Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: ~CB on 19/04/2015 08:33:45
-
I feel as if this post I'm about to make is right now very important on here as there are some members who have made it their objective to target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' to validate their own beliefs. I don't want the members this post is referring to, to get offended, rather understand what I'm about to say and start making actual difference.
I originally posted this on another topic 'Poll: Are you an Atheist' in the 'Just Chat' section. In reply to Jccc.
"Why would you expect science to have the answers to EVERYTHING? Theories are evidence based conclusions with the highest confidence that we can have, but they all have gaps in understanding including Gravity, Germ theory of disease, General Relativity, etc. Complete understanding may be impossible but the strength of science is admitting that our understanding is not complete and therefore continuing to pursue knowledge and refine current understanding. That's why science works.
Usually people target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' and then just keep iterating it to feel as if they have won the debate/argument. Science didn't just fall down from space in the form of books giving us answers to everything. We have been evolving to understand concepts we would have deemed impossible to understand a century ago. And we will continue to evolve and maybe, just maybe have answers to everything, someday. The type of argument you start here, usually everyday... Isn't helping Science or the mankind in any way. If you want to follow something which claims to have the answer to everything then you should ditch Science and start following religion. Because having ALL of the answers is the domain of religion. Just don't question those answers or try to verify them, that's blasphemy. Your only job there is to believe what you are told by a book and other human beings, and have faith (not evidence) that they are correct."
I know I should have made this post in the 'Just chat' section but I wanted everyone to see this.
-
Well, I don't know there Jasper. I think we should keep faith as one part of us, science as another. This world you and me lives in works on trust, although wars and disaster pointing to something opposite. We all have faith, because that's the greater part of why we survive, as well as progress, our ability of trust in each other. There's a blind spot when it comes to science, arguing that logic is all there is. You can do it if you choose, but you must incorporate the world as it is if so. And that then will include a lot of stuff, that science has no contemporary explanations for, as us 'thinking', emotions, etc etc. I do believe they too can place under logic, and must be, if we want to understand the world we exist in.
-
I wasn't quite able to grasp completely what you were trying to say and correct me if I'm wrong here, but... Are you saying (in a way) that whatever is conceivable by thinking, is a possibility? That we should just have faith in whatever anyone is saying and not correct him, however illogical?
-
Why do you expect Science to know everything?
I'm curious where you ever got this idea from? It's most certainly wrong. Not one scientist today believes that we can know everything through the methods of science. For example; nothing about science will answer most questions that philosophers pose. It can't address most parts of religion either. The goal of science is to address questions about nature.
Complete understanding may be impossible but the strength of science is admitting that our understanding is not complete and therefore continuing to pursue knowledge and refine current understanding. That's why science works.
Correct.
-
Science is a process. It doesn't "have answers" but helps us to answer sensible questions.
-
AMEN!
-
I feel as if this post I'm about to make is right now very important on here as there are some members who have made it their objective to target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' to validate their own beliefs. I don't want the members this post is referring to, to get offended, rather understand what I'm about to say and start making actual difference.
I originally posted this on another topic 'Poll: Are you an Atheist' in the 'Just Chat' section. In reply to Jccc.
"Why would you expect science to have the answers to EVERYTHING? Theories are evidence based conclusions with the highest confidence that we can have, but they all have gaps in understanding including Gravity, Germ theory of disease, General Relativity, etc. Complete understanding may be impossible but the strength of science is admitting that our understanding is not complete and therefore continuing to pursue knowledge and refine current understanding. That's why science works.
Usually people target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' and then just keep iterating it to feel as if they have won the debate/argument. Science didn't just fall down from space in the form of books giving us answers to everything. We have been evolving to understand concepts we would have deemed impossible to understand a century ago. And we will continue to evolve and maybe, just maybe have answers to everything, someday. The type of argument you start here, usually everyday... Isn't helping Science or the mankind in any way. If you want to follow something which claims to have the answer to everything then you should ditch Science and start following religion. Because having ALL of the answers is the domain of religion. Just don't question those answers or try to verify them, that's blasphemy. Your only job there is to believe what you are told by a book and other human beings, and have faith (not evidence) that they are correct."
I know I should have made this post in the 'Just chat' section but I wanted everyone to see this.
A great question, and has one of those other members, I feel I can answer your question. Myself does not expect science to know everything, but I do expect that everything you state or defend, has substantial proof with solid foundation. Without this proof , science leaves itself wide open to , how can I put it, ''making itself look rather religious and silly''.
Members defend unicorn belief at times, state the individual like myself is a crackpot. Therefore the individual thinks even harder and discourses deep into your information often showing you have no evidence.
Myself never attacks the truths and physics involved of true facts, like an object falls to the ground. I expect your ideas to be has solid as an object falling to the ground, if not then it is just fantasy, and no more different to my own fantasy, which I can not prove except by using science to overthrow your science.
See my expansion thread in new theories this will show you what I mean.
-
Your comparison with religion is a useful one. There is no doubt that to many people science, particularly medicine, is a religion, a belief system. One of the things that attracted me to TNS was that I saw less of that sort of thinking than on the odd glimpses of other fora. Many people here are prepared to understand and accept the basic science but to question at the edges, hoping for insight and understanding, perhaps to be able to change their views.
In many areas I have absorbed standard teaching. I accept that the earth is round, I cannot prove it or measure it, and if you asked me to I would not be able to prove otherwise except by quoting those who have studied the problem. The long history of science, and physics in particular, shows me that I cannot build that knowledge from scratch, I do not have the time and resources to perform every experiment and derive every theory, I have to accept much on faith. If I find something that doesn't work the way it is predicted I will question it and try to find out why.
However, some of the people you are taking about, who attack science, are similar to someone who goes into a church and declares that the existence of God cannot be proven. However, they have not read or understood the particular bible of that church, so cannot know whether proof lies within. Even more so, they will declare to a Christian church that the view of the trinity is wrong, they are capable of thinking for themselves and have decided that duodecinity is the true answer. In reality they should set up their own religion, not Christianity but Duodecinintarianism. I'm sure they would have a strong following in no time.
The problem with many who question science is that they do so from a lack of understanding. They will tell you they accept the basics eg an apple falls to the ground. But they do question other basic concepts because they do not understand the answers, and they do not have the knowledge to understand that these concepts are clear and obvious to those who have studied them.
It is an arrogance and complacency that says "if I can't understand the answer, it must be wrong", but also an arrogance which says I do not need to study this in order to understand, it should be obvious to all who view it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not that simple, some things are complex and pretending they are not is of little help to anyone.
