The Role of Open Forums in Scientific Research

[Moonbear]

I see the new forum has opened. I like the revised name: "Independent Research." I also like the name of the reviewing forum "Post Court Room."

 

[juvenal]

Might want to correct the spelling of the link on the main page "Independant research".

 

[Gokul43201]

I see the new forum has opened. I like the revised name: "Independent Research." I also like the name of the reviewing forum "Post Court Room."

It's not open until Tom says so.

Greg/Chroot - can you fix the spelling ?

And to all the theorists out here : The Ides of July have come !

 

[quantumdude]

Well, in Troy, NY it is now 1:36 am on July 15, so we may now consider the new policy in effect and the new forum open for business.

 

[Gokul43201]

...tap tap tap...tap tap tap...hmmmm...no clients yet ?

 

[juvenal]

Let me see if I can dig up my old papers on the perpetual motion machine . . .

 

[ZapperZ]

I also like the name of the reviewing forum "Post Court Room."

Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

:)

Zz.

 

[TenaliRaman]

I do have a highly sophisticated paper on "Why Earth is actually FLAT?"
I am already seeing it, ah ... bright light and great heights!

-- AI
P.S-> I just hope i don't turn out to be the lighthouse keeper

 

[jma2001]

Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

:)

Zz.

Please, no capital punishment on PF. The shame of being declared a crackpot should be enough.

 

[Moonbear]

Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

:)

Zz.

Now, now, you'll never get selected for jury duty if the lawyers hear you say that!

Should we hold a Grand Opening Celebration, put up big banners and balloons and lay down a red carpet to the entrance? I hate all this standing around waiting for the first customers.

 

[ZapperZ]

Now, now, you'll never get selected for jury duty if the lawyers hear you say that!

I thought I've been automatically disqualified already just based on the fact that the number of Disney pins I have exceeds three times my age?

:)

Zz.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think we'll see any theories in the IR forum until a good bunch of posts get deleted and the posters pointed in the appropriate direction.

 

[quantumdude]

FYI, in case you hadn't noticed, there was a last minute title change. The new forum is called "Independent Research". The appelation "mainstream" has shown itself over the course of discussion to be too vague to be meaningful.

Independent Research Forum

 

[dextercioby]

I guess I'm 2 stupid to figure it all out, but i still don't see the point of having someone post his/her individual/group research on an open privately owned forum.

If the article has already been published in peer-review-ed journals, therefore it is accepted and seen as valid by the scientific community, i can only ascribe this gesture to vanity. Trust me, everyone, people who want to get posted with the latest developments in theoretical physics read written journals, not internet forums.

If the article hasn't been published yet, or it has been rejected by the journal reviewers, what USE would it make to the author ? With what does this posting on PF help him/her ? If the article has been rejected, then it has the name NONSENSE attached to it, therefore, upon posting it on the PF, it should be deleted without any discussion and whatsoever explanation via PM-s.

So, Greg, why did you do it in the first place (the infamous "Theory Development") ? Why did you do it now?

Tom, why did you offer yourself (i assume you did, pardon me if I'm wrong, and Greg named you to the job with/without consensus with the rest of the staff) to manage such-pointless in my view-project ?

Does anyone think new and sound theoretical physics is done on an internet forum? (even though it's the best of them all)

Daniel.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why did you do it now?

So that TD may be closed, and junk posts deleted henceforth.

 

[dextercioby]

Well, the way i see it, the entire (sub)forum is based on non peer-reviewed material (i'm not even talking about articles, some people just translated their "wise" thoughts into electronic format), so, by my (maybe faulty) judgement seen two posts above, it has the word "NONSENSE" attached and therefore ought to be deleted (ought to have been deleted ab initio, actually). Yet the staff decided "conservation". I just don't get it.

Daniel.

P.S.Tom, what is so valuable there, that the mankind needs to see and can't live without?

