Geeze, your sarcasm is even dryer than mine.

Oops, your sarcasm detector is due for repair, it would seem. My apologies.

Well, either the sarcasm detector or sarcasm emitter is broken, that's for sure.

I am really pissed you guys touched my OP. If you are going to interfere like that, then I would think such an action requires a modicum of courtesy on your part. A simple message with suggestions for bending it to your style may have avoided this whole affair. Without such courtesy, deletion is just plain arrogant. I will take Streetlights words on board and try and tighten it in places if I rushed assumptions.

Well, either the sarcasm detector or sarcasm emitter is broken, that's for sure. — MikeL

I have a PhD in sarcasm assessment.

How ironic, I have one in writing OPs.

Yes, people get pissed at us when we delete their OPs. We know. But the onus is on you to make an OP that is fit for purpose. It's unrealistic to expect extra personal attention from volunteers who have lives outside TPF. It has nothing to do with arrogance. It has to do with the nature of the work. Our job is to maintain quality for the community as a whole not to try to please every individual. Anyhow, of course you can try again but if you are going to revise your OP, it would make sense to PM it to a mod to check before posting it as you may get annoyed if it's again deleted.

It takes two seconds to send a message, Baden. If you are deleting someone's OP, you owe them a bit of respect. All you guys volunteers though huh? If that's the case then I apologize to Sapientia. It is a good site. I'm sure you guys want this site to hum and attract a lot of people and a lot of discussion. I think to really make this place thrive you are going to have to better than blanket deletion of OPs.
I've got no idea what a PM is or how to do it.

Just click on someone's name and then press "Send a message".

Righto, yep.

I am certainly very much against the proposition that one has to be an expert, or even well informed, in order to make radical "outsider" propositions. But .....I think the content of such posts has to be digestible by the readers, acknowledging the range of beliefs and opinions they might hold and why. Letting it all out at once might make sense to the writer, but are the readers being taken slowly enough to get on board with the flow? Is the writer being realistic and commensurate with their own level of knowledge? For example ...

In the beginning there was a big bang…. And already science is in trouble. I call it the container problem, but I’m sure it has other names. What is it expanding into? Nothing? Bullshit. — MikeL

You ought to be aware, that the "container problem" is also a problem of human psychology. The analogy of a balloon's surface getting bigger without expanding into a bigger surface is often used to illustrate how easy it might be to have rigid ideas about space.

I don't think one needs to be an expert, or even very well informed, to muse on cosmology and physics in an interesting way. But unless you deal with highly unorthodox points one or two at a time you are going to turn readers off. If your ideas have any mileage, they should run a bit at least, on their own. For example the "container problem of physics" is surely worthy of a thread all of its own?

I have already done an OP entitled "Why Can't the Universe be Contracting?" In that OP I suggested it was possible the universe is contracting as a whole toward the centre of the universe (playing it backward) or if doppler shifts were a problem that each point of space could be contracting . It was almost unanimously agreed that it could be. There was one person who said a contracting universe was not likely, but when the issue of contracting from points was challenged there was no reply. — MikeL

Having now read that discussion, I can confirm that that is a misleading description of it. T Clark disagreed with parts and expressed his doubts, Wayfarer disagreed, noAxioms disagreed and provided an explanation that gave the impression that he knew what he was talking about well, as did apokrisis - whose replies I found to be the most impressive - and I've just added my own two pennies, which fall on the side of those who disagree with you.

(For anyone considering reading that discussion, I would recommend skipping past the replies by Hachem, Rich, and Agustino).

Mike, you're trying to fly before you can jump, methinks.

I enjoyed the OP and it resonated with a line of thinking I've been pursuing on my own. Try not to be too pretentious, all.

Haha, not as far as I know. — Baden

Getting back to you on this @Baden. If according to you no one can see PMs, what happens if someone sends a very nasty PM to me, for example? I can't ask you to do anything about it, because there is no proof that I can offer. Even a screenshot of the message can very easily be faked with photoshop. So what would happen in that scenario?

I guess you could let an admin log in using your account, so they could see the message, and then change your password after. Not a great solution, but if it's an extreme situation, it might be worth it.

If according to you no one can see PMs, what happens if someone sends a very nasty PM to me, for example? I can't ask you to do anything about it, because there is no proof that I can offer. Even a screenshot of the message can very easily be faked with photoshop. So what would happen in that scenario? — Agustino

You can add people to PMs.

You can add people to PMs. — Michael

Oh? And they will see past messages?

Oh? And they will see past messages? — Agustino

Test it.

In my OP I presented some ideas I have been working on. They addressed the problems entropy, using new ideas about the shape of the universe, time, gravity to shed light on life and universe at large. I thought my reasoning was sound. Topics on entropy and hierarchical systems have been discussed a lot recently, and it follows on from my own investigative train of thought.

I do not see how my OP should be changed.

What do I do now? Do I repost it some where for people to look at and decide? — MikeL

Do I understand correctly: The problem is that one or more forum members, including one or more moderators, have told you that your OP doesn't belong here, that it fails to meet criteria stipulated in the rules somewhere for philosophical conversation in this community?

That's an interesting problem.

As I said in the shoutbox, it's bizarre arm-chair science. And talk of gravity and time being enemies? That's bizarre pseudo-philosophy. — Michael

It's clear that MikeL's OP has been singled out not merely because it is bizarre pseudo-philosophy, but more specifically because it infringes on the jurisdiction of empirical science.

It seems to me that many OPs and replies in this community slip by the censors, full of bizarre claims in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of language, even logic... far out of whack with fashion in the schools and deep against the grain of common sense.

If that's right, will someone make it clear why an OP like MikeL's runs foul of our community standards, when it seems he's only applied his power of speech and imagination in the same way that others here do, except that he lets free reason roam across the boundary of empirical science.

I raise this question in expectation that there are good answers, as one who enjoys the public space held open in the wilderness by our community standards and by the moderators who interpret and enforce those standards, and with a sense that the ruling feels somehow arbitrary in the present case.

Seems so, yes. Before even getting to a stage where I'd be coming up with my own ideas to present, I would make sure that I knew the subject inside and out. And, before presenting my own ideas, I would first ensure that the prevailing view is properly dealt with, which would entail addressing evidence and going into complex detail where necessary. — Sapientia

This seems a fine personal preference, but quite excessive as a general rule of procedure here. I reckon very few of us have the sort of expertise you indicate, and I reject the suggestion that expertise is a prerequisite for genuine philosophical activity. Or what do you mean by "knowing a subject inside and out"?

That said, I agree that the view presented in MikeL's censored OP seems to suffer from insufficient engagement with the physical science he purports to be considering. He resorts to nonscientific appropriation of scientific concepts, and thus equipped engages in a sort of physical speculation reminiscent of the pre-Socratics or medieval scholastic philosophers.

I suppose we must draw the line somewhere to maintain order and fulfill our purpose in this public space. I won't dissent with the judges' ruling, but only note with much hesitation that it pains me to find such thoughtful exercises of rational imagination ruled out of bounds among us, when we might instead engage the author in a free and open philosophical conversation aimed at truth and mutual understanding.

Hopefully, @Michael's solution will work. In any case, I would tend to take you at your word unless I had reason to believe otherwise.

This seems a fine personal preference, but quite excessive as a general rule of procedure here. I reckon very few of us have the sort of expertise you indicate, and I reject the suggestion that expertise is a prerequisite for genuine philosophical activity. Or what do you mean by "knowing a subject inside and out"?

That said, I agree that the view presented in MikeL's censored OP seems to suffer from insufficient engagement with the physical science he purports to be considering. He resorts to nonscientific appropriation of scientific concepts, and thus equipped engages in a sort of physical speculation reminiscent of the pre-Socratics or medieval scholastic philosophers. — Cabbage Farmer

Well, maybe as a standard for others to emulate, what I said would be an exaggeration. But it would be advisable, like you say, to have first obtained a sufficient level of understanding.