[Paradigmer]

However, take care not to knock the maths. Without it Newton’s laws become unusable.If you want to know how much force is needed to accelerate a car to 60mph in 1min and how far it will have traveled, you have to use maths.

Interestingly, skimming through this thread I have just spotted an odd post I need to go look at.

Absolutely agree. Pragmatism with the correct applications of maths is definitely an essential aspect of scientific works. However, doing bad science by misleading with maths, is insidiously bad to all.

I understand the knocking on maths can have negative impact to the curious lay person, on this I will exercise discreet as much as I could, as well as appropriately mention the caveats. 

Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.

[myuncle]

I’m not sure whether this is an anti science thread or an anti bad-science thread. Examples of lack of critical thinking exists in all areas, not just science and I’m glad to see that schools are now teaching critical thinking skills.

It's an anti bad-science thread. I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum. But disagreeing is essential for any debate.

I can only speak from the specific.
We are primarily an educational site to answer general questions posed by listeners to the podcasts, and readers of the articles. Listeners who pose these questions are usually looking for the current understanding on the topic. We often found that these questions were interrupted by people with their own theory or hobby horse. For example, a question about the moon’s orbit would attract a post by someone saying the answer was wrong because the world is flat not round; or a question on gravity would have the claim that gravity is due to air pressure and buoyancy; or someone else tries to interject aether or wormholes as the answer to most questions (these are real examples). In each case the original question gets lost because the thread gets diverted. So, it is necessary to draw a line about what can be discussed in the main section, but where do you draw that line? Some fora draw a hard line and will not allow any new theory discussion; I can understand that because they want to have an in depth discussion on quite detailed topics in specific areas. We take a more liberal view and will allow discussion in the appropriate area, but in drawing the line we are saying that many famous scientists around today would find themselves in the new/speculative section - and most wouldn’t mind.

Yes, where to draw the line? That's all about it. Normally forum means you are willing to debate. For example, if I go in a politics forum it's because I am happy to debate with people who have different ideas from mine, I'm happy to discuss, even if I disagree with them, I am not wasting my time, I can teach and learn  something. Why should I be afraid of different views, as long as they are polite, non offensive, there is nothing to worry about.
Another example. Let's say that you are into films, you like to talk about it in a forum. You will never find 100% of people agreeing with you, if you don't like Batman vs Superman, probably 99% of users will agree with you, but if some of them loved that film, and they disagree with your opinion, that's absolutely fine. They are into horrible films or they have horrible taste? That's fine, maybe it's a good occasion for them to learn something new about cinema. Another example, there is a poster who is an actor or an unknown director, and he posts clips about himself, maybe it's not that good, actually maybe you really dislike his clips, but what's the problem? As long as he's polite we can watch his/her clip. If the same person insists to promote his clips in a very polite but obsessive manner, in that case it's way too evident that he's using the forum not to discuss, but just to advertise himself, and this can be difficult to moderate, but if it goes to far, you can obviously ban this person.
Regarding science, it should be treated in the same way as any other topics. I would never use a forum to impose my view, a forum should be something totally different from snobbish elitist attitude, there is already peer review for that. And for educational purposes there is already  wikipedia/university, isn't that enough? Or you can create two forum sections, one for educational purpose (a.k.a the world according to peer reviews mainstream science), and another section for the constructive debate and constructive critical thinking.
Do I think peer review can be a good thing? Yes. But is it infallible? No. So who is going to disagree with the peer reviews? Allow the web to disagree and debate politely about anything.
Another example, someone here posts a new theory about a particle shaped like a cauliflower, this theory unifies everything and bla bla bla. What's the problem? You disagree with him? As long as he/she's polite, non arrogant, non offensive, where is the problem? 99% of users will maybe disagree with him, and will laugh reading his theory, but where's the problem? You can disagree and have a laugh at the same time, why not? After all this cauliflower theory is not so different from a string theory, is not so different from a multiverse theory, so why are you feeling threatened by new theories? So, in the end where to draw the line? In this forum I don't see many trolls, and yet if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.

[Colin2B]

I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.

We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.

if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.

Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.

PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.

Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.

