Questions about speculation

[gentleman-farmer]

It was recently suggested that some of my posts fall outside the realm of currently accepted science, hence were closed or moved to this speculation section. In response, and with the objective of helping others who've had the same experience - I'd like to suggest (with examples given below) that the moderator's decisions have been made more on personal bias than scientific fact.

 

I'll not expand on that except to point out that there have been (1672) views of the item "Why has my post been moved to Speculations?" posted by swansont - Whereon it is worthy to note that there have been no responses because the moderators have blocked that opportunity

 

I'd like to use the rest of this opening space to give the group two examples of personal bias

 

1.) My thread Jupiter and the Eye of Horus was moved here (presumably because it falls outside the realm of currently accepted science)

 

But the truth exists that today's cosmology evolved from that of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, the Chinese, and the work of Hipparcos (who discovered the drift of the Equinox c150 B.C., from Kepler c1600, and Tycho Brahe, court mathematician to Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II.

 

By example - following is a website with Hipparcos and Tycho Brahe Star catalogues used by the European Space Agency

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/HIPPARCOS/docs/vol2_all.pdf

 

The sky-charts and sciences developed by these pioneers are the basis of today's cosmology. So too were the discoveries made and immortalized by the Egyptians - their methodologies differ - but their determinations were the same and they influenced scientific discovery for over 3000 years.

 

2.) This second example shows not only personal bias (by moderators and those responding) but dogged contentiousness on the part of both.

 

Let's go to a Harvard University website where they not only use the term Centrifugal Force but they show that the force acts perpendicular to the inertial motion - this website demonstrates that everything said (by moderator and respondents alike) was wrong! The importance in pointing this out is that Klaynos mis-interpreted a cartoon that demonstrates all the issues that this Harvard University website addresses - the thread was thereafter closed

 

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k16940&pageid=icb.page118857&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent277660&view=view.do&viewParam_name=indepth.html#a_icb_pagecontent277660

 

 

Harvard University CAPTION What it shows:

The rotation of a planet about its axis causes its equator to bulge due to the centrifugal force acting on its mass. Here a spinning wire frame simulates the effect.

 

gf) NOTE : The force is radially outward and cuts the inertial plane of the rotating blades at right angles (i.e., perpendicular) As I repeated over and over on this centrifugal force thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50732-centrifugal-force/

 

I hope this draws attention to the fact that moderators and those responding are basing their efforts on bias and not scientific fact

 

gf

/

[mooeypoo]

This is very simple; mainstream accepted science is proven and has proper scientific references. Your claims should be accompanied by references and peer reviewed evidence.

 

Speculation isn't purgatory, it's a subforum for things that are speculative. There's nothing wrong with it.

 

And I can assure you that threads are not being closed because they're speculative. Threads are being closed when the member is - for whatever reason - not cooperative; either refuses to participate in a coherent conversation or abuses logical fallacies, or ignores claims, or participates in circular claims. I suggest you read our rules, you might have those happen less.

 

~moo

[J.C.MacSwell]

After the Physics Threads, Speculations is usually the first thing I check out.

 

I guess we could have a "Not Even Wrong" Thread, for some of the stuff sent here, but at least Speculations allows people learning science to know that what is being discussed is not necessarily accepted science, even when (hopefully) discussing things in a scientific or logical manner.

[gentleman-farmer]

mooeypoo

This is very simple; mainstream accepted science is proven and has proper scientific references.

 

Not true and cited for convenience only- I don't think anyone would question the credentials of James Clerk Maxwell - let me quote what his opinion is of your statement - this from the preface to Maxwell's, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism

 

There is a considerable mass of mathematical memoirs which are of great importance..but they lie canceled in the bulky Transactions of learned societies. They do not form a connected system, they are of very unequal merit, and they are, for the most part, beyond the comprehension of any but professed mathematicians.

 

mooeypoo

Threads are being closed when the member is - for whatever reason - not cooperative; either refuses to participate in a coherent conversation or abuses logical fallacies, or ignores claims, or participates in circular claims.

 

gf) Not true -- allow me to point out that you (mooeypoo) are guilty of your your own claims refuses to participate in a coherent conversation or abuses logical fallacies, or ignores claims, or participates in circular claims.

 

Go back and read what I wrote - Harvard University substantiated everything I posted on the subject thread - You are repeating the same refusal used by moderators and participants to verify what you are claiming

 

You are simply substantiating the need to revise the prerogatives exercised by the moderators

 

That you didn't understand what Harvard posted - shows the bias that I have mentioned

 

gf

[ajb]

 

There is a considerable mass of mathematical memoirs which are of great importance..but they lie canceled in the bulky Transactions of learned societies. They do not form a connected system, they are of very unequal merit, and they are, for the most part, beyond the comprehension of any but professed mathematicians.

 

 

I like that quote, not really sure what it has to do with this thread. Anyway, as time goes on the quote is less and less true. The arXiv and more online journals has meant that just about everyone can get hold of mathematical papers written today. However, most papers do require some specialised knowledge to read them.

 

 

I think there may not be enough referencing in these forums, but most of the "sensible" questions posed fall under what I would call "common knowledge" and will not require a careful reference. Personally, I try to add references where appropriate and maybe links to Wikipedia (but I would not call such links a reference).

 

 

 

now, generically if a post is deemed "unscientific" it will get moved into the speculations section.

Edited July 18, 2010 by ajb

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Your posts in astronomy and cosmology fit under the last criteria of "Why has my post been moved to Speculations?"; namely,

 

It's not science. Science concerns itself with empirically describing how nature behaves. There must be a means by which the hypothesis can be proven false. Philosophy and metaphysics are separate topics, and for these purposes, considered speculation.

 

You did not propose a hypothesis or a testable theory. You proposed a similarity between an ancient object and Jupiter and made some insinuations about Egyptian technology. To belong in astronomy, your "theory" would have to explain some facet of the universe -- for example, predicting how black holes behave or how stars decay. Your post was speculative -- anything regarding unverified ancient history is -- and did not address any existing scientific theory, or advance a new one.

 

If you would like to learn how science works, I suggest the book The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by Karl Popper.

 

Incidentally, I think you'll find that Harvard was using "centrifugal force" in the same sense D H did; that is, as a fictitious force which only appears if you are in the frame of the spinning object.

 

I'd also like to point you at So, you've got a new theory... as another vital reference for behavior in Speculations.

[swansont]

The basic problem, g-f, is that this isn't your sandbox and you don't get to set the rules. You are, however, expected to follow them.

 

The issues of your posting in the centrifugal force thread were not centered solely on the correctness of the posts. It was a thread hijack, first of all, and that is against the rules: the topic of the original thread was orbits and closed trajectories. You seized upon a statement and made a non-sequitur response that derailed the thread, to the point where it had to be split. Even if everything you posted was correct, that's still a transgression. That you were posting nonsense as well is another point altogether. The posting of a cartoon in lieu of answering legitimate objections, and then posting it again, in response to your straw-man position, looks to me to be pretty much the definition of appeal to ridicule. Add to that disrespect shown, which included but was not limited to continuing to use an incorrect user name, even after you had been corrected (twice). The splitting and closing of the thread happened after staff discussion.

 

Closing a thread means that the discussion has become unproductive. It is the opposite of an invitation to reopen the discussion, as you did. Actually, with this, you've done it twice. It should not happen again.

 

The reason the information post is locked is precisely because we don't want discussion in that post. It's an announcement, in the speculations section. It was put there because of repeated inquiries about why posts are moved, and those reasons cover almost all of the cases we encounter. General discussion of rules has a legitimate place, in their own threads. Complaints of persecution? Not so much. They are way to common.