Why this section [Speculations] should be banned...

[iNow]

It's impossible in modern language to express any complex thought and to be entirely correct in every aspect.

I disagree. That's why we have math.

 

Interestingly, it's a lack of math that generally causes many of these "new" ideas and speculations to be disregarded or quickly rejected.

[cladking]

I disagree. That's why we have math.

 

Interestingly, it's a lack of math that generally causes many of these "new" ideas and speculations to be disregarded or quickly rejected.

 

Lol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Math is always wrong as well. More accurately math is always misapplied.

 

More importantly and more relevantly to your point "math" is not language hence a "statement" can't be formulated at all. ie- Math can't even be wrong when viewed from the perspective of communication.

 

How do you add one red apple eaten last night and one apple that spoiled the bushel? How do you communicate the question, or any question, in math?

[iNow]

Math is always wrong as well. More accurately math is always misapplied.

No, it's not. On another note, broad sweeping generalizations are all always wrong.

 

More importantly and more relevantly to your point "math" is not language

Of course it is.

[Strange]

No, it's not. On another note, broad sweeping generalizations are all always wrong.

 

He has had an entire thread dedicated to that subject. He never did manage to make a convincing case, oddly.

[iNow]

He has had an entire thread dedicated to that subject. He never did manage to make a convincing case, oddly.

Probably because it lacked math

[cladking]

Probably because it lacked math

 

Mebbe it was because you can't divide by zero.

 

Language defines words and math uses language to phrase the axioms, postulates, and definitions by which it operates. Math is constrained by these definitions before it even begins.

 

Take the concept of "infinity" for example. In the real world the odds against of every event makes the concept of "infinity" seem like a fraction rather than being infinite. In the real world infinity can't be expressed except as a construct or in mathematics. In the real world infinity doesn't even exist. The concept can not be accurately applied to anything at all. There is a finite chance that all the air could "suddenly" be gone in a given area and the larger the area the lower the statistical probability but it will never reach zero even if every molecule is stacked on top of one another all the way to Alpha Centari.

 

In the real world even numbers don't exist because you have to have two things to count. Numbers are constructs used in math and are not real.

 

Such concepts can not be expressed in math we use everyday. They fly in the face of the very definitions and axioms of math so reminding me that 1 + 1 = 2 is simply irrelevant.

 

I'm simply trying to define a perspective from which something different can be seen.

 

I now fear this is getting off topic so won't respond to these points further either.

 

He has had an entire thread dedicated to that subject. He never did manage to make a convincing case, oddly.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87618-math-is-never-applicable-to-the-real-world-split-from-is-current-day-math-flawed/?hl=misapplied#entry851246

[swansont]

Specialization is necessary due to the huge extent of human knowledge but this specialization has teamed with technology, modelling, and language to cause people to believe they know almost everything. It has caused people to believe that nature behaves laws and that we understand some of these laws.

 

Since people have believed that natural laws exist well before modern technology and modeling, I don't see how specialization could be the cause. And you say this about believing laws exist as if it's a bad thing, and/or untrue.

[Greg H.]

 

It's impossible in modern language to express any complex thought and to be entirely correct in every aspect. Even the simplest thoughts expressed in modern language are open to deconstruction and misinterpretation. "I have one red apple" can have a virtually infinite number of meanings and it's worse if you consider homonyms.

 

When used correctly, language can be applied to convey very complex ideas very specifically. It's one of the reasons so many speculations thread have so many problems - people misuse or try and redefine terms that already have very specific meanings in order to make their idea seem more plausible (or something). Yes the context of a statement can change it's meaning, but when you're dealing with scientific ideas, the terminology is specific enough that context shouldn't matter. In a scientific context, if I say "I am currently in possession of a singular fruit from Malus domestica, colored in such a fashion that it reflects light at approximately 650 nm" everyone who understands the terminology knows "I have a red apple." But I've just confused 90% of my audience. Contrary to your idea, "I have a red apple" is actually less confusing to most people than the more exacting scientific language.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Greg H.

[Bengt E Nyman]

I have to agree with the concern of Scott, the originator of this topic.

Under the heading of Speculations there should be little or no strong-arming of the topic or the author. To shut down a topic because it displeases a moderator for whatever reason can easily be misunderstood as censorship.

If the subject is not worthy of pursuit let it die a natural death. To kill it with a big red stamp raises suspicions about intolerance and censorship.

 

Bengt Nyman

MSME

PE

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[Strange]

You agreed to the rules of the forum. If you are not willing to follow them then there are consequences.

[imatfaal]

Can you point to a topic which was closed down "because it displeases a moderator"? For your guidance - your topics were locked because they failed to abide by the rules even after explicit instructions.

 

There are rules, guidelines to posting and other tips about the speculations forum. The forum is provided to allow a first and very relaxed stage of scientific testing of a new idea. It is not provided as a lecture theatre for any notion to be expounded to the creator's satisfaction. When direct and pertinent questions are asked of the OP then they must be answered to the best of the OP's knowledge. If a problem (an internal contradiction or a clash with observed nature) is pointed out regarding the notion then this must be dealt with. Huge leeway will be given to those willing to work with the membership within these constraints - pretty much zero tolerance will be shown to those who just want somewhere to sound off about their idea.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=rules&f=29

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/22442-so-youve-got-a-new-theory/

 

In short the forum is a testing centre not a soap-box.

[swansont]

I have to agree with the concern of Scott, the originator of this topic.

Under the heading of Speculations there should be little or no strong-arming of the topic or the author. To shut down a topic because it displeases a moderator for whatever reason can easily be misunderstood as censorship.

If the subject is not worthy of pursuit let it die a natural death. To kill it with a big red stamp raises suspicions about intolerance and censorship.

 

Bengt Nyman

MSME

PE

 

It is censorship. You do not have the right to do as you please here; you have to post in compliance with the standards we have established. If you want to post without limits, go and get yourself a blog.

[Bengt E Nyman]

 

It is censorship ... If you want to post without limits, go and get yourself a blog.

I have a blog; www.dipole.se

You are anxiously defending an antiquated religion, not a science.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

I have a blog; www.dipole.se

You are anxiously defending an antiquated religion, not a science.

 

Then you have an outlet for posting whatever you wish without objection or interference. But when you post here, you have to respond to scientific critiques of your work and provide support for it. This is not negotiable. You don't get to dictate the rules.

[Bengt E Nyman]

Yes, I wish you would offer scientific critique. So far you have not. I will be happy to provide the support.

[ajb]

Yes, I wish you would offer scientific critique. So far you have not. I will be happy to provide the support.

Generally it is hard to offer much of a scientific critique for the typical threads in 'Speculations'. The problem is that the 'theories' are often far short of what we are used to working with. Without communicating the ideas at a standard similar to what one would expect just makes it hard to find clear faults; typically the whole thing is a mess and not mathematical and so one cannot really say much. The exception to this maybe when some prediction is clearly not in agreement with nature.

 

Typically, I would say that asking questions rather than 'preaching' is the way to get clear responses.

[swansont]

Yes, I wish you would offer scientific critique. So far you have not.

 

If that's your position then there is nothing further to discuss. Kudos to you for sticking to your principles, even if it means getting locked out of discussing your idea because you deemed the questions to be not worthy of response, despite staff insistence that you do so.

[Bengt E Nyman]

The problem is that the 'theories' are often far short of what we are used to working with...

 

 

You are proving that you have not taken the time to read www.dipole.se

 

If that's your position then there is nothing further to discuss. Kudos to you for sticking to your principles, even if it means getting locked out of discussing your idea because you deemed the questions to be not worthy of response, despite staff insistence that you do so.

Yes, it seems that sticking to convictions and principles is not welcome at this forum. You asked ONE condescending question to which you already know the answer, which tells me that you are not interested in a serious dialog.

I can only mark you down as not interested, not qualified, or both.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[Strange]

I will be happy to provide the support.

 

You have refused so far. And got quite heated when asked.

[Bengt E Nyman]

Nobody has asked a serious question. What do you want to know ?

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Nobody has asked a serious question. What do you want to know ?

 

nah - we are not rehashing the thread in the support forum.

 

[Bengt E Nyman]

Ok. I will reopen the subject where it belongs.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Ok. I will reopen the subject where it belongs.

 

No - you have had your chance and you chose not to take it. I will repeat that you do not have permission to reopen this topic in any of our fora.

 

[studiot]

As one who has little or no interest in the subjects you wish to pursue, I offer the following unbiased comment.

 

 

To shut down a topic because it displeases a moderator for whatever reason

 

 

Personally I have the greatest respect for the moderators here, I am too opinionated be as impartial as they are, even to the extent of applying rules they disagree with.

You are obviously the same as I in that respect.

 

But just, for one moment, place yourself in their shoes.

How would you treat posters who consistently and perhaps flagrantly ignore the general rules of courtesy or the specific rules of this forum?

personally I am too inclined to be rude to them.

 

But our mods manage to moderate with civility.

 

Could you do this?

Some throw their toys out of the pram when faced with this situation.

Are you adult enough to accept any single member's place in the scheme of things and co-operate this everyone else.?

The rewards of doing this are great.

Edited November 3, 2015 by studiot

[Bengt E Nyman]

Your rules of respect and courtesy seem to go only one way.

I am in the process of disclosing a well supported scientific discovery. Your forum seems to be unwilling or unable to deal with it.

And you want me to be understanding of your difficulties.

I am sorry, but I don't think so.

 

Bengt Nyman

Edited November 3, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman