View Full Version : Do you like the new "crackpot" policy?
A number of people have told the staff that they liked the site better before the new "no-crackpot" policy was implemented. Those people are largely the same people whose behavior we were trying to change, so, overall, the staff feels the new policy has been a success.
What do you think?
- Warren
I think that keeping the crackpots in the TD forum could be interesting, so they wouldn't spread to other sections. it could be like a kind of zoo where you can see them, and laugh at them sometimes
But I respect the actual policy
I think it's great with the new policy.
Not allowing crankish theories is, I believe, crucial in order to build a reputation of a solid physics forum.
Such forums as PF are extremely rare compared to crackpot infested sites.
Moonbear
Oct2-04, 08:24 PM
Definitely better without crackpots...well...except they did amuse me at times. They're sort of like court jesters. I wouldn't mind if we could make them wear hats with bells :rofl:
anti_crank
Oct2-04, 11:00 PM
I think it's fair to say that I had as much fun engaging the crackpots as anyone else. In fact, I probably had more fun than anyone else. Yet in spite of that, I salute the new policy. TD was an eyesore on this site, and there were too many newbies replying to crackpot posts along the lines of "Really?? That's not what my physics book says, can you expain?". The way I see it, we lend crackpots legitimacy at the expense of ours if we don't take prompt measures to shut them down. There's plenty of sites out there that will host such posts. Try http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59
Damn, i didn't get a chance to post my paper about why time travel can only be achieved with cream pie :rofl:
Moonbear
Oct3-04, 12:33 AM
Damn, i didn't get a chance to post my paper about why time travel can only be achieved with cream pie :rofl:
What?! You mean I can't time travel with pumpkin pie? Forget it then, no point in bothering with time travel if I can't take pumpkin pie with me! :rofl:
Gokul43201
Oct3-04, 02:10 AM
When I was a newb here, (and had grandiose visions of a higher calling to help eliminate stupidity :redface:) I kinda enjoyed debunking crackpot theories. Very rapidly, I tired of it, and anyways, the crackpots never admit to having been debunked...so I'm not sure any of that was worth the time.
I just hope that pottery magic is not contagious, lest we find ourselves with an epidemic in the future.
Why is 8+4+1+6=12? :confused:
Gokul43201
Oct3-04, 12:40 PM
Because 9 is God.
You are sentenced to life without parole in TD.
Tom Mattson
Oct3-04, 02:56 PM
I voted "eyesore".
Math Is Hard
Oct3-04, 03:23 PM
I do miss the crack-pots - there was some very funny stuff in TD, but I realize keeping them managed and quarantined was a big drain on resources.
Gokul43201
Oct3-04, 06:43 PM
Why is 8+4+1+6=12? :confused:That didn't frighten me, at all.
"8+4+1+6=12 and here's the proof...", would have. :surprised
Well, the proof is:
Look at how the numbers of pollers add up..
Bystander
Oct3-04, 07:16 PM
Obviously, the forum staff count as "zeroes" in the "total vote" column --- somebody's got a "feature" in his programming.
8+4+1+6=12 and here's the proof:
the equation is in base 17. :wink:
As for the strange addition on the vote results page, I suspect it arises from the fact that the poll is check boxes rather than radio buttons and thus people can vote for more than one thing. In other words the total is "total voters" rather than "total votes" (as, indeed, it says).
russ_watters
Oct3-04, 07:28 PM
I voted for the first and 4th. Figure that one out...
What????
Could I have voted more, AAARGH!
I've cheated myself out of influence!
The indignity of it...
Moonbear
Oct3-04, 07:49 PM
I didn't realize I could vote more than one choice either! Someone should explain these things in advance. :cry:
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 07:53 PM
A number of people have told the staff that they liked the site better before the new "no-crackpot" policy was implemented. Those people are largely the same people whose behavior we were trying to change, so, overall, the staff feels the new policy has been a success.
What do you think?
- Warren
But there is one mystery that is known only to the 'devil' himself. I mean this in a nice way. And that is why you lock them up. Yes, locking them up is mysterious!
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 07:57 PM
Even if these theories are wrong, and don't weigh up to mount everest, why lock them up? Give people the freedom to err, for christ's sake! Afterall, most truths have erroneous origins!
Even if these theories are wrong, and don't weigh up to mount everest, why lock them up? Give people the freedom to err, for christ's sake! Afterall, most truths have erroneous origins!
You're ignoring the obvious fact that they have the freedom to post these ELSEWHERE in so many other places. It is LEGITIMATE physics that is being DROWNED and pushed aside in other open forums such as this.
And let's get this straight - "erroneous origins" have nothing to do with quackery that is based on ignorance and laziness. There have been ZERO instances of quackeries in open forums that have made any contribution to the body of knowledge in physics. NONE. So the probability that these so called "erroneous origins" turning into something worthwhile is absolutely zero.
So remind me again what we are being deprived by restricting such a thing?
Zz.
Philocrat
Oct3-04, 10:25 PM
You're ignoring the obvious fact that they have the freedom to post these ELSEWHERE in so many other places. It is LEGITIMATE physics that is being DROWNED and pushed aside in other open forums such as this.
And let's get this straight - "erroneous origins" have nothing to do with quackery that is based on ignorance and laziness. There have been ZERO instances of quackeries in open forums that have made any contribution to the body of knowledge in physics. NONE. So the probability that these so called "erroneous origins" turning into something worthwhile is absolutely zero.
So remind me again what we are being deprived by restricting such a thing?
Zz.
Are you suggesting that all the postings locked up by the gatekeeper are completely useless? Well, then just delete them all. You are the judge and jury. No one else can contest that. I for one do not feel offended as I have never claimed to have a theory. I do like PF though.
I have no problem entertaining new ideas so long as they apply the scientific method. I don't think anyone else has a problem with that either. I do have a problem with cow pie theories that are little more than ad hoc deductions.
Are you suggesting that all the postings locked up by the gatekeeper are completely useless? Well, then just delete them all. You are the judge and jury. No one else can contest that. I for one do not feel offended as I have never claimed to have a theory. I do like PF though.
I am not suggesting. I am pointing to the FACT that NONE, NADA, NOT EVEN ONE example of a so-called theory that only exists in a public forum has EVER made any contribution to the body of knowledge of physics. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong. If an idea or a discovery does not make it into a peer-reviewed journal, then it has ZERO probability based on just what we have seen in history, to make any dent in the body of knowledge. Now how many of these type of garbage, do you think, would make it even to a lower-tier peer-review journals?
Zz.
Tom Mattson
Oct4-04, 11:26 AM
Even if these theories are wrong, and don't weigh up to mount everest, why lock them up?
Because there are about a dozen of us, and about 12,000 of you. It is not humanly possible for the staff to babysit each and every crackpot thread that comes along. However, we do feel obliged to counter those threads to maintain the scientific integrity of the site. Therein lies the dilemma.
Give people the freedom to err, for christ's sake!
It is not in my power to either give or take anyone's freedom to err.
I feel obliged to make a comment here:
With the new, strict policy, I think PF may develop a reputation as a premier educational site on physics.
Such sites are NOT common, but they are definitely needed!
I would like to add another argument which supports the new policy:
There are lots of physicists/engineers who are deeply concerned about how physics ought to be TAUGHT, but who from a variety of reasons do not end up in positions as teachers/tutors.
(There exist some jobs for which they are qualified which is better paid, for example..)
As long as crackpots are allowed to thrive here, a lot of competent people will simply turn away in disgust, and PF will be deprived of their knowledge and willingness to help out students.
Now, by eradicating the crackpot threads, PF can become a forum which more easily will attract such individuals.
I completely agree with arildno, PF should help out in the education rather than correct some kids that just learnt one concept and are trying to make a theory, which like Zapper said will probably be flawed, because probabilities are against the crackpots.
Perhaps a slightly different take on this ...
Before I joined PF, while still just a guest, I thought that 'Theory Development' was a forum for folk who were developing theories to get an early critique of them, say a month or two before submitting their first paper for peer review. I felt it would also be a good place for an independent researcher to float some 'extension ideas', based on new work they were doing, after having laid the foundation with a PhD thesis, a one page letter paper, etc. And indeed, here at PF we have at least one such researcher, and previously had maybe one or two others.
What I wasn't at all prepared for was the disconnect between what I consider to be the basics in science and just about every post I read in TD! (I should say that there were some exceptions - perhaps only a half dozen, out of hundreds or maybe even thousands). This brought me down to earth with a thud; if TD were to work as I had, in my naivety, imagined it should, then how to remove the nonsense from the 'real contents'?
Then there's the Pareto principle (a.k.a. the '80/20 rule') - those who have volunteered to help develop and maintain PF should be spending ~80% of the effort on PF's main goals; instead, I got the impression that several mentors and admins were spending ~80% of their time managing TD! I think the new policy will allow a better alignment of effort with goals; I'm all for it.
Nereid:
That was very interesting!
I agree that the intention of having a place where solid and new ideas can be scrutinized is very good; however, perhaps those places can thrive better on restricted nets rather than on the World Wide Web?
Perhaps a slightly different take on this ...
Before I joined PF, while still just a guest, I thought that 'Theory Development' was a forum for folk who were developing theories to get an early critique of them, say a month or two before submitting their first paper for peer review. I felt it would also be a good place for an independent researcher to float some 'extension ideas', based on new work they were doing, after having laid the foundation with a PhD thesis, a one page letter paper, etc. And indeed, here at PF we have at least one such researcher, and previously had maybe one or two others.
I tried to think of what I would do if I were in the shoes of these "independent researchers". First of all, I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.
Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in. If I have a theory of superconductivity, I do want someone in that field to scrutinize my idea. That person not only have the knowledge to in that particular field, but also is up to date on the state of knowledge of that field so that he/she can tell me "Oh, someone did that already" or "Oh, we already know that is not important". This means that I have to not only find such a person, but also verify his/her credentials to have any confidence that this person is legit.
Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.
Zz.
Philocrat
Oct4-04, 11:00 PM
I tried to think of what I would do if I were in the shoes of these "independent researchers". First of all, I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.
Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in. If I have a theory of superconductivity, I do want someone in that field to scrutinize my idea. That person not only have the knowledge to in that particular field, but also is up to date on the state of knowledge of that field so that he/she can tell me "Oh, someone did that already" or "Oh, we already know that is not important". This means that I have to not only find such a person, but also verify his/her credentials to have any confidence that this person is legit.
Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.
Zz.
Are you suggesting that people can nick ideas from your forum and you can do nothing about it? From most of the threads that I have participated in and read many postings in them, some of these threads, especially in the physics section, may contain new materials or useful conversational materials, how would you spot them, let alone protect them as copyright materials from your own forum? If this is the case, then why not secure TD and limit access to only your PF mentors and administrators and those with special membership?
Bystander
Oct5-04, 12:12 AM
Intellectual property? TD?
Landfills serving metropolitan areas in this country contain millions of dollars worth of diamonds (loose settings into the gutter, down the sink, and up the streetsweeper, eventually to the fill) --- for ten bucks you can have every claim I might have to those diamonds. Same goes for TD --- you can have every Nobel prize to be found in that forum for another ten.
My understanding and experience on this forum is that you do not object to new theories if they can show substance and support for the theory.
