realitycheck and farsight ban

[Captain Kremmen]

Shakespeare just rolled over in his grave and puked.

That's a quote from Ben Johnson isn't it?

When everyone on here has been banned
the mods will start banning each other.
Eventually only James and Plasma will remain.
Their final duel will spell death for one of them.
He who remains will shrink down to a singularity
and emerge into a brand new universe.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Would you care to demonstrate I am in error? Perhaps a link to a relevant thread? Didn't think so

Your work lacks any detail, therefore isn't worthy of publication, never mind the 4 Nobel Prizes you claim. You're functionally innumerate so cannot do or understand even the most basic of mathematics and therefore none of your work has any sound basis, purely arm waving. The one time you tried to answer my challenge to provide any numerical detail you posted numerology and someone else's at that! You described it as (something like) amazing, when it was so bad a child should have seen through it. Your attempts to talk about such things as curvature, including inflation, have all failed terribly. You don't understand the difference between a mathematical axiom and a physical postulate.

Tell you what, it's easier if we flip this around. Provide one, just one, methodical derivation within your own work of a valid model of a physical phenomenon of your choice and show that it can quantitatively model the phenomenon in question. Given you've not managed to do this in the 5+ years I've been asking and could only once provide any kind of response beyond ignoring me (the afore mentioned numerology incident) you are well aware your work fails the most basic of standards. Hence your claims of competency in physics are in error. Coupled with your demonstrable inability to do any mathematics the conclusion is you have nothing but pop science and unjustified opinion based on nothing but ignorance (since you don't/can't read proper papers, books or lecture notes nor have access to proper experimental data).

Of course if you can rise to that particular challenge then provide a link. Didn't think so....
So by any rational yardstick you're a hack and the fact you continue to try to tell people about physics which you cannot do, do not know and have not created (nothing you've created is 'physics') that amounts to a type of trolling. You're tolerated for the general amusement you provide. Friends and I sometimes bring you up in conversation, usually as an analogy for something rather bad and always accompanied with a chuckle (at your expense).

 

[Gorlitz]

Your work lacks any detail, therefore isn't worthy of publication, never mind the 4 Nobel Prizes you claim. You're functionally innumerate so cannot do or understand even the most basic of mathematics and therefore none of your work has any sound basis, purely arm waving. The one time you tried to answer my challenge to provide any numerical detail you posted numerology and someone else's at that! You described it as (something like) amazing, when it was so bad a child should have seen through it. Your attempts to talk about such things as curvature, including inflation, have all failed terribly. You don't understand the difference between a mathematical axiom and a physical postulate.

Tell you what, it's easier if we flip this around. Provide one, just one, methodical derivation within your own work of a valid model of a physical phenomenon of your choice and show that it can quantitatively model the phenomenon in question. Given you've not managed to do this in the 5+ years I've been asking and could only once provide any kind of response beyond ignoring me (the afore mentioned numerology incident) you are well aware your work fails the most basic of standards. Hence your claims of competency in physics are in error. Coupled with your demonstrable inability to do any mathematics the conclusion is you have nothing but pop science and unjustified opinion based on nothing but ignorance (since you don't/can't read proper papers, books or lecture notes nor have access to proper experimental data).

Of course if you can rise to that particular challenge then provide a link. Didn't think so....
So by any rational yardstick you're a hack and the fact you continue to try to tell people about physics which you cannot do, do not know and have not created (nothing you've created is 'physics') that amounts to a type of trolling. You're tolerated for the general amusement you provide. Friends and I sometimes bring you up in conversation, usually as an analogy for something rather bad and always accompanied with a chuckle (at your expense).

When I read this I didn't think about whom it was supposedly written about, it made me think about the writer. A great saddness seems to be eminating from this writer, each line dripping with scorn and poison just makes me feel so very sorry for the individual who could not only feel such things but also go as far to type them on a public forum in what could only be described as a blatant attempt at character assassination. For surely to write such things someone must have been so hurt or damaged that only pitty can remain for such a poor fellow as this.
I truely hope that whatever motivated such a hateful post designed for nothing more than to cause the maximum amount of distress can be put right in this distrubed individuals life and that we don't see such mean spirited malevolence from any future such posts.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

When I read this I didn't think about whom it was supposedly written about, it made me think about the writer. A great saddness seems to be eminating from this writer, each line dripping with scorn and poison just makes me feel so very sorry for the individual who could not only feel such things but also go as far to type them on a public forum in what could only be described as a blatant attempt at character assassination. For surely to write such things someone must have been so hurt or damaged that only pitty can remain for such a poor fellow as this.
I truely hope that whatever motivated such a hateful post designed for nothing more than to cause the maximum amount of distress can be put right in this distrubed individuals life and that we don't see such mean spirited malevolence from any future such posts.

I am still sure, Farsight, has a thick enough skin. If, Farsight, is only intellectually dishonest, other than actually believing his own tripe, he'll be fine. Otherwise, AlphaNumeric, could seem to be making fun of, Farsights, psychological distresses.

 

[leopold]

When I read this I didn't think about whom it was supposedly written about, it made me think about the writer. A great saddness seems to be eminating from this writer, each line dripping with scorn and poison just makes me feel so very sorry for the individual who could not only feel such things but also go as far to type them on a public forum in what could only be described as a blatant attempt at character assassination.

oh my fucking god.

JAMES ! !

 

[PhysBang]

When I read this I didn't think about whom it was supposedly written about, it made me think about the writer. A great saddness seems to be eminating from this writer, each line dripping with scorn and poison just makes me feel so very sorry for the individual who could not only feel such things but also go as far to type them on a public forum in what could only be described as a blatant attempt at character assassination. For surely to write such things someone must have been so hurt or damaged that only pitty can remain for such a poor fellow as this.
I truely hope that whatever motivated such a hateful post designed for nothing more than to cause the maximum amount of distress can be put right in this distrubed individuals life and that we don't see such mean spirited malevolence from any future such posts.

Whether or not Farsight is mentally ill to the point of being deluded, he is still a very spiteful person who hurls (false) insults at people about their own lack of scientific discipline while at the same time refusing to engage in scientific rigor for his own claims.

 

[kwhilborn]

I still say Realitycheck was one of the most eloquent writers here, and would make a great novelist.

The moderators do not spell out reasons for bans, but he did feel targetted prior to the ban which raises some red flags for me. I think his ban was a mistake.

Prometheus - Farsight: I am fed up of you repeating this fallacy that you have been corrected on at least twice by me and I'm sure many times by others. Have a 3 day ban to hopefully learn some general relativity.

Realitycheck - So the objectively observed and experimentally proven 'mod-troll' combo 'pattern' continues, despite all that has been pointed out to you/everyone about same in open forum. I had already effectively withdrawn from posting for a few weeks, but this was too blatant and disheartening of human nature and scientific integrity to let pass without observation of the facts in open forum.

This is again a jack-booted, egoistic, elitist power trip intrusion made even more egregious by lack of proper full and open justification before expediently proceeding to ban so as to deny common right of self-defence. Another blatant case of abusing the rules to make unsupported accusations of 'lying' etc etc from mod-trolls having personal bias/baggage and prejudice and double standards. A perfect illustration of the oft-observed intimidatory/personal censorship/tactics to skew/shut down the open discourse and obligingly satisfying the troll-mod agenda.
Do better. Much.

Note the bolded paragraph in quotes. This not only is sublime writing, but possibly a contributing factor in his ban.

This would seem probable since this was written 11-27-12, 04:08 PM, and he was banned shortly afterwards .

11-27-12 04:43 PM, was his last entry of Sciforums. EXACTLY 35 MINUTES AFTER BERATING A MODERATOR.

ANYONE CAPABLE OF SIMPLE MATH CAN SEE THAT THE TIMING OF THIS POST, AND THE LAST TIME HE WAS ON SCIFORUMS, AND THAT HIS BAN SEEMS TO BE AS A RESULT OF,
How did he say it?

expediently proceeding to ban so as to deny common right of self-defence

and

Another blatant case of abusing the rules to make unsupported accusations of 'lying' etc etc from mod-trolls having personal bias/baggage and prejudice and double standards.

and

A perfect illustration of the oft-observed intimidatory/personal censorship/tactics to skew/shut down the open discourse and obligingly satisfying the troll-mod agenda.

and

]This is again a jack-booted, egoistic, elitist power trip intrusion made even more egregious by lack of proper full and open justification

Come-on, that is some nicely worded finger pointing he did there. His writing skills alone should make make us keep him.

Does anyone else think it is "suspicious" that he was permantly banned from sciforums 35 minutes after writing this? I know moderators do not need to give reasons, but sometimes things are OBVIOUS.

I think (just opinion) that he was such a good writer that any moderator would be challenged to answer this, and it was easier to have a temper tantrum ban.

The ban was permanent.

The justification withheld.

The reason. Sadly Obvious.

I had composed this mainly for a message to James R, however it deserved posting as well. I understand if moderators receive the support in these cases from management, but it needed to be said, and it is sad.

reality check was OBVIOUSLY targetted, and then banned permanently after this post berating the moderator in question.

I must only imagine that power tripping through the abuse of banning abilities has some mental stimulus for those involved. That is also sad.

 

[prometheus]

See post #10 above.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Prometheus,

he did feel targetted prior to the ban which raises some red flags for me

and had,

I had already effectively withdrawn from posting for a few weeks, but this was too blatant and disheartening of human nature and scientific integrity to let pass without observation of the facts in open forum.

I have also seen you move topics to the Cesspool that was revived by James R.

I do not know what specific threads were closed, however closing a subject because YOU think it is not science, does not mean it is not science. I can think of many woo subjects that can written off in the minds of many, but cannot be disproved by science either and thus warrants investigation.

An example would be telepathy. I say it exists and is pretty easy to perform, and can get it to work most of the time. Yet even if I could get 100% accuracy it would not fit into our scientific method because without the tools sensitive enough to measure telepathy it would only be reliant upon the say so of the sender and receiver. There would be no concrete proof. Well there also is no proof it doesn't exist either, and I suggest statistics show a high probability of telepathy existing despite people like Dinosaur wanting to dismiss its possibilities.

I also have an open mind about something called "law of attraction"/Religion as they boil down to the same thing. Thoughts seem to have the ability to affect reality. People have taken to things like visualizing and religion for various reasons, but I have done many experiments regarding visualization/daily affirmations that seem to have uncanny/unexplainable results. For this reason alone I am forced to re-examine my belief structure about time.

According to me. If you started saying,"There are many ladybugs in my life.", "There are lots of Blue feathers in my life.", or some other odd daily affirmation repeatedly for an hour plus each day you would begin to see a lot more of each enter your life. I know skeptics would say awareness is what causes this perception, but I would argue something far more "magical" (not valid scientific word) is happening. It seems magical because it is so far beyond our scientific understanding it is like car to a caveman.

IF (NOTICE I SAID IF) someone wanted to explore this scientifically, in case that it is; how I say it is, then they would need to account for something very strange. The altering of History.

I cannot think of a stronger argument AGAINST religion than the one I have just given.

For a Miracle to work, for a prayer to be answered, for a rain dance to cause rain to fall there must have been some altering of history in many cases.

If a drowning sailor prays for a boat, then perhaps a boat altered course (at gods request) the day before to be on path for this prayer.

If you start affirming for Ladybugs and notice a special television documentary on ladybugs that evening that was likely scheduled weeks in advance and filmed years in advance.

For a rain dance to work the clouds must be full of water vapour. I do not suggest "god/Universe" or whatever operates outside science, so the cloud must pick up water from ground and be preparing to drop it with an opposing cold front or something like this scenario occurring. This would imply the clouds had altered course based on thoughts in the past.

Everything mystical seems to rely on our ability to alter history with our past.

Hear me out. I know this is pure woo at its finest to you, but I do have a point.

The idea that we can alter history means we have no real past or future, and time is only an illusion. I/we are forced to consider this as a possible explanation.

Simply saying Telepathy/God does not exist does not cut it in my books unless you have the proof to back it up which is impossible.

So because it is IMPOSSIBLE to say if Telepathy/God are fake, then science must be open to explore possibilities.

It is arrogant and obnoxious to write off concepts like Telepathy based solely on personal opinion. Personal opinions are not valid science. They should be cherished as part of your identity and beliefs, but should not for a second be part of your scientific doctrines.

I say we can alter history with our collective thoughts. You will say we cannot. Neither of us can prove our position, but your position would hold more popular with the cavemen (demonstrating how advanced some science would seem to them) here.

I would say we live in constant wave form like in Schrodingers box, and findings in the box is determined by expectation/faith/belief of the cats health. I would expand this to say even if collapsed by Wigner, then we would still be in juxtaposition to Wigners friend. then perhaps Wigners friend has a friend who is in the Ocean praying for a boat to come rescue him.

History can change if we lived in superposition in schrodingers box. Wigner collapsing does not mean we are not in superposition with Wigners friends, etc. We would perceive time passing normally once collapsed, but until then we might be in a mini-Many Worlds variation inside schrodingers box.

I probably cannot utter anything more WOO than what I have just said. I said I think it is possible history is not a fixed reality.

I think I explained why I feel this way, but respect you enough to have your own opinion. I am not trying to FORCE my opinions, but rather see them open for discussion. I think you would and have quickly move such an idea to alternate theories and then dismiss it from your head as quickly as is comfortable.

I have seen "magic" work well. I have seen Telepathy work well. This is my strong opinion, and I want to explore the how and why.

My point is you have closed discussions from anyone representing a Fred Allen Wolf viewpoint. Even mentioning Mr Wolf is likely against Sciforum rules one seems to think.

Should a moderator not keep personal opinion out of science. I know everyone has beliefs, but beliefs and science have never meshed well. Let's look only at facts, and then there is no proof to write off Telepathy or God.

For the record I view god as "All that is" plus maybe a bit more. I do not view it as a person. I would be more comfortable saying "The Universe" than "God", but have grown into the realization that if my beliefs in LOA and Telepathy hold true then there is something really freaky going on.

THE INFRACTION POINTS RECEIVED BY REALITYCHECK ARE THEREFORE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. I WOULD RE-OPEN A THREAD IF IT DEALT WITH A TOPIC I WANTED DISCUSSED. I STILL MAINTAIN REALITYCHECK should not have been banned.

Also the timing of,

This would seem probable since this was written 11-27-12, 04:08 PM, and he was banned shortly afterwards .

11-27-12 04:43 PM, was his last entry of Sciforums. EXACTLY 35 MINUTES AFTER BERATING A MODERATOR.

ANYONE CAPABLE OF SIMPLE MATH CAN SEE THAT THE TIMING OF THIS POST, AND THE LAST TIME HE WAS ON SCIFORUMS, AND THAT HIS BAN SEEMS TO BE AS A RESULT OF,
How did he say it?
expediently proceeding to ban so as to deny common right of self-defence
and
Another blatant case of abusing the rules to make unsupported accusations of 'lying' etc etc from mod-trolls having personal bias/baggage and prejudice and double standards.
and
A perfect illustration of the oft-observed intimidatory/personal censorship/tactics to skew/shut down the open discourse and obligingly satisfying the troll-mod agenda.
and
]This is again a jack-booted, egoistic, elitist power trip intrusion made even more egregious by lack of proper full and open justification
Come-on, that is some nicely worded finger pointing he did there. His writing skills alone should make make us keep him.

makes it seem suspicious.

He had not warranted enough points for a permanent ban prior to egging you on, but 35 minutes after he wrote this he was gone for good?

Seriously? Who are you asking to believe this? I think most people here are likely at least somewhat intelligent.

You know what happened more than us however, and I understand your need to attempt to justify your beliefs and actions. I also feel the site administrators will support you. I would support my moderators if it was my website, as you do a great deal in helping the website run smoothly.

I just feel we have lost a very strong author with the absence of Realitycheck.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You sound kinda' far-out into the realm of woo :m: Like RC was.

I tended to ignore his posts.

 

[Kittamaru]

kwhiliborn, I much prefer the multiverse theory myself - that at any one time, an infinite number of choices are being made and all the possible choices occur at once - our 'reality' is but one of those tracks of choices being made. Thus, there is no set "future" because, while all the futures are already set and exist, it is by our actions we choose WHICH future comes to be.

Think of it like walking down a set of infinitely branching roads - while they are all already in existence years before we travel them, it is not until we travel them that we reach our destination

 

[Beer w/Straw]

kwhiliborn, I much prefer the multiverse theory myself - that at any one time, an infinite number of choices are being made and all the possible choices occur at once - our 'reality' is but one of those tracks of choices being made. Thus, there is no set "future" because, while all the futures are already set and exist, it is by our actions we choose WHICH future comes to be.

Think of it like walking down a set of infinitely branching roads - while they are all already in existence years before we travel them, it is not until we travel them that we reach our destination

I'd sure like to travel back in time to tell myself that. If I could that is.

 

[Kittamaru]

*grins* Hindsight is 20/20... but even the best farseer can only give vague ideas to what the future might hold, for its path is ever changing, flowing as water through your fingers. How can you read what has not been written, how can you set in stone that which has not yet been quarried? Most of all... would you really want to know the results of your actions before they occur? Imagine how much you would second guess yourself, knowing the unforeseen and unexpected consequences of your actions, no matter how small; knowing the pain that even the most benevolent of actions would cause, even in the smallest of parts... any normal man would lose his sanity trying to weave an action capable of benefiting anyone and harming none.

 

[kwhilborn]

I have an experiment in mind that could "prove" my theory has merit.

We could simply carry mini schrodingers cat boxes with us to interview people. The person is told that there is a 75% chance of the cat being alive upon opening the door and trigger the collapse based on expectation (according to me) (woo, according to many here). After interviewing a few thousand people with this method we look at the amount of times the cat lived, and the amount of times the cat died. If the cat lived number is 75%, and the pile of dead cats is 25% of the people interviewed then we would know EXPECTATION/Belief/Faith had involvement in the collapse.

Of course if wigners friend knew the true odds of influencing the death was 50/50 perhaps his expectation might alter the experiments to match his own beliefs. This could be a continuous ongoing problem, as we may live in an almost constant state of superposition. My bet would be that this would factor in to some minor extent and we would see cats live more often than die on a continuous basis, and might see stats like the cat lived 62% of the time.

I need to find a lot of cats I guess. (JOKE)

Professor Brian Josephson is currently running the Global Consciousness program and has devices that would fit this experiment perfectly. It is a hand held random number generator that is essentially a coin flip. You have 50/50 odds of it being "heads or tails". Yes they could use a coin, but this does many per second and was first used to see if people could influence electronics (they can btw), and secondly because results spiked in certain directions during periods of international trauma, and the Global consciousness Project is attempting to understand what is going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itQMALL__bE
(of course Skeptics will say it is bull simply because they are stubborn)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT39VE2usGg
Above is the influencing machines version which had success. The global consciousness project sprang from this experiment.

Maybe he will mail me a device or two if I ask nicely and then I can at least test my idea on a small scale for now.

As mentioned I have seen astounding results from things like Telepathy and also from something called "Law of Attraction". The law of attraction / Prayers seem to be reliant upon the alteration of history, as if your future thoughts have traveled back in time and influenced what you would need in 3 months or 3 years from now. Maybe thoughts simply travel faster than light and can journey to our past and future, or maybe we are in constant juxtaposition. I think one of these answers must be true to explain some of the things I have seen.

Maybe one day I will win the Nobel Prize for my outstanding thoughts on the subject of "expectations influencing collapse" over the other woo theory "consciousness causes collapse". I hope it comes soon. (lol)

 

[AlphaNumeric]

A great saddness seems to be eminating from this writer, each line dripping with scorn and poison just makes me feel so very sorry for the individual who could not only feel such things but also go as far to type them on a public forum in what could only be described as a blatant attempt at character assassination. For surely to write such things someone must have been so hurt or damaged that only pitty can remain for such a poor fellow as this.

I haven't been 'hurt' or the like. Farsight and I go far back, 5+ years, before he even posted his 'relativity+' or wrote his book. My style of post when replying to Farsight is not due to some personal hurt but rather exasperation about how Farsight can delude himself so much and be so demonstrably dishonest but not acknowledge it.

If Farsight wants to tell his kids at breakfast he's better than Einstein and deserves 4 Nobel Prizes then fine, its everyone's right to warp their kids like that. However when he passes off his ignorance and vapid claims as valid, in response to someone's honest questioning, I don't like it.

Farsight claims to be doing science but he cannot meet any standard required for something to be science. I give him no credit and no benefit of the doubt, he used them up long ago.

I care about truth, I care about intellectual honesty, I care about people learning and understanding science more. Farsight doesn't. If he kept it to himself fine but he doesn't.

I truely hope that whatever motivated such a hateful post designed for nothing more than to cause the maximum amount of distress can be put right in this distrubed individuals life and that we don't see such mean spirited malevolence from any future such posts.

I have a wonderful life thanks. I am a professional scientist, working on important problems which impact many peoples' lives. As such I see the importance of science and when I see people like Farsight butchering it in an intellectually dishonest way I have no patience for such things.

I am still sure, Farsight, has a thick enough skin. If, Farsight, is only intellectually dishonest, other than actually believing his own tripe, he'll be fine. Otherwise, AlphaNumeric, could seem to be making fun of, Farsights, psychological distresses.

If I'm 100% honest I think there is something wrong with Farsight. No one can be so demonstrably dishonest for so long, repeating the same vapid claims, ignoring the same corrections, making the same dishonest statements without having an issue of some kind. He is likely a normal functioning person in day to day life but clearly he wants to be 'important'. He has specifically said he went into this to do something big, Nobel Prize big. He started at the "I have a superficial explanation for X" and worked back, assuming any details could be filled in by others. The people who get Nobel Prizes don't go into science for that reason, they go into it for the love of science, of truth. I don't think Farsight knows what those are.

The canonical example of all of this is how Farsight says string theory is 'not even wrong' for being too much theory and not enough practice, about how (he thinks) it cannot describe anything in the real world. Can his work? His "This is worth 4 Nobel Prizes" work? Nope, not a thing. Hence my challenge to him for the last 5+ years; "Pick one, just one, phenomenon in the real world which your work can model. Provide the model, demonstrate it can accurately describe said phenomenon and give its derivation from a set of clearly stated postulates.". Is that unreasonable? No, it's something anyone putting forth a replacement or improvement for a current area of physics must do. Farsight cannot provide anything even close to it. He knows it, he ignores me when I put forth the challenge. That's why I think so little of Farsight. No 'hurt' in my life, rather it is a sound conclusion based on mountains of evidence. Something Farsight doesn't have.

 

[kwhilborn]

I would argue that the purpose of a science forum would be to discuss cutting edge, controversial, fringe, and alternate theories.

There is no purpose in discussing known science, as this website would be better off in an encyclopedia format using cartoons and other educational devices to spew the known.

There can only be 2 types of science threads here. The first would be one in which someone has a question about known science and is too lazy to look up the answer in a book, or various videos on almost any subject these days. The second type would be discussing some Fringe theory hoping some of the smarter people that come here might be able to contribute to the discussion.

With these two options as the only two I can think of then it would seem illogical for people to become disgruntled about "woo theories" here. The threads dealing with people too lazy to look up an answer are less interesting and can only benefit someone who is being too lazy.

I suppose there could also be threads dealing with current events, funny, and tragic stories, for venting, but what is the purpose as you see it?

I say there are 2 types of science posts here (current events,jokes are not science).

A) Postings of controversial, "woo", fringe, alternate theories.
B) Lazy people asking questions about known science.

Banning everyone from the only sensible category makes little logic.

If you want a real science website, turn it into an encyclopedia and forget debates/ideas altogether.

