People who want that come here. Other internet sites do other things, and you are free to use them.Our mission is to provide a place for people (whether students, professional scientists, or others interested in science) to learn and discuss science as it is currently generally understood and practiced by the professional scientific community.
All the science in each single field of our forums is already so highly specialized and difficult, that we decided not to waste time on every nonsense that comes around on the internet.Johnm1272 said:How can this be a site dedicated to science if questions that don't agrees with mainstream theories are not allowed? This is what's wrong with science today. I guess we didn't learn the real lessons to be taught by the likes of Copernicus and Galileo.
There is few to add to this. What's already in the box is so manifold that a single lifetime isn't long enough to learn. To investigate the near surrounding of this named box is scientists' task, and therefore you need to know the neighborhood of the box. We find it far more exciting around this box as somewhere out in fantasia land. Btw., we have a science fiction forum ...phinds said:Thinking outside the box can be a useful exercise but first you have to learn what's IN the box.
Formulating ideas based on a lack of knowledge as a way to learn turns out to be pretty much a waste of time.
Johnm1272 said:How can this be a site dedicated to science if questions that don't agrees with mainstream theories are not allowed? This is what's wrong with science today.
Johnm1272 said:I guess we didn't learn the real lessons to be taught by the likes of Copernicus and Galileo.
Johnm1272 said:How can this be a site dedicated to science if questions that don't agrees with mainstream theories are not allowed?
Johnm1272 said:How can this be a site dedicated to science if questions that don't agrees with mainstream theories are not allowed? This is what's wrong with science today. I guess we didn't learn the real lessons to be taught by the likes of Copernicus and Galileo.
It looks like the OP @Johnm1272 has finally read the rules and decided that the PF is not a good match for what he is seeking, based on him not replying to this thread he created. Having seen his "Jello Universe" model, I have to say that you all are not missing much...Johnm1272 said:How can this be a site dedicated to science if questions that don't agrees with mainstream theories are not allowed? This is what's wrong with science today. I guess we didn't learn the real lessons to be taught by the likes of Copernicus and Galileo.
Johnm1272 said:I guess we didn't learn the real lessons to be taught by the likes of Copernicus and Galileo.
And Copernicus had been smart enough to keep his insights secret, at least he didn't shout them out loud. So the OP might find comfort in Copernicus.Vanadium 50 said:They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at the Three Stooges.
Johnm1272 said:How can this be a site dedicated to science if questions that don't agrees with mainstream theories are not allowed? This is what's wrong with science today. I guess we didn't learn the real lessons to be taught by the likes of Copernicus and Galileo.
OmCheeto said:But here is the new problem.
How far can I go with my nutty theories?
PF has a policy of "No personal theories".
But, we seem to be looking at a Trekkian/PF dichotomous problem, as "No man, has gone here, before".
Meh...
As always, I'll take the plunge, and state that it may be the crater to the lonely mountain's south, that is the engine generating the lift.
The "seed" of the mountain may be a long lost comet, possibly billions of years old. I've heard that comets are very light.
------------
Ok2di&b*
marcus said:I wouldn't call that a personal theory so much as a reasonable conjecture within the framework of the common body of physics.
berkeman said:Having seen his "Jello Universe" model, I have to say that you all are not missing much...
When someone says "Science is its own worst enemy," they are referring to the idea that the advancements and discoveries made through scientific research can also have negative consequences. This could include unintended consequences, misuse of technology, or ethical concerns.
Science can contribute to its own downfall in a number of ways. One example is through the development of new technologies that may have unintended consequences or be used for harmful purposes. Additionally, scientific research can sometimes be influenced by biases or funding sources, leading to inaccurate or misleading results.
One example of science being its own worst enemy is the development of nuclear weapons. While nuclear technology has many beneficial uses, the creation of nuclear weapons has had devastating consequences. Another example is the use of pesticides in agriculture, which has led to environmental damage and health concerns.
Yes, science has the potential to overcome its own negative impact. As advancements are made, scientists and researchers can also work to address and mitigate any potential negative consequences. This can include developing ethical guidelines, conducting further research on potential risks, and collaborating with other fields to address issues.
Preventing science from becoming its own worst enemy requires a proactive and ethical approach. This can include promoting transparency and accountability in scientific research, addressing potential biases and conflicts of interest, and promoting responsible use of technology. It also involves considering the potential consequences of scientific advancements before moving forward with them.