I have posted theories with substance and support and have had some general acceptance of the posting. It was not called speculative and dumped into theory development. I have then posted the same theory in another thread without the detail substance and support and was dumped into theory development with a warning and told that I could not post any idea in this forum unless it had been published. This makes it very difficult to extend or apply a theory that had previously been accepted as a legitimate post elsewhere in the forum.
Are links to other postings that are not called speculative accepted on this forum in other threads the same as published or is there some way to have a review of a theory and have it proclaimed valid material for discussion.
To be required to post all supporting references every time you wish to use a new theory is unproductive for all.
As of this time I am not sure this is a forum for my support or me. I am not sure of your mission. Is it only to recall past theories and to answer questions for students? I am looking for a place where ideas with substance may be exchanged.
Are you suggesting that people can nick ideas from your forum and you can do nothing about it?
Think about it. What's to prevent people from NOT doing that?
From most of the threads that I have participated in and read many postings in them, some of these threads, especially in the physics section, may contain new materials or useful conversational materials, how would you spot them, let alone protect them as copyright materials from your own forum? If this is the case, then why not secure TD and limit access to only your PF mentors and administrators and those with special membership?
But this whole point is moot because of ZapperZ's First Law: No useful information that have made any significant contribution to the body of knowledge of physics have solely existed in open forums.
If I have something substantial, I would NOT post it in an open forum. And I know I'm not alone in this. So what does that tell you about people who do? And how would they even know they were scooped since most of these quacks don't even know what a "peer-review journal" is?
Now this is different than casual conversation that, in turn, somehow triggers a new idea. It has happened to me before, and it has happened with me as the impetus. But I can immediately tell you that it didn't happen at an internet open forum! It occured at physics conferences, workshops, colloquiums, seminars, etc. and in conversations with people who were in the trenches, working intimitately with a particular area, and who know physics!
Again, no one has made any convincing argument on the importance, contribution, significance, etc. of having these so-called "theory development". At best, all I've read is that we should have it because.... well..... we should! How such things contribute to the "development" rather than a "retardation", I still have no clue.
Zz.
Gokul43201
Oct5-04, 11:14 AM
4Newton, I think you believe that anything that is mathematically true should describe a physical reality.
I've come across many more people with this idea. It seems to be the cornerstone, upon which some of the more carefully thought out, albeit speculative, theories are based.
Gokul43201
4Newton, I think you believe that anything that is mathematically true should describe a physical reality.
I've come across many more people with this idea. It seems to be the cornerstone, upon which some of the more carefully thought out, albeit speculative, theories are based.
I think if you took the time to read some of my posts you would not make snap judgments about what I think or about the approach I have used to substantiate the theories. If you think any of the ideas are wrong please point it out. Unlike others I do have an open mind and can accept new information.
The main point is that some type of guide should be used not just the feeling of one person as to the development of new ideas. After all this is a scientific forum and should be able to come up with a scientific method for the value of postings.
Gokul43201
Oct5-04, 11:51 AM
Sorry if I misjudged you. That was the impression I got when I first read one of your threads. Maybe I have you confused with someone else.
Originally posted by Copernicus
4 Oct 1514
Okay, hey guys I think I may have stumbled upon a weird idea. You know, those swarving stars, I think I have the solution. Earth is not the centre of the universe, instead I propose that:
1- There is no one centre in the universe.
2- The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe.
3- The centre of the universe is near the sun.
4- The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars.
5- The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars.
6- The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it.
7- The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes.
I'm starting a book on it, "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies"
Originally posted by Aristotle (Administrator)
6 Oct 197 BC
Thread is moved to TD and subsequently locked.
Reason: The theory is seriously flawed;
1. Everybody knows that the creator made the Earth the centre of the universe.
2. If the Earth actually spun on an axis why don't objects fly off the spinning Earth?
3. If the Earth was in motion around the sun, why doesn't it leave behind the birds flying in the air?
4. If the Earth were actually on an orbit around the sun, why isn't a parallax effect observed?
Moreover, the theory is neither published in peer reviewed publication nor is there a convincing line of reasoning that would endanger the general consensus.
But I'm kidding :biggrin:
Just think about it.
I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.
Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in.
Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.
Zz.
But most certainly, if your idea was to have any economical benefit, like the thread on defeating the second law of thermodynamics and invent a gadget that would transfer heat directly into electrical power.
But what could would be the gain for weirdos to keep funny ideas for themselves, like the big brake of Venus, when there is no economic factor and the idea covers a wide range of specialities and said weirdos have no network to ventilate it, receiving only deadly silence on their requests to specialists?
Posting that kind of stuff at least fixes the date and the first originator of the idea, should it be feasible and stolen and has a chance in a million to trigger an insider.
There's no shortage of forums which allow/are dominated by crackpot threads.
Hence, there's no reason why PF should maintain the lowest standards possible.
Posting that kind of stuff at least fixes the date and the first originator of the idea, should it be feasible and stolen and has a chance in a million to trigger an insider.
Try zero out of a million chance....
I didn't realize that the mission of PF was as a ventilation hole for quacks. Secondly, as has been pointed out several times, why PF, of all places? There are a gazillion places where such quacks can air their dirty laundry. Postings on Usenet are dated. They even have, I'm guessing, a larger audience base.
Zz.
russ_watters
Oct5-04, 02:00 PM
4newton, I had a pretty similar interpretation to Gokul's. In the thread we were involved in, your math was fine - it followed your assumptions. The problem was simply that the universe doesn't work the way you assume it does. So even though your logic was impeccable, your conclusions were still wrong (for this universe). The thought experiments you proposed were set up to work in your universe, not ours, and you simply wouldn't accept that fact. Had I seen examples of this in other posts, I would have pointed them out, but when you stay within the constraints of our universe, you do fine. (edit: you're good in the engineering forum too)
Zz,
I understand your point but I think the sift is too coarse to separate the cream of the crap.
Can you see who the poster is of "hey, guys, I just figured something that is faster than light"
Of course it may be that stubborn no good spammer again or a bright 13 years old guy/girl with an unlimited fantasy. So what to do? Slam him/her and close his thread in TD, carefully attemting to preserving the standards, or start a dialog to test his/her comprehensiveness?
So what would ultimately lead to the so cherished highest standard?
Whoever beside you has talked about "highest standards"??
If you didn't know, that is what a peer-reviewed journal aims at.
Zz,
I understand your point but I think the sift is too coarse to separate the cream of the crap.
Can you see who the poster is of "hey, guys, I just figured something that is faster than light"
Of course it may be that stubborn no good spammer again or a bright 13 years old guy/girl with an unlimited fantasy. So what to do? Slam him/her and close his thread in TD, carefully attemting to preserving the standards, or start a dialog to test his/her comprehensiveness?
So what would ultimately lead to the so cherished highest standard?
You DON'T differentiate between the two. That's the reality of it, because if you try, then you (i) have to spend WAY too much time and (ii) have to make certain assumptions or guess work about the person. Treat the posting AS IS. We are not here to babysit and amuse a 13-year old prodigy who is too lazy to understand what he/she is babbling about. (How often do we get 13-year old genius on here anyway?)
Again, if you notice, there is a GLARING absence of a good reason for having such things. I keep getting rebuttals on why we shouldn't remove it, but I have seen no reasons on why we should have it. What positive effect does this add to this forum? What positive contribution does it add? And most importantly, how does this deprive the opportunity for such quackeries to be posted elsewhere? Why PF? Tell me these things, please!
Zz.
Integral
Oct5-04, 02:53 PM
Zz,
I understand your point but I think the sift is too coarse to separate the cream of the crap.
Can you see who the poster is of "hey, guys, I just figured something that is faster than light"
Of course it may be that stubborn no good spammer again or a bright 13 years old guy/girl with an unlimited fantasy. So what to do? Slam him/her and close his thread in TD, carefully attemting to preserving the standards, or start a dialog to test his/her comprehensiveness?
So what would ultimately lead to the so cherished highest standard?
This is the exact reason that I often let a post stand, just to see how the original poster reacts to the posts of knowledgeable members. When it becomes clear that the intent is not to learn but to argue a lock will ensue.
Let's assume Zapper is wrong, and that there is some gold among what was posted in TD for over a year. As PF has become more popular, the job of administering, moderating, and otherwise babysitting the huge numbers of TD posts has become onerous. So, to those who'd like to keep something like TD, and who can't bring themselves to start a theorydevelopment.com website, why not propose something like this:
- barbed wire fence around TD, with warning signs 10m high, in fluorescent pink
- rotating TD moderators, from a pool of volunteers, perhaps a max of three empowered at any time?
- these folk must be PF contributors, have no powers outside TD, and cannot post their own theories inside TD while they are moderators
- they must agree to act as TD moderator for 3 months - they can edit, delete, lock etc any threads in TD during that period
- at the end of their term, all TD threads are locked; the incoming moderator may unlock any (or all, or none) she deems fit
- if there are no volunteers, TD is abolished
- general PF policies about language, spam, plagarism, etc (but NOT 'textbook science') to apply, and TD moderators to commit to upholding these (so 'report posts' function works, but managing reported posts is the job of the TD moderator).
A phrase about money and mouths springs to mind for some reason ... :wink:
russ_watters
Oct5-04, 03:27 PM
This is the exact reason that I often let a post stand, just to see how the original poster reacts to the posts of knowledgeable members. When it becomes clear that the intent is not to learn but to argue a lock will ensue. ...and that's the way TD used to work. As it turns out, very few of the threads started there turn out that second way (honest question leading to an answer, leading to learning). The vast majority quickly degraded into crackpottery. Many even started with with the claim that learning was the intent (ie 'help me understand why I'm wrong...'), only to find out that it really wasn't.
Integral
Oct5-04, 04:38 PM
(How often do we get 13-year old genius on here anyway?)
If you ask them.... Lots.
Integral
Oct5-04, 04:47 PM
...and that's the way TD used to work. As it turns out, very few of the threads started there turn out that second way (honest question leading to an answer, leading to learning). The vast majority quickly degraded into crackpottery. Many even started with with the claim that learning was the intent (ie 'help me understand why I'm wrong...'), only to find out that it really wasn't.
I did no content moderating on the old TD. If I felt like it I would post to a thread, for the most part it was hands off. Since there was no requirement of valid Physics, how could I pick between one fallacious theory and another? I made a strong effort to keep questionable posts out of the Physics area, in the old days, they went straight to TD. Now they go to TD with a lock. I am leaning more and more to simply removing the entire TD sub forum.
Philocrat
Oct5-04, 10:58 PM
To Admin: Maybe you guys should post this and let people debate and vote on this:
Should Science Papers be given FREE Access?
Current Science Papers are deemed not only very expensive to write, peer-reviewed, processed for publications but also they are very expensive to catalogue and distribute to the intended purchasers and users. These factors together are said to be responsible for the restricted access to the people who need these papers most – students, researchers and lecturers.
Now, there is an intense debate on different corners of the globe as to whether these papers should be made more accessible through costs reduction or through making them completely free via the library services or via online publications, or both.
The debate about FREE ACCESS is already started in many areas of the media. A more dedicated and better-organised debate on the subject can be found on Nature’s website. (http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/archive.html )
The current costs of writing, publishing and distributing papers are published on Peer-reviewed Journal on the Internet (http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue2_8/odlyzko/index.html)
Voting; In what ways should more access be given to science papers?