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe there are several good discussions that came out of refuting peoples' personal ideas. I'm not too familiar with what happens "in there" but from reading Tom's posts here, that's the idea I get.

 

[quantumdude]

If the article has already been published in peer-review-ed journals, therefore it is accepted and seen as valid by the scientific community, i can only ascribe this gesture to vanity.

The new forum is intended to be the place in which we host work that has not been peer-reviewed. And even our professional physicists and grad students can use it to inform the PF community of work in progress that hasn't been published yet, kind of like a "PF Preprint Server".

Trust me, everyone, people who want to get posted with the latest developments in theoretical physics read written journals, not internet forums.

Not everyone. There are plenty of bright amateurs who are don't have sponsorship to post even in arXiv. The new forum is a place for them to be heard, if they can meet the requirements of the guidelines.

If the article hasn't been published yet, or it has been rejected by the journal reviewers, what USE would it make to the author ? With what does this posting on PF help him/her ?

It would certainly help him/her to find out what is wrong with the idea.

If the article has been rejected, then it has the name NONSENSE attached to it, therefore, upon posting it on the PF, it should be deleted without any discussion and whatsoever explanation via PM-s.

Rejection by a journal doesn't necessarily mean "nonsense". It could mean "wrong format" or "not original". And if an idea really is nonsense, or even if it is poorly formulated, then it will be deleted under the new guidelines. But it will be accompanied by a PM with an invitation to try again in the new forum, subject to the guidelines. Don't get me wrong, we do delete spam and posts that are considered "trolling", without notification, and we will continue to do that. But deleting a sincere, serious attempt to communicate one's thoughts, without any notification, is extremely rude, and considered by the Staff to be an abuse of power.

So, Greg, why did you do it in the first place (the infamous "Theory Development") ? Why did you do it now?

Greg can speak for himself if he wants to, but since I know the answer I'll tell you.

TD was originally created as a means to clear the main section of PF from overspeculation and crackpottery, and it was not a bad first try at improving the signal-to-noise ratio. But then TD kept growing and growing, and became more and more of an eyesore.

Then chroot imposed a new policy: No new threads in TD, and we would keep a close watch on the existing ones, locking them at the first sign of trouble. The problem there was that people would just post their threads in the main section, because they couldn't do it in TD, and we would just have to move them. So TD really never stopped growing.

This move is the third step: No more TD, and anything that was formerly considered TD material will be deleted, with notification. Home grown theories can still be discussed here, but only under the Independent Research rules.

Tom, why did you offer yourself (i assume you did, pardon me if I'm wrong, and Greg named you to the job with/without consensus with the rest of the staff) to manage such-pointless in my view-project ?

I offered myself, because it was my idea.

Does anyone think new and sound theoretical physics is done on an internet forum? (even though it's the best of them all)

Who knows? It hasn't really started yet.

I think you're missing the same essential point that marlon did. This isn't intended to be comparable to Phys Rev Letters. This isn't pointless at all, because it has all the pros of the old TD policy, none of the cons, and some new benefits that we did not enjoy before.

The whole process can be very educational for everyone who is not involved in professional science, but wants to learn about how it is done. Have you ever heard of schools that hold "Model United Nations" or something along those lines? Each participant plays a role, the moderator comes up with some issue for them to work out and sets the rules, and they simulate the workings of the real UN. Is it real, professional international politics? No. Is it going to change the face of world government? No. Does everyone learn something from the process? Yes, they do.

If it helps you to understand why we are doing this, try to think of it as a "Model PRL".

In fact, this is not the first time PF has tried something like this. In 2002 we had a "Mission to Europa" forum, which was kind of a simulation of the preparation for a space mission. Everyone who participated had fun with it, and this can be the same way if it is done right.

 

[Andre]

Now I'm quite used to

Yeah. I can't wait to say "You're guilty! Let's hang 'em!"

and getting "the-you-must-shut-up, ignorant-wurm, when-you-speak-to-me" treatment, although nobody ever pointed out what specifically was wrong when I ventilated a little new idea. How about this one? But I detest confirming that I'm a crackpot, just by posting an unusual idea only to face tar and feathers.

