I very much agree with andrewk. I've read the thread as well as your previous threads and posts. In my opinion, I don't think they have the right reason to ban you, but I agree that the thread should've been closed.

The philosophy forum has much higher tolerance for offensive posts compared to Physics Forums. Indeed,

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

is insulting to be posted on Physics Forums. In an academic conference, you might get yourself shunned, in the worst, banned. On philosophy forum, you would've definitely got away with it.

Personally, the content of the posts were not up to the standards of Physics Forums. Although you have provided some articles, you'll have to do extensive research to make sure that the article is not biased or does not leave out any important information. People of the Physics Forums knows much more than you think. Have you ever read an academic paper? Do you realize that they cite a lot of references (typically more than 30, and sometimes can reach up to 200!) to make their point valid?
The question of the OP was actually already answered within the first page of the thread (as realistically impossible), but you kept going on with it. This is the reason why the thread was closed.

Your other threads also seem to deal with philosophical aspect of science than science itself. Typically, Physics Forums do not appreciate questions regarding philosophical interpretations or hypothetical ideas based on non-scientific derivations. Unless you have really good reasons to start one, they are going to be closed one way or another.


They have gone too far in banning you, though.

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. — andrewk

Did you see my post on the LCOE of geothermal energy? I think I disproved the claims made by the professionals on geothermal being inefficient in that thread.

Comparative analysis of lifetime costs of Geothermal vs other sources of energy.

*edit: LCOE includes capital costs also.

There's nothing to be gained by rehashing the argument here. None of us are experts on the issues involved, whereas there is a great deal of expertise over at PF. In the light of that, the only reasonable thing for me to do is accept their opinion - not that my acceptance has any impact on public policy or commercial investment decisions one way or the other.

But look at what the other people said after that.

Yes, I agree. The details of that study as to what sources were exactly utilized are unclear and ambiguous. However, the ambiguity should not be a reason to discredit and wave away the findings of that study, which are supported elsewhere. This seems to be the case as to what happened in that thread.

Furthermore, no answer was provided as to why given the much higher LCOE of wind and solar, and being so heavily funded and subsidized, which are by themselves inferior to geothermal due to being non dispatch-able sources of energy...

I guess, I posted an economic question to the wrong forum.

Those boring schmucks don't deserve you anyway.

Danke!

So, I corresponded with one of the moderators and they want me to 'change' to get unbaned as I was informed this was a permanent ban. To what, I have yet to be informed. I think I might go for it and see if I can change some more given that they are willing to let me have a second chance. Hope I'm not getting too old.

If you really want them to listen to you, you'll have to write a post worth a full article to convince people. Even if you do, there is no guarantee that people will be convinced. Like I said in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/54161), these people on the Physics Forums know much much more than you think. Those who reply to those thread reply for a reason. They know what they are talking about.

Although most of the articles out there write about science with simple English understandable for general public, the actual science itself is very sophisticated and technical. These articles for general public (or wikipedia) leaves out a lot of important information for readability. Sometimes they don't even know the specific details of what they are talking about.

Science is much more sophisticated than you think. It's not something people casually interested in science can handle with few weeks or months of research. These people spend years working in these area after specialized education in college (that typically takes around 9 years to complete to get Ph.D.). Have you ever seen a scientific paper? They cite at least more than 20-30 other specialized papers. Review papers generally cite more than 150 - 200 papers. That is only small part of what they've actually read and know.

I'm not in the field of Earth science, so I cannot judge who was wrong in that thread. However, as a physical chemist, I've seen people who are not expert in chemistry and physics but casually interested make hilariously bad mistakes. When I read science magazine for general public about chemistry and physics, I saw several articles making terribly inaccurate presentation of the idea. I don't blame them. It's what happens when you don't know the specific details and is only provided with general idea and otherwise poorly informed. Politics also play a huge role in making decisions.

In summary, it's a great thing you are interested and it is okay if you want to talk about it. However, try refraining from doing that with specialized people. They get frustrated, you get frustrated, no one becomes happy.

I'm sorry; but, your whole post is an appeal to authority. If the economics say that 1 MW of power from geothermal is cheaper than 1 MW from either (solar, gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydro, and the rest) then 1 MW of power from geothermal is cheaper than the rest of the alternatives provided.

Science is much more sophisticated than you think. It's not something people casually interested in science can handle with few weeks or months of research. These people spend years working in these area after specialized education in college (that typically takes around 9 years to complete to get Ph.D.). Have you ever seen a scientific paper? They cite at least more than 20-30 other specialized papers. Review papers generally cite more than 150 - 200 papers. That is only small part of what they've actually read and know. — FLUX23

I've read a lot of scientific papers, and also written a few, but they're not as "difficult" as you make it seem. Most people are just lazy. Also scientific papers are written in bundles - there's always a group of researchers pushing one view, and another group(s) pushing other views. Once you understand what view they're pushing you pretty much understand what the paper contains. Now scientific people are stubborn and want to feel superior for having spent 9 years or whatever educating themselves - something that they didn't even like to begin with, but they wanted the prestige associated with it. Now after all that time, there is no real prestige for most of them, so they're depressed - hence their domineering and snappy attitude.

Also, there's a lot of unpublished research - a lot of the stuff I worked on for example is unpublished and remains unpublished - I have the data but never published it, simply because the publishing process itself, and putting it in the right format is not worth the bother. Other researchers in the field have not yet discovered what I have discovered, but I have no doubt at one point they will. But it can take many months to get an article published, it's not worth the bother - the bureaucratic process of most journals is a living hell.

these people on the Physics Forums know much much more than you think. Those who reply to those thread reply for a reason. They know what they are talking about. — FLUX23

More significant than what they know is what they don't know. Indeed, it is what they don't know that is limiting them. What we know is always of relatively small significance once we know it. It's what remains to be known that is of importance.

I'm pretty sure there is more to it than that. it's just that you (nor I) don't know.

I now fully understand your ban based upon your responses in this thread.

Yes, I was too passionate about the issue. Happens.

I'm sorry; but, your whole post is an appeal to authority — Question

Appeals to authority are reasonable and sensible in the hard sciences, unlike in branches of metaphysics, particularly when the participants in the discussion in which the appeal is made have no significant expertise themselves. There is such a thing as an authority on thermodynamics and energy production. There is, I suggest, no such thing as an authority on most philosophical disciplines - logic excepted. What would an authority on ontology look like?

What would an authority on ontology look like? — andrewk

Here is one of the 3 global ontology authorities:

Bitter Crank - you are a true gem!

You and I work in these kinda field so of course it is not that difficult for us. But for them? The general public? I know they are lazy in one sense, but you also have to understand that they can't devote their time on studying and researching these stuff like we do.

Of course a scientist can be wrong. No way I am doubting that. But if you compare general public and a scientist, there is a pretty big difference. We don't easily realize that because we pretty much have already gone to the other side. We have scientific intuition inside us because we've been educated. Unless you are an genius we usually have to understand things by experience.

Since I don't know about Earth science, all I can give is what I can remember when I didn't know anything. For example, when you look up lanthanides and their properties on wikipedia including related articles, I can tell you that they tell only a tiny bit of what is actually known. Even if you look up homepages and science related sites made by scientists, they still only show bit of what is known. In order to actually know them, you'll have to do extensive research by reading tons of academic papers (usually needing subscription). You'll also have to do some experiments to understand the scale in which the paper is talking about. For instance, an article might say "weak absorption of light". However, unless we work on it and get a pretty good idea, we don't exactly intuitively know what "weak absorption" looks like. If I remember that, then I can easily say that there is a huge gap between science-loving non-scientist and a scientist. I would generally not recommend non-scientist trying outsmart a scientist. They know much more than you do, and they also, most of the time, capable of dismissing without discussing too much because they already know.

I am saying it's probably already known and is generally accepted without having to have to cite references each time. If you need to disprove that, then you'll have to devote yourself into that. You can't just cite some free articles made for general public that is intuitively much easier to understand, and think you have understood everything.

you'll have to do extensive research by reading tons of academic papers (usually needing subscription) — FLUX23

If you work at a research institute, or know someone who does, you can pretty much get free access to any of them :P

I agree with the rest of your points.

True. If you go to a library of any research institute, you can get free access to most of the stuff. Unfortunately, not a lot of people have the will or time to do that.

Maybe there's a 'Queen of Hearts' type figure presiding over this site - its' (the site's) ideas also sometimes similarly existing in a sort of parallel wonderland - with a penchant for screaming, "Off with his head"! :)

I think unenlightened secretly rules here. His disapproval is heart numbing.

Have to say though that - All-in-all - I've been lured into descending worse kinds of rabbit-holes than this particular site represents - if also ones maybe not so labyrinthine and confusing of how and why you should best then extricate yourself from them! - Like how the self-deluding vanity of the idea your posting will somehow esteem you in the eyes of others (my own, like most posts, likely in reality remaining mainly unread) comically acts to lure you in deeper through how you then become entangled in further mutually self-promoting exchanges! There's a collective poignency regarding our efforts nonetheless somewhere there though, no doubt...

Though, refecting on that now, as I stoicly await my train back home 'midst the likewise somewhat solipsistic and individually self-consumed rush-hour crowd - kinda like life in general really! Like some guy said, we are each ultimately obliged to be the lone self-consumer of our woes! :)
(...The English poet, John Clare, who sadly ended his days - understandably perhaps when confronted by such apparantly irreconcilable mutual incomprehension - in an asylum!)