1. By FREE Online Access (and why)?
2. By FREE Library Services only (and why)?
3. By Reduced Writing, Research, Production and Publication Costs?
4. By a combination of (1) and (2) only
5. By a combination (1), (2) and (3) and why?
6. By doing nothing (leave things as they are now)?
Should All academic papers be given FREE Access?
Hi russ_watters:
4newton, I had a pretty similar interpretation to Gokul's. In the thread we were involved in, your math was fine - it followed your assumptions. The problem was simply that the universe doesn't work the way you assume it does. So even though your logic was impeccable, your conclusions were still wrong (for this universe). The thought experiments you proposed were set up to work in your universe, not ours, and you simply wouldn't accept that fact. Had I seen examples of this in other posts, I would have pointed them out, but when you stay within the constraints of our universe, you do fine. (edit: you're good in the engineering forum too)
Thanks Russ. I have found our exchange very educational. As you could probably tell I had not had any critique of my ideas up to that point. My last class was over 40 years ago. After our exchange and reflection I realized that my approach in presenting ideas was very poor. I thought that everyone on this forum would recognize a good idea just by stating it. I now realize that any idea no matter how simple needs to show that it is tied to some accepted theory. I have used this approach with much greater success.
The problem I have now as I stated before is, must I go through the entire proof each time I state a conclusion from another post or will a reference to another post be accepted as a valid post? It would also help the content of all posts if a format would be recommended. For example:
Summary:
Theory the earth moves around the sun.
Prior history:
It has always been accepted that the sun goes around the earth.
Reason for new theory:
Observation does not match for other planets .
New theory with support:
The earth goes around the sun matches observation.
Result:
The earth goes around the sun
I think something like this would help anyone posting an idea. If they had to apply the format it would eliminate the dream posts. It would also give a guide to anyone responding in pointing out any area deficient in posting. I think this would be much better than just calling someone stupid, in one way or another, and help them formulate good ideas.
You will not reduce dream posts by just removing them. You will find that you will have the same number or more and require the same amount of time to sort them out. Plus you will create a lot of ill will. Some response is better then being ignored.
You could try to limit the number of replies allow before going into archives and off the active posting this could be automatic and require no time of the mentors. It would take positive action to extend the number of posts. Any mentor should be allowed to extend any posts. This action also makes mentors positive people not negative. Never solve a problem in a negative way if there is a positive method.
Btw Russ I now have a good proof for a zero reference frame that you would accept and even like.
I voted for the first and 4th. Figure that one out...
Maybe scary, but that makes sense to me.
I only came across this site a few days ago so I don't know if I ever saw the old TD.
I think this is a good site. :approve:
.
Philocrat:
I agree. The method of producing and publishing papers is about 500 years out of date. You would think that the scientific community would use the most scientific method available.
A great deal of money is given to schools to advance education, which does not seem to reduce the amount of tuition. I would think that anyone really interested in education would be very happy to support the production and publishing of papers. This is an ideal area for Microsoft to support. Any software company could also gain by providing the software to find (google) and read the papers.
To take care of the increase in papers that would be submitted you could use web sites like this one. For a paper to be submitted for further peer review would require a number of votes on the site. The voting members could be established over a period of time by a vote of all users.
Philocrat,
You're behind the times. Go to www.arxiv.org. Virtually every paper published in scientific journals is posted there in preprint form, available to anyone and everyone for free.
- Warren
I think there is a definite place in the world for uncensored forums. Usenet, however, fills that role admirably. I'd suggest that anyone who wants to see what it's like visit usenet news, sci.physics.relativity.
Actually,I think Physics Forums might want to investigate exercising a little editorial control over the advertisments that it runs as well as the posts it hosts.
Take "Grand Unfied Theory" for example, an add I see a lot. Here is the webpage that URL links to:
Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory — the Theory of Everything
by Dr. Chaim H. Tejman
Home Page
The Grand Unified Theory explains every principle process that occurs in nature by introducing energetic matter (basic force), which formed wave formations — PHOTONS. Incredibly, these formations then went on to create everything.
Energetic matter = shrinking energy and space as well as time
Gravitation is a pushing force!
should PF really be advertising this site?
As another aside, I wonder where the people get the money to advertise like this. Either it's fairly cheap, and they fund it out of their own pockets, (I don't see many revenue sources on websites like the above), or they are getting funding from somewhere.
"Actually,I think Physics Forums might want to investigate exercising a little editorial control over the advertisments that it runs as well as the posts it hosts."
Ever heard of.. "prostitution"..:wink:
I can't really see the big harm in nutcases keeping PF profitable..
We've been trying to keep the crackpottery of the ads in check. For every one we strike down, six more pop up.
It's like a hydra...
The hydra DOES pay PF, or what?
Chi Meson
Oct6-04, 01:59 PM
I gotta say, whenever I peeked into the TD forum, I got angry. I tried to avoid it, but it was like looking at jungle disease books. You got sicker as you went but you couldn't stop. (Leo Kottke's line).
I occasionally tried to write a response that would put a crackpot in place, but it was exausting. I don't know how some of the mentors, moderators and anti_crank did it! OVer and over, again and again.
I say good riddance. Hit the eject button.
The hydra DOES pay PF, or what?
Oh yes. Otherwise it'd never have been placed there in the first place.
Nice hydra!
(But, I wouldn't come too close to it, all the same..)
anti_crank
Oct6-04, 11:28 PM
I don't know how some of the mentors, moderators and anti_crank did it! OVer and over, again and again.
It's quite simple, really. Take two parts sanity, one part rationality, mix with a lot of patience and just a pinch of creative humour.
Chi Meson
Oct7-04, 01:19 PM
My hat's off. Wait, I'll go get a hat so I can take it off...
OK, my hat's off!
Nereid:
That was very interesting!
I agree that the intention of having a place where solid and new ideas can be scrutinized is very good; however, perhaps those places can thrive better on restricted nets rather than on the World Wide Web?I tried to think of what I would do if I were in the shoes of these "independent researchers". First of all, I certainly would NOT post my ideas in, of all places, an OPEN forum where someone, with more resources than me, could easily scoop it and run away with it. Revealing it openly on something like this is extremely foolish, especially if it has any degree of validity.
Secondly, why would I want to do that when what I need is someone who is an expert in the particular field that the idea is in. If I have a theory of superconductivity, I do want someone in that field to scrutinize my idea. That person not only have the knowledge to in that particular field, but also is up to date on the state of knowledge of that field so that he/she can tell me "Oh, someone did that already" or "Oh, we already know that is not important". This means that I have to not only find such a person, but also verify his/her credentials to have any confidence that this person is legit.
Both of these points argue against posting one's idea on an open forum. It just makes no sense to do that if it has any degree of validity.Thanks guys, good points.
Here are some of those ideas; PF readers may judge their merits for themselves:
- 'one-way' speed of light experiment, involving two clocks and a laser
- 'bending' of a laser beam in a strong magnetic or electric field (in vacuo)
- 'simple' expressions for some of the ~25 'fundamental constants' (or their dimensionless ratios)
- 'footprints of LQG spinfoam' in images of distant SNe
- influence of core-mantle coupling on the rotation and spin axis of Venus
Garth is a prime example, I don't necessarily agree with him, but at least what he has to say is of ineterset and not based on misconceptions about physics (the only issue I'd have is that in one post he implied that he'd signed the cosmology statement).
Terry Giblin
Oct13-04, 10:48 AM
"They said it couldn't be done.
They laughed when I said I would do it.
They said that it couldn't be done.
I rolled up my sleeves and went to it.
I struggled, I strove, I strained.
I fought at it day and night.
They said that it couldn't be done."
Now who's right, the accused or the accusers.....
Its all a matter of one's perceptive.
Regards
Terry Giblin
As an independent and yet published researcher in cosmology I have welcomed the discussion and criticism of my ideas, and welcomed being able to reciprocate. I too thought originally like Nereid that Theory Development was the place where new ideas could be thrashed out. Perhaps we need a second forum and the moderators could decide which one to put such posts in, a 'crackpot forum' and a 'serious heterodox debate forum'? Making such a decision might at times be contentious of course, and for the originator always contentious, but who said life was going to be easy?
Garth
99.9% of TD posts are crackpot. Only 0.01% are "serious heterodox." The crackpots can't really tell the two apart, though, so pretty much all TD threads end up the same way. We're not going to do such a thing.
- Warren
Tom Mattson
Oct26-04, 05:20 PM
I found this article (http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html) a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem.
And of course this one:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Garth
russ_watters
Oct28-04, 11:26 AM
I found this article (http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html) a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem. Great article, Tom. I especially like this quote: People who do things badly, according to David A. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well. Unwillingness (or inability) to admit a mistake or imperfection (no matter how small) is one of the big red-flags.
Dagenais
Oct28-04, 05:41 PM
Unwillingness (or inability) to admit a mistake or imperfection (no matter how small) is one of the big red-flags.
Couldn't that possibly be just an unfavorable character trait?
Tom Mattson
Oct28-04, 05:43 PM
Couldn't that possibly be just an unfavorable character trait?
In general, yes. But when it's an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in one's pet theory, then you've got a crackpot.
Wave's_Hand_Particle
Oct28-04, 10:16 PM
In general, yes. But when it's an unwillingness to acknowledge a flaw in one's pet theory, then you've got a crackpot.
The why is there actually a 'Theroy Development' still in PF?
Surely if this is causing more problems, then unless there is some ulteria motive behind keeping it within the PF website,( to generate some conceptual idea's that are clearly not forthcoming by mentors and advisors), then the simplistic answer to all the Mentor, Admin, Advisory headaches is to Completely remove the TD forum, and all the archive material.
This would free up some bandwith for general chit-chat, actually I can see the future where most of Greg's activity is contained with childish polls, I am being honest here, and if anyone thinks I am being deliberate or vindictave just look at the last 6 month s traffic volume, and be really honest if you think that the PF site is evolving into more of a 'CHAT' website?
There are problems with TD, I know I caused many of the Forums admin, Advisors to really look at what I posted, but nevertheless I see this as an intellectual challenge that most administrators failed to counter, this is not saying that I am more intellectual advanced, but the feedback from advisors who never placed counter-advise, but just closed threads based on 'what they felt', their 'feelings' conspired to defeat them!
Sorry..but it needs to be said, get rid of TD completly, and delete the archives!
Chronos
Oct29-04, 12:48 AM
Interesting. TD reminded me of the advice my grandfather once offered: "Son, never argue with an idiot, passersby may confuse one for the other."
Wave's_Hand_Particle
Oct29-04, 04:04 AM
Interesting. TD reminded me of the advice my grandfather once offered: "Son, never argue with an idiot, passersby may confuse one for the other."
This is why all the PF admin-mentors-advisors should really take a vote amongst themselves to completely remove the TD (Trash Development seems to be the major consensus opinions?).
Why are none of the Advisors suggesting this option, at least this will hopefully stop the moanings, and let them get on with the Physic groanings.
It'll never stop the moaning. The majority of TD worthy threads have always been posted outside TD, and then moved into TD by an administrator. You have to understand that part of the pscyhology of crackpots is that they really feel they are doing all of us a favor by posting their half-baked nonsense. They aren't competent enough to realize their own incompetence. Crackpots will never stop attempting to abuse this site, no matter what forums we offer.