-
Why do you expect Science to know everything?
I'm curious where you ever got this idea from? It's most certainly wrong.
Fascinating how two people can read the same thing and understand it differently. I took it that Jasper was chiding those who seemed to expect science to know everything.
-
Your comparison with religion is a useful one. There is no doubt that to many people science, particularly medicine, is a religion, a belief system. One of the things that attracted me to TNS was that I saw less of that sort of thinking than on the odd glimpses of other fora. Many people here are prepared to understand and accept the basic science but to question at the edges, hoping for insight and understanding, perhaps to be able to change their views.
In many areas I have absorbed standard teaching. I accept that the earth is round, I cannot prove it or measure it, and if you asked me to I would not be able to prove otherwise except by quoting those who have studied the problem. The long history of science, and physics in particular, shows me that I cannot build that knowledge from scratch, I do not have the time and resources to perform every experiment and derive every theory, I have to accept much on faith. If I find something that doesn't work the way it is predicted I will question it and try to find out why.
However, some of the people you are taking about, who attack science, are similar to someone who goes into a church and declares that the existence of God cannot be proven. However, they have not read or understood the particular bible of that church, so cannot know whether proof lies within. Even more so, they will declare to a Christian church that the view of the trinity is wrong, they are capable of thinking for themselves and have decided that duodecinity is the true answer. In reality they should set up their own religion, not Christianity but Duodecinintarianism. I'm sure they would have a strong following in no time.
The problem with many who question science is that they do so from a lack of understanding. They will tell you they accept the basics eg an apple falls to the ground. But they do question other basic concepts because they do not understand the answers, and they do not have the knowledge to understand that these concepts are clear and obvious to those who have studied them.
It is an arrogance and complacency that says "if I can't understand the answer, it must be wrong", but also an arrogance which says I do not need to study this in order to understand, it should be obvious to all who view it. Well, I'm sorry, but it's not that simple, some things are complex and pretending they are not is of little help to anyone.
Your words speak truth's, but I would argue it is arrogant of science to presume the present answers are not understood by any individual, a sort of arrogance that is portraying the individuals to be stupid and that only science is smart. I have stated many times that knowledge and explanation is at my finger tips , literally, we all have this knowledge. Like I stated, science perceives some things and defends it, when it is physically impossible, which makes no relative to sense to any reader, it is understood but does not logically conform to being correct.
The biggest example - space itself is expanding.
You defend this and to an ordinary person, we think it is quite absurd, we know space can not be destroyed nor as it physical body, this is laughable.
Simple things like this make the said trolls who expect science to at least have answers when questioned about it. Science says something then offers no proof, can you observe space? No
Can you observe space expanding? NO
Can you observe some matter moving away from us? Yes
It is not that hard to say the truth.
-
Except that the simplest answer is not always the right one.
We cannot observe space directly, but we can see that (on a cosmic scale) everything is moving away from everything else. An observer anywhere in the universe would look around themselves and claim that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from them (expanding universe, where the observer is at the center of expansion), and that the galaxies farthest away are moving fastest.
If it were just an issue of galaxies moving apart from one another you would see a progression like:
a...b.....c............d
a.....b.....c............d
a.......b.....c............d
a..........b.....c............d
But what we see is more like:
a...b.......c..............d
a.....b.........c................d
a.......b...........c..................d
a..........b.............c....................d
or more exaggerated:
a..b....c......d
a....b........c............d
a........b................c........................d
a................b................................c................................................d
Which indicates that the rate that objects move apart from one-another depends on how far away they are already. The easiest way to think about this is that the space between them is growing.
This also explains how objects can be moving apart from one-another faster than the speed of light. Since it is impossible (as far as we know) to accelerate an object to a speed greater than the speed of light, but not necessarily impossible (though we don't know how) for the space itself between objects to increase at any rate, making it appear as if the objects themselves are moving.
There are other explanations of these observations, but expanding space is the current favorite among most physicists and cosmologists.
I am content for the moment saying that the observations and theory are consistent, but I do wonder if there is a better explanation. Luckily there are people smarter than both of us working on it right now!
-
I am content for the moment saying that the observations and theory are consistent, but I do wonder if there is a better explanation.
This is a good example of where our understanding is developing and I'm sure there will be plenty of exciting developments in cosmology and at the QM level that will move ideas forward.
However, pseudoscience tries to second guess on the basis of limited and incorrect knowledge. It also tries to rewrite (usually in gobbledygook) well understood ideas just because the writer fails to understand the basic concepts.
-
i only expect science to know me, who cares everything? not me.
-
AMEN!
Ah! That humour! I LOVE IT! Haha!
-
I'm glad someone gets it [;D]
-
The true spirit of the scientific method is to find answers through experiment to the many unanswered questions that good science is seeking after. If scientists believed that they knew everything, there would be no incentive for them to look for those answers. Those arrogant individuals that come to this forum insisting that, only they have answers, when good scientific minds within our membership do not, only expose their ignorance.
How many times have we all heard; "You arrogant scientists think you have all the answers." The greater truth is; Many of the poorly educated beginners come here thinking they are the only ones with any answers.
Personally , I along with many of our respected members have a desperate hunger to learn how the universe works. And we are open to new ideas that make sense and are compatible with proven theory. Nevertheless, we are also smart enough to know nonsense when it is suggested by some hapless amateur.
A word of caution: Don't come here vomiting up drivel and expect not to be challenged for it. If it doesn't level with tested and tried scientific theory, we will let you know about your error. Do not be surprised to be shown your errors, every good scientist is willing to accept the truth when confronted with it. And don't act insulted when you're shown those errors, acting like you don't deserve to be shown those errors only reveals your true ignorance.
-
A word of caution: Don't come here vomiting up drivel and expect not to be challenged for it. If it doesn't level with tested and tried scientific theory, we will let you know about your error. Do not be surprised to be shown your errors, every good scientist is willing to accept the truth when confronted with it. And don't act insulted when you're shown those errors, acting like you don't deserve to be shown those errors only reveals your true ignorance.
Jccc, you should definitely read this, mate.
If we ban you and TheBox we will find ourseleves in a pretty friendly community but we respect you sharing your theories on here. But, you cannot expect everything you have thought of to be golden. You have to be ready for any errors the more experienced and knowledgeable minds here point out. Instead you argue with them yet again bring in those old 'what science doesn't knows yet' questions and try to validate your theory/belief. All we are saying is... Just try to UNDERSTAND!
