Anonymous moderation on a supposedly open forum science@lemmy.world is an
astonishing act cowardice and dissent of views. When Planck himself said that
the birth of quantum mechanics was an “act of desperation” and a “mathematical
trick” the only thing left to moderate is ignorance.
Thanks for validating my existence as a human! So-called open platforms like this have no credibility though if anyone can (anonymously) say they don’t like something and get it removed it seems.
Make no mistake, I am not a MOND apologist (I am astonished how vicious the hoi polloi is). As you allude, my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation. If these theories made sense other than on paper as math equations we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And I would note that no one could possibly argue with the central tenet of my “drivel,” which is that there are legitimately shaky bases to both quantum mechanics and legitimized (not legitimate) theories like dark matter and Dirac’s equations that led to the preposterous notion of “antimatter” (i.e. “Dirac Sea”) and dark matter/energy. How can one claim any kind of superiority with physics when 95% of it can’t be explained by your model. Invent a more complex (post-hoc) model say the physicists!
I can add 1 + 1, then subtract 3 and call it a magic number but that doesn’t make whatever story I concoct around it any more real, especially when the story (theory) is made up after the math works. That’s not science: that is a fraud. It’s no different than what a scammer like Bernie Madoff did he made the books look good and then concocted a story about his incredible investment returns. And spare me your ridicule: a key flaw of scientific tunnel vision is failing to look outside your own discipline and see that the same themes reoccur in the wider world, whether you admit it or not.
Maybe if you weren’t consistently snooty and rude while promoting your scientific conspiracy theories, people would be more tolerant. But the theories still wouldn’t be good.
my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation.
I believe this reveals a real lack of understanding of how modern science is done. I’ve heard similar complaints about scientists being blinded by orthodoxy from anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and from people promoting their alternate models of physics (e.g. “everything is made of photons”). In every case the complaint is based on their own ideological blindness, misunderstanding of the science, or both.
The idea that scientists are unwilling to interrogate modern theories or entertain alternatives is ridiculous. The most interesting results aren’t those that reaffirm the standard model or expectations, it’s those that are in conflict with our best understanding of reality. These are the observations and theories that reveal new physics. This is the stuff of Nobel prizes.
Searches for physics beyond the standard model are commonplace; physics conferences generally have at least a few sections devoted to them. There are large collaborations doing experiments that search for physics that’s inconsistent with the standard model, for example searches for neutrinoless double beta decay or the neutron electric dipole moment.
Even experiments that ultimately reaffirm the standard model began as attempts to interrogate it and discover things that challenge it. At the LHC, Atlas and CMS both observed the Higgs boson and found its properties were consistent with the standard model. If you talk with any of the physicists involved, they were actually disappointed that no new physics was observed. This was the most boring possible result.
So-called open platforms like this have no credibility though if anyone can (anonymously)
You miss the point of the fediverse so much so that I almost feel it’s deliberate.
You can make your own community and post there as much as you like (you’re the moderator). If your instance admins don’t like it sign up somewhere else and continue!
If you don’t see the value in this over reddit/other corporate social media then I don’t know what to tell you.
A lot of people may still disagree with your views/content but that doesn’t deplatform you! You can always have a space here. This should excite you.
You’re stance is literally just anti-establishment with no original conjectures. You’re discourse is worthless for furthering physics. Rather than propel the field forward, your dialog exists only to attack current progress and cause hesitation.
If you actually came up with a single testable claim, even if immediately refuted by evidence, you still would have contributed more to scientific discourse than your rant did just now.
Science is about finding the best answers for the questions we get from our observations about the world. We do not throw out these answers, no matter how bizarre and unwanted they may be, if they fit the evidence we have. We only seek better ones as we go.
Thanks for validating my existence as a human! So-called open platforms like this have no credibility though if anyone can (anonymously) say they don’t like something and get it removed it seems.
Make no mistake, I am not a MOND apologist (I am astonished how vicious the hoi polloi is). As you allude, my attempt is to balance the perspective of what has become polemic, faith-based scientific dogma completely divorced from fact with some kind of reality-based reasoning and investigation. If these theories made sense other than on paper as math equations we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And I would note that no one could possibly argue with the central tenet of my “drivel,” which is that there are legitimately shaky bases to both quantum mechanics and legitimized (not legitimate) theories like dark matter and Dirac’s equations that led to the preposterous notion of “antimatter” (i.e. “Dirac Sea”) and dark matter/energy. How can one claim any kind of superiority with physics when 95% of it can’t be explained by your model. Invent a more complex (post-hoc) model say the physicists!
I can add 1 + 1, then subtract 3 and call it a magic number but that doesn’t make whatever story I concoct around it any more real, especially when the story (theory) is made up after the math works. That’s not science: that is a fraud. It’s no different than what a scammer like Bernie Madoff did he made the books look good and then concocted a story about his incredible investment returns. And spare me your ridicule: a key flaw of scientific tunnel vision is failing to look outside your own discipline and see that the same themes reoccur in the wider world, whether you admit it or not.
Maybe if you weren’t consistently snooty and rude while promoting your scientific conspiracy theories, people would be more tolerant. But the theories still wouldn’t be good.
I believe this reveals a real lack of understanding of how modern science is done. I’ve heard similar complaints about scientists being blinded by orthodoxy from anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and from people promoting their alternate models of physics (e.g. “everything is made of photons”). In every case the complaint is based on their own ideological blindness, misunderstanding of the science, or both.
The idea that scientists are unwilling to interrogate modern theories or entertain alternatives is ridiculous. The most interesting results aren’t those that reaffirm the standard model or expectations, it’s those that are in conflict with our best understanding of reality. These are the observations and theories that reveal new physics. This is the stuff of Nobel prizes.
Searches for physics beyond the standard model are commonplace; physics conferences generally have at least a few sections devoted to them. There are large collaborations doing experiments that search for physics that’s inconsistent with the standard model, for example searches for neutrinoless double beta decay or the neutron electric dipole moment.
Even experiments that ultimately reaffirm the standard model began as attempts to interrogate it and discover things that challenge it. At the LHC, Atlas and CMS both observed the Higgs boson and found its properties were consistent with the standard model. If you talk with any of the physicists involved, they were actually disappointed that no new physics was observed. This was the most boring possible result.
You miss the point of the fediverse so much so that I almost feel it’s deliberate.
You can make your own community and post there as much as you like (you’re the moderator). If your instance admins don’t like it sign up somewhere else and continue!
If you don’t see the value in this over reddit/other corporate social media then I don’t know what to tell you.
A lot of people may still disagree with your views/content but that doesn’t deplatform you! You can always have a space here. This should excite you.
You’re stance is literally just anti-establishment with no original conjectures. You’re discourse is worthless for furthering physics. Rather than propel the field forward, your dialog exists only to attack current progress and cause hesitation.
If you actually came up with a single testable claim, even if immediately refuted by evidence, you still would have contributed more to scientific discourse than your rant did just now.
Science is about finding the best answers for the questions we get from our observations about the world. We do not throw out these answers, no matter how bizarre and unwanted they may be, if they fit the evidence we have. We only seek better ones as we go.