my drive.

 

interesting. actually, the device he is trying to produce is a device he plans on useing to test his hypothesis.

[YT2095]

you may be Certain that our member of staff here that placed this ban will be made aware of this thread when they arrive, and be equaly certain that they would have had more than ample reason for taking this action also!

 

and to be honest, after reading some of the links presented in this thread thus far, I`de have been a little less forthcoming with my patience also.

 

you simply do NOT burst into a forum such as ours and anounce yourself as Mr.Important.

it`s not only rude, impudent, cocky and arrogant, it`s also bad netiquette!

[Fiend]

How telling...now you're signing your posts as cd. Me thinks fiend=cd27. I wonder what a comparison of ip addresses and/or email addresses might reveal.

 

we go to the same school, we're in the same computer class...we're gonna have the same ip address (FYI). and if you'll read my post, i explained what happened.

[Fiend]

you may be Certain that our member of staff here that placed this ban will be made aware of this thread when they arrive' date=' and be equaly certain that they would have had more than ample reason for taking this action also!

 

and to be honest, after reading some of the links presented in this thread thus far, I`de have been a little less forthcoming with my patience also.

 

you simply do NOT burst into a forum such as ours and anounce yourself as Mr.Important.

it`s not only rude, impudent, cocky and arrogant, it`s also bad netiquette![/quote']

 

and who said he was "Mr. Important"?

[Klaynos]

I appologise this is diverging, but for your main point we'll have to wait and see what whomever banned him says...

 

I strugle to see how you could create a devise to device to test a hypothosis where there is a componant of it where you do not understand the physical forces that are required to act upon it? Or perhapes the levitating sphere is just to look cool