- Warren
Crackpots will never stop attempting to abuse this site, no matter what forums we offer.
And they'll never stop complaining when we won't allow them to...
How many "What's with the censorship?!?!?" threads have we had since we instituted the 'no nonsense' policy? A dozen? Two?
I think it is a great thing that TD is gone...
You might as well get rid of the philisophy section too.
Leave this forum for the REAL sciences...
keep up the good work guys,...
I think the way you handle things is correct and justified...
regards
marlon
pelastration
Oct30-04, 02:03 PM
I think it is a great thing that TD is gone...
You might as well get rid of the philisophy section too.
Leave this forum for the REAL sciences...
keep up the good work guys,...
I think the way you handle things is correct and justified...
regards
marlon
Yes, and delete the string forum too ... since it's all speculation and pseudo religion. And please delete also the time traveller general discussion stuff because that's all scam, and delete also the every thread on God because that's also speculation.
If you do something ... do it consequent.
Yes, and delete the string forum too ... since it's all speculation and pseudo religion. And please delete also the time traveller general discussion stuff because that's all scam, and delete also the every thread on God because that's also speculation.
If you do something ... do it consequent.
stringtheory is speculative to some extent, yet is no simple pet theory. Why ??? Well, because the well established results of QM and GTR must follow out of string theory in the correct physical regimes just like Newtonian mechanics need to follow out of QM in the right (ie classical) regime. Your reasoning is therefore incorrect and if I were to follow it, QM is just mere scam to you... Ofcourse you do not mean this. philisophy is not the same thing is real exact science like physics or mathematics...i know it, you know it and we all know it...
regards
marlon
As an addendum : indeed every thread on God should be deleted and every thread on religion too. I think the attitude of the PF administrators towards such post is the correct one. Time travelling is not possible in practice yet it is a valid consequence of GTR and thus a scientific fact. It only needs to stressed out that we need to look at such non-causal results with the right attitude and place them in the right context, which you obviously do not do...
marlon
Yet if we were to discuss Einstein's or Hawking's use of the word 'God' relating to the universe and its creation/laws/formation, as has happened several times, would that not be of interest to a physics forum?
Garth
Yet if we were to discuss Einstein's or Hawking's use of the word 'God' relating to the universe and its creation/laws/formation, as has happened several times, would that not be of interest to a physics forum?
Garth
I see your point but i think we both know that this GOD-concept is not really essential to the formulation and construction of physics, right ???
marlon
But i was primarily referring to GOD in a religious way...
marlon
pelastration
Oct30-04, 03:32 PM
Time travelling is not possible in practice yet it is a valid consequence of GTR and thus a scientific fact.
If you believe that you can turn arround (reverse) all electrons around all nuclei of all atoms of all molecules of a burning tree ... (= that's what time travelling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.
If you believe that you can turn arround (reverse) all electrons around all nuclei of all atoms of all molecules of a burning tree ... (= that's what time travelling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.
Obviously you missed the point, which could have been expected because i said you need to put these time reversal results into the right perspective in physics. Just look at how astrophysics has dealt with black vs. white holes... Non-causal results may not be physical in our minds, yet they are a VALID solution to some theoretical model which has a very high degree of accuracy. This is something totally different then postulating some pet theory...
Keep in mind that postulating nonsense is NOT equal to being creative
marlon
pelastration
Oct31-04, 04:26 AM
Obviously you missed the point, which could have been expected because i said you need to put these time reversal results into the right perspective in physics. Just look at how astrophysics has dealt with black vs. white holes... Non-causal results may not be physical in our minds, yet they are a VALID solution to some theoretical model which has a very high degree of accuracy. This is something totally different then postulating some pet theory...
Theoretical models may be very accurate. Sure. Theoretical models are essential, indeed. But theoretical models must stay on logic. And sure ... some theoretical models will make it possible to reverse time. But that doesn't mean it has something to do with reality, or it shows that something is wrong with the semantics.
"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
The process can be reversal, but not the time it takes.
If you miss this essential concept you can create many "official" pet theories.
If you use time just as a mathematical parameter then you can do all type of magic things with it.
Theoretical models may be very accurate. Sure. Theoretical models are essential, indeed. But theoretical models must stay on logic. And sure ... some theoretical models will make it possible to reverse time. But that doesn't mean it has something to do with reality, or it shows that something is wrong with the semantics.
"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
The process can be reversal, but not the time it takes.
If you miss this essential concept you can create many "official" pet theories.
If you use time just as a mathematical parameter then you can do all type of magic things with it.
Though all you state is very true, i am asking you politely to see my point here. All i am saying is that well estabished theoretical models may "predict" non-causal results or non-physical degrees of freedom, nevertheless the MODEL itself still contains those very well predicted (real) experimental results. All those pet-theories in TD did not. Secondly, i wanna stress the fact that i have no objection what so ever against nem develpments in theories or even corrections to certain models. yet it needs to be said that those new data will not appear in TD because most of the people there did not make a well considered and tactical suggestion for changing a model. They just make a suggestion. If you ask them why they can give you a reason, but the problem is that this reason is most of the times false. I mean, this reason contains facts and assumptions that are based upon mis-interpretations of the already existing model. That is my point
marlon
"Time" is a good example.
Time is a conventional expression of measuring changes in processing, interaction or position.
Time progresses independent from the process itself.
This is a false statement though. In General Relativity for example time and position-coordinates can be interchanged when the curvature of spacetime is "very strong", like in the event horizon of a black hole. Basically this means that you cannot stop the movement of an object towards the singularity once it is inside the event horizon or once it crossed the Schwarzschild Radius (i am referring to non-rotating black holes so we don't need to mention the socalled ergosphere). Because time and position are interchanged and because you cannot say "i am gonna stop time from evolving into next friday", you cannot stop the object's movement inside the event horizon. Time reversal here means that objects in the event horizon will be pushed out of this sphere, yielding the socalled white hole or "vomiting star". Don't take the time-coordinate too literally in GTR.
marlon
Of course, strings are speculative. All such works-in-progress are naturally speculative. What makes string theory legitimate is that it is being developed by the scientific method. Many people are working on making the theory produce testable predictions, which will support or falsify the hypothesis. This is the way science works.
The majority of the old disgruntled TD posters (yourself included, pelastration) did not follow the scientific method, and that was our primary frustration.
- Warren
Chroot, I believe that people should indeed be able to post in Theory Development. The thing is, often it's a good thing for developing minds to see how other people think, and see how the flaws are picked in what they believe.
Not only does it liven things up a bit, it shows how everyone thinks differently, and it lets others wake their minds up by refuting the theories. I can see how you'd be frustrated with people not thinking before they post, but that's just a bit of locking and deleting.
Integral
Oct31-04, 08:44 PM
Chroot, I believe that people should indeed be able to post in Theory Development. The thing is, often it's a good thing for developing minds to see how other people think, and see how the flaws are picked in what they believe.
Not only does it liven things up a bit, it shows how everyone thinks differently, and it lets others wake their minds up by refuting the theories. I can see how you'd be frustrated with people not thinking before they post, but that's just a bit of locking and deleting.
Why can't the same things be accomplished while discussing valid physics?
Of course, strings are speculative. All such works-in-progress are naturally speculative. What makes string theory legitimate is that it is being developed by the scientific method. Many people are working on making the theory produce testable predictions, which will support or falsify the hypothesis. This is the way science works.
The majority of the old disgruntled TD posters (yourself included, pelastration) did not follow the scientific method, and that was our primary frustration.
- Warren
amen to that...
marlon
CrankFan
Nov3-04, 11:30 AM
If someone gets cranky in this thread is he a metacrank?
Well, I know, it's probably all about the urge of being recognized and admired as a "smart cooky" and perhaps succeed explaining some enigmatic things with a wild imagination..
I'm guilty myself for starting a thread in TD as well as to a wild imagination, but I was assuming that the forums was about the same as what the title said, namely about posting ideas or hypotheses that can be substantiated or falsified during the discussion, being unaware of the fully automatic crackpot label. Talking about the Solving Venus thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2974&page=1).
Apparantly it's no good since:
99.9% of TD posts are crackpot. Only 0.01% are "serious heterodox."
(I wonder about the missing 0.09%)
But the publication is about finished after implementing a few more references like this (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1618.pdf), as evidence exhibit nr 114 on the ref list using:
Buckling cannot explain the observed wavelength. Cracking, which was originally proposed to explain the spacing of plain lineations [8] and the localization instability have predicted wavelengths of order of H. Hence, the implied BDT is shallower than expected for a dry rheology with the current surface temperature. The very short instability wavelength is possible if the surface temperature was high at the time of formation on these features. However, crustal melting is a concern for geotherms higher than 10 K km-1.
Crustal melting is not a concern. It just happened if my idea was right. Anyway I'm happy that my thread is not closed.
Andre,
Your Venus theory is one of the very few posted to TD which seems to follow the scientific method. I applaud you for setting a good example, personally. We don't plan on closing your thread.
- Warren
Bystander
Nov3-04, 03:16 PM
Side note on Venus and Andre: haven't looked at it --- up until the last two posts in this thread, I've assumed Venus and Andre made it to TD on "merit." Maybe I'll take a peek now. Sorry, Andre --- you stepped into the La Brea (TD) tarpit in all innocence --- I've avoided interaction with you in Earth Science as a result. I'll put Venus on the list of "things to do."
Chroot, TD was doing far more damage to PF than just the cosmetic --- it definitely corrupted/colored perceptions of members who never got involved in the "pi" thread by those members who do remember those days.
Good idea, Bystander. You may find it entertaining.
Thanks Warren, would it be an idea to move the thread to a more suitable area?
CrankFan
Nov4-04, 10:13 AM
Is it possible that with TD "shut down" it pushes more low-quality theorizing out into the normal groups or forums? (whatever you call them.. ?).
I guess if you can stay on top of the crank moderation for the entire site then it's not an issue -- but if it becomes problematic in the ordinary groups then it might be good to have a group, like TD, which functions as an outlet for that kind of thing.
Is it possible that with TD "shut down" it pushes more low-quality theorizing out into the normal groups or forums? (whatever you call them.. ?).
No it won't, because they'll just post their quackeries on the Kaku forum. It seems that anything and everything goes in that place!
Zz.
Most members fail to appreciate the value of (often sarcastic) comments on the old TD forum. If you eliminate all that is wrong with a theory, what is left (if anything) must be right.
On this basis I have reduced my much maligned proposal to an absolute minimum that is now being rewritten. Surprisingly the many acidic comments from PF members were of more help than the one or two favorable comments from highly qualified non-members; they indicated clearly where improvements were needed.
I regret that the new style forums will not allow a continuation of the debate, when the current rewrite is completed.
Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF
Terry Giblin
Nov9-04, 06:22 AM
Can some please tell me what happens to Personal theories in TD, which have been closed under anti_crank policy, immediately after it had been confirmed correct by a respected Physics Forum member, anti_crank.
Can the thread be re-opened and moved to the appropriate physics section.
Most members fail to appreciate the value of (often sarcastic) comments on the old TD forum. If you eliminate all that is wrong with a theory, what is left (if anything) must be right.
