No.

Make time to get out of your head.

Thoughts? — Question

I couldn't bear those content blocking ads, so I didn't look over the entire discussion, and I was unable to fully assess the situation. I briefly read through your posts on the first page and they didn't seem to require any moderator action, if I were to apply the standards that I apply here.

What was the reason given for your ban?

I don't think the question is whether you should be banned. I can tell you why you were banned though. Scientists - physicists - especially amateurish ones have to defend the status quo to prove their superior knowledge - so there's an interest in getting rid of a Questioner like you

It ain't easy though...

If the earth were an apple, we wouldn't have ever broken its skin. The Russians (I believe it was) once did try to drill to the mantle, but then gave up half-way through. They say that we know more about the sun's core than the earth's, and in star trek, they had yet to explore the abyss in the year 2400 or whatever.

Reminds me of that episode of futurama, where the spaceship is dragged underwater, and they're like "we've just passed five atmospheres of pressure", and Fry is like "how many can it take?", so the professor responds "well, it's a spaceship, so anywhere between 0 and 1."

It's impossible to know why they banned you without seeing their correspondence to you. It's also a stretch to assume that their standards would coincide with this forum's standards and that should evoke concern from you about being banned here. At any rate, your idea of digging deep holes to solve the energy crisis is probably as far fetched as those posters were trying to explain.

I assume there were offending posts that have since been deleted? In one of your posts you say "I appreciate the moderators allowing me to post here despite my recent emotional posts on the matter.", but that doesn't really fit with what we can see.

So I don't know if this is some disingenuous attempt at bad-mouthing another forum...

At any rate, your idea of digging deep holes to solve the energy crisis is probably as far fetched as those posters were trying to explain. — Hanover

Not quite. I can refer you to this post that settled the matter.

Whatever happened to geothermal energy production?

I had a temporary ban for saying something to the matter of "If one cannot see the long term benefits of geothermal energy production then one is either ignorant or can't see the woods from the trees." Which they took as a "personal insult".

This was in response to the economics of the matter along with the positive externalities of geothermal energy production, which in this case were presented in the link above. The LCOE of geothermal mining is actually higher due to the possibility of using the heat underground for heating cities along with sewage treatment.

I didn't see any reason for banning you, or for even closing the thread. Perhaps the physicists who run the site detected strange particles being emitted from your thread and this freaked out an anal-retentive post doc.

As to geothermal:

Just leave the Yellowstone Caldera alone. You might want to move close to Yellowstone so that your demise will be quick when it blows. KABOOM sic transit gloria Question.

In several geothermal projects water has been injected into hot rock to produce steam. But... putting relatively cold water into hot holes had the entirely predictable effect of cooling the rock off. Project went pffft.

Both in California, Oklahoma, and Switzerland, injecting liquids into rock produced earthquakes. Earthquakes make yahoos twitchy. The yodeling yahoos got their rifles out of the closet and went looking for the usual suspects.

Rather than look for exotic sources of energy, we should be more like you and live simply. Living simply would reduce our energy needs significantly.

Both in California, Oklahoma, and Switzerland, injecting liquids into rock produced earthquakes. Earthquakes make yahoos twitchy. The yodeling yahoos got their rifles out of the closet and went looking for the usual suspects. — Bitter Crank

Is that what caused those earthquakes in Turkey that Gokcek was talking about?

The thread doesn't say that you were banned. It finishes with

The initial question appears to have been asked and answered, so I am closing this thread.

Are you saying, they closed the thread, AND banned you? What grounds did they provide for that?

Physics Forum has much tougher mods than philosophy forums, generally. (Their mods wear white coats, and carry clipboards.)

Both.

What grounds did they give for banning you? Any?

//ps// your member profile on Physics Forum doesn't give an indication that you're banned.

None whatsoever.

//ps// your member profile on Physics Forum doesn't give an indication that you're banned. — Wayfarer

Well, I have my name crossed out and I don't think I can post anything to any topic. Sad times.

Strange. But as you can see, I can message you on that forum, and you received the message, so I think you ought to ping one of the mods and see what's going on. I don't think you've been banned - if you have, it's a very indirect way of communicating it.

I think the sentiment presented in my eyes is to "conform". They really want me to read the forum guidelines.

They are very prickly over there, I have participated in a few conversations, but they're very strict on enforcing guidelines. But in your case, that thread was completely non-controversial, as far as I could see, but then, also not directly related to physics as such.

Make time to get out of your head. — Nils Loc

As a Tractarian I am committed to solipsism. I am helpless, and wallow in my helplessness.

9. The self is not outside the world. (4&7)
10. The self does not belong within the world but is a limit of it, or coincides with
it in its entirety. (4,6 & 9)
‘I am my world.’ (5.63)
‘The subject does not belong to the world: rather, it is a limit of the world.’ (5.632)

Thermodynamics?

well, kinda sorta, but it's really a question of geology and applied science rather than physics per se. And also 'energy policy' is nowadays a highly political topic solely due to the IDIOCY of conservative politicians.

Each forum has its own standards and they're welcome to 'em. I've seen nothing from you here that would warrant you being put on our ban radar.

Each forum has its own standards and they're welcome to 'em. I've seen nothing from you here that would warrant you being put on our ban radar. — Baden

Yay! So happy about feeling safe here at TPF. Happy dayz.

(Y)

due to the IDIOCY of conservative politicians — Wayfarer

I'm always happy to assign blame to the IDIOCY of both conservative politicians AND their running-dog-lackey-sort-of-liberal-lick-spittle cooperating allies.

My personal opinion is that geo-energy is a non-starter, especially since more abundant -- and sustainable -- energy is available at ground level. Except in places like Iceland.

At any rate, your idea of digging deep holes to solve the energy crisis is probably as far fetched as those posters were trying to explain. — Hanover

Evidently, Question never saw Man of Steel, else he'd know that tapping a planetary core can only lead to disaster.

At a quick skim the thread seemed alright to me. But I didn't catch this:

I had a temporary ban for saying something to the matter of "If one cannot see the long term benefits of geothermal energy production then one is either ignorant or can't see the woods from the trees." Which they took as a "personal insult". — Question

I could see someone making a case that this counts as an ad hominem attack. The argument would turn on interpretation of the phrases "cannot see" and "is... ignorant".

At least taken out of context here, the statement could be read as stating or implying that anyone who disagrees with the speaker is an ignorant fool (and not merely ignorant of the relevant facts).

It might also be called question-begging, if assessment of "long term benefits" is part of what's at issue in the disagreement among interlocutors.

Putting these two charges together, the prosecutor might aim to characterize the statement as having the form: "Anyone who rejects premise p is a fool", and as implying something like "Anyone who doesn't agree with me about the long-term benefits is too dumb to make sense of the sources cited in this thread."


I'm sure that's not at all what you meant. It seems a close call at most, and a severe policy that would ban a speaker solely on the basis of that one sentence. But I might agree it falls in, or at least approaches, a fuzzy boundary in which appropriate speech and inappropriate ad hominem speech are hard to tell apart.

Which they took as a "personal insult". — Question

>:O

No, I think the skins are thicker here.

Physicists are generally deficient in irony. X-)

One key difference between physics and philosophy is that much greater certainty is possible in physics because of its empirical nature. Unlike in metaphysics, theories can be falsified. If somebody continually posts arguing for a falsified theory, one can have a high level of certainty that it is a waste of everybody else's time, clutters up the boards to no good effect, and wastes forum resources. So if somebody persists in doing that sort of thing despite warnings they are banned.

The world is full of people with ideas for perpetual motion machines, cheap abundant energy, and purported falsifications of excruciatingly tested mathematical and physical theorems. Policy is to close such threads down and, if the poster persists, to ban them. If they didn't, the real valuable insights would just get lost in a sea of wannabe pretention. I like it that way. It's so much easier to learn, discuss and teach when the air isn't cluttered with nonsense.

I didn't read enough of your thread to see how far you went in your insistence that geothermal energy was an easy, viable source, but you were certainly treading on dangerous territory as soon as you started to reject the detailed, factual reasons you were given for why it would not work.

Have no fear though Question. That sort of a moderating approach would not work in a philosophy forum, where everything is up for grabs and proofs are restricted to a very small subset called logic. And I like it that way here too.

It's horses for courses.