The problem with that is it comes close to censor ship. All we can do is point to the evidence, such as it is. If someone doesn't get it, then we tried.

Thing is, I like to link to references myself. You've probably noticed.

Yes, and I also noticed that you link to good references that are within the bounds of science, not misinformation.

Isn't that the whole point of having a standard? It allows a high percentage of the good to get in and a high percentage of the bad to be left out. From there, the moderators can make exceptions, of course. I'm a member at other physics forums that would not approve of the reference shortbus pointed to. The reason why it is important is because even though I can filter the good and the bad (and I'm sure you can too), there are others that are just starting to learn that will be steered down the wrong path by misinformation.

Is it censorship when the refereed journals, continuously reject the tired old theories that have not met the minimum standards of science? If it is, then it should be ok to do it here, and then I guess not all censorship is bad. If it isn't, then there is no problem. Remember, we still have an off-topic forum that these other ideas can be discussed in. I'm not asking for total censorship, but I am recommending proper placement of fringe stuff.

 

I like science, but this is not a science journal. We do have limits, such as overunity, and we can point out major flaws of both reasoning or facts, and reference real scientific data, but in the end if we start requiring everyone to believe as we do or shut up that is censorship, and this would be a empty space with a few true believers of a breed.

Discussion is the key, though it can be frustrating. It is the nature of a site like this.

 

but in the end if we start requiring everyone to believe as we do or shut up that is censorship,

I have to apologize for being a very bad communicator. The interpretations many people make about what I say leaves me dumbfounded very often. With the number of people that misinterpret me and the far distance they travel in the misinterpretation forces me to acknowledge that the fault is mine for not expressing myself well.

I would have thought it is clear that I'm not asking others to believe as we do or believe in one idea, or shut up. My intent was to ask that we debate science in a science forum. Science in this area leaves a very wide range of alternative viewpoints and points for debate. We don't need to bring in false science and this "meta-research". The off-topic is a good place to talk about meta-research since it won't confuse newbies into thinking it is mainstream science. No censorship is needed, just moderation. Moderation is the avoidance of extremes. Banning is clearly an extreme, and allowing meta-research in a science forum is an extreme, in my view. Moderation would be discussing meta-research in off-topic and science-research in a science forum, and the grey areas at the moderators discretion.

Anyway, I'm not really expecting an official change to the policies here. I trust the moderators will handle any extreme issues on a case-by-case basis. You say there is no censorship, but I'm sure if someone comes to the physics forum and starts trying to teach his own nonsense theories, you will squash it quickly. That is the main reason other forums have the rules, and perhaps that is not a big issue here. I just feel compelled to mention some points that I think are important. I was taught that they are very important. If people disagree, that's fine. If alternative ideas are allowed here, surely these ideas should be welcomed. So, i leave them for thoughtful consideration, without expectation of official actions.

 

The nature of text is it is missing a major channel of communication, facial expressions. Many times this will automatically clear up potential misunderstandings. It is why I generally try to be so calm in my posts, I don't assume I understood the other person correctly.

Keep on posting, I have found this to be fairly interesting overall as threads go.

 

This probably not that interesting. (not being a big, or sophisticated, talker.)

Personally I feel that science and Alt-Science discussions generally don't work. Mainly because the two sides generally are not having the same objectives. (or playing by the same rules.)

For the/a science related forum/section to me that is trying to understand/explain something rooted in (or related to) science.

But when it come to the Alt-science side it generally seems to be (to me) more a case of advocating there side/belief by dropping in a lot of meta(?)science-stuff that, when you start digging into it, has no science base. And if you point out the flaws ... they just dig op some more stuff ("and what about this ...") to keep you busy ... and/or start criticizing science as not being perfect, and as such "it can't be trusted either"

I don't mind discussions with the other side ... but don't think they belong in a science forum-section. (including meta-science flooding.) As I think that those kind of discussions are more beliefs discussions. (Chat forum/section perfect for that.)

 

You know, with all the discussion about the expanding universe, no one has mentioned the later findings that the expansion is accelerating. Now there is a kick in the pants.

By later I mean the last 30 years or so. I was listening to it on the radio.

 

what if;

time was removed from the equation. In my observations of life and matter, the perception of time is what sets us apart from all else. Is it our savour or our folly.

 

Think I just completely lost track of the subject.

Odd, feel like reading that funny Douglas Adams trilogy serie. (see my memory can't count.)

 

Then stick your thumb out.