On this basis I have reduced my much maligned proposal to an absolute minimum that is now being rewritten. Surprisingly the many acidic comments from PF members were of more help than the one or two favorable comments from highly qualified non-members; they indicated clearly where improvements were needed.
I regret that the new style forums will not allow a continuation of the debate, when the current rewrite is completed.
Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF
"Either this guy's a total idiot, or he's the biggest genius to hit physics in years"
"L'imagination est plus importante que le savoir"
CrankFan
Nov10-04, 12:01 AM
Nutcases are an annoying nuisance, but history if full of examples of nutcases who are later proven to be correct, we should at least be tolerated in our own small corner in the hope that one day one of us will be a credit to PF
Who are some of the nutcases in physics who later turned out to be correct?
Who are some of the nutcases in physics who later turned out to be correct?
Galileo was a real nutcase. Not only did he hold to the Copernican theory when everybody knew the Ptolemaic theory predicted far better results, but he got up everybody's nose by insisting he was right against the consensus of the opinion of the school of his natural philosophy contemporaries.
A true 'crackpot'!
No wonder he even got up the Pope's nose! (Well casting the Pope's considered pronouncements in the words of the Simpleton in Galileo's 'Dialogue' would do wouldn't it?)
Of course this leads to the impeccable logic of the well worn argument - "You think I'm a crackpot, they thought Galileo was a crackpot and he proved to be right. Therefore I will prove to right too!"
Can't argue with that one!!
Garth
ZapperZ
Nov11-04, 06:35 AM
Galileo was a real nutcase. Not only did he hold to the Copernican theory when everybody knew the Ptolemaic theory predicted far better results, but he got up everybody's nose by insisting he was right against the consensus of the opinion of the school of his natural philosophy contemporaries.
A true 'crackpot'!
No wonder he even got up the Pope's nose! (Well casting the Pope's considered pronouncements in the words of the Simpleton in Galileo's 'Dialogue' would do wouldn't it?)
I guess it depends on how one defines a "nutcase". For me, it's someone who does not hesitate to spew his/her own "theory" even when he/she has only a superficial knowledge of the subject. I doubt Galileo qualifies for this.
To designate as a nutcase anyone who comes up with something that is different or new from what is established would be very strange, since the very nature of science (and physics in particular) IS to study things that are new, have no current explanation, or to extend way beyond the boundary of applicability of what we know. No one wants to study things that are already well-known and well-verified. What differentiate these and the nutcases is the fact that people who studied these things have to first learn what can already be explained. Without a clear understanding of what is known, how does one realize when something new and unusual occur?
Zz.
russ_watters
Nov11-04, 06:53 AM
Since Galileo's main challenger was the Church, and he had real, hard proof of his theory (a telescope pointed at Jupiter) he doesn't qualify as a scientific crackpot.
Since Galileo's main challenger was the Church, and he had real, hard proof of his theory (a telescope pointed at Jupiter) he doesn't qualify as a scientific crackpot.
May I recommend "The Sleepwalkers" Arthur Koestler. It blows away that particular myth of our time.
There was a whole school of academics independent of the Church, the Church went along with the Ptolemaic theory only because that was the intelligent opinion of the time, just as the Vatican endorsed the Big Bang theory in our own. There was no particular theological reason to endorse it.
Galileo's chief opponents were his fellow academics whose very status and careers he was challenging. Originally the Pope, who was having a different argument with the academics during the Reformation, originally supported Galileo and the monk Copernicus' theory. However, Galileo managed to upset him too, and the rest is, well as they say, history.
Garth
Integral
Nov11-04, 06:46 PM
I see a crackpot as one who pushes a "theory", without having applied the Scientific Method. Galileo was the first true Physicist in that he STARTED the Scientific Method. He based his ideas of Acceleration upon experiment and his ideas of the solar system upon direct observation. So in my view, the "authorities" of his day were the crackpots. Unfortunately when you are the lone scientist in a world of crackpots, life can be tough.
Quite - but at the time was not the "scientific method" itself a little crackpot?
The clear 20-20 vision of hindsight!
GArth
Terry Giblin
Nov12-04, 06:08 AM
A measure of sanity is how many people believe you.
Therefore when ever anyone has a truly important original thought, he or she will always be in a minority of one and hence insane.
A crackpot is a person who believes in his own original thought and is willing to be tested and accepted, but more often than not is ridiculed and laughed at instead, by his future peer's.
Imagine if PF, had been around for hundreds of years, how many great personal theories would have ended up in TD under the careful eye of the mentor’s and crackpot slayers.
The true crackpots would listen to any constructive criticism, but would persist and crack on until proved right or wrong, until eventually everyone realised they were telling the truth, all on.
The real crackpots however will go on forever in their own little world, and I wish them luck, success and happiness in their long and lonely quest. If it makes them happy how am I to persuade them they are wrong, I can only show them what I know.
Regards
Terry Giblin
ZapperZ
Nov12-04, 06:44 AM
A measure of sanity is how many people believe you.
Therefore when ever anyone has a truly important original thought, he or she will always be in a minority of one and hence insane.
A crackpot is a person who believes in his own original thought and is willing to be tested and accepted, but more often than not is ridiculed and laughed at instead, by his future peer's.
Imagine if PF, had been around for hundreds of years, how many great personal theories would have ended up in TD under the careful eye of the mentor’s and crackpot slayers.
The true crackpots would listen to any constructive criticism, but would persist and crack on until proved right or wrong, until eventually everyone realised they were telling the truth, all on.
The real crackpots however will go on forever in their own little world, and I wish them luck, success and happiness in their long and lonely quest. If it makes them happy how am I to persuade them they are wrong, I can only show them what I know.
Regards
Terry Giblin
But this is all talk and no substance. There have still been no violation of ZapperZ's First Law:
"There has been ZERO cases within the last 100 years in which a discovery or idea that has made any significant impact on the body of knowledge of physics which has never appeared in a respectable peer-reviewed journal"
This is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for an idea or discovery to be taken seriously. Crackpots can't make it into such peer-reviewed journals. If they can, they (i) won't be wasting their time advertizing it on the web and (ii) won't be crackpots in the first place because there are other people (the journal editors and referees) who think they have legitimate things to say and thus, failed your criteria of them being "....ridiculed and laughed at..."
Therefore, your insistance that they actually contribute something legitimate is bogus based simply on such observation. Go on and defend their "right" or whatever to post their quackeries on here, but please, don't fool yourself, or try to fool us into believing that there can be anything of value that would come out of them. There hasn't been any!
Zz.
Self Creation Cosmology has been published twice in peer reviewed journals*, and that is in TD!
Garth
*
Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'
Barber, G.A. : 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730,'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775.
ZapperZ
Nov12-04, 07:33 AM
Self Creation Cosmology has been published twice in peer reviewed journals*, and that is in TD!
Garth
*
Barber, G.A. : 1982, Gen Relativ Gravit. 14, 117. 'On Two Self Creation Cosmologies'
Barber, G.A. : 2002, Astrophysics and Space Science 282: 683–730,'A New Self Creation Cosmology, a 'semi-metric' theory of gravitation'," http://www.kluweronline.com/oasis.htm/5092775.
.. and I would also put the Podkletnov's "antigravity" shield in TD also (if it isn't there already) even if it has appeared several times in Physica B. Rabid deciples of such things on the internet tend to have very little knowledge of what it is. If someone takes Newton's Laws and turns it upside down (like claiming his 1st Law to be a "metaphysics"), I'd say that would easily qualify to be shoved into TD also.
Zz.
Les Sleeth
Nov12-04, 09:33 AM
If someone takes Newton's Laws and turns it upside down (like claiming his 1st Law to be a "metaphysics"), I'd say that would easily qualify to be shoved into TD also.
I know that comment refers to Metacristi's comments, and don't want to start a new debate, o:) but I think one has to understand what the technical definition of metaphysics in philosophy to see what he was saying.
To the person casually using the word, quite often they do use metaphysical to mean something ethereal or spiritual. But that isn't really what it means, even if to claim existence is say, all spirit, is a metaphysical statement.
We had a pretty heated debate here when someone asked if everything can be explained/accounted for with physics. Those who said yes were making a metaphysical statement because they were saying the basis of existence is purely physical. When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience, that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.
So Metacristi was saying that there are those who assert a metaphysical assumption is built into Newton's statement that [i]every[/] body continues at rest or in a straight line etc. To tell you the truth, he is up on the debates and arguments in the philosophy science a lot more than me, so I am not quite sure what metaphysics he was seeing in Newton's first law. But I am absolutely certain he wasn't saying anything spiritual or non-physical.
EDIT:
I'd point out that something one hears all the time around here is that any explanation that isn't scientific is worthless, or "nonsense" as I've seen many times. That view is itself metaphysical, what some call "scientism," in the sense that it assumes reality is such that only science can reveal it. A similar example is my friend who is a historian, and who evaluates everything as history. I have yet another friend, educated as an economist, who likes to tell me "everything is economics."
russ_watters
Nov12-04, 10:37 AM
Quite - but at the time was not the "scientific method" itself a little crackpot?
The clear 20-20 vision of hindsight!
GArth You're really, really missing the point. Not following the scientific method is what defines a person or idea as a crackpot. So its contradictroy to call the scientific method a crackpot idea, even when it was new. You seem to be under the (common) misconception that just being new or not accepted by the majority is what makes an idea crackpottery. Not so at all.
Consider alchemy - the precurser to chemistry. Since the scientific method didn't exist at the time, I'd hesitate to call the alchemists crackpots (its a little unfair if it is defined such that it is impossible to not be a crackpot), but that doesn't mean they were scientists either. Alchemy may have been mainstream, but that didn't make it scientific.
I'd say just in fairness, that the term "crackpot" wasn't very useful until after the scientific revolution. And Galileo is the one who made it possible to tell the difference.
That said, I'm not ready to let Aristotle off the hook...
Terry Giblin, you are under the same misconception - its the method, not the madness that makes one a crackpot.
ZapperZ
Nov12-04, 10:39 AM
I know that comment refers to Metacristi's comments, and don't want to start a new debate, o:) but I think one has to understand what the technical definition of metaphysics in philosophy to see what he was saying.
To the person casually using the word, quite often they do use metaphysical to mean something ethereal or spiritual. But that isn't really what it means, even if to claim existence is say, all spirit, is a metaphysical statement.
We had a pretty heated debate here when someone asked if everything can be explained/accounted for with physics. Those who said yes were making a metaphysical statement because they were saying the basis of existence is purely physical. When we talk about general conditions of existence behind apparent reality, that are causing what we can see and measure and experience, that is metaphysics. It doesn't have to be something spiritual, or non-physical; it doesn't even have to be true about all existence. It could refer just to conditions behind one particular aspect of reality.
So Metacristi was saying that there are those who assert a metaphysical assumption is built into Newton's statement that [i]every[/] body continues at rest or in a straight line etc. To tell you the truth, he is up on the debates and arguments in the philosophy science a lot more than me, so I am not quite sure what metaphysics he was seeing in Newton's first law. But I am absolutely certain he wasn't saying anything spiritual or non-physical.
Then maybe you should ask him what he meant as "metaphysics" and if he thinks that Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws are also "metaphysicial", because it appears that my questions to him on these were not worth answering. If what you said is true, then even those who are "experts" in philosophy are also unsure of what "metaphysical" means, because going by your definition, anything and everything are "metaphysical".
