Prep for Online Conference/s

[Lloyd]

Next Chat Room
Next Sunday June 15 at 1 pm ET.

Registered members of Charles' site can go to http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=13652.
Others are invited to http://us9.chatzy.com/94568710066994.

[Lloyd]

Conference on Your Favorite Theory
I invite anyone who wants to discuss a theory to do so in our next chat room discussion or any upcoming ones, which are planned for each Sunday at 1pm Eastern Time. If anyone prefers a different day or time for such a chat, let me know and I can arrange it for that time. Let me know a couple days or so in advance.

It doesn't matter if the theory is yours or someone else's.

Make a Summary
Summarize the theory in no more than 500 words and post it here or PM it to me. Then I'll invite people to read it and come to the chat room to discuss it.

We can probably hold more than one theory discussion at a time, so, if more than one person has a theory they want to discuss, it should be okay. We can either have several chat rooms on one page, or we can suggest having each chat room page in a different window and reducing each window to see all of the chats, although if anyone is only interested in one discussion, the other windows wouldn't matter.

[Armand]

For creating 3D graphics/animations on a budget, I would suggest taking a look at Blender.

http://www.blender.org/

The application is free, it has a very active user community and excellent tutorials, and it is very powerful.

I have just started playing with it, and I am very impressed...

Sintel - Third Open Movie by Blender Foundation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRsGyueVLvQ

Cheers...

-Armand

Caveat: It has a very steep learning curve, but there is a great 'Blender For Dummies' book, and other, more in depth books, available...

[Lloyd]

Next Chat Room: Sunday June 15 at 1 pm ET.

Registered members of Charles' site can go to http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=13652.
Others are invited to http://us9.chatzy.com/94568710066994.

If you want to read both live, you can open them up in separate windows.

Topic: Your favorite theory, or ideas to improve science or our discussions etc.

[Lloyd]

I don't seem to have access to CC's website now, so I can't do anything more with the chat rooms and conference idea on his site, unless he gives me access again.

[CharlesChandler]

QDL is still up, but I'm not doing any more free custom programming for a while. I'm just going to focus on astronomy, and I'll be working with the community here.

[Lloyd]

Charles, are you going to let me retrieve private info I have stored on your site?

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, are you going to let me retrieve private info I have stored on your site?

Yes, you can log in now. Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Lloyd]

Charles, if you're sorry for the inconvenience, why did you leave this message?

Restrictions have been placed on your account until 2015-06-16, 10:41.
You cannot create or edit any posts.
Reason: deliberately impeding the development of effective online collaboration

That sounds like either a joke or a hugely wrong impression on your part. If you're that judgmental, then you're not likely to listen to reason. You're impeding collaboration much more than I am. That's my impression.

[CharlesChandler]

If you want to have this out in public, that's OK with me. But what I said offline is that your account is temporarily restricted to not being able to edit anything, just in case you get spiteful and try to vandalize material that we co-authored. Once I'm satisfied that community property has been re-assigned, your rights will be fully restored. You will be free to continue using QDL however you see fit. I fully agree with little that is posted on QDL. Still I applaud the open-mindedness, and I support the efforts of anybody who wants to develop any sort of new theory. But I have invested a lot of effort into facilitating online collaboration, and if somebody is deliberately trying to make collaboration difficult, I'm not going to collaborate with that person anymore. You go do whatever you want to do -- even on my site if you want. But I don't have to do things your way, any more than I have a right to force you to do things my way -- even on my own site. That isn't unreasonable. As concerns online conferences, it made no sense, to me or to anybody else, to have concurrent conferences in two different places at the same time. It was just an online meeting between 5 people -- something like that just doesn't have to be complicated. That, together with a long record of over-burdening theoretical endeavors (on QDL and here on Thunderbolts) with minutia, and I'm concluding that you're trying to sand-bag these efforts. That's my opinion, to which I have a right. (Even I get to think freely!) Maybe I'm wrong about you. I've been wrong before -- I'll be wrong again. So what? The bottom line is that I choose not to be held back by somebody who I consider to be sand-bagging my efforts. If you take offense at that, prove me wrong. But on QDL, you get to post articles, set up your own forums, establish chat rooms, control rights to material that you author, including setting up your own groups, and a whole lot more, all without any sort of censorship (barring obscenities, slander, fraud, or sedition). If that isn't good enough for you, that's your problem.

[Influx]

These conferences need clearly defined goals, a strict timetable to accomplish those goals, or at least show demonstrable progress and an effective conclusion to the conference.

Otherwise these conferences are just useless mastrubation.

[CharlesChandler]

These conferences need clearly defined goals...

Dude, we can't even "clearly define" how many different chat rooms to have open at a time. (I think that we should be able to fit 5 people in the same chat room at the same time, with room to spare. )

But if you're thinking that way, we need people like you. Please register on QDL, and I'll put you in the Science Improvement Team, so you can participate in these discussions.

[Lloyd]

Charles, you don't seem to value friendships much, at least not mine, so don't expect me to have anything more to do with you or your site. I suppose you're glad to be rid of me, since you think I'm your enemy for some ridiculous reason. I don't claim to be a huge asset to your efforts, but I did a lot and I'm nothing like what you're portraying me as, an intentional impediment.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, you don't seem to value friendships much...

With regards to my theoretical work, I do not have the luxury of choosing friendship over truth -- that's just the nature of a rigorous scientific inquiry. My only loyalty is to the people who died in the tornado on April 28, 2002. Sorry.

I don't claim to be a huge asset to your efforts...

This is the ironic part -- I always have, and always will, consider you to have been a 50% partner in my astrophysical and geophysical studies (all except the tornado theory). Once I decided to broaden the scope of my work, the fact that somebody listened and pointed out flaws put the engine under load, and it started producing power, so to say. So for the record, yes, you have been a huge asset -- I couldn't have done it without you.

I did a lot...

I know.

I'm nothing like what you're portraying me as...

It pains me to think that I'm wrong here, but the bottom line is that we never turned the corner. We have been saying for years that we can't do this all ourselves -- we need to build a larger team, of at least a half a dozen people, to have that continuous dynamic interplay. But every time we started to get some traction, differences of opinion on the process resulted in the team falling apart. So a change has to be made, and it doesn't matter why. Building a team out of pioneers is an oxymoron anyway, so we never should have expected it to be easy. I still think that it can be done, but we have to try something different.

I've done a lot of work too, so I have the right to be frustrated.

[Sparky]

Charles Chandler:

But every time we started to get some traction, differences of opinion on the process resulted in the team falling apart.

Ain't that mostly the process, as shown by history? Compatible partnerships are great when they are working, but pure hell when they start to fall apart.

I think your position of being "in charge" is correct. Continue to encourage and accept input, but protect yourself, as your methods and conclusions seem appropriate.