Off topic? split from universe is a continuum of matter

[studiot]

 

That's it. Wilczek is not describing a continuum of matter, which is the topic of this thread, so stop with the hijacking already. This is not your thread, this is ZVBXRPL's thread, to discuss his (or her) model. And if a model is not forthcoming , it will be closed.

 

 

With the greatest respect swansont,

 

This is a discussion forum and MSC actually has a valid point for discussion, made in his entry in post#88.

 

Surely it is valid to put to the OP the point that there is a mistake, misconception, or similar, in one of his terms and offer a more appropriate one?

 

Perhaps MSC is wrong, perhaps he is right, but he is suggesting that there is a continuum, called the grid, and that matter is not the continuum but merely a feature of it.

 

If the OP agrees and updates his speculation (or proves different) then surely this will be a resounding success since this thread, as individual, and the forum as a whole, will achieve its object.

 

I also note that MSC has overegged the pudding in his usual florid style in later posts, but not in his original.

 

This may be a better spin off discussion.

Edited January 1, 2015 by studiot

[swansont]

The following is a prime example of why the staff would rather you report issues pertaining to moderation-related topics (edit: or open a thread in suggestion, comments and support) rather than bring them up in the thread: it's OT for the thread where it's posted and bogs down the discussion.

This is a discussion forum and MSC actually has a valid point for discussion, made in his entry in post#88.

I have not suggested otherwise. OT or hijack implies it should not be discussed in the current thread, not that it shouldn't be discussed at all.

Surely it is valid to put to the OP the point that there is a mistake, misconception, or similar, in one of his terms and offer a more appropriate one?

Indeed. That's not the problem here.

Perhaps MSC is wrong, perhaps he is right, but he is suggesting that there is a continuum, called the grid, and that matter is not the continuum but merely a feature of it.

Yes. We then spend time discussing someone else's idea, or interpretation of some physics, rather than the topic of the OP. And that is why it is a hijack, because that's not what the OP is saying.

I also note that MSC has overegged the pudding in his usual florid style in later posts, but not in his original.

Agree. That's not where thing started going off the rails.

This may be a better spin off discussion.

Yes.

[studiot]

 

Yes. We then spend time discussing someone else's idea, or interpretation of some physics, rather than the topic of the OP. And that is why it is a hijack, because that's not what the OP is saying.

 

 

So this would imply that we can never contradict the OP or say he is wrong.

[imatfaal]

 

So this would imply that we can never contradict the OP or say he is wrong.

 

Not at all - what we try to prevent is the introduction of other speculative notions into the OP's thread. We make it pretty tough for those posting in Speculations - and in return we try to keep the focus on their single topic; ie the only speculation should be the OP's and every other idea or concept used to argue for or against the OP's notion should be well agreed science. If we allow variations to the OP's notion into the thread then very quickly they become clogged with competing claims.

[studiot]

 

every other idea or concept used to argue for or against the OP's notion should be well agreed science

 

That presupposes such well agreed science exists.

 

But suppose I speculated on something where there is no agreed science?

 

For instance suppose I had speculated about possible lifeforms in the deep oceans, before the recent discovery that such life not only exists but derives energy from unusual sources.

 

Or suppose I had speculated about magnetic reversals before these were observed.

 

In both cases agreed science would have 'proved' me wrong.

 

Contrariwise suppose I had speculated the the Earth physically flips to its other stable gyroscopic state.

 

Here 'agreed science' supports my mechanical argument, but we know of no observational evidence to support it.

Edited January 1, 2015 by studiot

[imatfaal]

 

That presupposes such well agreed science exists.

 

But suppose I speculated on something where there is no agreed science?

 

For instance suppose I had speculated about possible lifeforms in the deep oceans, before the recent discovery that such life not only exists but derives energy from unusual sources.

 

Or suppose I had speculated about magnetic reversals before these were observed.

 

In both cases agreed science would have 'proved' me wrong.

 

Contrariwise suppose I had speculated the the Earth physically flips to its other stable gyroscopic state.

 

Here 'agreed science' supports my mechanical argument, but we know of no observational evidence to support it.

 

That there are new discoveries that go against received wisdom is not disputed. But one speculative notion gains no additional credence because it is similar to a second speculative notion. The things you mentioned were shown to be true experimentally / observationally; but prior to that empirical evidence the idea of the kraken added nothing to the notion that life may exist in the deep ocean vents - however the observational proof (ie agreed science) that extremophiles existed in places previously thought to be barren did add believability to the idea of the possibility of life that drew no (little) direct energy nor nutrients from the sun.

 

That two speculations are similar merely show that imagination worked in similar ways in two minds. We are looking for ties to agreed science - preferably we would like empirical evidence - but often that is beyond us

[swansont]

Not at all - what we try to prevent is the introduction of other speculative notions into the OP's thread.

 

Or discussions that steer us away from the topic of the thread.

 

 

That presupposes such well agreed science exists.

 

But suppose I speculated on something where there is no agreed science?

 

In a situation like the one that precipitated this discussion, i.e. the OP proposes a "theory", start a new thread. e.g. if Alice introduces a speculation, what you don't do is come along and say "Hey, that sounds like Bob's idea (or my idea)! Bob's/my idea blah blah blah …" because now all of the sudden we're discussing Bob's/my idea, not Alice's. That's a hijack.

[studiot]

 

Or discussions that steer us away from the topic of the thread.

 

 

 

In a situation like the one that precipitated this discussion, i.e. the OP proposes a "theory", start a new thread. e.g. if Alice introduces a speculation, what you don't do is come along and say "Hey, that sounds like Bob's idea (or my idea)! Bob's/my idea blah blah blah …" because now all of the sudden we're discussing Bob's/my idea, not Alice's. That's a hijack.

 

Well my in my opinion MSC entry post was what I understand the words on topic to mean, but you have been here a great deal longer than I have so I assume you have a better understanding of the local forum meanin.

 

By that definition I observe that there are a very large proportion of threads that veer off topic.

[swansont]

Well my in my opinion MSC entry post was what I understand the words on topic to mean

 

And my admonition for going off-topic did not appear after the initial post.