MOD: If you'd rather . . . I can post ad infinitum much like mpc755 or Pincho Paxton. I refer readers to my EEMU webpage to AVOID such inane repetition and cluttering of e-space on Sciforums. Readers are free to either link or not link to the webpage, depending upon their interest. Of course, YOU are the mod and can do whatever you like!
wlminex wonders about the new forum
- Thread starter wlminex
- Start date
MOD follow-up . . . please explain to me how the material in my webpage reference is "off-topic" . . . .Thanks . . .
An afterthought . . . perhaps the MOD for this thread feels threatened by members/readers posting their 'own ideas' - if they (ideas) are 'against-the-grain' of currently-accepted physics; if this attitude were the historical "norm" (WAIT A MINUTE! . . . . NOW I get it! . . . . I guess WAS/IS the "norm!) . . . we would never have put-up with the creative thinking/ideas . . .of those "giants" (e/g/. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc.) upon whose shoulders we now stand!
An afterthought . . . perhaps the MOD for this thread feels threatened by members/readers posting their 'own ideas' - if they (ideas) are 'against-the-grain' of currently-accepted physics; if this attitude were the historical "norm" (WAIT A MINUTE! . . . . NOW I get it! . . . . I guess WAS/IS the "norm!) . . . we would never have put-up with the creative thinking/ideas . . .of those "giants" (e/g/. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, etc.) upon whose shoulders we now stand!
Last edited:
mpc755 has been permanently banned from sciforums. So, perhaps not the best role model.
This thread is in the Physics forum. It is about quarks. It is not about your "alternative" theory. That has its own thread in the Alternative Theories forum.
Your link to a non-mainstream theory amounts to self-promotion, like AlphaNumeric said. There is no reason to advertise your theory in a thread about quarks in the Physics forum.
There's no problem with posting your ideas. Indeed, you have a whole thread dedicated to your theory in the Alternative Theories forum.
No need to repeat here.
I likely will not (repeat here) . . . perhaps my 'expectations' of Sciforum admin agenda (see my PM) are for naught
Last edited:
wlminex, I'm perfectly capable of finding this thread myself, you don't have to leave a message on my visitor's wall.
You don't have a viable quark model. You don't have a viable model of any kind. Nowhere in your multiple 'articles' do you do any mathematics, attempt to construct any model, reference any precision experiment. When a model claiming to be physics is nothing but a wall of text it's an immediate giant red flag, because it means the model can't actually model anything. This is why Farsight is so easily dismissed. He complains about how string theory supposedly has no link to the real world but his work provides absolutely zero modelling ability, while string theory provides a lot, You are in the same boat as him.
Just because it's your take on quarks doesn't mean it belongs here. It's an alternative theory, if not pseudoscience. It has no place in this part of the forum. Once you get it peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, then you can post it in this section of the forum. Until then you are to keep it to the alternative theory and pseudoscience sections.
I don't know what your PhD is in but it clearly isn't science because you'd understand the importance of peer review, methodology and a quantitative model if you'd done research in science.
No, it discusses your made up, unjustified, unsupported suppositions based on no experience of hadron physics other than pop science material you've read and it lacks any rigour of any kind.
If the model is published in a peer reviewed journal and it is directly relevant to the discussion then it would be allowed. For example, if you had specifically developed a model to replace QCD and your model disagreed with QCD on some quark related physics and you could propose an experiment to distinguish between your model and QCD. Then you could post about it.
You don't have a viable quark model. You don't have a viable model of any kind. Nowhere in your multiple 'articles' do you do any mathematics, attempt to construct any model, reference any precision experiment. When a model claiming to be physics is nothing but a wall of text it's an immediate giant red flag, because it means the model can't actually model anything. This is why Farsight is so easily dismissed. He complains about how string theory supposedly has no link to the real world but his work provides absolutely zero modelling ability, while string theory provides a lot, You are in the same boat as him.
If you refuse not to talk about your hypothesised models then yes. If you want to post in this sub-forum then you're going to have to leave your claims at the door unless the thread is specifically about alternative ideas and challenging the SM. This thread is not about that.
Just because it's your take on quarks doesn't mean it belongs here. It's an alternative theory, if not pseudoscience. It has no place in this part of the forum. Once you get it peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, then you can post it in this section of the forum. Until then you are to keep it to the alternative theory and pseudoscience sections.
I don't know what your PhD is in but it clearly isn't science because you'd understand the importance of peer review, methodology and a quantitative model if you'd done research in science.
. . . I think I now see where the Sciforums administrative agenda is headed! . . . if you want to see my credentials, link to the webpage I'll reference in my next PM to you . . . I won't post the link here, as that might appear to be self-promotion! I would also like to see Sciforums post the credentials (or CVs) of all admin and moderators. Sometimes I seriously doubt the professional credentials of some moderators . . . . and NOW a little humor . . . "Those who THINK they know-it-all really make it difficult for those of us who DO"
Prometheus and I were made moderators this week. Both of us have PhDs in theoretical physics, including published papers in reputable journals. Would you like more specifics (about me, I can't speak for Prom)?
If there were a thread about the area I did my PhD in then I would be justified to link to my work if the discussion is about my specific area. I still wouldn't be justified to just start a thread and say "Hey, who wants to read my thesis!" (the answer is no one).
If you have an alternative theory to how quarks work then post it in the alternative theories subforum. Until you can get it peer reviewed by a reputable journal it is not appropriate for this forum. This is why the alternative theories forum newly created, so you've got somewhere else to post it.
I didn't ask you anything and your 'pm' is something everyone can see, it's on my visitor's wall.
Do you understand my last post? Your claims are not appropriate for this forum. A new forum was made to 'house' such claims, so it's not like you're being flat out banned from posting them, they just have to be kept to a specific part of this site. If and when you get your work published a reputable journal (which, to be honest, simply will not happen) then you'll be allowed to post it here in threads where is it specifically relevant.
I say it won't happen because your material fails to meet even the most basic scientific standards for physics. I suggest you compare your work to the stuff in the physics sections of www.arxiv.org and notice the difference. You haven't provided any quantitative model, it's just a bunch of your thoughts on stuff you haven't got any knowledge of. You've previously mentioned quark-gluon plasmas. They are things which the SM has detailed models of. Prom's avatar is a picture of an experiment involving it. Your take on them doesn't include experimental data or quantitative models, hence it has no place here.
By the way, your website is extremely poor quality. Is that a company website or something? You randomly capitalise the first letter in some words. You sing your praises without citing case studies you've previously worked on. You list countries your 'jig' has been used in and actually Google maps link to Kyrgyzstan, as if the reader will not have heard of it.
You called into question the qualifications of the moderators. As I said, both Prom and I are PhDs in theoretical physics. Both of us have been involved in teaching it to undergrads. I did my undergrad in a maths department. There makes us qualified to be mods here. You have a PhD in geology and by the looks of it haven't got any experience or knowledge of mainstream physics, either theory or experiment. As such if you want to play the qualifications game your musings on the behaviour of quarks are even less appropriate here.
I'll leave these posts here for a while, just to make sure everyone has read them then I'll cut them out and put them into the alternative theories forum. The mod there can then decide whether to delete them, leave them or merge them into your preexisting thread on your claims.
Do you understand my last post? Your claims are not appropriate for this forum. A new forum was made to 'house' such claims, so it's not like you're being flat out banned from posting them, they just have to be kept to a specific part of this site. If and when you get your work published a reputable journal (which, to be honest, simply will not happen) then you'll be allowed to post it here in threads where is it specifically relevant.
I say it won't happen because your material fails to meet even the most basic scientific standards for physics. I suggest you compare your work to the stuff in the physics sections of www.arxiv.org and notice the difference. You haven't provided any quantitative model, it's just a bunch of your thoughts on stuff you haven't got any knowledge of. You've previously mentioned quark-gluon plasmas. They are things which the SM has detailed models of. Prom's avatar is a picture of an experiment involving it. Your take on them doesn't include experimental data or quantitative models, hence it has no place here.
By the way, your website is extremely poor quality. Is that a company website or something? You randomly capitalise the first letter in some words. You sing your praises without citing case studies you've previously worked on. You list countries your 'jig' has been used in and actually Google maps link to Kyrgyzstan, as if the reader will not have heard of it.
You called into question the qualifications of the moderators. As I said, both Prom and I are PhDs in theoretical physics. Both of us have been involved in teaching it to undergrads. I did my undergrad in a maths department. There makes us qualified to be mods here. You have a PhD in geology and by the looks of it haven't got any experience or knowledge of mainstream physics, either theory or experiment. As such if you want to play the qualifications game your musings on the behaviour of quarks are even less appropriate here.
I'll leave these posts here for a while, just to make sure everyone has read them then I'll cut them out and put them into the alternative theories forum. The mod there can then decide whether to delete them, leave them or merge them into your preexisting thread on your claims.
AN post #32:
Folks, your heard it "straight from the horse's mouth" . . . .Quotes:
"Prometheus and I were made moderators this week. Both of us have PhDs in theoretical physics, including published papers in reputable journals."
"If there were a thread about the area I did my PhD in then I would be justified to link to my work if the discussion is about my specific area."
"Until you can get it peer reviewed by a reputable journal it is not appropriate for this forum". . . .
Note: The following is sarcasm - based on the moderators' responses:
I see a future for Sciforums being the premier, superlative site (i.e., journal) for refereeing and peer-reviewing only qualified ideas and theories that support standard physics hypotheses, theories, or models . . . no one else (i.e., you COMMONERS!) need submit!
Folks, your heard it "straight from the horse's mouth" . . . .Quotes:
"Prometheus and I were made moderators this week. Both of us have PhDs in theoretical physics, including published papers in reputable journals."
"If there were a thread about the area I did my PhD in then I would be justified to link to my work if the discussion is about my specific area."
"Until you can get it peer reviewed by a reputable journal it is not appropriate for this forum". . . .
Note: The following is sarcasm - based on the moderators' responses:
I see a future for Sciforums being the premier, superlative site (i.e., journal) for refereeing and peer-reviewing only qualified ideas and theories that support standard physics hypotheses, theories, or models . . . no one else (i.e., you COMMONERS!) need submit!
That's either pointless posting or a way of complaining while saying it's sarcasm.
There's 2 entire subforums for alternative ideas, one of them newly made, so you can't claim SciForums is not giving you a forum for you to voice your ideas. However, this forum is about more viable, legitimate science. Even then it's allowed to talk about things like Relativity seems to be contradicted by neutrinos. That is based on experimental evidence done carefully and methodically. Your work is just made up nonsense which can't stand up to scrutiny. Hence it has no place.
Firstly, you're the one who brought in qualifications. I'm sorry your attempt to pull rank on people failed but maybe next time you shouldn't try it. Secondly my last post explicitly said I'd be removing this series of posts and putting them in the alternative theories forum.
You're beginning to move from querying forum policy to just trolling.
This thread has been made by ripping out all above posts from a thread about quarks in the main forum. wlminex complained that he was told he couldn't post his alternative theory about quarks in the main thread. I've explained why not.
AN: (no sarcasm intended here . . .really!)
Thank you (really!) for creating a personal-reference thread directing folks toward my interests and complaints . . which is exactly what you were trying to prevent. By doing so, You actually give more credence to my hypotheses and my efforts to plant innovative and creative-thinking idea 'seeds' within the science community.
Thank you (really!) for creating a personal-reference thread directing folks toward my interests and complaints . . which is exactly what you were trying to prevent. By doing so, You actually give more credence to my hypotheses and my efforts to plant innovative and creative-thinking idea 'seeds' within the science community.
MOD: The following post is regarding my complaints, etc. If it infringes on ANY Sciforum rules, please feel free to delete. Thanks, wlminex
prometheus
viva voce! (1,179 posts)
Today, 08:51 AM
Dear wlminex,
You have received a warning at SciForums.com.
Reason:
-------
Trolling / Meaningless Post Content
Quite obviously, the admins and super moderators moderate the moderators. The users of the physics and maths forum would be most grateful if you would not troll and try to stick to the thread topic.
-------
Original Post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2835818
“ o-o-o-o-o-h n-o-o-o-o-o-o. . . . A THREAT!! That should put wlminex in his place!! . . .BTY. . . JamesR . . . who moderates the moderators? ”
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.
All the best,
SciForums.com
prometheus
viva voce! (1,180 posts)
Today, 08:54 AM
Dear wlminex,
You have received a warning at SciForums.com.
Reason:
-------
Off-Topic Posting
Please can you keep your off topic posts to yourself. Further posts of this type will result in an infraction followed by a ban.
-------
Original Post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2835813
“ “ Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Firstly, my PhD area was in Calabi-Yau spaces. Secondly, Prom's PhD area is in deformed spaces. Thirdly, you don't have any experience with those things. Fourthly, tone down the sarcasm. You're not well read in those areas and yet you're complaining we're not when we actually are.
Then stop it with your sarcasm. All you've managed to do so far is come off as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about but thinks he does and a patronising hypocrite. ”
"Dr. Geology" here, DOCTOR AlphaNumeric . . . . just returning the favor . . . to DOCTOR Prometheus!! BTW . . . I like that term . . . patronizing hypocrite . . . can you define it for me and give me two other examples? ”
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.
All the best,
SciForums.com
prometheus
viva voce! (1,179 posts)
Today, 08:51 AM
Dear wlminex,
You have received a warning at SciForums.com.
Reason:
-------
Trolling / Meaningless Post Content
Quite obviously, the admins and super moderators moderate the moderators. The users of the physics and maths forum would be most grateful if you would not troll and try to stick to the thread topic.
-------
Original Post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2835818
“ o-o-o-o-o-h n-o-o-o-o-o-o. . . . A THREAT!! That should put wlminex in his place!! . . .BTY. . . JamesR . . . who moderates the moderators? ”
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.
All the best,
SciForums.com
prometheus
viva voce! (1,180 posts)
Today, 08:54 AM
Dear wlminex,
You have received a warning at SciForums.com.
Reason:
-------
Off-Topic Posting
Please can you keep your off topic posts to yourself. Further posts of this type will result in an infraction followed by a ban.
-------
Original Post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2835813
“ “ Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Firstly, my PhD area was in Calabi-Yau spaces. Secondly, Prom's PhD area is in deformed spaces. Thirdly, you don't have any experience with those things. Fourthly, tone down the sarcasm. You're not well read in those areas and yet you're complaining we're not when we actually are.
Then stop it with your sarcasm. All you've managed to do so far is come off as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about but thinks he does and a patronising hypocrite. ”
"Dr. Geology" here, DOCTOR AlphaNumeric . . . . just returning the favor . . . to DOCTOR Prometheus!! BTW . . . I like that term . . . patronizing hypocrite . . . can you define it for me and give me two other examples? ”
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.
All the best,
SciForums.com
and?
MOD: If this post is infringing on ANY Sciforum rules, please re-post in the appropriate subforum theard, or simply delete it. Thanks, wlminex
Sciforum members: Another wlminex complaint, I guess . . . . See what I've been talking about? . . . . the suspect admin/moderator agenda . . . . if it (your post) is not mainstream, current, professionally-sanctioned (i.e., peer-reviewed - published in a professional journal, etc.), or otherwise acceptable to the whims of a particular moderator, the moderator is at liberty to 'slap-you-down' in his/her respondent posts - using whatever sarcasm, innuendo, personal or professional 'put-down', or threat that THEY deem approriate.
Sciforum members: Another wlminex complaint, I guess . . . . See what I've been talking about? . . . . the suspect admin/moderator agenda . . . . if it (your post) is not mainstream, current, professionally-sanctioned (i.e., peer-reviewed - published in a professional journal, etc.), or otherwise acceptable to the whims of a particular moderator, the moderator is at liberty to 'slap-you-down' in his/her respondent posts - using whatever sarcasm, innuendo, personal or professional 'put-down', or threat that THEY deem approriate.
Last edited: