For these reasons, it is expectable that the moderators of Physics Forums practice that censorship as well, and that, if you look for complaints against their moderation practice, most of them will indeed be that sort of cranks of science, who generally criticize the scientific community for what they perceive as closed-mindedness and conformity to existing theories as "dogmas".Now these observations are correct but still say nothing whether the behaviors of Physics Forums moderators is actually a good one, since... just forcing conformity to political correctness, which indeed works quite often in face of the above described problem is, after all, an easy practice that hardly requires any form of wisdom.
I see you implicitly assuming a radical opposition between being mathematical (accurate) and being described in words without equations. I disagree with the idea of such an opposition. Indeed some of the math needs equations hard to understand for the majority, but I still see possibilities to express some exact math in words and "non-mathematical style" without too much difficulty as well, which unfortunately remains largely unexploited in usual physics teaching. And this widespread ignorance of the possible clean "exact math without equations" to explain things, is a mere particular case of the more general fact that much too often, physics teachers just repeat the same usual methods, lacking (or failing to use) the mathematical skills to rewrite their theories in cleaner and more appropriate mathematical forms. And math is full of rich concepts as well, far beyond issues of numerical values, so we shouldn't oppose the "conceptual" to the "mathematical" nor confuse "mathematical" with "numerical exactness", even if of course, it is very possible and widespread to present "conceptual approaches" which are mathematically wrong and nonsensical.What was replied to me :
You can see for example how my presentation of Special Relativity is more conceptually correct and mathematically meaningful than usual courses precisely because I got rid of the numerically correct but conceptually inappropriate complicated formulas officially associated with this theory. And I even find good to develop the correctness of the mathematical conceptualization at the expense of the numerical correctness, by showing how relativity problems can be exactly solved by first assuming numerically incorrect negative values of c2 and then deducing the numerically correct results by applying the formula on values of c2 other than the ones by which we got it (using the analytic expansion as a function of c-2).
It is also possible and clearer to explain just in words the least action principle (that is just the principle of equilibrium in a field of potential over the configuration space, when considering things in 4D), and deduce from it also just in words the conservation laws and the Liouville theorem. I also explained just in words (I admit it is not a full and rigorous explanation but...) how electromagnetism derives from a Lagrangian, and the sign issues around it. For introducing quantum physics (just an introduction but) I also have a mathematical approach exactly formulated in the language of geometry, itself mainly expressed in words, with very few formulas. On the other hand I find that we need formulas to express statistical physics (define entropy and explain its creation process), disagreeing with the usual "qualitative" approaches.
But you are forgetting one very crucial factor.My last replied, which was censored
Just because you are able to explain all of these without using any math, how do you know that your message has been accurately received and understood by the type of audience that you intended this for? Did you do a thorough research on the effectiveness of your message? Have you investigated what people who have read your page understood what you were trying to convey?
We have seen way too many examples and cases, even in this forum, where non-scientists and students read one thing, and understood something else entirely! We have enough evidence where even how we arrange our words in describing something can trip someone into understanding it in a different way!
It is why we tell people here that simply asking something based on "I heard that..." or "I read that..." is not sufficient. We try to force people to cite their sources, and more often than not, when we find these source, they have misinterpreted what they read. This has occurred quite often!
So sure, even *I* can come up with a bunch of prose to describe many aspects of physics. But it doesn't mean that what I wrote and intended are what the reader will understand. You haven't shown any evidence that what you have written was accurately understood.
"Just because you are able to explain all of these without using any math" You are here distorting my claim (as you follow widespread wrong assumptions, I understand they are hard to get rid of...) despite my care to be clear. I cared to specify that my approach IS a mathematical one. It just does not fit some wrong preconceptions about the nature of mathematics which some confuse with taking packs of numbers and operating over them. The truth of the nature of mathematics is different. I'd even say my approach is more authentically mathematical. The mathematicality of an approach should not be judged by the superficial appearance of whether it is written in words or in symbolic notation. An authentic mathematization of a theory consists in making the correct choice of the vocabulary in which it is expressed. A mathematically correct choice of vocabulary of a theory is a choice which coincides with a good list of structures which are useful and invariant structures of the intended theory. Unfortunately, usual physics courses are full of pseudo-mathematizations of theories, here I mean that, while numerically correct, they are based on non-invariant formalizations (namely, choices of coordinate systems, while no such choice is given by nature).I also commented on this need of clarifying physics by mathematical logic in this general introduction to my site that was published in the book Logic around the world by the Iranian Association for Logic.
"Did you do a thorough research on the effectiveness of your message?" I welcome one if you provide the opportunity. The problem is that in the current world I could not find any place yet for such an experimentation (if you know one please tell). Anyway I see no sense of objecting to any proposition of innovation that it has not been experimented yet, as it would be an excuse for dogmatism and rejection of any possible progress. Apart from this, I develop my propositions of new approach based on my careful examinations of what actually is the logical architecture of theories in themselves. I don't have a mind twisted enough to paralyze myself with decisions to not say the truth about things in themselves under the excuse that they would be unsuccessful on some given people. Anyway my point is not to claim that a specific method should fit all. My point is to say directly how thing are in reality. I guess some people will follow, others not. So what ? It's up to everyone to see if this way fits them or not. Nevertheless this won't stop me from describing things as they are, and as I anyway I guess it will fit at least some people, and anyway, these specific people deserve my care to do it for them.
Moreover, there are big places in Physicsforums where the most usual, obvious and fat scientific crackpotism is totally welcome. Namely... in its advertising banners !!!!! Just now in a thread there I find a big ad banner that reads "Einstein was Wrong - Evidence proves Relativity false, revealing cause of gravity & light. Go to ***.com"