-
A word of caution: Don't come here vomiting up drivel and expect not to be challenged for it. If it doesn't level with tested and tried scientific theory, we will let you know about your error. Do not be surprised to be shown your errors, every good scientist is willing to accept the truth when confronted with it. And don't act insulted when you're shown those errors, acting like you don't deserve to be shown those errors only reveals your true ignorance.
Jccc, you should definitely read this, mate.
If we ban you and TheBox we will find ourseleves in a pretty friendly community but we respect you sharing your theories on here. But, you cannot expect everything you have thought of to be golden. You have to be ready for any errors the more experienced and knowledgeable minds here point out. Instead you argue with them yet again bringing in those old 'what science doesn't knows yet' questions and try to validate your theory/belief. All we are saying is... Just try to UNDERSTAND!
If I and JCCC were banned then that would be ludicrous, I and Jccc only questioning the unanswered. What makes science think we do not understand?
Do you not think that I could repeat back your knowledge and present thought back to you?
The point is we have to know your knowledge in the first place to make our own ideas.
It really is a point where I speak street and you speak science, except my street science has no words to explain it because they do not exist, so I personally try to use comparative words that are often misunderstood. Maybe it is still science not trying to understand and continues with the , you just do not understand and are a crackpot.
Science aims at preaching these disciplines, if you do not accept we ban you, this is why I get banned. This leads me to all sort of conspiracy theories, why such an interest in forcing theories on people that have little grounds to be said facts.
My personal opinion is that I could take 2 boxes, fill one box with all the guaranteed facts, and fill the other box with the not so factual of science, the second box I will argue all day everyday .
-
we respect you sharing your theories on here. But, you cannot expect everything you have thought of to be golden.
I've said it elsewhere but will repeat. Jccc and the box both have ideas worthy of consideration, but often the discussion gets diverted by the need to explain basic misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. Combine this with a strange need for some people to create obscuration by misusing scientific terminology and the gems get lost in the dross.
There have been a number of topics I would have liked to pursue, but it can be like wading through treacle, and I have limited time, so the topic gets dropped here. I either consider it on my own or with friends who have more open minds and able to think both within and outside the box.
I suspect you might have the potential to fall into that group.
PS don't be too hard on some posters here and judge them as rude. Like most of us they have limited time, and so our replies can often be quite terse. Some folks on here fail to realise that answers are not intended to "write the textbook" but can only be a summary, and hence incomplete, sometimes appearing inconsistent and seemingly full of holes!
-
been banned twice, i almost jump the lake. ban me again, i might hit the train.
pls don't, i will be friendly as a dog.
-
Except that the simplest answer is not always the right one.
We cannot observe space directly, but we can see that (on a cosmic scale) everything is moving away from everything else. An observer anywhere in the universe would look around themselves and claim that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from them (expanding universe, where the observer is at the center of expansion), and that the galaxies farthest away are moving fastest.
If it were just an issue of galaxies moving apart from one another you would see a progression like:
a...b.....c............d
a.....b.....c............d
a.......b.....c............d
a..........b.....c............d
But what we see is more like:
a...b.......c..............d
a.....b.........c................d
a.......b...........c..................d
a..........b.............c....................d
or more exaggerated:
a..b....c......d
a....b........c............d
a........b................c........................d
a................b................................c................................................d
Which indicates that the rate that objects move apart from one-another depends on how far away they are already. The easiest way to think about this is that the space between them is growing.
This also explains how objects can be moving apart from one-another faster than the speed of light. Since it is impossible (as far as we know) to accelerate an object to a speed greater than the speed of light, but not necessarily impossible (though we don't know how) for the space itself between objects to increase at any rate, making it appear as if the objects themselves are moving.
There are other explanations of these observations, but expanding space is the current favorite among most physicists and cosmologists.
I am content for the moment saying that the observations and theory are consistent, but I do wonder if there is a better explanation. Luckily there are people smarter than both of us working on it right now!
That would be the inverse square law. A growing circumference, not space itself expanding, I think your use of context is the problem, you give the impression of an imaginary wall like a balloon surface expanding, space itself has no physics, for something to have physics it has to have physical presence. Please go to my expanding thread to comment, I do not want to flame this thread with it being such a good question from the opp.
-
been banned twice, i almost jump the lake. ban me again, i might hit the train.
pls don't, i will be friendly as a dog.
This forum is different JCCC, much more of what I expected from science, I would not worry to much about a ban, I am normally on about 45 warning points by now, I have not had a single warning, this tells me that this forum has some sense and knows we are harmless.
-
we respect you sharing your theories on here. But, you cannot expect everything you have thought of to be golden.
I've said it elsewhere but will repeat. Jccc and the box both have ideas worthy of consideration, but often the discussion gets diverted by the need to explain basic misunderstanding of fundamental concepts. Combine this with a strange need for some people to create obscuration by misusing scientific terminology and the gems get lost in the dross.
There have been a number of topics I would have liked to pursue, but it can be like wading through treacle, and I have limited time, so the topic gets dropped here. I either consider it on my own or with friends who have more open minds and able to think both within and outside the box.
I suspect you might have the potential to fall into that group.
PS don't be too hard on some posters here and judge them as rude. Like most of us they have limited time, and so our replies can often be quite terse. Some folks on here fail to realise that answers are not intended to "write the textbook" but can only be a summary, and hence incomplete, sometimes appearing inconsistent and seemingly full of holes!
Thank you Colin, I really wish I had completed schooling, then I would explain easy my ideas that I can see but not translate into words correctly.
-
Thank you Colin, I really wish I had completed schooling, then I would explain easy my ideas that I can see but not translate into words correctly.
I think you can, but I'm sure you can see that others have put a lot of thought into these topics and can have a different viewpoint. You may have to accept that some ideas belong more to philosophy than physics. There are good questions in philosophy, you have asked some of them, but they are not physics.
-
This forum is different JCCC, much more of what I expected from science, I would not worry to much about a ban, I am normally on about 45 warning points by now, I have not had a single warning, this tells me that this forum has some sense and knows we are harmless.
That's correct. But don't take that to mean that you don't represent a source of serious misunderstanding and error.
-
Thank you Colin, I really wish I had completed schooling, then I would explain easy my ideas that I can see but not translate into words correctly.