This one caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread:

Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF

I was puzzled by the way this question is presented. If you look at the first document in the list, which I’ve separated out from the rest, the question presented is as shown in the screenshot of the video further down and asks where the current in the bottom wire comes from.
He shows a battery on the left and describes the voltage on the bottom line as 0v. This would probably make any layman go ‘Ooo, good point, no voltage, no current’, but as anyone who has worked with electricity knows, voltage is relative so we could easily describe the top line as 0v and the bottom line as showing a voltage and ask where does the current in the top line come from.
The answer is simple, they both come from the same place. If you connect a battery across a circuit you will provide a push of electrons at one end of the battery and a pull at the other end.
There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heavyside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift.
A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed.
The whole ‘problem’ here is based on a misunderstanding.
It would appear that this is being passed around the internet as an example of a conspiracy of science mafia suppressing alternative views.
Catt is not being suppressed, it’s just that he makes wrong assumptions and draws incorrect conclusions from them, so he is ignored. Example of bad science.

[Paradigmer]

It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” - Albert Einstein

Many will pass off this Einstein's remark as hilarious. But seriously, this is not funny at all.

[myuncle]

We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.


Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.

PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.

On the cases of full-blown trolling I agree with you. But normally if you don't reply, it simply means you are ignoring the post. Normally a troll, in any other forum, will get tired of being ignored, he/she will give up sooner or later because of being ignored, and he's not interested anymore in posting. I wouldn't feel responsible about what a schoolchild reads or thinks. If a kid is destined to become a fascist, a terrorist, or a flat earther, certainly is not because of a forum, but because of many other reasons: friends, family, education etc. For example a website dedicated to a suicide debate it's not an incitement to suicide, you are not committing any crime, in fact debating about suicide doesn't increase at all the risk of any attempt.

[Paradigmer]

No. Every particle has an electric field. The neutron might have a zero nett field, but that doesnt mean that it has no field. The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction

Agree.

Quote from: Paradigmer on 22/10/2018 04:14:28Quote from: mad aetherist on 20/10/2018 22:44:24The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons & confined-photons are a process of the aether, so in a sense there is interaction. I totally agree with this: The neutron is made of elementary particles which are confined-photons. Have tell me how you come to this proposition?

Is the electron a photon with a toroidal topology -- J G Williamson & M B van der Mark -- 1997.A new theory of light and matter -- J G Williamson -- 2014.On the nature of the photon and the electron -- J G Williamson -- 2015?The toroidal topology of the electron -- Miles Mathis --2012.Restoring the physical meaning of energy -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2013.The fundamental process of energy -- part 1 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.The fundamental process of energy -- part 2 -- Conrad Ranzan -- 2014.A model of the electron -- R Wayte -- 2010.

Thanks for the links. The UVS model agrees with the Miles Mathis analysis on the toroidal topology of the electron. And IMO, Miles Mathis proposition for the causality of the Lagrangian points, is the actuality of the empirical observations.

The UVS treatise also agrees with the insight of J G Williamson & M B van der Mark on elementary particles are confined-photons, and it could illustrate its causality with the UVS hypersphere topology for the structure of atomic nucleus.

From the UVS perspective, photon is a property of aether corpuscle. This suggests the postulated confinement of the energized photons, is caused by the vortically merged hyperspheres of the undulating aether corpuscles. The differential energetic process vortically forms the different flavors of quark.

In the UVS worldview, all physical existences are vortically made of light.

[Paradigmer]

There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).

I was invited by a Nobel Laureate to join the Researchgate Forum. With given impression, I believe this forum might allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. But really speaking, IDK.

Despite they allow participants who are independent researchers, I was denied entrance for not having an institutional email account.

If you at least have a student email account, they might let you in. Good luck.

Previously there was a Natural Philosophy Alliance forum, they allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. You have to pay an annual fee to join, however, it went defunct sometime ago.

[opportunity]

I mean, "yes, that's science".

Science takes what it does very seriously, like they are surgeons operating on the belief system of people. Its serious stuff. Science will only accept people of their own learning, like Medicine, otherwise you're a quack. And if you do come up with a discovery, you may have to prove you didn't steal it from a real scientist, or that you're not an alien infiltrating the planet.

[Bored chemist]

There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).

Actually, there is.
This forum for example, doesn't have a problem with mainstream science in the "speculation" section.