 

Yes, and I also noticed that you link to good references that are within the bounds of science, not misinformation.

Isn't that the whole point of having a standard? It allows a high percentage of the good to get in and a high percentage of the bad to be left out. From there, the moderators can make exceptions, of course. I'm a member at other physics forums that would not approve of the reference shortbus pointed to. The reason why it is important is because even though I can filter the good and the bad (and I'm sure you can too), there are others that are just starting to learn that will be steered down the wrong path by misinformation.

Is it censorship when the refereed journals, continuously reject the tired old theories that have not met the minimum standards of science? If it is, then it should be ok to do it here, and then I guess not all censorship is bad. If it isn't, then there is no problem. Remember, we still have an off-topic forum that these other ideas can be discussed in. I'm not asking for total censorship, but I am recommending proper placement of fringe stuff.

There is a reason scientists were called Philosophers a long time ago. Maybe we need a Philosophy forum to determine the nature of time, and other thought experiments.

Truthfully, we do not have enough evidence to state concretely what a black hole is. We have strong proof of their existence, but after a million years and absorbing a few galaxies, you'd think the forces would be great enough to start a nuclear reaction. e.g. Are black holes an entrance to a wormhole to another galaxy, or a pulsar in this galaxy, or a dimensional gate?

Similar is the theory of the surface of some gas giants being made of Metallic Hydrogen. Being too cold to fuse, but with enough pressure from gravity to cause Hydrogen to act like all the other elements in its group on the periodic table and take the form of a metal.

 

Then stick your thumb out.

Problematic. Don't know which direction I should point to either. Other than Up perhaps.

Ok, what did you try to say or convey with your #126 post. As its not making any sens to me. (other than that imaginary "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" linkup.)
The "30 years" linked to "accelerated expansion" is completely trowing me off.



--- philosophizing scientists --- (can't resist)

Think there is a significant difference between philosophizing about fiction based on known facts. Compared to philosophizing about what facts can't be right in support for a specific fiction.

The key being of course not the philosophizing part. But the order in which facts and fiction are placed and used.

The first process is in favor of trying to investigate(or talk about) things in a critical way. The latter is not. The latter is more in favor of collection as much examples as possible, without being critical in relation to those examples.

The only discussions that makes sense to me between these two sides, is about ... well, to not drift of completely, something not Science(Physics) related.

(The last two parts are linked to some personal experiences of mine in relation to this. Where Science(including Darwin of course) is tossed out of the door because its not in favor of a personal truth. Ergo: very personally colored points of view.)

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-supernovae-universe-expansion-understood-dark.html

http://www.physorg.com/news103886236.html

The early observations were a long time ago.

 

what if;

time was removed from the equation. In my observations of life and matter, the perception of time is what sets us apart from all else. Is it our savour or our folly.

I am interested in that aspect to. There is the perception of time, the definition of time in physics. But really we can only look at rates of change and define time that way. Then I ran into another perspective - is the universe expanding or time slowing?

found an interesting philosophical discussion that puts some things in perspective

 

No, I'm not afraid to have an opinion any more than I'm afraid to have elbows. But, perhaps I feel that talking about my opinions on this subject here is about as interesting and useful, to other members, as me talking about my elbows.
...

First, thank you for your sincere and polite reply to my admittedly confrontational post directed at you. I think it is a perception issue (as you also stated). To me, over a couple of pages this thread had evolved (devolved? ) to a fairly informal discussion with the regular guys sitting around "shooting the breeze" and casually discussing the "origin of the universe". To you (based on what you have said) this was an official physics thread on "The edge of space"...

Then in a later post you referred to physics forums where you are accustomed to a stricter rule set. So please let me apologise for MY tone in post #110!

...
Well, there need to be boundaries in a physics forums in order for it to function as a physics forum. If you and others can't see that or if the other members and moderators have a consensus that we don't care about that, then fine, let's have a free for all discussion with no limits on the sources and references. But, if we are going to do that, let's call the forum the "physics speculations forum" so that we don't misrepresent what we are trying to do.
...

Good point, but this is not a "physics forum" as such, it is in total a "hobby electronics forum", and (as I see it) the physics sub-section is a niche where people generally discuss physics related topics generally without any great physics knowlege amd often debate those things to the point of philosophy (as there is no philisophy sub-section and as some physics topics like "the origin of the universe" are so unkown as to be considered philosophical).

...
We ban over-unity discussions, why not this one, if you feel that way?
...