I think you can, but I'm sure you can see that others have put a lot of thought into these topics and can have a different viewpoint. You may have to accept that some ideas belong more to philosophy than physics. There are good questions in philosophy, you have asked some of them, but they are not physics.
Well I do not accept myself to be true, I understand philosophy is still science, some of my ideas are physics though, based on your physics, this is why they can not be wrong they are experimentally proven.
I have said before and I will it say it again, I am viewing your science in a different context, this is what your science is telling me. I am not making it up has such, maybe I just need to slow down and not be so excitable.
-
Jasper #2
That we should just have faith in whatever anyone is saying and not correct him, however illogical?
If you think it's important, then challenge their statement.
colin2B #7I accept that the earth is round, I cannot prove it or measure it, and if you asked me to I would not be able to prove otherwise except by quoting those who have studied the problem.
You could discover the same indicators as earlier observers. The mast of a tall ship was the last part seen as it departed, and the first part seen as it returned. The earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during an eclipse.
It is an arrogance and complacency that says "if I can't understand the answer, it must be wrong", but also an arrogance which says I do not need to study this in order to understand, it should be obvious to all who view it.
Sometimes but not always. Regarding a new product, a coworker once said "you can't make that". Knowing the person, he was a friendly quiet type and definitely not arrogant. His comment was based on past experience and ignorance of the machine capabilities. and he made a poor choice of words. What he really meant was "I don't know how to make that". We later produced the part, and changed his opinion.
No one can know everything, since we can't know what "everything" is!
Which raises a related question, how can you make a "Theory Of Everything" when you can't know when you have discovered all there is to discover?
Bill S #8 I took it that Jasper was chiding those who seemed to expect science to know everything.
I interpreted it the same way, since to many, science is a religion, with their faith and trust placed in it to solve world problems.
_________________________________________________________________
Science is still philosophy but augmented with a system of measurement. Therefore science can only study things it can measure, i.e. its verification tool. That places intangible/spiritual qualities like love, charity, morals, etc. beyond its area of applicability.
-
Thank you Colin, I really wish I had completed schooling, then I would explain easy my ideas that I can see but not translate into words correctly.
That would have been an excellent idea Mr. Box. Not only would you be familiar with current scientific jargon, you would also have had exposer to many facts that you obviously are not acquainted with presently.
I admire people that have an honest hunger to learn about the physical nature of their existence. And there are times when I observe this hunger in your personality. However,.................there are many more times when I see you accusing credible members here of not understanding your point of view, thereby insinuating their lack intelligence. What you fail to recognize Mr. Box is, in most cases, we do understand why you think the way you do. All we have to do is recall many of the same thoughts we had as youngsters, young people with great enthusiasm seeking out the dark recesses of our own imaginations.
If and when you do advance your education, remember these conversations you've had with the patient members of these hallowed halls. Hopefully, you won't treat your teachers and professors with the same indignation you seem to have for some of us.
I encourage you to get that education Mr. Box. With this learning tucked away within the crevices of your cerebral cortex, there might just be some hope for you yet?
-
If and when you do advance your education, remember these conversations you've had with the patient members of these hallowed halls. Hopefully, you won't treat your teachers and professors with the same indignation you seem to have for some of us.
Here, here! An excellent point. I myself did my best with him but I'm short on patience with those who treat me with disrespect. In the real world it would me someone exactly like myself, i.e. with the same education and knowledge, who'd be teaching him. No teacher would put up with the way "the box" treated me in this forum.
-
I wasn't quite able to grasp completely what you were trying to say and correct me if I'm wrong here, but... Are you saying (in a way) that whatever is conceivable by thinking, is a possibility? That we should just have faith in whatever anyone is saying and not correct him, however illogical?
'
No, I wasn't referring to correcting what one might find wrong, assuming it's done in a friendly manner naturally :) I was giving a argument stating that if we want logic to be the sole perpetrator of life, the universe and all, we better have a way to include such things as emotions, thoughts, etc etc. I think of thoughts, and self awareness, as emergences myself. But we still need a logic defining how they exist, and evolve into the way we feel and act.
-
Except that the simplest answer is not always the right one.
We cannot observe space directly, but we can see that (on a cosmic scale) everything is moving away from everything else. An observer anywhere in the universe would look around themselves and claim that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from them (expanding universe, where the observer is at the center of expansion), and that the galaxies farthest away are moving fastest.
If it were just an issue of galaxies moving apart from one another you would see a progression like:
a...b.....c............d
a.....b.....c............d
a.......b.....c............d
a..........b.....c............d
But what we see is more like:
a...b.......c..............d
a.....b.........c................d
a.......b...........c..................d
a..........b.............c....................d
or more exaggerated:
a..b....c......d
a....b........c............d
a........b................c........................d
a................b................................c................................................d
Which indicates that the rate that objects move apart from one-another depends on how far away they are already. The easiest way to think about this is that the space between them is growing.
This also explains how objects can be moving apart from one-another faster than the speed of light. Since it is impossible (as far as we know) to accelerate an object to a speed greater than the speed of light, but not necessarily impossible (though we don't know how) for the space itself between objects to increase at any rate, making it appear as if the objects themselves are moving.
There are other explanations of these observations, but expanding space is the current favorite among most physicists and cosmologists.
I am content for the moment saying that the observations and theory are consistent, but I do wonder if there is a better explanation. Luckily there are people smarter than both of us working on it right now!
Ahh Chiral, a lovely example.
=
then again, just to be devious (deviant?), isn't then your explanation of the above phenomena the simplest explanation of that fact?
-
colin2B #7I accept that the earth is round, I cannot prove it or measure it, and if you asked me to I would not be able to prove otherwise except by quoting those who have studied the problem.
You could discover the same indicators as earlier observers. The mast of a tall ship was the last part seen as it departed, and the first part seen as it returned. The earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during an eclipse.
Sorry, but that sort of argument doesn't work with the people Jasper is talking about. They fix on their ideas beyond all logic.
Masts of ships? Optical illusion caused by light refraction.
Shadow on moon? Well of course the earth is a flat disc so you are bound to get a circular shadow.
Then the accusation of complacent thinking and reliance on book learning!
Have you ever met any flat earthers? They believe in an alternative to the scientific method where sensory observations are the only reliable form of information about the world. Sound familiar?
-
Then the accusation of complacent thinking and reliance on book learning!
Have you ever met any flat earthers? They believe in an alternative to the scientific method where sensory observations are the only reliable form of information about the world. Sound familiar?
Now that you mention it, I can think of two chaps that those shoes fit rather nicely!
-
anyone thinks science will remember you for a long time? why? why not?
-
nah, physics is just good fun Jccc. Life is a mystery, and very little make sense when you look back at it, mostly circumstances to it I would say. Which means that you are perfectly correct in that we all are equal.
=
better add that physics is one of the few things actually making sense to me :)
-
nah, physics is just good fun Jccc. Life is a mystery, and very little make sense when you look back at it, mostly circumstances to it I would say. Which means that you are perfectly correct in that we all are equal.
=
better add that physics is one of the few things actually making sense to me :)
such as electron fires 33333333333333.3 photons per second?
equal? how many times you been banned?
-
Not sure I've been banned? Could have happened in the dark ages though :) But I've gotten some warnings if that helps? Where did you get that number from btw? We use measurements in time, and we define it arbitrarily more or less, fitting the planet we live on. Does it matter that you get that number statistically per second? You can get another where there is '4 photons' per whatever time you like to use, be it seconds or?
-
Not sure I've been banned? Could have happened in the dark ages though :) But I've gotten some warnings if that helps? Where did you get that number from btw? We use measurements in time, and we define it arbitrarily more or less, fitting the planet we live on. Does it matter that you get that number statistically per second? You can get another where there is '4 photons' per whatever time you like to use, be it seconds or?
i was partially kidding. i only agree 1 thing you said, life is a misery loving science.
-
Except that the simplest answer is not always the right one.
We cannot observe space directly, but we can see that (on a cosmic scale) everything is moving away from everything else. An observer anywhere in the universe would look around themselves and claim that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from them (expanding universe, where the observer is at the center of expansion), and that the galaxies farthest away are moving fastest.
If it were just an issue of galaxies moving apart from one another you would see a progression like:
a...b.....c............d
a.....b.....c............d
a.......b.....c............d
a..........b.....c............d
But what we see is more like:
a...b.......c..............d
a.....b.........c................d
a.......b...........c..................d
a..........b.............c....................d
or more exaggerated:
a..b....c......d
a....b........c............d
a........b................c........................d
a................b................................c................................................d
Which indicates that the rate that objects move apart from one-another depends on how far away they are already. The easiest way to think about this is that the space between them is growing.
This also explains how objects can be moving apart from one-another faster than the speed of light. Since it is impossible (as far as we know) to accelerate an object to a speed greater than the speed of light, but not necessarily impossible (though we don't know how) for the space itself between objects to increase at any rate, making it appear as if the objects themselves are moving.
There are other explanations of these observations, but expanding space is the current favorite among most physicists and cosmologists.
I am content for the moment saying that the observations and theory are consistent, but I do wonder if there is a better explanation. Luckily there are people smarter than both of us working on it right now!
seems logically conflict.
from a point look at d, d point seems moving away fastest, from d point look at a, seems a moving away fastest. if i didn't mistake the theory.
-
my theory to explain the expending space is there is no expansion at all.
to any observer, local star/gravitational field will accelerate incoming lights from all directions.
the closer star lights will blueshift the most due to stronger gravity, therefore, the farther away stars look like the more redshift. just like what we observed.
thoughts?
-
if this theory has merit, isn't big bang theory doubtful?
you know much better, how do you think?
-
I feel as if this post I'm about to make is right now very important
Jasper
This is your thread, are you ok with where it's going?
Slightly off topic, but if you might feel the examples are adding to the discussion.
How do others feel? Still a useful thread?
-
Yes, Colin... You're right! I should probably delete it because I have probably completed my objective here. However unsuccessful it went. Right?
-
Yes, Colin... You're right! I should probably delete it because I have probably completed my objective here. However unsuccessful it went. Right?
I think there was some useful discussion and ideas, it seemed quite successful to me. I don't think you need to delete it, but you could request that spin off topics are moved elsewhere in case others want to add anything.
Strangely, I have just been in some quite rational threads with Mr Box. Surreal feeling. Might not last, but it was good while it did? [:)]
-
i looked all over
my quantum wine is gone
empty bottle lays on the ground
2 drunk monks sleep by the pond
-
Yes, Colin... You're right! I should probably delete it because I have probably completed my objective here. However unsuccessful it went. Right?
It was successful if you got out of it what you wanted to. For me it wasn't because you never answered the question that I asked you, i.e. in post #3 I asked you the following question:
I'm curious where you ever got this idea from? It's most certainly wrong. Not one scientist today believes that we can know everything through the methods of science. For example; nothing about science will answer most questions that philosophers pose. It can't address most parts of religion either. The goal of science is to address questions about nature.
Did you ignore me intentionally? If so then why, may I ask?
-
1 post, banned me 3d time. what a world? http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-big-bang-theory-correct.145788/
-
Good Morning!
the only reason they came up with dark matter is because matter should be equally distributed if the big bang happened, and because normal gravity does not have the reach that our galactic cores have apparently.
plasma has a massive electromagnetic field that is much stronger than gravity. the space between our planets is massive, even with the sun being 3 million X the size of earth, it is hard to imagine that it would have the gravitational tug on objects like Pluto and further out.
we don't really know whats going on, but I think we can safely confirm that the big bang is a big dud that is simply an apologist ideology to support cosmic evolutionism, like chemical evolution.
matter is not equally distributed, giant explosions do not create dimensions and physics, and certainly not atomic structures. they are not something that simply pops out of nothingness, they come from something as all things do.
agree?
-
the only reason they came up with dark matter is because matter should be equally distributed if the big bang happened, and because normal gravity does not have the reach that our galactic cores have apparently.
Totally wrong.
plasma has a massive electromagnetic field that is much stronger than gravity.
Also totally wrong.
the space between our planets is massive, even with the sun being 3 million X the size of earth,
Once again, totally wrong. The Sun weighs only about 333,000 times as much as Earth. That's FAR from being 3 million times the size (since size is approximately proportional to mass).
we don't really know whats going on, ...
Correction. YOU don't really know what's going on.
but I think we can safely confirm that the big bang is a big dud ..
Bogus claim presented, as always, with nothing to back it up.
matter is not equally distributed, giant explosions do not create dimensions and physics, and certainly not atomic structures. they are not something that simply pops out of nothingness, they come from something as all things do.
Again, a claim made with nothing to support it. Typically jccc does this when he doesn't know the physics, which is nearly all of the time.
-
Thanks Pete,
science is happy to be proven wrong. the pursuit of knowledge through fact finding, and disproving, is the only way to reach truth.
assuming, or just believing, is the realm of the fool.
-
Why do you expect Science to know everything?
I'm curious where you ever got this idea from? It's most certainly wrong.
Fascinating how two people can read the same thing and understand it differently. I took it that Jasper was chiding those who seemed to expect science to know everything.
Here is your answer Mr. Peter;
By the way, I just got the book you referred me and it's pretty good for my level! Thanks for the reference again!
-
Why do you expect Science to know everything?
I'm curious where you ever got this idea from? It's most certainly wrong.
Fascinating how two people can read the same thing and understand it differently. I took it that Jasper was chiding those who seemed to expect science to know everything.
Here is your answer Mr. Peter;
By the way, I just got the book you referred me and it's pretty good for my level! Thanks for the reference again!
What I originally asking was where you got the idea that scientists think that way. What I missed was that this was not what you had in mind but that its some of the forum members that think this way. Which forum were you referring to by the way? I.e. members from which forum?
-
I feel as if this post I'm about to make is right now very important on here as there are some members who have made it their objective to target what Science doesn't knows 'yet' to validate their own beliefs. I don't want the members this post is referring to, to get offended, rather understand what I'm about to say and start making actual difference.
Mr. Peter (Or would you prefer Dr.?), I wasn't really referring to all the members of a particular forum.
The members I was referring to included but was not limited to, 'The box'.
-
Mr. Peter (Or would you prefer Dr.?),
Call me Pete. I don't have a PhD. I have the equivalent of an MS in Physics.
-
Except that the simplest answer is not always the right one.
We cannot observe space directly, but we can see that (on a cosmic scale) everything is moving away from everything else. An observer anywhere in the universe would look around themselves and claim that all of the distant galaxies are moving away from them (expanding universe, where the observer is at the center of expansion), and that the galaxies farthest away are moving fastest.
If it were just an issue of galaxies moving apart from one another you would see a progression like:
a...b.....c............d
a.....b.....c............d
a.......b.....c............d
a..........b.....c............d
But what we see is more like:
a...b.......c..............d
a.....b.........c................d
a.......b...........c..................d
a..........b.............c....................d
or more exaggerated:
a..b....c......d
a....b........c............d
a........b................c........................d
a................b................................c................................................d
Which indicates that the rate that objects move apart from one-another depends on how far away they are already. The easiest way to think about this is that the space between them is growing.
This also explains how objects can be moving apart from one-another faster than the speed of light. Since it is impossible (as far as we know) to accelerate an object to a speed greater than the speed of light, but not necessarily impossible (though we don't know how) for the space itself between objects to increase at any rate, making it appear as if the objects themselves are moving.
There are other explanations of these observations, but expanding space is the current favorite among most physicists and cosmologists.
I am content for the moment saying that the observations and theory are consistent, but I do wonder if there is a better explanation. Luckily there are people smarter than both of us working on it right now!
to me this is the single most valuable post i ever read in this/all forums. Thank You! captain bird.
i always doubt about big bang theory, your post was the key to the answer i need.
when i found the conflict of a...b......c.........d equal to d...c......b.........a i was tired, trying to get some sleep.
just closed my eyes, the idea hits me like a dim flash, if gravity able to bend light path, able to slowdown light, why can't gravity accelerate incoming light?
i jumped up, looked at night sky and thanked God, then i came to post my find/idea. Ethos, this was my wow moment. will you paypal me 5?
-
i jumped up, looked at night sky and thanked God, then i came to post my find/idea. Ethos, this was my wow moment. will you paypal me 5?
Nope...................remember your buddy The Box's logic?
(2+3=5)
(5=1)
(1=0)
Maybe Mr. Box will agree to paypal you?
-
Thanks Ethos, i accept it as a quantum high 5!
-
Sometimes I feel 'TheBox' really is 'Jccc'. Wonder if that's really the case.
I've lifted this from the 'heat' thread because it is more appropriate here.
If we look at the posts by jccc and the box, we see some interesting differences.
Jccc has a consistent use of language, whereas box is almost bipolar, sometimes incoherent, other time very coherent.
Jccc has a poetic side I don't see in box, similarly a good sense of humour.
Although jccc can exhibit occasional, mild paranoia, this is much stronger in box.
Jccc posts mainly about the nature of the atom, nucleus, photon, particularly photon, where he views them quite differently to everyone else.
The box has a more general attack on the whole of science, and a very typical pattern of question response. He posts a question eg "does heat repel heat, folks reply assuming a level of understanding implied by the question, box then accuses them of not answering the question, because he knows what heat is. However, if he really knew what heat is, he wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place. This behaviour could be indicative of a troll who is just having a laugh. Jccc doesn't show this type of behaviour.
I think there is a trait in box that is fascinated by what I call semantic paradoxes which involve conflicting definitions and usage of words, and I don't see this in jccc. I won't go through all the examples, but take one of his recent posts "technically the wind doesn't blow". By definition, the wind is an atmospheric movement of air, and blow (in this context) is movement of air. So the statement is a tautology.
I remember being fascinated by these when I was about 12. If a tree falls in a forest ....; don't read this notice; all lawyers are liars and I'm a lawyer; it's a long list. Some are interesting because they challenge the law of the excluded middle, or make you think about definitions, circular arguments and neurone loops. I also remember, about the same time, reading about the musings of Bishop Berkley and spending time walking around the house with my eyes closed, you don't need to bump into many tables before you realise the meaning of the word pragmatic. However, it does make you think about how our perceptions steer our view of (what I call) probably reality.
Arthur C Clark wrote a book in which one of the characters says "some jokes are always funny, some are funny only once". I would say that some things are interesting all the time, others like Sudoko and paradoxes, only once.
No I don't think jccc is the box. Too difficult for one person to keep up consistently. I find jccc good fun when he is not being annoying and disrupting serious posts, but the box often makes me wish I hadn't bothered to put fingers to keyboard, maybe I've finally learnt!.
PS hope you saw my reply #16 in the heat thread, not offended, just misunderstood!!
-
Sometimes I feel 'TheBox' really is 'Jccc'. Wonder if that's really the case.
I've lifted this from the 'heat' thread because it is more appropriate here.
If we look at the posts by jccc and the box, we see some interesting differences.
Jccc has a consistent use of language, whereas box is almost bipolar, sometimes incoherent, other time very coherent.
Jccc has a poetic side I don't see in box, similarly a good sense of humour.
Although jccc can exhibit occasional, mild paranoia, this is much stronger in box.
Jccc posts mainly about the nature of the atom, nucleus, photon, particularly photon, where he views them quite differently to everyone else.
The box has a more general attack on the whole of science, and a very typical pattern of question response. He posts a question eg "does heat repel heat, folks reply assuming a level of understanding implied by the question, box then accuses them of not answering the question, because he knows what heat is. However, if he really knew what heat is, he wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place. This behaviour could be indicative of a troll who is just having a laugh. Jccc doesn't show this type of behaviour.
I think there is a trait in box that is fascinated by what I call semantic paradoxes which involve conflicting definitions and usage of words, and I don't see this in jccc. I won't go through all the examples, but take one of his recent posts "technically the wind doesn't blow". By definition, the wind is an atmospheric movement of air, and blow (in this context) is movement of air. So the statement is a tautology.
I remember being fascinated by these when I was about 12. If a tree falls in a forest ....; don't read this notice; all lawyers are liars and I'm a lawyer; it's a long list. Some are interesting because they challenge the law of the excluded middle, or make you think about definitions, circular arguments and neurone loops. I also remember, about the same time, reading about the musings of Bishop Berkley and spending time walking around the house with my eyes closed, you don't need to bump into many tables before you realise the meaning of the word pragmatic. However, it does make you think about how our perceptions steer our view of (what I call) probably reality.
Arthur C Clark wrote a book in which one of the characters says "some jokes are always funny, some are funny only once". I would say that some things are interesting all the time, others like Sudoko and paradoxes, only once.
No I don't think jccc is the box. Too difficult for one person to keep up consistently. I find jccc good fun when he is not being annoying and disrupting serious posts, but the box often makes me wish I hadn't bothered to put fingers to keyboard, maybe I've finally learnt!.
PS hope you saw my reply #16 in the heat thread, not offended, just misunderstood!!
I don't usually copy anyone's whole post out of respect for efficiency. However, because I reasoned that this last post by Colin is most intelligent and worthy, I made the exception. These points Colin has make are manifest examples for why Pete choose him to be one of our fine members at Pete's alternate forum.
My hats off to you Colin.......... A very fine example of critical thinking!
-
bold head?
Butt head!
-
my theory to explain the expending space is there is no expansion at all.
to any observer, local star/gravitational field will accelerate incoming lights from all directions.
the closer star lights will blueshift the most due to stronger gravity, therefore, the farther away stars look like the more redshift. just like what we observed.
thoughts?
i am thinking the blueshift of the frequency of the incoming light is proportional to sun's mass/r^2 or something like that.
maybe the universe is still expanding, but at same rate. the observation result is the expending effect plus the local gravitational blueshift.
farther investigation and calculation are needed.
the size of the visible universe, the distance between stars, the origin and age of the universe, all need to be reconsider.
thoughts?
-
I don't usually copy anyone's whole post out of respect for efficiency. However, because I reasoned that this last post by Colin is most intelligent and worthy, I made the exception. These points Colin has make are manifest examples for why Pete choose him to be one of our fine members at Pete's alternate forum.
My hats off to you Colin.......... A very fine example of critical thinking!
That's quite true. I also found that post to be excellent. I'm very happy he accepted my invitation to join my forum.
-
my theory to explain the expending space is there is no expansion at all.
to any observer, local star/gravitational field will accelerate incoming lights from all directions.
the closer star lights will blueshift the most due to stronger gravity, therefore, the farther away stars look like the more redshift. just like what we observed.
thoughts?
i am thinking the blueshift of the frequency of the incoming light is proportional to sun's mass/r^2 or something like that.
maybe the universe is still expanding, but at same rate. the observation result is the expending effect plus the local gravitational blueshift.
farther investigation and calculation are needed.
the size of the visible universe, the distance between stars, the origin and age of the universe, all need to be reconsider.
thoughts?
if we stand near by a black hole and look around, will we see/think the universe is expending much faster?
if we go deep space that is far far away any stars, we look around, is the universe still expending?
Bill, mind to share your thoughts?
-
bold head?
Butt head!
Ethos,
you and i are the 2 top critical thinkers, who else ever wowed?
agree?
With all due respect jccc, you and I are nothing alike.
Am I interested enough in the truth to investigate?.................Yes
Can I take good advice?..........Yes
Do I sincerely desire to learn?.................Yes
When I'm wrong, can I admit my errors and profit from that fact?.......Yes
When faced with new information, can I change my mind?...........Yes
Mr. jccc, you have proven beyond any shadow of doubt that you should 'honestly' answer each of these questions in the negative.
Is jccc interested enough in the truth to investigate?................No
Can jccc take good advice?............No
Does jccc sincerely desire to learn?.......No
When jccc is wrong, can he admit his errors and profit from that fact?....No
When jccc is faced with new information, can he change his mind?........No
Mr. jccc, you and I are nothing alike!!
-
opinion various, bet you pretty soon we'll all become bold head.
really enjoy your comment!
-
really enjoy your comment!
Good. Because it was correct.
-
Pete,
is my no bang theory correct?
why?
-
Pete,
is my no bang theory correct?
why?
No. There is no reason to assume that the Bang Theory is wrong. It most certainly hasn't been "debunked." All observations made so far are consistent with the theory of the Big Bang. Don't forget that science uses inductive logic and not deductive logic. Otherwise you'll start whining that just because you've found a theory that fits the facts it doesn't mean that the theory is correct. Yes. All physicists know that simple fact. But the more we test a theory and the results of the experiment is in accordance with theory the more faith we have in the theory. That's what science is all about.
-
Pete, this is the only comment from another forum, how do you think?
jcc said: ↑
my theory to explain the expending space is there is no expansion at all.
to any observer, local star/gravitational field will accelerate incoming lights from all directions.
the closer star lights will blueshift the most due to stronger gravity, therefore, the farther away stars look like the more redshift. just like what we observed.
thoughts?
So, they are red shifted mainly because the light has had more time to fall, and from a greater distance? And you would explain the blue shift of the Andromeda galaxy in this model because you believe it is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way? Not so. The Canis cluster galaxy is closer, and it is red shifted because evidently it is not headed in our direction.
See:
http://www.universetoday.com/21914/the-closest-galaxy-to-the-milky-way/
Stars in our own galaxy are red shifted. This has been used for ranging, determining a general shape and identifying various spiral arm structures in the Milky Way.