 

[ZapperZ]

Now I'm quite used to and getting the-you-must-shut-up-when-you-speak-to-me treatment, although nobody ever pointed out what specifically was wrong when I ventilated a little new idea. How about this one. But I detest confirming that I'm a crackpot the moment I post something like this over there, with the tar and feathers behind it.

And in not ONE of them did you ever offer a model such that a quantitative calculation can be made. What you did was offer a series of conjectures or "what if's", such as

" Suppose that Venus has been like ..."
"Venus was probably rotating normally..."
"Perhaps two things slightly different..."
" it may be that the same process took place..."

In not ONE of these is anyone able to make any quantitative tests to check if what you say is valid or crappola. You made GUESSES. When Einstein made guesses, we are able to CALCULATE logically the consequences of such guesses and then TEST them out. You gave no such thing. In planetary science, unless things have changed, hand-waving arguments simply do not wash! You STILL have to show how you are able to account quantitatively, at least fall within roughly the same order of magnitude, of the observation. You have done no such thing.

Despite all this, you had no qualms in claiming you have "...planet Venus solved". And you wonder why people think you're a crackpot? Give me a break!

Zz.

 

[Andre]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just look into the literature ansd see if anybody did better.

 

[ZapperZ]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just look into the literature ansd see if anybody did better.

Why don't you list ALL the literature in question that YOU have looked at?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I did a VERY quick check and immediately found this:

"The chaotic obliquity of the planets", Laskar, J.; Robutel, P., Nature v.361, p.608 (1993).l

Abstract: Numerical study of the global stability of the spin-axis orientation (obliquity) of the planets against secular orbital perturbations shows that all of the terrestrial planets could have experienced large, chaotic variations in obliquity at some time in the past. The obliquity of Mars is still in a large chaotic region, ranging from 0 to 60 deg. Mercury and Venus have been stabilized by tidal dissipation, and the Earth may have been stabilized by capture of the moon. None of the obliquities of the terrestrial planets can therefore be considered as primordial.

Did you miss the phrase "Numerical study..."? And this is just ONE example!

Zz.

 

[Andre]

So it's all in the numbers. If you can't give numbers, you have failed regardless what. But numbers are useless when you fail to cross check what other hypotheses require. And of course that you found something that overarches everything like Popper likes to see is far inferior to presenting a numerical model.

Here is a list of references.

J. Laskar & P. Robutel The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature 361, 608 - 612 (1993);

REFERENCES

.Temperatures in a runaway greenhouse on the evolving Venus: implications for water loss, Andrew J. Watsona T. M. Donahue and W. R. Kuhn Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 68, Issue 1 , April 1984, Pages 1-6)

Phillips, R.J., and V.L. Hansen, Geological evolution of Venus: Rises, plains, plumes, and plateaus, Science, 279, 1492-1497, 1998.
Smith, D.E., M.T. Zuber, with R.J. Phillips, et al., Topography of the Northern Hemisphere of Mars from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter, Science, 279, 1686-1692, 1998.
Hauck II, S.A., R.J. Phillips, and M. Price, Venus: Crater distribution and plains resurfacing models, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 13,635-13,642, 1998.

**********
Andoyer, H., 1923. Cours de Me´canique Ce´leste. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Arkani-Hamed, J., Tokso¨z, M.N., 1984. Thermal evolution of Venus. Phys.
Earth Planet. Inter. 34, 232–250.
Avduevskii, V.S., Golovin, Iu.M., Zavelevich, F.S., Likhushin, V.Ia.,
Marov, M.Ia., Melnikov, D.A., Merson, Ia.I., Moshkin, B.E., Razin,
K.A., Chernoshchekov, L.I., 1976. Preliminary results of an investigation
of the light regime in the atmosphere and on the surface of Venus.
Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia 14, 735–742.
Busse, F.H., 1968. Steady fluid flow in a precessing spheroidal shell. J.
Fluid Mech. 33, 739–751.
Carpenter, R.L., 1964. Study of Venus by CW radar. Astron. J. 69, 2–11.
Carpenter, R.L., 1966. Study of Venus by CW radar—1964 results. Astron.
J. 71, 142–152.
Carpenter, R.L., 1970. A radar determination of the rotation of Venus.
Astron. J. 75, 61–66.
Chapman, S., Lindzen, R., 1970. Atmospheric Tides. Thermal and Gravitational.
Reidel, Dordrecht.
Colombo, G., 1965. Rotation period of the planet Mercury. Nature 208,
575–578.
Colombo, G., Shapiro, I.I., 1966. The rotation of the planet Mercury.
Astrophys. J. 145, 296–307.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2001. The four final rotation states of Venus.
Nature 411, 767–770.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2003a. Long-term evolution of the spin of
Venus. II. Numerical simulations. Icarus 163, 24–45.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2003b. Different tidal torques on a planet with
a dense atmosphere and consequences to the spin dynamics. Preprint.
Counselman, C.C., Shapiro, I.I., 1970. Spin–orbit resonance of Mercury.
Symp. Math. 3, 121–169.
Darwin, G.H., 1880. On the secular change in the elements of a satellite
revolving around a tidally distorted planet. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
London 171, 713–891.
Davies, M.E., Colvin, T.R., Rogers, P.G., Chodas, P.W., Sjogren, W.L.,
Akim, E.L., Stepaniants, V.A., Vlasova, Z.P., Zakharov, A.I., 1992.
The rotation period, direction of the north pole, and geodetic control
network of Venus. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13141–13151.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., 1978. The rotation of Venus. Ph.D. thesis, California
Institute of Technology.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., 1980. Atmospheric tides and the rotation of Venus. II.
Spin evolution. Icarus 41, 18–35.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., Ingersoll, A.P., 1980. Atmospheric tides and the rotation
of Venus. I. Tidal theory and the balance of torques. Icarus 41,
1–17.
Gans, R.F., 1972. Viscosity of the Earth’s core. J. Geophys. Res. 77,
360–366.
Gold, T., Soter, S., 1969. Atmospheric tides and the resonant rotation of
Venus. Icarus 11, 356–366.
Goldreich, P., Peale, S.J., 1966. Spin orbit coupling in the Solar System.
Astron. J. 71, 425–438.
Goldreich, P., Peale, S.J., 1970. The obliquity of Venus. Astron. J. 75,
273–284.
Goldreich, P., Soter, S., 1966. Q in the Solar System. Icarus 5, 375–389.
Goldstein, R.M., 1964. Venus characteristics by Earth-based radar. Astron.
J. 69, 12–19.
Goldstein, S., 1965. Modern Developments in Fluid Mechanics. Dover,
New York.
Hart, M.H., 1978. The evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth. Icarus 33,
23–39.
Henrard, J., 1993. The adiabatic invariant in classical dynamics, in:
C.K.R.T. Jones, U. Kirchgraber, H.O. Walthers (Eds.), Dynamics Reported,
Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 117–235.
Herring, T.A., Gwinn, C.R., Shappiro, I.I., 1986. Geodesy by radio interferometry:
studies of the forced nutations of the Earth. I—Data analysis.
II—Interpretation. J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4755–4765.
22 A.C.M. Correia et al. / Icarus 163 (2003) 1–23
Hinderer, J., Legros, H., Pedotti, G., 1987. Atmospheric pressure torque
and axial rotation of Venus. Adv. Space Res. 7, 311–314.
Hunten, D.M., 1993. Atmospheric evolution of the terrestrial planets.
Science 259, 915–920.
Joshi, M.M., Haberle, R.M., Reynolds, R.T., 1997. Simulations of the
atmospheres of synchronously rotating terrestrial planets orbiting M
dwarfs: conditions for atmospheric collapse and the implications for
habitability. Icarus 129, 450–465.
Kasting, J.F., 1993. Earth’s early atmosphere. Science 259, 920–925.
Kaula, W., 1964. Tidal dissipation by solid friction and the resulting orbital
evolution. J. Geophys. Res. 2, 661–685.
Kino****a, H., 1977. Theory of the rotation of the rigid Earth. Celest. Mech.
15, 277–326.
Konopliv, A.S., Yoder, C.F., 1996. Venusian k2 tidal Love number from
Magellan and PVO tracking data. Geophys: Res. Lett. 23, 1857–1860.
Konopliv, A.S., Borderies, N.J., Chodas, P.W., Christensen, E.J., Sjogren,
W.L., Williams, B.G., Balmino, G., Barriot, J.P., 1993. Venus gravity
and topography: 60th degree and order model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20,
2403–2406.
Kundt, W., 1977. Spin and atmospheric tides of Venus. Astron. Astrophys.
60, 85–91.
Lago, B., Cazenave, A., 1979. Possible dynamical evolution of the rotation
of Venus since formation. Moon Planets 21, 127–154.
Lambeck, K., 1980. The Earth’s Variable Rotation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Laskar, J., 1986. Secular terms of classical planetary theories using the
results of general theory. Astron. Astrophys. 157, 59–70.
Laskar, J., 1988. Secular evolution of the Solar System over 10 million
years. Astron. Astrophys. 198, 341–362.
Laskar, J., 1989. Manipulation des se´ries, in: D. Benest, C. Froeschle´
(Eds.), Modern methods in celestial mechanics, Editions Frontie`res,
Gif-sur-Yvette, pp. 89–107.
Laskar, J., 1990. The chaotic motion of the Solar System. Icarus 88,
266–291.
Laskar, J., 1994a. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astron. Astrophys.
287, L9–12.
Laskar, J., 1994b. Description des routines utilisateur de TRIP. Preprint.
Laskar, J., 1999. The limits of Earth orbital calculations for geological
time-scale use. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A 357, 1735–1759.
Laskar, J., Robutel, P., 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature
361, 608–612.
Lumb, L.I., Aldridge, K.D., 1991. On viscosity estimates for the Earth’s
fluid outer core–mantle coupling. J. Geophys. Geoelectr. 43, 93–110.
McCue, J., Dormand, J.R., 1993. Evolution of the spin of Venus. Earth,
Moon, Planets 63, 209–225.
Melton, C.E., Giardini, A.A., 1982. The evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere
and oceans. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 579–582.
Mignard, F., 1979. The evolution of the lunar orbit revisited. I. Moon
Planets 20, 301–315.
Mignard, F., 1980. The evolution of the lunar orbit revisited. II. Moon
Planets 23, 185–201.
Munk, W.H., MacDonald, G.J.F., 1960. The Rotation of the Earth: A
Geophysical Discussion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ne´ron de Surgy, O., 1996. Influence des effets dissipatifs sur les variations
a` long terme des obliquite´s plane´taires. The`se, Observatoire de Paris.
Ne´ron de Surgy, O., Laskar, J., 1997. On the long term evolution of the
spin of the Earth. Astron. Astrophys. 318, 975–989.
Pais, M.A., Le Moue¨l, J.L., Lambeck, K., Poirier, J.P., 1999. Late Precambrian
paradoxical glaciation and obliquity of the Earth—a discussion of
dynamical constraints. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 174, 155–171.
Pepin, R.O., 1991. On the origin and early evolution of terrestrial planet
atmospheres and meteoritic volatiles. Icarus 92, 2–79.
Pepin, R.O., 1994. Evolution of the martian atmosphere. Icarus 111, 289–
304.
Poincare´, H., 1910. Sur la pre´cession des corps de´formables. Bull. Astron.
27, 321–356.
Poirier, J.P., 1988. Transport properties of liquid metals and the viscosity
of the Earth’s core. Geophys. J. 92, 99–105.
Roberts, P.H., Stewartson, K., 1965. On the motion of a liquid in a
spheroidal cavity of a precessing rigid body, II. Proc. Cambridge Phil.
Soc. 61, 279–288.
Rochester, M.G., 1976. The secular decrease of obliquity due to dissipative
core–mantle coupling. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 46, 109–126.
Sasao, T., Okubo, S., Saito, M., 1980. A simple theory on the dynamical
effects of a stratified core upon the nutational motion of the Earth, in:
R.L. Duncombe (Ed.), Nutation and the Earth’s Rotation: Proceedings
from IAU Symposium no. 78, Kiev, USSR 23–28 May, 1977. International
Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 78, Dordrecht, Holland;
Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co., p. 165–183.
Schaber, G.G., Strom, R.G., Moore, H.J., Soderblom, L.A., Kirk, R.L.,
Chadwick, D.J., Dawson, D.D., Gaddis, L.R., Boyce, J.M., Russell, J.,
1992. Geology and distribution of impact craters on Venus—what are
they telling us? J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13257–13301.
Shen, M., Zhang, C.Z., 1989. Dynamical evolution of the rotation of
Venus. Earth, Moon, Planets 43, 275–287.
Siebert, M., 1961. Atmospheric Tides—Advances in Geophysics. Academic
Press, New York.
Smith, W.B., 1963. Radar observations of Venus, 1961 and 1959. Astron.
J. 68, 15–21.
Stevenson, D,J, 2002 Planetary magnetic fields Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 208, Issues 1-2 , 15 March 2003, Pages 1-11
Stewartson, K., Roberts, P.H., 1963. On the motion of a liquid in a
spheroidal cavity of a precessing rigid body. J. Fluid Mech. 33, 1–20.
Toomre, A., 1974. On the ‘nearly diurnal wobble’ of the Earth. Geophys.
J. R. Astron. Soc. 38, 335–348.
Walker, J.C.G., 1975. Evolution of the atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci.
32, 1248–1256.
Williams, G.E., 1989. Tidal rhythmites: geochronometers for the ancient
Earth–Moon system. Episodes 12 (3), 162–171.
Williams, G.E., 1993. History of the Earth’s obliquity. Earth Sci. Revi. 34,
1–45.
Yoder, C.F., 1995. Venus’ free obliquity. Icarus 117, 1–37.
Yoder, C.F., 1997. Venusian spin dynamics, in: S.W. Bougher, D.M.
Hunten, R.J. Philips (Eds.), Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere,
and Solar Wind Environment, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, pp. 1087–1124.
Zahnle, K.J., Kasting, J.F., Pollack, J.B., 1988. Evolution of a steam
atmosphere during Earth’s accretion. Icarus 74, 62–97.
23 A.C.M. Correia et al. / Icarus 163 (2003) 1–23

 

[Andre]

Anyway you did A VERY QUICK CHECK, which suggest that some weeks ago when Nereid listed Venus specifically as something that could be worth another thought, you did not bother to do so before starting the beating around.

 

[ZapperZ]

So it's all in the numbers. If you can't give numbers, you have failed regardless what. But numbers are useless when you fail to cross check what other hypotheses require. And of course that you found something that overarches everything like Popper likes to see is far inferior to presenting a numerical model.

Here is a list of references.

What you call "numbers" are required to do exactly just that - check the hypothesis! You said people in that field of study didn't do ANY BETTER than what you are doing. I pointed out just ONE that I found from a quick search that clearly falsify your statement.

Being able to come up with "numbers" require the formulation of a TESTABLE model! You cannot just say "what goes up must come down". This is utterly inadequate for a formulation of an idea. You must also say when and where it will come down! You don't even get close to this. Yet, you have no problem in claiming that you have solved "Venus". Honestly, are you THAT surprised that you've been called a crackpot?

Zz.

 

[Andre]

There are numerous numbers to check the hypothesis. There is just not a sophisticated explaining itl model. Detailed geologic evidence with number seem to be rather supportive. Perhaps it's an idea to even try page two and three of the thread.

 

[ZapperZ]

Anyway you did A VERY QUICK CHECK, which suggest that some weeks ago when Nereid listed Venus specifically as something that could be worth another thought, you did not bother to do so before starting the beating around.

I do not follow the forum that you obviously spew your ideas in (lucky for me because I can't STAND hand-waving arguments being mistaken for definitive explanation). I take exception here in THIS thread because you seem to act as if you're a "victim" of something that is of no fault of your own. You brought this upon yourself!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

There are numerous numbers to check the hypothesis. There is just not a sophisticated explaining itl model. Detailed geologic evidence with number seem to be rather supportive. Perhaps it's an idea to even try page two and three of the thread.

Hello? The "numbers" are the outcome of a clear model! Both you, and someone checking it SHOULD be aware of the model! So how can there be a non "sophisticated" model producing "numerous numbers" that "seem to be rather supportive"? This is getting funnier by the minute!

If I say "Venus consist of a solid core of radius R1, a gas shell of radius up to a radius of R2... with inner core density of rho1 and gas density of rho2..."etc., do you think you, I, and everyone who understands basic physics can (i) figure out the moment of inertia (ii) compare that to the spinning rate (iii) figure out the gravitational attraction to the sun (iv) compare with observational results? When you propose something, you HAVE to come up with the DYNAMICAL model especially in this field. If not, there is NO WAY to compare with observational data! You can't just say "oh, friction with the core reduces its spin". This is bogus! You come up with a model that details the mechanism of such a friction, including any assumption or coefficients being used, and THEN, show that the application of that model with proper initial conditions does produce REALISTIC results!

Now tell me with a straight face that you HAVE done this.

Zz.

 

[Andre]

Nereid, If you follow this would you please reconsider the value of Thomas Kuhn.

 

[ZapperZ]

Nereid, If you follow this would you please reconsider the value of Thomas Kuhn.

If all of this is nothing more than an exercise in the practice of a philosophical school of thought, then I have utterly wasted my time for nothing!

Zz.

 

[Andre]

No You have not, I thank you for the very clear demonstration of your objectives and the demonstration of the mechanism how science really works. That's valuable, I think.

 

[vanesch]

The whole process can be very educational for everyone who is not involved in professional science, but wants to learn about how it is done. Have you ever heard of schools that hold "Model United Nations" or something along those lines? Each participant plays a role, the moderator comes up with some issue for them to work out and sets the rules, and they simulate the workings of the real UN. Is it real, professional international politics? No. Is it going to change the face of world government? No. Does everyone learn something from the process? Yes, they do.

Tom, I think it is a great idea. It might, however, take more time and effort than you think ! But try it, I think it is a worthy idea.

cheers,
Parick.

 

[Locrian]

I liked the TD forum. The internet is full of mentally unstable crackpots, but it was nice to have a simple place I could quickly click to and see a listing of their most immediate thoughts. I'm not sure where to go to find that kind of efficiency of entertainment. Of course, that's not what physicsforums is for and I support the new idea completely.

Goodluck on the new venture, I hope it is productive and not too painful!

 

[ZapperZ]

I liked the TD forum. The internet is full of mentally unstable crackpots, but it was nice to have a simple place I could quickly click to and see a listing of their most immediate thoughts. I'm not sure where to go to find that kind of efficiency of entertainment. Of course, that's not what physicsforums is for and I support the new idea completely.

Goodluck on the new venture, I hope it is productive and not too painful!

Oy vey, Locrian! :)

Go to the Yahoo groups and look in the large physics areas. You're bound to find something to suit your perverse needs! :)

Zz.