Plenty of fruitloopery includes bits of real science, and then goes off on invalid tangents.

However no sensible discussion forum will allow the fruit-loops to interrupt real science, and they are also segregated to ensure that people don't mistake  made up stuff for real science.

[opportunity]

That's true, and its not the Homer-mason club either...no real Homers allowed 

[opportunity]

There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!).

I was invited by a Nobel Laureate to join the Researchgate Forum. With given impression, I believe this forum might allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. But really speaking, IDK.

Despite they allow participants who are independent researchers, I was denied entrance for not having an institutional email account.

If you at least have a student email account, they might let you in. Good luck.

Previously there was a Natural Philosophy Alliance forum, they allow non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section. You have to pay an annual fee to join, however, it went defunct sometime ago.

You "can" get into Research Gate, but you need to set up a company and provide the email accounts of verifiable scientists who have accreditation. Setting up a company for that reason alone, I wouldn't do it. The research I've done in my own company, despite not being a learning institution, comparable to other companies, is in 6 figures. In other words, other companies, or should I say "learning institutions", have spent 6 figures or more in research that I have found better results in at a quarter of the price. To be honest, you have to "be" a company to exercise purchase orders for the type of research and associated hardware science is interested in, any research company would know that. But you're only wanting access to Research Gate to have your stuff known, right? You tube the results, that's what I'm thinking. Think outside the square. There's pats on the back on the path or there is hard core evidence at the finishing line.

I knew about a year ago I had to think outside the square in promoting my work. So, any results I have will be posted here:

That costs a bit of money as well, as an independent researcher, company, whatever....a good quality edited video of proof that is going to be scrutinised.

[opportunity]

There's history to that blank screen. I put in a patent, and I was told a year later there exists no "theory" in science to validate the proposal forwarded for a patent. I had proof, and I thought, "no, the patent office says there's no credible theory for the proof, so why present proof?".

Any ideas? Patents are a pretty price. It'd be nice to get feedback.

I'm asking myself if I knew this was going to happen, or if something else was possible? I knew this was going to happen, but that's how you get science......that crap process. If they're a church of the despicable kind, they need charity of the despicable kind. Who wouold throw money away like that? Its despicable.

(I hope I'm not "off topic")

[guest39538]

Science will only accept people of their own learning,

Corrective  edit

Science will only accept people of their own acceptance of BS

[opportunity]

Box, its not just science.....its weapons....space weapons....rockets, all that crap. I read that a space object was successfully recently blasted out of space. On a human level that is "target practice", on a practical level of calling a space a space its creating more debris in space for future travellers to maybe see as the rings of Saturn, yet all over the place.

[guest39538]

Box, its not just science.....its weapons....space weapons....rockets, all that crap.

90%  of  hopes  are  stupid  ideas,  serious,  they  will simply  not  work. 

[opportunity]

I think we will need a technology beyond the crap we've left in space already, that can deal with the crap we've left there, and can ideally not promote any more the crap we put there. I can't patent that, and I don't think anyone can patent that device....it would be too scary for governments scaring other governments with debris. But...do real scientists in the new ideas forum have another idea?

[guest39538]

I think we will need a technology beyond the crap we've left in space already, that can deal with the crap we've left there, and can ideally not promote any more the crap we put there. I can't patent that, and I don't think anyone can patent that device....it would be too scary for governments scaring other governments with debris. But...do real scientists in the new ideas forum have another idea?

Nothing  but  problematic  dog  poo  of  chaos....

[opportunity]

“Geometry has two great treasures: one is the Theorem of Pythagoras; the other, the division of a line into extreme and mean ratio. The first we may compare to a measure of gold; the second we may name a precious jewel.
–Johannes Kepler

We can rest assured with a new golden ratio theory in our history.....its not like aliens have landed.

[guest39538]

.its not like aliens have landed.

They'd  probably  eat  them,  experiment, poor things  looking to  rest, perhaps you need a magic lance to clean up the mess of mess , like  a knight on horse, although it could be night on a rock of night of course.

[opportunity]

Aliens....Destroying our destruction, to own destruction, without being a part of it....isn't that a good alien\?

That's just stupid hope, right? Aren't we better than that? Are we really looking for alien life as a planet desperate for answers?