Nothing made of matter or energy travels faster than light. Light may bend or Doppler shift when the observer is moving either toward or away from the source, and this is generally a much larger effect on Doppler shift than any caused by proximity to or by light propagating into proximity of gravitating objects.
More recently, multiple gravitationally lensed images of a distant supernovae have been observed going off at intervals marked in terms of decades of light travel time, so one hardly need consider Doppler shifts to determine your idea to eliminate the Big Bang doesn't make much sense. That doesn't necessarily invalidate your conclusion. Informed skepticism is usually good for science, so keep trying.
-
Pete, this is the only comment from another forum, how do you think?
The proper way to ask that question is What do you think? not "how" do you think.
Do you know what an axiom is? Its the same thing as a principle. Look those terms up and then look up the phrase Cosmological Principle and then apply this to your idea and see what you end up with.
A great deal of the time when you post all these speculations that you come with you seem to ignore almost everything else in physics. In this case you're ignoring the principle that the Big Bang theory is based on, i.e. the cosmological principle.
Let me know what you find when you look it up and study it.
-
I don't really think he is going to study it. Rather, he will just attack you back with poorly formed phrases ignoring your questions regarding, if he has studied it.
It's not his mistake, you see. Noticing how he types I really feel as if he needs to first learn to read and write English before anything else. Maybe he wants to study the link you mentioned above... maybe he simply can't;
Whatever the case, if you are trying to teach/argue (with) him... I would really prefer not to. I believe you all have much, much better things to do. I really hope none of you brilliant minds get tempted to correct his feeble beliefs out of rage or whatever reason you might have.
Peter, thanks for making the forum public!
-
I don't really think he is going to study it. Rather, he will just attack you back with poorly formed phrases ignoring your questions regarding, if he has studied it.
It's not his mistake, you see. Noticing how he types I really feel as if he needs to first learn to read and write English before anything else. Maybe he wants to study the link you mentioned above... maybe he simply can't;
Whatever the case, if you are trying to teach/argue (with) him... I would really prefer not to.
If you're suggesting that I do your will then that's not going to happen.
I believe you all have much, much better things to do. I really hope none of you brilliant minds get tempted to correct his feeble beliefs out of rage or whatever reason you might have.
I only respond to crackpots when I'm bored.
Peter, thanks for making the forum public!
What forum are you talking about? You said "the" forum. What is "the" forum you're referring to and why would you think that I'd know what you were referring to?
-
I thought it was pretty obvious. Anyways, I was talking about the NewEnglandPhysics forum. I really wanted to join it,so... thanks!
-
I'm not suggesting that you do my will. I just thought that it would be in everyone's best interest to ignore Jccc.
But, since now it's pretty clear that you like to pass your time trying to convince about how wrong he is... I will stop with my blabbering.
-
I thought it was pretty obvious. Anyways, I was talking about the NewEnglandPhysics forum. I really wanted to join it,so... thanks!
No. It wasn't obvious at all. Why would you think that it was.
Also, I don't understand what are you thanking me for? Please clarify.
I don't recall sending you an invitation to join and membership is by invitation only. I need to know you a lot better than I do now before I invite you to join.
-
Here is your answer Mr. Peter;
Answer to what? You sure speak in riddles a lot. Quite often you assume that people know what you're talking about and then when you post a comment with that assumption it comes across very confusing. It's one of the reasons I haven't invited you to join my forum. You're going to need to stop making so many assumptions. This comment is a perfect example. You posted "Here is your answer Mr. Peter;" and then you leave it like that thus providing nothing that could be interpreted as an answer to anything. Not only that I don't see anything which could be a question by me directed towards you to begin with. I simply don't allow that kind of confusion in my forum.
By the way, I just got the book you referred me and it's pretty good for my level! Thanks for the reference again!
What book was that? IT's best to state what you're referring to in situations like this. It's not as though I keep a record or can recall all the suggestions of which books I recommend to people.
-
Why do you expect Science to know everything?
I'm curious where you ever got this idea from? It's most certainly wrong.
Fascinating how two people can read the same thing and understand it differently. I took it that Jasper was chiding those who seemed to expect science to know everything.
Here is your answer Mr. Peter;
By the way, I just got the book you referred me and it's pretty good for my level! Thanks for the reference again!
I quoted the answer along. I don't really see how you can misinterpret the whole thing. Unless of course, you did not read the quoted part.
I do realize my mistake though. I will be sure to be precise from now on.
The book I was talking about, that you referred to me was 'Quantum Reality: Beyond new physics'.
-
Also, I don't understand what are you thanking me for? Please clarify.
I don't recall sending you an invitation to join and membership is by invitation only. I need to know you a lot better than I do now before I invite you to join.
If we are both talking about the same forum... which is 'http://newenglandphysics.org/professional_forum/index.php', then you need to fix the registration process. Since it allows anyone to join the forum. Although, if I'm mistaken and it's not the forum I think it is. Then, my apologies!
-
I quoted the answer along. I don't really see how you can misinterpret the whole thing. Unless of course, you did not read the quoted part.
Because
Fascinating how two people can read the same thing and understand it differently. I took it that Jasper was chiding those who seemed to expect science to know everything.
is not a question that I posed. That's why saying that "Here's the answer Mr. Peter" is confusing. I.e. because there is neither an obvious question nor an obvious answer that you gave.
I do realize my mistake though. I will be sure to be precise from now on.
You'll also have to explain what the answer was.
The book I was talking about, that you referred to me was 'Quantum Reality: Beyond new physics'.
I see. I'm glad you like it.
-
If we are both talking about the same forum... which is 'http://newenglandphysics.org/professional_forum/index.php', then you need to fix the registration process. Since it allows anyone to join the forum. Although, if I'm mistaken and it's not the forum I think it is. Then, my apologies!
In the first place, that forum is not open to anybody except professional scientists. Didn't you notice that it's called the "professional" forum? In the second place it doesn't allow anyone to join. All you were able to do is register. It requires my approval to be accepted. In the third place I did something wrong which allowed people to register without my approval. Take a look at the threads people started. They're all nonsense, i.e. they're not meant to start a conversation. They only joined so that they could post advertisements.
-
Some folks on here fail to realise that answers are not intended to "write the textbook" but can only be a summary, and hence incomplete, sometimes appearing inconsistent and seemingly full of holes!
I'm so glad that you know this. I've pointed this out in the past but don't do it that often since people don't really listen to it. They wrongly perceive it as an excuse for an error. The fact that you know this point as well as you do makes you a very wise man in my opinion. [:)]