I don't specifically feel that the "origin of the universe" is either philosophical OR scientific. It's a guess, and philosophy and science are both useful in analysing something that cannot be known. But I do feel open-minded on this topic as to hearing and respecting the views of others. And I'm still interested in your personal view on the topic, should you be willing to speak up.

As for your "over unity" example I think that is heavy handed. "Over unity" is a quack area of science totally full of scams. Something very well understood.

But in comparison "the origin of the universe" is very unknown and unproven, as is much of the cutting edge of physics with a number of theories. Being on the cutting edge (ie unproven) it is close enough to philosophy as to be discussed in a manner which includes philosophical content. And that is my opinion.

 

You know, with all the discussion about the expanding universe, no one has mentioned the later findings that the expansion is accelerating. Now there is a kick in the pants.
...

I wonder if a "space/time is curved" theory would be of use in explaining why something that appeared to be moving away now appears to be moving away faster?

 

what if;

time was removed from the equation. In my observations of life and matter, the perception of time is what sets us apart from all else. Is it our savour or our folly.

It may just be me, but I feel it would be impossible to remove time from any discussion about the universe. Some of the concepts are difficult enough to deal with as it is. Reducing the allowed dimensionality would be kind of like looking at a 2D projection of a 3D phenomenon. It would make things less understandable rather than more understandable.

A raccoon may not have a label to hang on time (or may) but that does not mean its life does not rely on it.

We should not be mislead by our perceptions. Too many people are allowing this these days, and I blame Schrodinger for it. I've read too many follies bout how the universe is created at the whim of consciousness these days. It's too much.

I had an long argument with my brother the other day about light. He suggested that light does not exist unless there are humans there to see it. What rubbish. "Light" is just a label we hang on our perception of a narrow range of EM radiation. One can not infer from this that, what we call light does not exist just because we are not there to perceive it.

My brother's position comes from putting too much emphasis on perception, and on the importance of humans. This universe would exist just fine without us having our little squabbles about its nature and how, in such a woefully limited way, we perceive it.

 

I wonder if a "space/time is curved" theory would be of use in explaining why something that appeared to be moving away now appears to be moving away faster?

The "the red-shift is a property of space" theory is not a new theory. It is also not a totally rejected theory. The one real issue with it is that no one has taken it further than to say "the red-shift is a property of space".

In fact (and this may be of interest no one) I was a proponent of it at one time. The issue I, and may others, came across was explaining all the other observations of the universe in light of it. Where do you begin? Once you start to try, the implications are so far reaching, you'd have to turn back the physics clock 600 years, and re-write everything since then, to be consistent. Maybe someone will do it. Maybe you? I tried and failed, utterly.

 

The "the red-shift is a property of space" theory is not a new theory. It is also not a totally rejected theory. The one real issue with it is that no one has taken it further than to say "the red-shift is a property of space".

In fact (and this may be of interest no one) I was a proponent of it at one time.
...

Interesting to know! And the "red shift" is not just a property of space (IF it is a property of space), it's a very logical and standard effect that occurs with all transmissons.

If you stand close to a rock band you hear all the frequencies equally. If you stand a mile away you only hear the bass frequencies. Red shift. Likewise the sun overhead shining through 60 miles of atmosphere is white. When the sun is on the horizon and shines through 1000 miles of atmosphere... red shift. Likewise in electronics telephone line transmission, tape Dolby, FM radio etc etc all need preemphasis to boost the higher frequencies that are lost over distance.

A spectrum of energy waves travelling through any medium are filtered with some attenuation of the higher frequencies. So it's not that big a stretch to say that IF "6 billion light years" of distance in space is not a total void then there will be some filtration of the EM and some red shift. Logical enough. It's just a rock band further away.
(Cheekily trying to revitalise the thread)

 

You are ignoring spectrographic emissions. They red shift too, which is not a filter effect.

True red shift can only happen two ways, warped space, such as near a black hole, or acceleration.

I remember reading in "The Universe and Dr. Einstien" that one of Einstien's early arguements was the effects of acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable if there is no outside references. The arguement was an elevator accelerating 1G vs. being in a 1G gravitiy field, and a bullet passing through.

 

Filtration is the blocking(reflect or scattering) of particles/light. Effecting only the light(beam!) apparent magnitude(brightness).

Red shift it a relative energy change of light(particle!), in relation to other reverence points. (or point)

mmm, Just in case.
Red sunsets are the result of different filtration levels on different light frequencies.

---

O yea, "Minute Physics" has some nice video's in relation to some of the things being talked about in this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics