CosmoCoffee

[Anze Slosar]

Fringe science is recently making cosmocoffee even more noisy. The problem is that deleting such threads brings up all the usual chatter about galileo, censorship, etc. What if the following is implemented:

a) Editors have a full power to revoke posting rights to anyone, regardless of their affiliation, etc. This should only be done in the obvious cases.

b) Create new Fringe Science section. Call it anything you like. Every thread that is crackpotish is moved to this section by editors. Given that crack traffic is still a couple of posts a day at max, this should not be to difficult.
(i volonteer as a policeman... :) )

c) We still allow anonymous and unlimited postings to "Understanding Cosmology" section.

[Anonymous]

[Anze Slosar]

[Gil Holder]

I suspect the paper trail is a structural problem here. I probably say something that is obviously wrong several times a day, and the fun is in sorting these things out and figuring out the various inconsistencies. That is less fun when there is a public and permanent log. On the other hand, I have no problems admitting in perpetuity that I suck at getting compilers to work.

[Anonymous]

One man's "crackpot" is another man's visionary scientist.

Know what I mean Anze? Take John Baez, for example. Or Paul Davies, or a consummate choice might be Don Page or the science fiction writer: Vilenkin.

The way to sort it out is with Definitive Predictions.

The way to maintain confusion [and funding] is by producing, promoting and defending untestable pseudoscience.

Robert L. Oldershaw

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

This reminds me of a question that has plagued me for decades, and is as follows.

What the hell is wrong with a complete committment to openness and honesty?

The benefits of sincere [and tactful] honesty far outweigh the risks and occasional problems that are incurred in this approach. On the other hand the secretive, selfish, manipulative approach that treats rigorous honesty as optional seems guaranteed to be highly sub-optimum in the long run.

Honesty is like cooperation: if everyone follows this path we are all better off, so what fool would do anything different? Ah, but such is the human dilemma and condition. Why? Greed? Fear? Paranoia? All of the above?

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

[Anonymous]

Here some expanded description of the informational conception (some expanded compilation of ideological sections of

http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 and http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 ) appeared

– see

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

Cheers

[Anonymous]

Now more systematical description of informational model in physics appeared – see

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V5; though it remains be rater desirable to have read the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 before/ also.

As it seems the SR theory becomes be more understandable.

So what is about an experiment with measurement of photon beam distortion in Earth gravity?

Cheers.

[Anonymous]

Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v2.

So what’s about those experiments?

Cheers

[Anonymous]

Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3.

So what’s about those experiments?

Cheers

And - the thread seems as well visited, but has no questions, comments, remarks. May be it is looked through by editors of "official" philosophical and physical journals only...

Cheers again

[Anonymous]

Now a special paper relating to Space-Time problem appeared in arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0003

So what is about suggested in http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 experiments?

Possibly the version of an experiment in [Conclusion of] http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , relating to special relativity, is non-clear a little. So the same but simpler to understand (but possibly not simpler as the technique) version is as:

Let one satellite with two clocks moves through an orbit with [orbital] speed V. By using a rigid rod one of the clocks (clock−2) is transferred on the rod’s length L along the speed vector. Since we have a rigid system, clock−2 obtains the time decrement [-VL/c²] relating to clock−1. If one returns the rod slowly to the clock−1, both clocks will show equal times. But if clock−2 is disjointed after the transference and it returns by using, say, due to own engine, the decrement will be the same as after separation – though in standard special relativity both [at returning] paths are slow clock transports and in both cases the times of both clocks after the return must be equal.

Such an experiment indeed tests special relativity, in contrast to a multitude of that were made till now – all those experiments were made in the rigid systems and so nothing essential were tested…

Cheers

[Ryan Callahan]

Anonymous
looks like you're talking to youself...

[Anonymous]

[Maciej Bilicki]