Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Colin2B on 30/05/2016 10:57:36
-
There have been a number of posters who are either placing new theories in this section or answering a question with a new theory.
When you joined TNS you agreed to abide by the forum acceptable usage policy http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0. Can we ask you to reread 4; 5 particularly sub rules 4 and 5.
Posts in the main section (General Science, Non Life Sciences and Life Sciences) should be short questions on a science subject with the question summarised in the title.
If you have a new theory please put it in New Theories. This not intended to stifle discussion on a topic, neither is it aimed at you personally suggesting you are wrong, or that your theory is wrong. It is just how the forum is organised. Neither is it discrimination aimed at you, everyone is treated the same. If someone posts a question about marine life in the "Non Life Sciences" board it will be moved to "Life Sciences" unless it is a question regarding the terminal velocity of a whale entering the atmosphere. If you want to discuss the whale's last thoughts, please do so in Just Chat.
Members who use other science fora say we are far more liberal in allowing open discussion. We will allow some discussion of alternate views in a thread, however, if a thread is being used to promote a specific alternative theory or is blocking a discussion with repetitive posts of a new theory, the moderators will take action.
To aid discussion, if you post a reply to a science question, it is good forum manners to make it clear that this your own theory. If you appear to post to promote your own theory by posting a link to it, or repeating a message, you are infringing these rules.
We ask you to only post new theories that have not been posted elsewhere. If you do it will be considered advertising and you will find your posts deleted without warning. We have been tolerant of this in some cases where the poster might be seeking peer review of first drafts to improve their theory, but the line is fine and easy to cross. Over enthusiastic defence of your theory might lead us to make the wrong conclusions about your intentions.
Above all keep it friendly.
There is a class of 'theory' which is often referred to as Conspiracy Theories. These are not scientific theories, but are based on conjecture, rumour and overextension of limited factual evidence. This is a science site, not a conspiracy discussion site. Anyone who references conspiracy theories or provides links to sites supporting these theories will be considered to be trolling.
If these rules are infringed, the forum moderators will take action. This action can take a number of forms: warnings, thread locking, deletion of posts or threads, moving a thread, splitting a thread, or banning a member. Do not ignore these warnings as a number of members have been banned for persistent misuse of the site.
It should be mentioned here that all the moderators are unpaid, they do it because of an interest in promoting science education, which is also the objective of this site. Most moderators have full time work and families, even those retired generally act as consultants, visiting lecturers, and have their own projects. They also like to join in the discussion. As a result moderators are likely to take the action which involves the least effort, please don't take this personally.
-
Colin2B,
I have a question? We both believe in Relativity mathematics. Now a subjective opinion about the Lorentz contraction would be is it physical or just visual. Both follow Relativity but only one could be correct. If you were to answer the question as a physical contraction and I as a visual contraction which one would be correct? Does only one follow Relativity? Which one is the standard model?
-
Both follow Relativity but only one could be correct.
There are many areas of science (especially around the edges) where there are different interpretations of the data we have, and experiments to resolve the conflicts are difficult (especially if they involve black holes, for example).
The moderators aim to be tolerant of commonly-accepted interpretations which are consistent with the data we have.
- The moderators aim to inform members who are not aware of the latest data available
- But posters who continue to ignore the solid data (and don't put in any effort themselves to understand the information provided) are violating the guidelines.
- And rants on any topic are not welcome!
-
You should be wrong GoC. Too many experiments proving the concept, the most famous one should be the muon thought experiment Muon Experiment. (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/muon.html)
-
The funny thing about Relativity is that even when not stomaching its implications most don't seem to find QM weird. If I would choose one as 'weirder' I think I would pick QM myself.
-
Surely the answer is quite clear.
Don't post anything that is politically incorrect.
-
Surely the answer is quite clear.
Don't post anything that is politically incorrect.
Not too fussed about politics, just make sure it is scientifically correct.
-
Surely the answer is quite clear.
Don't post anything that is politically incorrect.
The Standard Model has nothing to do with politics, so I would rest easy about that question if I were you zx16.
-
Colin2B,
I have a question? We both believe in Relativity mathematics. Now a subjective opinion about the Lorentz contraction would be is it physical or just visual. Both follow Relativity but only one could be correct. If you were to answer the question as a physical contraction and I as a visual contraction which one would be correct? Does only one follow Relativity? Which one is the standard model?
Only one is correct as far as relativity is concerned and that's that its physical, not merely visual. Some people get the idea that its visual because of the one the derivation is derived but that's a flawed interpretation.