WebHubTel wrote:

> After only a few hours, the dudes at Physics Forums decided to shut down [the thread I started](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-lunar-forces-have-more-of-an-effect-than-we-know.833522/) with an iron fist.

> > "Thread closed. Non-published theories about climate change / global warming are not allowed at this site. "

> And then I got a personal email with the title "RULES VIOLATION"

I would prefer you not to invoke the name of Azimuth in situations where it's likely your discussions are going to be banned. It doesn't help burnish our image. It does exactly the opposite.

There are several ways to see why your discussion on Physics Forums was likely to be banned. The first was the title: "Do lunar forces have more of an effect than we know?" A better title would have been about some specific effect, not one throwing open the door to a huge range of speculations.

But the real problem, I believe, is phrases like this, which you included in your post:

> "Something has to give here because the scientific establishment can't..."

and

> Could this be a shift in thinking that rivals the adoption of plate tectonics theory?

People who have to keep crackpots from taking over discussions - and the people running Physics Forums must be _constantly_ dealing with this problem - develop quick ways of spotting them, similar to the methods I described in the [crackpot index](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html). Complaining about "the scientific establishment" and proclaiming the massive significance of ones work - these are typical of people who feel embittered and embattled. They're not things professional scientists let themselves say, so they don't help you win a fair hearing. Note that none of this has to do with the quality of the actual ideas: it's about presentation.