Lurker message

[elas]

Sorry to interrupt this debate but it annoys me that at the top of each forum is the following message:

 

Hello elas,

It appears that you have not posted on Science Forums for over a month. Why not take a few moments to ask a question, help another member or just participate in one of our many discussions?

 

I know from past experience that if I give a simple mathematical explanation such as in this case, the cause of negative charge (in reality it does not exist i.e. it is apparent not real); it will quickly be transferred to ‘speculations’ or ‘trash’ accompanied by a ‘warning’. So will someone please delete the message so that I can enjoy reading the forums in silence, without irritation?

Thanks in anticipation,

elas

 

mod note: moved from antimatter discussion to its own thread

Edited September 8, 2009 by swansont

[insane_alien]

try sticking to accepted science in the non speculation forums then.

[elas]

try sticking to accepted science in the non speculation forums then.

 

According to Swansont and Severian there is no answer in 'accepted science' science to the question submitted.

[CaptainPanic]

Why can't members just read, without posting? What good is a message to encourage people to post?

 

It has a benefit to login, even if you don't wish to post:

- You get your own layout (anything under "My Account > Thread Display Options).

- You can happily click on the "did you like this post?" thingy.

- You can make friends, and maybe send personal messages

- You can report spam

 

I don't see why people should post. Some people are passive when watching TV. Apparently, some people are passive even when reading a forum. And why not?

[elas]

Why can't members just read, without posting? What good is a message to encourage people to post?

 

- ----------and maybe send personal messages

 

I don't see why people should post. Some people are passive when watching TV. Apparently, some people are passive even when reading a forum. And why not?

 

While I agree whole heartedly with you, be careful with personal messages; on two ocassions I sent a personal message only to have them stopped because the administrators dissagreed with the contents. On both occassions I was given a 'warning'.

[Mr Skeptic]

elas, I think that they disagree with the content because it is wrong... now you say you have "simple mathematical explanations" but do they make the correct predictions? Always people think their theory explains everything but when pushed for details they have none... such theories explain nothing because they explain everything.

 

To get rid of the message, all you have to do is post. Is it too much to just say "hi" to a new member in the "introduce yourself" thread once a month? No need to put a long post with alternative science.

[elas]

elas, I think that they disagree with the content because it is wrong... now you say you have "simple mathematical explanations" but do they make the correct predictions? Always people think their theory explains everything but when pushed for details they have none... such theories explain nothing because they explain everything.

 

swansont does not say I am wrong, he does say"at last a testable theory"

 

Kaeroll does not say I am wrong he asks "how does it improve on the current periodic table"

 

The Standard model is a Non-Causal Mathematical Prediction Theory it does the predicting. My proposal explains the cause, it does not have to predict although in fact it does predict that certain assumptions made by the Standard model are incorrect.

 

To get rid of the message, all you have to do is post. Is it too much to just say "hi" to a new member in the "introduce yourself" thread once a month? No need to put a long post with alternative science.

 

That is not exactly what the message requested, but you are right to complain about my atitude; it comes from years of frustration caused by members making unqualified statements regarding my proposals and the replies to my submissions.

 

My reply to Chuck Norris is given on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44070

The sad thing is that due to the administration rules, he will probably never find my reply.

Edited September 16, 2009 by elas

[Mr Skeptic]

swansont does not say I am wrong, he does say"at last a testable theory"

 

Kaeroll does not say I am wrong he asks "how does it improve on the current periodic table"

 

The Standard model is a Non-Causal Mathematical Prediction Theory it does the predicting. My proposal explains the cause, it does not have to predict although in fact it does predict that certain assumptions made by the Standard model are incorrect.

 

Well if it doesn't make predictions it's not a testable theory, and if it doesn't improve on current theory then there is no reason to switch to yours. Also, what it means to make predictions is that given the theory, the prediction (and only that prediction) must logically follow from the theory; this needs to be shown otherwise it is just your prediction rather than your theory's prediction.

[elas]

Well if it doesn't make predictions it's not a testable theory, and if it doesn't improve on current theory then there is no reason to switch to yours. Also, what it means to make predictions is that given the theory, the prediction (and only that prediction) must logically follow from the theory; this needs to be shown otherwise it is just your prediction rather than your theory's prediction.

 

As the following quotes show, any theory that explains the cause is an improvement on current theory. Explaining the cause converts current philosophy into a science.

 

Extract from “The Elegant Universe”.

 

Because string theory has no foundation in fact, it does not meet the criteria that defines science and is only correctly defined as philosophy (not science).

 

Writing in "Quantum Physics, Illusion or reality" Alastair I.M. RAE of the Department of Physics at the University of Birmingham states that Quantum physics is about "measurement and statistical prediction". It does not describe the underlying structure that is the cause of quantum theory.

This is confirmed by Richard Morris in "Achilles in the Quantum Universe" from which I quote:

"They (physicists) feel a complete explanation of the subatomic world will not have been attained until it is known why particles have the charge, masses and other particular properties they are observed to possess".

 

Beyond measure

Jim Baggott

(2003)

“The theory is not meant to be understood”…….”Today the theory remains a mysterious black top hat from which white rabbits continue to be pulled. Students are advised not to ask how this particular conjuring trick is done”.

 

 

The Ideas of Particle Physics

Guy D.Coughlan

James E. Dodd

Ben M. Gripaios

(2006)

 

Moreover, recent experiments in neutrino physics cannot be explained within the Standard Model, showing beyond doubt that there must be a theory beyond the Standard Model and that the Standard Model itself is only an approximation (albeit a very good one) to the true theory.