 

[Syne]

There are already designated forums in which to discuss fringe ideas and others for more rigorous science and related news. A forum is no place to develop science. Some people learn better through interaction, others broaden their knowledge through the challenge of teaching, and still others are just out to share or seek self-aggrandizement. But overall forums are meant for entertainment only. No one should take anything written as fact without independent verification from a reputable source.

 

[rpenner]

Some posters on this forum are reliable sources of scientific facts and other reality-based information -- others repeatedly claim to be, but have never been able to support their claims. But no one who claims to be "advancing physics" is doing so on this forum. The only advancement of science that I have seen have been mathy discussions and literature searches prior to publication.

But plenty of people have benefited from discussion of physics here, such as help with algebra, physics concepts, and debunking of popular stories that had no basis in fact.

You cannot meaningfully discuss physics with a self-proclaimed guru who claims to have all the answers but no communicable methodology for arriving at those answers (rather than presenting a model, the answers are nakedly asserted as if they sprang from their posteriors) and never try to confront their ideas with precision experiment. If physics is learning to play better chess against the universe as an opponent, these problem posters come to the table armed with a blindfold and hatchet. Time and time, the rules of the game are explained to them but they insist on playing their way, which represents a starting position worse off than a novice.

Small wonder that when they attempt to redefine physics for others at this forum as "blindly swinging a hatchet at chess pieces and declaring victory," that the chess players get miffed at the attempts at miseducation.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I say there are 2 types of science posts here (current events,jokes are not science).

A) Postings of controversial, "woo", fringe, alternate theories.
B) Lazy people asking questions about known science.

Banning everyone from the only sensible category makes little logic.

If you want a real science website, turn it into an encyclopedia and forget debates/ideas altogether.

Firstly I disagree with your classification. There is more to learning than simply reading 'cold facts'. I read plenty of textbooks but I find it extremely helpful to have discussions with people on the material, to see how other people understand it, to check whether I understand it, to bounce ideas off one another. Yes, it is possible to do something like mathematics locked in a room on your own but most people benefit from discussion. Such threads fall into neither of your categories (let's call it Category C after your A and B categories). I've found my time spent on forums to benefit my own understanding. I started posting on PhysForum just as I finished my Masters and about to start a PhD. Having to give multiple explanations to people about various aspects of general relativity and quantum field theory helped me to organise and streamline my own understanding, which provided benefit to me later. So even for people who don't ask many questions but rather concentrate on responses, such as myself, forums can be a benefit. Besides, reading forums exposes you to what other people are interested in. I'm sure plenty of us have ended up reading Wikipedia pages on some bit of science we might otherwise have never looked at, all because we saw someone else discussing it and were interested. As such you don't even have to be involved in discussions to gain benefit from forums.

Secondly not everyone in your first category are banned, they even have multiple forums for such discussions! The people who are in that category who are banned are people who think they fall into C but really fall into A. How many of the hacks here would post in the main science forums about their work if they could? How many of them believe they are doing proper science but are not? Some of them have learnt to keep to the fringe forums, like Sylwester. Others cannot help themselves and have to try to pass their nonsense off as science, like Farsight.

The second type would be discussing some Fringe theory hoping some of the smarter people that come here might be able to contribute to the discussion.

Do you think people like Farsight or Sylwester really want that? They won't listen to any correction, no matter how blatent their error and how many times it is explained to them. They come here to try to drum up interest for their work, to try to bask in some kind of glory. If they were really interested in improving their work through discussion with others in the way collaboration works in the research community they'd not cling so hard to their own assumptions and misconceptions.

 

[Syne]

Having to give multiple explanations to people about various aspects of general relativity and quantum field theory helped me to organise and streamline my own understanding, which provided benefit to me later. So even for people who don't ask many questions but rather concentrate on responses, such as myself, forums can be a benefit. Besides, reading forums exposes you to what other people are interested in. I'm sure plenty of us have ended up reading Wikipedia pages on some bit of science we might otherwise have never looked at, all because we saw someone else discussing it and were interested. As such you don't even have to be involved in discussions to gain benefit from forums.

This is exactly what I appreciate most about forums. Both the opportunity to refine my understanding and the incentive to learn new things.