0
$\begingroup$

I have a fundamental disagreement with the explanation of a real world phenomenon. That fundamental disagreement renders the current explanations of that phenomenon completely wrong.

The simplest way I could think of to bring everyone's attention to it was by asking a question on PSE (Physics Stack Exchange). It is being met with not just criticism but huge opposition. When I ask the question, it is marked as duplicate. Yes, it is duplicate because other people had same curiosity and they asked it. However, all the answers on previous questions are based on same fundamental which I find flawed.

Nobody answers my question. Some down-vote it and some vote for it to be closed. (Down-votes and VTCs are fellow SO users' right. No issues with that.)

It is unrealistic to go to all current answers and point to the answerer how their answer is wrong. I tried to do this with one answer which was accepted and had 28 up-votes and after some time the answerer stopped responding. I cannot make that person justify his/her answer when he/she doesn't want to.

I'm left with only one choice and that is to ask a question but I have already seen what happens to my questions.


My questions to Meta-PSE:

  • How do I invite a sensible discussion on my question? What's happening now is that first people google the topic, second they find a link, third they add it in a comment and finally they proceed to argue. Nobody has attempted to answer the question, for whatever reason.

  • My state is something like that I'm saying "Earth is spheroid" when everyone is hell bent on believing "Earth is flat.". How do I write a question in a manner that people give it an unbiased consideration?


Most people have probably already seen them by now, but this and this are the questions I asked. I hope to have someone answer the meta question of mine without any bias towards the PSE question.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This site gets a lot of crackpots who are convinced that all modern physics is wrong, and many of these crackpots start out by asking a somewhat reasonable question with a slightly combative stance. I've grown hypersensitive to this tone because every time I've tried to engage with it, I get quickly subjected to an "Einstein was wrong!!" rant. Now I don't engage, and I just downvote, VTC, and sometimes leave a disparaging comment. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Aug 1 '16 at 18:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not saying you're one of these people. But this is why we're touchy about it. You need to rephrase to emphasize that you're not going to go crazy on everybody who responds. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Aug 1 '16 at 18:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @knzhou: Just look at the comments on my questions which has now been moved to chat. The resistance my questions have received is almost offensive. And nobody wrote an answer. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 18:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not saying you deserved that response, I'm just saying the reason it happens. Nine times out of ten, it's the correct response. $\endgroup$ – knzhou Aug 1 '16 at 18:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The starting place for having a sensible discussion is understanding that you have to show that you know the conventional theory. You seem to be working from pop-sci treatments and incomplete analysis on the internet and, frankly, refuting those gains you exactly nothing. But it gets worse: that image showing the sun and planets with "go faster stripes" hanging off them suggests that you haven't understood the principle of relativity in is classical (Galilean) form. That's a huge impediment to understanding the tidal forcing. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 1 '16 at 23:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee: If you know the conventional theory, please answer my question using that. I disagree with that conventional theory and everyone believes in it. By asking me to know the conventional theory you are effectively asking me to believe it despite my disagreement. And everyone else here with same thinking as yours chooses to close and down-vote the question. And with that any possibility of discussing the conventional theory ends too. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 23:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is the post you're asking for (and better than I could do it). But, to be painfully frank, you're not ready for that post yet. You should spend so time understanding Galilean relativity, and the classical theory of two-body central interactions. Plus it would help to be familiar with the usual treatment of inertial pseudo-forces. And anharmonic, driven oscillations. I'm sorry, but the subject of tides is complicated and involved and no one can change that for you. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 1 '16 at 23:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee: This is where the same gentleman has begun answering my question and I have mentioned the first point of his answer that I disagree with. I hope the discussion with him will be fruitful. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 23:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @dmckee: The answer that you think I'm asking for and I'm not ready for, posts an image under the title "The tidal force". At the equator, this tidal force is pointing towards the moon on one side and also away from the moon on the opposite side. Moon's gravity is acting weird now. It is pulling something towards it and pushing something away to arrange tides on Earth. And... according to the answerer that is one of those things that "Newton got right". :D $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 4 '16 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ You do understand that the tidal force is a residual between the absolute gravitational effect of a body at some point and the mean gravitational effect due to the same body, right? So what's the issue? Or, if you don"t understand that then why don't you ask about the thing you don't get? But, no. It's "Hey, I've bodged something together and hope that it'll be recognized as the best thing since sliced bread", whata y'all think? You are wasting your own time as much as ours. Questioning is good, but you need to recognize your current limits as well, or you'll never make any progress. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Aug 4 '16 at 4:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @displayName, I've been around a little longer. You ought to consider that 90% (or more) members of this site (like all other sites) are students : undergraduates or schoolboys. Only few are postgraduates and very few are scientists or researchers. Students too can be helful: they are good to find snippets from wiki or other sites and help beginners. You should not expect to find people who are prepared to discuss issues that are not covered by the most popular sites or textbooks. You must be grateful for the help you can get if you ask for more, that will rise many eyebrows. $\endgroup$ – user104372 Aug 4 '16 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ @displayName, I understand you feel frustrated, what you can't realize is that they were very patient with your question: usually it can be a lot worse: I can't recall an instance where someone has been allowed to edit so much, or deletion of comments was so delayed. You can realize how lucky you were if you look at this. It did not contain any disagreement, just a request of an explanation, yet itwas voted to close as duplicate and now as off-topic. $\endgroup$ – user104372 Aug 4 '16 at 14:05
8
$\begingroup$

I would urge you to reconsider the possibility that your calculations are, in fact, missing something, and that that makes them incorrect. Tone matters a great deal here: you come across (in this question but particularly on this meta thread) as someone who has come to a conclusion and will only listen to people that will confirm it, and that's not particularly inviting. To be honest, the response to your second question looks a bit over the top to me, but that simply tells you that you need to be crystal clear with your posts.

So, some suggestions:

  1. Make it very clear what parts of the standard theory you do agree with or not. If you claim that the tidal bulge exists in the oceans, then you'll simply get an appropriate link that explains that it doesn't and why it doesn't.

    From what I gather, though, you mostly have a problem with the forcing term (e.g. the section 'the tidal force' in David Hammen's answer to the link above). If that's the case, then I suggest that

  2. you make it crystal clear that this is the part you're having problems with. If you have maths that conflict with the diagram, then I would urge you to really consider the possibility that your maths is missing something. This means

  3. post the maths in a clear and well-formatted manner, and

  4. ask whether there is a mistake in the workings or a hypothesis you missed.

Finally, tone is very important - you come across as very entitled and certainly not as someone that's likely to have constructive discussions; you're scaring away all the reasonable people that could answer your question constructively. That's up to you but think it carefully.

And, as a meta note: these are all suggestions for you to use or not as you see fit. I'm not particularly interested in further discussion, though (and particularly if you show the same attitude as in the comment threads and endless re-edits you linked to).

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer Emilio. If you'd be kind enough, could you please reword my questions so that a reasonable person is not scared away? If I will see the difference in the wording, I will understand your point beyond a shadow of doubt. This is a genuine request for help - no sarcasm or pun intended. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 20:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You've been told this before by a huge number of people (including me in point 3 above), but I'll say it again: in its current form, the question can only be answered by a referral to the huge number of resources that already treat this, like the one Rob Jeffries linked you to. If you find those resources unsatisfactory, the only way for this to move forward is for you to provide the maths workings that makes you think the standard theory is wrong. You keep saying that everyone else is wrong but you don't provide anything to back that up - how exactly did you think that was going to help? $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Aug 1 '16 at 20:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So far my both my questions only concerns that Moon does not cause tides. What is the actual cause behind tides can be explored, but properly exploring the Moon theory is the simple first step. I don't just say everyone is wrong. Everywhere I have backed it up with the reason. The question and my comment responses are all in open. You may verify that my wronging of others' points is not irrational. The issue with the links (from the likes of Rob) is that the person who gives the link does not even understand that link himself/herself. That is why I ask them to write an answer using that link. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 23:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ See, here is where I get off the bus. You start with a statement that's plainly incorrect and you provide nothing except hints at maths that you refuse to provide. (In addition, you ask others to duplicate work that already exists and you provide no evidence that you will listen if they do write it.) You asked for my opinion, and my opinion is that until and unless you provide more of why you think the standard theory is wrong there is little more to discuss. If you don't like my opinion, then I'm sorry to hear it, but I'm not going to argue. $\endgroup$ – Emilio Pisanty Aug 1 '16 at 23:17
4
$\begingroup$

You are going about this in the wrong way. Your question should not be - does the Moon cause the tides? To which you think the answer is not.

