Political leaders need to have a word with science forums.

I did have some youtube videos experimenting with a laser , I did not have narration. I deleted all the videos one day because nobody seemed to be listening or interested. I could easily repeat the experiment and add an online narrator voice.
I also had some cgi I did showing several things, this also got deleted. Some forums made me feel like a victim and the moderators allowed the ''bullying'' to continue, me being the one getting banned. I have been called all sorts of names but mostly try to remain calm and try not to get involved. But of course they start pushing the right buttons occasionally so I have got to admit I have retaliated.

 

Equality,
Robini123

You forget about ether.
Maybe it shouldn't have been relegated to the trash heap of Science?


Meanwhile rather than hijack a thread - why don't you two get a room or somethin'
or even initiate your topical thread. Maybe "Everything Radiation, Including EMF & Nuc."

This thread's title is:

Political leaders need to have a word with science forums.​

 

They just needed to consider an ether in a different context, if we consider the ether to be a field that has an equal field distribution of EMR and the EMR travels the field by means of pulling itself along the field, then there is no reason not to re-consider an ether.
You are also correct in that the title of the thread as been sidetracked. There does not seem to be any interest of the title though, do politicians not really care how science forums promote science? Do they feel it is appropriate for some forums to promote science as if a religion? proclaiming some theories as if 100% facts of axiom values.

 

Does EMR travel through space? That's an interesting topic in and of itself. Clearly most of our experiments say that it does. But, the holographic principal and quantum entanglement suggests that it may be more complicated than we realize.

 

You guys didn't allow any time for the on topic Erdogan and the teaching of Evolution comment to be noticed before burying it in off title chit chat. ttfn
And, get a thread you guys.

 

Presentation matters.

Perhaps you should conciser doing that in support of your paper.

Why dwell on the past? Learn from it and move on says I.

Your buttons are your problem. In this case "buttons" represents triggers. What are those triggers, why do you have them, and how can you remove those triggers from self, or at least mitigate their control over you? A rhetorical question as that is for you to figure out for yourself. Blaming others for triggering you (pressing your buttons) is blame misplaced. We are delving into philosophy and psychology here, but the questions I asked you I have also asked myself, and my answering those questions for me has made me much less susceptible to retaliating. While it can be hard to remain calm and objective in the face of ad hominem attacks, when we retaliate we loose our credibility as we appear unhinged.

 

Were that true panspermia would be the predominant theory for the origin of life on Earth.
It is not.

 

I never wrote it were true, I wrote there is evidence that could suggest it. In reality none of it is true, we can not define a prequel with any accuracy or truth, only if we ever get visited may we learn the truth assuming ''they'' knew the truth.

 

To be honest I am at the moment on Beta blockers from the doctor, I do not think anything bothers me too much at the moment. I am trying to not dwell on the past, but some of these forums I enjoyed discussing on. I was ok mostly until the ''lynch'' mob finds me and then persuades the mods to ban me by sending reports in all the time.

However I have come to this forum now, I feel the moderators might protect me a bit more than some science forums from the trolls. I also am on an English science forum which is brilliant with the way they treat people. They also understand a new theory section is for new theories and no matter how absurd the theory sounds, the person is not a troll. I get called a troll for posting a new theory or a speculation in the correct section then get banned in places. It is rather strange.

 

Why spam the forum with loads of different threads though, when we can all just chit chat about science in one thread. Evolution, Gods, all prequels and not true. They are a guess with no other reason involved. The truth is we do not know because we did not observe it .

 

Oh, that stuff is straight out of the politicised religionist play book. Congratulations.

 

A religionist is one who adheres to a religion, I adhere to no religion. However I do have respect for people, if they want to believe in a God , that is ok. If people want to interpret ''one'' differently, that is also their choice, However if they want to claim God is factual, then indeed I will point out why they are wrong.

 

What do you base these claims on?

 

Well I thought that would be quite obvious, simply because we were not there at the ''beginning'' if there was even a beginning. To put it simply, there was nobody to witness it.

 

Your response is typical of that made by creationists/fundies.

 

Do you make a distinction between 'historical sciences' and 'observational sciences'?

 

That response is typical of somebody trying to ''troll''. I guess you did not read my previous thread on this forum wanting to outlaw all religion belief from the Earth.

 

None of that negates the validity of my comment.
Are you "trying" to avoid the question William Rea asked you?

 

I do not understand your question, can you re-phrase it please?

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science

They call it 'operational science' in their critique but, most people that try to draw this distinction that I have come across on the Internet call it 'observational science'.

Does this link help?

 

Thank you for the link, that is something new to me, I did not know these terms. I do not make any distinction between the two because I did not know the terms.

My science is real science, I do not know what people might call it , but I try not to use no fairy tales. Most of my problem with science, the interpretation of a process doesn't work although the process works on some things. They seemingly explain things wrongly. You can call it an argument about semantics if you like, but explaining things correctly changes the science but the process remains the same.

For example, changing the term time dilation to a timing dilation then becomes accurate without changing the process involved.


added- on second thoughts I have reconsidered the distinction, Historical science being good honest science, operational science something that is going to earn money, I see the difference now, they wont accept me because I am not going to make them a fat payroll.

 

Ok I wanted to bring this back from the depths of the forum. I now have moderator threatening to ban me because other members dont like me. I think it is time for political invention with these so called discussion forums. The moderator is also claiming I need professional help.

The best thing about this, other members are not really speaking to me, if they are annoyed they can avoid reading the thread.