I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.

1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.

2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.

3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.

In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.

And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve.

(But I also noticed you comment above, advocating the viewpoint of a handful of people who believe, against the judgement of almost all cosmologists, that cosmic acceleration is not the explanation of WMAP data. Maybe they will end up being right, but in my mind it is misleading not to emphasize also that they are a tiny tiny minority, their work has well-known issues, and has not convinced the overwhelming majority of working cosmologists. So, it seems like we might have a genuine disagreement on what we want to discuss here.)

I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.

1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.

2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.

3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.

In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.

And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve.

I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.

1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.

2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.

3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.

In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.

And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve.

I think we had a few exchanges over some answers I thought were not adding any value. Let me say a few things about this.

1. Many professional physicists I know have passion for their trade, and would love to spend a couple of minutes having an exchange on interesting physics. This is a good way to stir things up, remind yourself of things you thought you knew, and have fun in the process. This is a resource I think you'd want to tap into.

2. Those people, myself included, have enough on their plates already. This is only going to work if this is fun, and not too time consuming. Fighting with excessive amounts of noise is going to kill all the fun, and is very time-consuming, so noise control is essential to having high quality conversation.

3. For readers, there has to be a easy and straightforward way to distinguish good answer from bad ones. So, again, quality control is the issue. In the current system, seems to me the best way to achieve that is to massively downvote anything that is pure crap, so it is on the bottom of the page and does not disturb the conversation. If there is hope for correction, then by all means add a comment, but nobody in their right mind will get into an argument with the same set of people who necessitate you having a spam filter on your email.

In all of that, I am stressing that quality control is the problematic issue. I am sorry about not being too diplomatic or democratic here, but there is such a thing as a bad answer, there is such thing as gibberish, and there should be a way to control the entropy generation. There is a range of reasonable opinions, especially about areas that are uncertain, but there are also opinions that are plain wrong. The sentiment you expressing here and elsewhere, that everyone is equal and we all need to be heard would result in a pleasant and civil conversation of no value to anyone.

And, this is already taking too much time and effort, I certainly don't want to get into an argument with you, or anyone else. If you want to have a different type of forum, which is more open to brave new alternative ideas and less aggressive about the correctness of physics, I think you'll find this is easy to achieve.

(But I also noticed you comment above, advocating the viewpoint of a handful of people who believe, against the judgement of almost all cosmologists, that cosmic acceleration is not the explanation of WMAP data. Maybe they will end up being right, but in my mind it is misleading not to emphasize also that they are a tiny tiny minority, their work has well-known issues, and has not convinced the overwhelming majority of working cosmologists. So, it seems like we might have a genuine disagreement on what we want to discuss here.)