Clearly, the whole of the scientific world thinks the Moon ultimately causes tides (along with the Sun, the Earth's rotation and other more minor contributions), so your question should be along the lines of - here is an analysis (giving details) of why I think the Moon cannot be responsible for tides on the Earth; is there a flaw in my argument?

Just stop and think. Do you really believe that you alone have discovered something that has eluded the millions of people who have thought about this problem already?

Your statement is not along the lines of "I'm saying 'Earth is spheroid' when everyone is hell bent on believing 'Earth is flat'"; actually it is completely the other way around. You are arguing that the Earth is flat and so you need to provide your evidence and invite the rest of us to critically assess that.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I get what you are saying. Will incorporate it. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, I am not saying that I have discovered something that has eluded millions of people, but nobody really gave a convincing answer to how they understood. The easiest way to be done with this question was to give an answer by first principles. Most people chose to argue and VTC. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 15:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @displayName No, you still don't get it. The internet is full of explanations of how the Moon causes tides. See jalc.edu/mikolajsawicki/tides_new2.pdf for example. If you think you know different then you need to provide argument and evidence. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Aug 1 '16 at 15:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And, dear Rob, as I said - I have fundamental disagreement with the premise of those explanations. I will surely add my reason to the question now. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 17:30
3
$\begingroup$

I recognize that you are in a fairly frustrated state from this. I imagine that in your position, I would be fairly frustrated too. However, given that you are trying to point out that modern physics is flawed, here is the way I would answer your questions:

  1. You do not invite a discussion here. This site is not a place for discussion on physics. It is a question and answer site; people ask questions about physics and other people give answers about what modern accepted physics has to say on the matter. Whether or not your point of view has merit, you are simply in the wrong place. This isn't a place to definitively change physics; only to state what the viewpoints of physicists would be. You may notice people respond and argue anyway. That is because it is very tempting to engage in discussion anyway; however, site policy remains that we do not discuss new physics. We give accepted physics. To change it, you need to publish a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. Only then will we change our answers. It may seem close-minded of us but remember, we are not offering our point of view, we are offering the explanations of accepted physics whether or not we agree with them. To change our answers, you cannot simply change our viewpoints.

  2. We do our best to give every question an unbiased chance. It helps if you are not explicitly calling everyone on Earth wrong. Statistically speaking, that is unlikely. The major problem is that your questions seem too off-topic for the site.

If you're in a good mood and willing to be facetious/farcical about your situation, read this blog post. If you find yourself relating to John Smith, then you should be worried.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Jim, thank you for your kind answer. Let me know if you want to hear what I have to say to you. From my experience in past two and a half days, I only find it imperative to explicitly know whether the person wants to hear me out. So, yeah, only if you say you want to hear what I have to say, will I say it. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 2 '16 at 13:43
2
$\begingroup$

Emilio Pisanty says most of what I want to say, but I do want to add two points (the main sentences are bolded).

  1. Users did try to help you, but I remember your question was not very clear, and it was not until I had read through a bajillion (okay, over 40) comments until I kind of understood what you wanted, and even then, you didn't have your math posted, and I didn't understand your specific objections. Try to make your questions as clear as possible, and include all the necessary information to answer them.
  2. Your tone didn't really help matters. Your small print before I edited it seemed to imply a sort of "I have the answer, but I want to see you all be wrong so I can argue with you." You didn't post necessary information, which also made it seem like you were kind of looking for a "fight". And, in the comments, you acted in a way that annoyed many people. Tone really threw people off - your responses in comments made it harder for people to listen to you because they weren't super polite, and they made it sound like you were looking for everyone to admit, "yeah, you're right, here's the nobel prize." Try to act like you are wrong, not like everyone else is wrong.

Finally, I might add that I have nothing against you. I am simply pointing out things that would help your question. (Oh, and don't post the same question twice. People will be ticked off.) I think that if you follow suggestions for the formatting of your question, it will get reopened.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't read your answer with full attention yet, however to address the second point - I added the small print because when I did not do it in the first question, fellow PSE users asked (read: taunted) whether I have any answer or not. Feel free to read the comments that have been moved to chat (not sure if those comments have been deleted now). When I didn't do it, someone had problem - When I did it, somebody still had problem. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 15:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I would explain your theory clearly with the math as best you can. I think it is also important to assume they are trying to help, not taunting or insulting. $\endgroup$ – heather Aug 1 '16 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ What would you assume after following comments on your question - "you have your own theory of universe", "you are enormously confused", "you are being silly", "your question is non-sense" ? $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, please let me know if I have been rude to anyone. The comments are all there for you to see. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 17:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @displayName, I do not mean rude, exactly. It is more of a "I know the answer and you don't" attitude - I do not know the word for it. And yes, perhaps the other physics users reacted inappropriately, however, I would say, be the better person. Act like you would if they were being nice. Don't give them an excuse ("well, the OP was doing it too") to do it; rather, act your best. $\endgroup$ – heather Aug 1 '16 at 18:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok heather, I read your complete answer. You say that my question was not clear. I really want to understand where my question was not clear. There was no need to read the comments. Only two users attempted to talk sense in the comments. If only someone would have read the question without bias, it totally made (and still makes) sense. Again, if you disagree, please point out where the question is unclear. If you can't point out the lack of clarity in question, let me know that too. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ And before the situation gets out of hand - my purpose is not to argue with you. I like your answer and want to squeeze more out of it. I think the question is clear and specific. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ @displayName, I assume you are not trying to argue. When you first asked the question, I thought it was, "how does the moon cause tides?" (I probably just skimmed it.) Then, after reading comments, I thought it was some quack theory about the moon not causing tides. I reread the question and noticed that it was about some math you had done, but you didn't include the math. Here's what I would say: include the math, that is important. As for your second question, it's very long. I wouldn't blame people for skimming it. And along the way they could've been missing an important point. $\endgroup$ – heather Aug 1 '16 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ @displayName, I might add, with reference to your second question: there has been a question asked about the moon causing atmospheric tides here that you may find helpful. $\endgroup$ – heather Aug 1 '16 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. Please note however - not including the Math does not make the question unclear as you said. My question is and was clear without the Math too. Nobody asked to include and it would only prevent the people from putting their thoughts clearly. And, very sincerely, I will not go back to the question you have linked. See the accepted answer there. I commented there first. The answerer (as I have mentioned in this meta question) is not interested in discussing it further. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 1 '16 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @displayName: My personal opinion, but I think the answerer was very helpful! Also try looking into your specific questions yourself, and coming back to her with only one or two questions. $\endgroup$ – heather Aug 1 '16 at 20:23
  • $\begingroup$ Every time I write something addressing to one of the countable few people who are listening to me on PSE I am afraid that I will lose that audience too. You think that the answerer was helpful? 29 up-votes look promising too. To top that, she has 72.4K rep on PSE and 35.3K rep on SO. The comment where she told me that "atmospheric tides and ocean tides are same height" is still on her answer. Well, they are absolutely the same height if you consider 4 meters same as 40 miles - as mentioned on the link given by her in that same answer. $\endgroup$ – user124734 Aug 4 '16 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ @displayName, well, I don't know what to tell you. Edit the question to add your math, explain your own theory, ask where you went wrong, have the right tone, and I think you should be good. As for the person who gave you an incorrect comment, I know I'm ready to be done after answering one or two comments, let alone quite a few of in-depth type comments. $\endgroup$ – heather Aug 4 '16 at 12:22

You must log in to answer this question.