>>12819063>>12819071I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm all for discussing new ideas and hypotheses. They just have to be presented as such. The typical "Einstein is wrong" thread doesn't have that, it's just someone saying "I don't understand it, therefore it is wrong" or "I can't draw it on a piece of paper, therefore it is wrong" and similar reasoning. There's literally no value in those threads except entertaining the schizo for a while.
If someone genuinely has found something worth discussing, the OP and first posts will present it as it is, and not "wait, I'll scribble something on a paper that nobody can read or understand, that'll show Einstein".
>You are forgetting about the [...] readerNo, I specifically addressed the reader who is influenced by some of the garbage posted in those threads.
>if you are honest and correct, you willThat's the problem on the internet in general; it's just not true anymore.
I remember being in /sci/ in 2010 or so, and there was this namefag "Frank" or something, who LARPed as a high energy physics researcher. I corrected him on something he mentioned, and he just said "no, I would know" and people believed him, despite me providing a formal derivation of the point.
>>12819031>The problem is in identifying a universal, objective rule to crack down on itYeah, I see. That is true and I have no real solution for this either.
Thanks for the civil discussion, guys. Kinda missed that in here. Guess I'm just disappointed in general.