It seems that such ambiguous and vague definitions are a common theme over there....
Zz.
arildno
Nov12-04, 10:54 AM
That said, I'm not ready to let Aristotle off the hook...
Perhaps you'll let him wriggle off (justifiably bruised) by considering the following:
In biology, Aristotle DID follow what we would call the scientific method:
There exists a text of him which details the embryo development of a chicken.
It is accurate, in the sense that he (or his students) inspected eggs opened at various stages and reported what he (or them) saw.
The very least one could say, is that letting nature tell you what it is, rather then engaging in idle speculations about it, is a "sine qua non" in the scientific method.
Les Sleeth
Nov12-04, 11:24 AM
Then maybe you should ask him what he meant as "metaphysics" and if he thinks that Newton's 2nd and 3rd Laws are also "metaphysicial", because it appears that my questions to him on these were not worth answering. If what you said is true, then even those who are "experts" in philosophy are also unsure of what "metaphysical" means, because going by your definition, anything and everything are "metaphysical".
It seems that such ambiguous and vague definitions are a common theme over there....
I suspect Metacristi didn't answer you about the second and third laws because of how you were reacting to him using the term "metaphysics." You know how it bothers you to hear people throw around physics ideas without really understanding what they are? Well, people do that with philosophy too (and every other area of knowledge). That's how the general population is right now. Maybe one day the world will be more broadly educated (I hope so).
Of course, even among the educated most will generalize about areas that aren't one's main field of interest, as you do in your comments above when you say " such ambiguous and vague definitions are a common theme over there." There's nothing vague about it to the expert, but sometimes, especially when emotions are running high in a debate, people fail to explain clearly and step by step. Often an expert assumes people can follow their arguments because the expert understands the subject so well, but of course that isn't how it is.
It isn't true that the philosopher claims "everything" is metaphysics as you suggest, but there's more of it involved in human endeavors than people realize. There is virtually no area of human thought that isn't better understood by seeing what belief structure is producing our behaviors, practices (like science), laws, etc. Often we've unquestioningly accepted the metaphysical aspects of practices at an early age from parents, society, and other influences. But the philosopher says "Whoa, not so fast. Let's take a closer look to see if what we automatically might accept as a correct intellectual base from which to reason and act is really as sound as we believe." Many of our changing attitudes over the last century, toward women for example, have been from such questioning.
The same thing happened in the 19th century when thinkers began to seriously question the centuries-old assumption that fundamental truths about external reality could logically be figured out without much examination of external reality itself. The empirical philosophers said, no we need to experience what we are going to reason about, and the birth of the scientific method was the eventual result.
As I teased you about in the other thread, the debate you had with Aquamarine was classic epistomological debate, but it also involved metaphysical questions. Why? Because by advocating one research approach works better at revealing reality than another, in a sense you are saying that you understand something about the nature of reality, whether that is the reality of human consciousness involved in research, or the aspects of physical reality that consciousness is trying to understand, or both.
ZapperZ
Nov12-04, 11:42 AM
I suspect Metacristi didn't answer you about the second and third laws because of how you were reacting to him using the term "metaphysics." You know how it bothers you to hear people throw around physics ideas without really understanding what they are? Well, people do that with philosophy too (and every other area of knowledge). That's how the general population is right now. Maybe one day the world will be more broadly educated (I hope so).
You are forgetting that he said that the 1st Law is "metaphysical" and "should not be a part of science". I still haven't figured out if this also means that the 2nd and 3rd law should also not be a part of science. If this is true, then I think that even YOU should realize how absurd such a claim is. I can almost be certain that making such a claim in the Physics section of PF will get the thread demoted to the TD hell.
I do not wish to turn this into a long-winded, off-topic discussion of philosphy that will get split off into that section of PF, since I've sworn to never post anything in there again.
Zz.
Les Sleeth
Nov12-04, 11:53 AM
I do not wish to turn this into a long-winded, off-topic discussion of philosphy that will get split off into that section of PF, since I've sworn to never post anything in there again.
I agree this isn't the place to continue this. But it's too bad misunderstandings are going to determine an aspect of the fellowship here at PF.
[Garth]You're really, really missing the point. Not following the scientific method is what defines a person or idea as a crackpot. So its contradictroy to call the scientific method a crackpot idea, even when it was new. You seem to be under the (common) misconception that just being new or not accepted by the majority is what makes an idea crackpottery. Not so at all.
....////.........
That said, I'm not ready to let Aristotle off the hook.../////////......
Really?
I think here we need to take a more historical perspective of the development of scientific ideas and method.
In its day the Ptolemaic theory was as scientific a theory as you could have wished for. The fact that it eventually proved to be wrong should no more attract our derision than the fact that most of our present theories will eventually require replacement or modification.
1. It had a mathematical basis - the addition of epicycles to a basic circular motion was a geometric way of constructing a Fourier series to represent the complicated motion of the planets amongst the fixed stars.
2. It was modified over a period of time by the addition of extra epicycles to allow for the resolution of discrepancies between the theory and observation.
3. It was able to predict the future motions of the planets with considerable accuracy, more so, because of these extra additions, than the Copernican theory.
4. These predictions were checked against observations made by huge naked eye observatories.
We may compare this process with the standard cosmological theory,
· GR required a fix that was provided by Inflation
· Inflation required a fix that was provided by Dark Matter
· Dark Matter required a fix that was provided by Dark Energy.
· We now consider the standard LCDM theory robust and “precision cosmology”.
· However, neither Inflation (the Higgs Boson), Dark Matter or Dark Energy have been discovered even after about 30 years of intense effort. An example of modern day epicycles?
The scientific method had developed over a period of time, from the Greeks to the Moslem scholars and through them to the scholastics of medieval Europe. Such 'men' of science as Roger Bacon, Nicolas of Cusa, William of Ockham and Jean Buridan. Copernicus, a century or two later, was a relative Aristotelian compared to them, he preferred to trust the ancient wisdom despite his famous modification of the ancients' (Ptolemy) work.
The Copernican theory, retaining the circular motion of the planets, but now around the Sun, had also to include epicycles. In fact his system had more that the Ptolemaic system! (Copernicus = 48 epicycles, Ptolemy = 40 - although Copernicus exaggerated this number to make his system seem more 'efficient'.) Despite his theory being correct at unseating the Earth from the centre of the solar system, and perhaps because it was not more efficient at explaining the "heavenly revolutions", he was "laughed at and hissed off the stage" -(Galileo's own words about Copernicus' fate, a fate that he did not want to share.)
Nevertheless Galileo had been persuaded about the Copernican system at an earlier age, he was able to take advantage of the newly invented telescope. Galileo was not the first to base his theories on observation, it was just he was able to use a better instrument of observation.
Perhaps his reticence at not wanting to follow Copernicus into derision by delaying publishing his work for twenty years was an indication that he wasn’t a ‘crackpot’ after all. However his ability to upset most of his contemporaries does not help in that assessment!
Garth
Integral
Nov13-04, 02:36 PM
While this discussion of the historic development of the scientific method is interesting, it has little or nothing to do with our current problem. I use the term problem loosely because it is not clear to me that we have a problem. The problem exists only in the eyes of those who wish to use our site to push their ideas.
What many may not realize is that most threads are not closed unilateral by a single Mentor. If there is any doubt, there is at least a brief discussion by the staff on the the validity of a thread. It is surprising on how little disagreement there is. The back grounds of the various mentors is quite different, however we do share a formal education in physics, math, or engineering. Yet it is usually unanimous when a question is raised about a questionable thread.
The fact is that if you do not have a formal education in Physics you have no way of knowing what is "new" or "known". Unfortunately, as I have said many times before, you cannot think outside of the box if you do not know where the box is.
The term 'Maverick' is often used for those, like Fred Hoyle, who habitually 'think outside the box. Perhaps we need a 'Maverick Forum'?
One test of course would be that unorthodox ideas and theories that have actually been published in respectable peer reviewed journals might be deemed 'Maverick' rather than 'crackpot'. I would argue that 'General Relativity and Gravitation' and 'Astrophysics and Space Science' are examples of two such journals. [My post #116]
Garth
Garth
Moonbear
Nov14-04, 11:54 AM
There is always room for a theory developed using scientific method to be found wrong. This is why we never say we've "proven" an hypothesis, because there is always the chance a yet undiscovered observation will be the one that unravels the entire theory. Keeping an open mind toward this possibility is not the same as accepting claims without any supporting evidence based on a misinterpretation of textbook science, which is not, and never can be (it can be at least a year from writing to publication), as up-to-date or complete as the science described in peer-reviewed journals.
A test of an unorthodox theory neither needs to be maverick nor crackpot, it needs to fit with current empirical evidence and requires the author carry the burden of proof to provide the additional evidence showing how the new theory is better than the current theory. If you're going to introduce a new theory, if you want it to have any credibility at all, I would expect citation of a substantial number of references that support the theory, an explanation of potential caveats, and what experiments you would plan to disprove your theory (i.e., hypothesis testing).
There is always room for a theory developed using scientific method to be found wrong. This is why we never say we've "proven" an hypothesis, because there is always the chance a yet undiscovered observation will be the one that unravels the entire theory. Keeping an open mind toward this possibility is not the same as accepting claims without any supporting evidence based on a misinterpretation of textbook science, which is not, and never can be (it can be at least a year from writing to publication), as up-to-date or complete as the science described in peer-reviewed journals.
Absolutely - in fact it was nearly two years from submission to publication for the 2002 'Astrophysics and Space Science' paper.
A test of an unorthodox theory neither needs to be maverick nor crackpot, it needs to fit with current empirical evidence and requires the author carry the burden of proof to provide the additional evidence showing how the new theory is better than the current theory. If you're going to introduce a new theory, if you want it to have any credibility at all, I would expect citation of a substantial number of references that support the theory, an explanation of potential caveats, and what experiments you would plan to disprove your theory (i.e., hypothesis testing).
There are 43 other-author citations of the 1982 paper in peer reviewed journals.
The theory is being tested at present by the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment; SCC predicts a heterodox (non-GR) geodetic precession but an orthodox (GR) frame dragging precession.
A third paper, a chapter of a forthcoming book, is awaiting publication and contains further experiments to falsify the theory. ["Self Creation Cosmology - An Alternative Gravitational Theory" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094 to be published in "Progress in General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology", Nova Science Publishers, Inc. New York.]
Garth
rayjohn01
Nov20-04, 09:22 PM
I hardly think that 31 replies constitute a poll , for what it's woth I think you should have a section which allows free reign to ideas , many people have been considered crackpots who later have been proven to have a valid view and who of us is truly a judge -- this would assume you know everything to begin with which is ridiculous.
Ray
Chronos
Nov21-04, 05:00 AM
You hardly qualify as a crackpot, Garth. You have theories with math and predictions. I don't mean to be cruel, but it sounds a bit like science.
ZapperZ
Nov21-04, 08:23 AM
I hardly think that 31 replies constitute a poll , for what it's woth I think you should have a section which allows free reign to ideas , many people have been considered crackpots who later have been proven to have a valid view and who of us is truly a judge -- this would assume you know everything to begin with which is ridiculous.
Ray
Your comment is astounding because it seems as if you did not read any of the replies and comments already made in this thread.
A "crackpot" isn't someone who made new, astonishing, and revolutionary idea. It is the nature of physics and physicists that we study new, unexplained things! Please look at the latest issue of Nature, Science, PRL, etc. To lump the quackeries into the same category as well-thought off ideas in physics is insulting, and strengthen the validity of the survey which shows that most people are not able to distinguish between a "scientific evidence" with anecdotal/incomplete/bogus/etc evidence.
Again, I challenge you to show of any ideas, discovery, etc. with the past 100 years or so, that has made a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in physics, that has NOT appeared in any peer-reviewed journal. After that, look at how many of these "crackpot" ideas that have actually made it into such journals. There have been crackpots on the 'net ever since it went "public". That is... what, more than 15 years, at the very least. Show me one example of a physics crackpot on the 'net idea that has amounted to anything that never made it into a peer-reviewed journal. If you can't do that, then your claim that "...many people have been considered crackpots who later have been proven to have a valid view..." is baseless.
[If you bring up Einstein and the likes as examples of "crackpots", then we have nothing more to talk about since you obviously do not read what have been posted - so any further explanation will be a complete waste of effort]
Zz.
There's some wonderful posts in this thread! And the general topic is worthy of much more discussion, IMHO.
Just to take up Zapper's challenge ... outside physics, but still well within 'science', IIRC there are loads of examples: plate tectonics (then called continental drift), Snowball Earth (tho' some early work did make into peer-reviewed publications, after much struggle), lots of good work on early homonid evolution (including some very good fieldwork), ...
I also sense some 'violent agreement' - Garth's SCC (and much of Hoyle's work, and Andre's Venus ideas, and ...) may be maverick, but they aren't crackpot! On the other side, we have Arp's ideas (certainly good science in the early days, but is his work now tending towards crackpottery?), 'plasma cosmology' (maverick to be sure, science? the proponents certainly seem to be doing all the 'right things'), modern aetherists (hordes of crackpots yes, but also some solid scientific work?).
And here's where it gets difficult, in a practical sense ... is there anyone who proposes that much (most?) of what was previously posted in TD was in accord with the scientific method? To be clear, I don't see anyone claiming that EVERYTHING posted in TD was crackpottery.
The practical challenge is how to handle the huge (and tedious) task of winnowing the few non-crackpot (maverick?) 'TD' posts from the deluge of nonsense?
Chronos
Nov24-04, 04:48 AM
Er, constrain posting of theories to those that cite credible evidence and sound, predictive mathematical models? Then politely redirect those who fall short of that standard to post them in the metaphysics forum... Hmm, I don't see a metaphysics forum here.
CrankFan
Nov24-04, 07:11 AM
In the context of Internet forums, to me, the term "crackpot" describes someone who is ignorant of the basic principles and results in the field of study which they criticize and seek to "revolutionize" with their "theories". Most Internet crackpots are incapable of expressing their ideas clearly, which reflects their unwillingness to examine their ideas critically before "publishing" them.
I don't deny that academic crackpots exist; but AFAIK that isn't the problem that Physics Forums is facing in the form of its "Theory Development" branch.
From time to time controversial ideas are introduced into science and mathematics but to equate the educated and clearly stated, yet controversial ideas of the past with the ramblings of Internet cranks, who for the most part, base their knowledge in the field on unreliable sources (science fiction novels, inaccurate popularizations, etc.) seems to be an unfair comparison.
I don't know much about Galileo, but let's take Cantor as an example of someone who published ideas that were heavily criticized. Cantor was educated in his field of research, he understood the results of the day and was able to publish his ideas clearly and unambiguously. His ideas were controversial but controversy itself isn't the important distinguishing characteristic of Internet crackpots. The distinguishing characteristic of Internet crackpots is almost complete ignorance of the subject combined with massive arrogance.
To be clear, I don't see anyone claiming that EVERYTHING posted in TD was crackpottery.
But there is a problem in getting threads in TD discussed seriously because they are seen to be 'crackpot'. I think PF does need a Forum for discussion of such new ideas/theories, possibly still called 'TD', but:The practical challenge is how to handle the huge (and tedious) task of winnowing the few non-crackpot (maverick?) 'TD' posts from the deluge of nonsense?
First, any non-standard theory that has already been published in recognised peer reviewed journals ought to be taken seriously, no matter how much we personally may not like it.
Second, any theories posted are liable for penetrating constructive criticism. If the author of the theory does not then respond to the questionning, or even understand what is the nature of the criticism, then that theory can be assigned to a 'crackpot' Forum.
BTW Nereid, thank you for your endorsement of SCC as not being 'crackpot'! :smile:
Garth
Moonbear
Nov24-04, 01:28 PM
But there is a problem in getting threads in TD discussed seriously because they are seen to be 'crackpot'. I think PF does need a Forum for discussion of such new ideas/theories, possibly still called 'TD', but:
Garth, this isn't just a problem on PF, it's a serious problem in terms of public perception of new fields of science. One of the areas I work in, somewhat peripherally to my main field of research, is circadian rhythms. This has certainly now gained credibility as a real field of research, but when the whole "biorhythms" craze came about in the popular literature, spurred on by more than a few crackpots, it nearly collapsed the legitimate science in that field. People were wary of funding the work, or even bothering to read proposals, because of the vast amount of crackpots springing up everywhere. I know very few people who study circadian rhythms only, most have a second line of research ongoing in their labs, except for the younger scientists who entered the field after things settled down, because they just couldn't afford to continue with one focus when they couldn't get any funding. This is the real danger of crackpottery, the tarnish it can put on legitimate science as viewed by the general public who doesn't know how to sort the fiction from reality.
First, any non-standard theory that has already been published in recognised peer reviewed journals ought to be taken seriously, no matter how much we personally may not like it.
I continue to contend that there's no need for a theory development section to discuss these topics. They would easily fall under one of the many other forums on this board, and as long as it's already peer-reviewed, it would be fair game for discussion.
Second, any theories posted are liable for penetrating constructive criticism. If the author of the theory does not then respond to the questionning, or even understand what is the nature of the criticism, then that theory can be assigned to a 'crackpot' Forum.
I think the main concern is the amount of work this generates for the mentors to monitor those threads. Just not allowing new theories to be discussed is a more even-handed approach, and easier to enforce, than having to sift through all the threads determining if the burden of proof has been met. If the theory has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then, however controversial, it would be fair game for discussion, in my opinion, because the peer-review process lends credibility. It may still be proven wrong, but it has reached a certain level of scrutiny to be worthy of discussing.
BTW Nereid, thank you for your endorsement of SCC as not being 'crackpot'! :smile:
Garth
Garth, I think you also misunderstood my intentions when I last responded to you. I was arguing that something that is maverick or controversial is not synonymous with crackpot. I would love to see discussions of controversial topics that fall within the realm of real science, those are the fun topics that can lead to really good discussion. Journals sometimes even publish controversial topics along with a letter from the editor or permit responses in subsequent issues that point out the controversy and open issues. If you spot articles like that, they'd be fun to present to the group, because it lends to a natural debate from which all can learn something.
I continue to contend that there's no need for a theory development section to discuss these topics. They would easily fall under one of the many other forums on this board, and as long as it's already peer-reviewed, it would be fair game for discussion.
So which Forum do you think is suitable for discussing theories such as "Self Creation Cosmology" or studies on "circadian rhythms. "?
Garth
So the question seems to be coming down to whether on not PF should have a place, distinct from its 'mainstream' boards (e.g. Biology, General Physics), where maverick ideas can be discussed. By maverick, we mean outside the mainstream, but adhering to the scientific method - thus Andre's Venus idea, and SCC would be welcome (and maybe some 'plasma cosmologies', even 'expanding Earth', 'modern aether' ideas?), but approx 99 to 99.6% of the threads in TD wouldn't even get started (I checked, there are ~1500 threads in TD, and from earlier in this thread, and my own count, there are at most ~20 - being very generous - that would meet this criterion. As an aside, I would also like to point out that ~1% of the TD threads are quite interesting, and would make great General Discussion threads).
There would still be one or two 'small challenges', e.g. what if it's a maverick maths or philosophy idea (scientific method does not apply as a criterion), but the biggest challenge is who would volunteer as maverick gatekeeper?
So the question seems to be coming down to whether on not PF should have a place, distinct from its 'mainstream' boards (e.g. Biology, General Physics), where maverick ideas can be discussed. By maverick, we mean outside the mainstream, but adhering to the scientific method - thus Andre's Venus idea, and SCC would be welcome (and maybe some 'plasma cosmologies', even 'expanding Earth', 'modern aether' ideas?),
Yes!
There would still be one or two 'small challenges', e.g. what if it's a maverick maths or philosophy idea (scientific method does not apply as a criterion), but the biggest challenge is who would volunteer as maverick gatekeeper?
There seems to be no problem at the moment in kicking obviously 'crackpot' ideas into TD - so by applying the two criteria above why should there be a problem kicking them from a 'maverick' to a 'crackpot' Forum?
Garth
There seems to be no problem at the moment in kicking obviously 'crackpot' ideas into TD - so by applying the two criteria above why should there be a problem kicking them from a 'maverick' to a 'crackpot' Forum?Hmm, seems to me the consensus is that TD is not welcome at PF, it takes too much of the moderators' time, and lowers PF's 'brand value'.
Let's try this Garth - if you were given the job of being the maverick gatekeeper (I'm not saying you should, or shouldn't, just doing a 'thought experiment'), how do you think you'd feel about it? After reviewing the 200th piece of nonsense (but written up really, really well, with beautifully formatted formulae in LaTeX, etc) ... the 2000th? At a rate of at least 10 a day?? Wouldn't you begin to tire? To wish that you had more time to do exciting and interesting things (like work on SCC, debate with Chronos and Nereid about ZPE and Dark Matter, ...)? Don't forget that not all nonsense comes nicely packaged in clear GR terms (what if the nonsense is about a field of physics that you're not so familiar with?)
Okay I give in - but I leave the suggestion as a thought just in case...
Garth
Thanks Nereid for the support. I'm afraid Venus is a bit "cold" :biggrin: at the moment and that may even be so literally, when its core is concerned.
So far negative results for publication volunteers So I "mavericked" another one here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=50130&page=2&pp=15).
If so, I may have ruined the objective of a few foundations finding that answer.
Moonbear
Nov27-04, 03:00 AM
So which Forum do you think is suitable for discussing theories such as "Self Creation Cosmology" or studies on "circadian rhythms. "?
Garth
I don't know what Self Creation Cosmology is about, so couldn't tell you if or where it fits, but circadian rhythms most definitely can be, and has been, discussed in the biology forum.
But, my overall argument, which may or may not be the opinion of anyone else here in case I haven't made that clear, is that recent peer-reviewed publications of theories that challenge more mainstream theories can and should be included within the forum that is most appropriate for it (perhaps in the forum in which the theory it is challenging is being discussed, or in the General Physics or General Discussion forums, though General Discussion may not get it the appropriate amount of respect and seriousness of answers). It doesn't make sense to toss threads on legitimate, though controversial, theories into a catch-all bin where they get lost within mounds of pseudoscience and crackpottery. It seems a reasonable cut-off point for deciding whether to leave something up for discussion or delete the thread would be if the theory is not published in a peer-reviewed publication, or if it is not published at all. With this criterion, sure, you'll kick out some legitimate new ideas that someone may be working on pre-publication (though we don't really get many of those), but you'll also have an easy litmus test to ditch people's pet theories (which may not be entirely crackpotish, but could just be weakly constructed) and crackpot posts.
Ultimately, I think we all must defer the decision to the admins and mentors. If this is a forum they don't want to babysit anymore, and that's what it sounds like the spend a lot of time doing there, and the admins don't think it contributes to what they envision as the mission of this site, then it's their decision to make.
Thank you Moonbear. Any discussion of SCC I shall post to the General Astronomy and Cosmology, or the Special and General Relativity Forums. Which is where I posted them in the first place!
Garth
Okay I give in - but I leave the suggestion as a thought just in case...
GarthBut Garth, I don't want you to 'give in' :cry: If what I write is nonsense, say so; if my ideas are off base - esp if there's empirical data to show I'm off base - go ahead and beat me to a pulp! If there's a way to make a 'maverick's board' work, spell it out. Anything that helps PF on it path to world conquest and domination is most welcome.
OTOH, if you feel that the practical difficulties of implementing (good) suggestions such as yours appear daunting, if not insurmountable, please acknowledge the merits of the case ... don't just 'give in'. :!!) :eek: :yuck:
Zapper's and CrankFan's posts (as well as the discussion on Galileo) have got me thinking ... where should I start a thread on the history of controversial ideas in science? For example, neutron stars today are part of standard astrophysics, but Eddington had such trouble with Chandrasekhar's work (and the latter such respect for the former) that Chandra dropped what he was doing on this for a long time (fortunately, Chandra didn't give up entirely, and Eddington was gracious - or smart? - enough to concede he'd been wrong).
For the avoidance of doubt, Chandrasekhar was most assuredly NOT a crackpot, and he had no difficulty 'doing' astrophysics; this example does NOT meet Zapper's challenge. Indeed, if any 'crackpot' could show just 1% of Chandrasekhar's facility with basic physics, my guess is that we'd all be astonished.
Zapper's and CrankFan's posts (as well as the discussion on Galileo) have got me thinking ... where should I start a thread on the history of controversial ideas in science? For example, neutron stars today are part of standard astrophysics, but Eddington had such trouble with Chandrasekhar's work (and the latter such respect for the former) that Chandra dropped what he was doing on this for a long time (fortunately, Chandra didn't give up entirely, and Eddington was gracious - or smart? - enough to concede he'd been wrong).
For the avoidance of doubt, Chandrasekhar was most assuredly NOT a crackpot, and he had no difficulty 'doing' astrophysics; this example does NOT meet Zapper's challenge. Indeed, if any 'crackpot' could show just 1% of Chandrasekhar's facility with basic physics, my guess is that we'd all be astonished.
Chandrasekhar also had his ideas published in several peer-reviewed journals, which also conform to my first "law", that being for any ideas or discovery to make any significant contribution to physics, it must first of all appear in a peer-reviewed journal.
It might be insightful if everyone reads the essay by Dan Koshland in the Nov. 25th issue of Nature titled "Crazy, but correct". He detailed his trials and tribulations in trying to introduce an idea that clearly contradicts the accepted understanding at that time. Pay attention to the kind of skepticism he encounted, and what he actually did (getting published in lesser-known journals, but getting published nevertheless). In fact, a quote from this essay deserves some space here:
The existence of multiple journals provides the final safeguard against too much conservatism and is the ultimate reason that science is more receptive to non-conformity than any other segment of our society.
If dubious report such as the Podkletnov effect, table-top fusion via sonoluminescence, and even Pons-Fleishman's cold fusion managed to appear in lesser-known peer-reviewed journal, there is zero excuse for anyone complaining that their ideas are being prevented from appearing in such journals due to our refusal to acknowledge "crazy" ideas. More likely, these ideas could not appear in such journals not because they are "crazy", but rather they hold no credibility. This is a painful realization to face for most crackpots, so it is a whole lot more reassuring to simply turn it around and accuse the "establishement's" inherent refusal to look at new ideas.
Zz.
Is this (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=395806&postcount=9) a crackpot post? If we apply Zapper's criterion (peer-reviewed publication), it seems it would be.
CrankFan
Dec8-04, 12:13 AM
Zapper's and CrankFan's posts (as well as the discussion on Galileo) have got me thinking ...
Apologies if I've caused any serious alarm. I'm for the most part indifferent about where, how, what and why people post. I'm about 50% student and learner and 50% crank-troll, but I do enjoy and support PF. It's a wonderful website.
I don't have many standards of decency, being a Crank Fan and all, but I thought it was reasonable to ask the question that I asked since the poster I was responding to suggested that crackpots frequently contribute to the intellectual enterprise. It seems like some people may have felt that I consider any controversial yet not-obviously-wrong claim to be crackpot; not so.
Regarding your latest question IMO I don't think individual posts are crackpot, I think characters become crackpot when they repeatedly deny or ignore known results. Anyone can make a mistake, but will they learn from it when presented with many correct arguments to the contrary ?
For example, this guy was a crackpot! http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=31836
Is this (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=395806&postcount=9) a crackpot post? If we apply Zapper's criterion (peer-reviewed publication), it seems it would be.
Although turbo-1 provides no mathematical discussion for 'ZPE Field Polarization', nevertheless the fact that he suggests new experiments merits consideration. If these were to be carried out and found to yield non-GR results then that would be something and should result in new physics. The new theory so obtained may then of course not be 'ZPE Field Polarization' but may well have some relationship to it.
I would have thought that in this example there ought to be a Forum (not TD) to discuss it. So how about such a Forum? One for non-orthodox theories and ideas that can be described as 'reasonable' physics either because they have already been published in peer-reviewed journals (arXiv hardly counts), or because they propose reasonable new experiments?
BTW Nereid I would never - go ahead and beat me to a pulp! o:) and I haven't given up!
Garth
Lama was one of Doron Shadmi's incarnations, if you look at any internet bulletin board with a science or maths section the chances are you will find Doron.
Although turbo-1 provides no mathematical discussion for 'ZPE Field Polarization', nevertheless the fact that he suggests new experiments merits consideration. If these were to be carried out and found to yield non-GR results then that would be something and should result in new physics. The new theory so obtained may then of course not be 'ZPE Field Polarization' but may well have some relationship to it.
Do you not see any difference between suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting? Do you honestly not see any difference here?
If I were refereeing this type of "suggestions", I'd throw it out immediately. It makes ZERO citations to base any of the theoretical claims made. But more importantly, it makes ZERO quantitative predictions, either in terms of the "trend" of a set of data, or even orders-of-magnitude quantities. Hand-waving predictions are NOT considered to be valid suggestions for "new experiments". If I make my statements vague enough, I can claim validity with anything!
I'm sorry, but after all this, I still am not terribly impressed by every one of these so-called possibly legitimate "new theories". If these are the best of the examples for why we should continue to have a TD-like forum for such things, then I feel no loss (to me personally and to physics in general) in not having any of them at all.
Zz.
Do you not see any difference between suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting? Do you honestly not see any difference here?
If I were refereeing this type of "suggestions", I'd throw it out immediately. It makes ZERO citations to base any of the theoretical claims made. But more importantly, it makes ZERO quantitative predictions, either in terms of the "trend" of a set of data, or even orders-of-magnitude quantities. Hand-waving predictions are NOT considered to be valid suggestions for "new experiments". If I make my statements vague enough, I can claim validity with anything!
Zz: Of course there is a substantial difference between the "suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting" However at this point we are not in a peer-reviewed journal and as it is important to test standard theories in new ways, it would be good to discuss such ideas to see whether they can be brought up to a required standard or whether they fall by the wayside. I would have thought a physics coffee lounge, or failing that these Forums, would make a good place for that discussion and criticism to take place.
I'm sorry, but after all this, I still am not terribly impressed by every one of these so-called possibly legitimate "new theories". If these are the best of the examples for why we should continue to have a TD-like forum for such things, then I feel no loss (to me personally and to physics in general) in not having any of them at all.
Zz. As well as keeping an open mind towards other heterodox theories such as MOND, have you considered a theory that does appear in peer reviewed journals (Gen Relativ Gravit. and Astrophysics and Space Science), that has 46 other author citations in peer reviewed journals, that does make precise predictions, both in the standard tests where it is concordant with observation and that also makes future predictions, one of which is being tested at the moment by GPB, Self Creation Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094)?
I really would appreciate your sharp criticisms.
Garth
Zz: Of course there is a substantial difference between the "suggestions of new experiments being done legitimately in peer-reviewed journals, and the one made in that posting" However at this point we are not in a peer-reviewed journal and as it is important to test standard theories in new ways, it would be good to discuss such ideas to see whether they can be brought up to a required standard or whether they fall by the wayside. I would have thought a physics coffee lounge, or failing that these Forums, would make a good place for that discussion and criticism to take place.
There is value in "physics coffee lounge" discussion, but this one isn't it. There has to be some sort of back-of-the-envelope type calculations to at the very least come up with what I have already mentioned: order-of-magnitude estimation. That discussion you cited offered NONE. One cannot even BEGIN to design an experiment because there are NO experiment that has an infinite range of detection. Without even knowing where to look and when to look, no experiment is possible to be designed, so forget even to know what to look.
I don't expect peer-reviewed typed caliber, but I thought we have a higher standard than those found on Crank Dot Net.
As well as keeping an open mind towards other heterodox theories such as MOND, have you considered a theory that does appear in peer reviewed journals (Gen Relativ Gravit. and Astrophysics and Space Science), that has 46 other author citations in peer reviewed journals, that does make precise predictions, both in the standard tests where it is concordant with observation and that also makes future predictions, one of which is being tested at the moment by GPB, Self Creation Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405094)?
I really would appreciate your sharp criticisms.
Garth
Is there a reason you are obsessed with promoting this? I mean, at every turn, without fail, you try to push this into the discussion.
If I offer to make a critical review of this paper, you should stop paying any credibility to what I say. This is because, anyone who has followed anything I have to say would know that this isn't my area of expertise. Unlike other quacks, even though I am trained as a physicist, I would never want to claim anything other than a superficial knowledge of this area of physics. You want someone who is an expert in this field. I suggest contacting them.
Zz.
loseyourname
Dec8-04, 09:36 PM
To be honest, I think more regulation needs to performed. There should probably be additional mentors. The politics and philosophy forums are particularly bad. They are maintained at a standard well below that of the rest of the site, simply because the volume of bad posts is such that it is impossible for the existing mentors to adequately restrain. I am very glad for the measures taken thus far to ensure a better quality of post and poster, but I'd like to see more.
Les Sleeth
Dec8-04, 10:20 PM
To be honest, I think more regulation needs to performed. There should probably be additional mentors. The politics and philosophy forums are particularly bad. They are maintained at a standard well below that of the rest of the site, simply because the volume of bad posts is such that it is impossible for the existing mentors to adequately restrain. I am very glad for the measures taken thus far to ensure a better quality of post and poster, but I'd like to see more.
Maybe you could get Greg to replace one of the Mentors with you, or sign you on as a philosophy consultant.
loseyourname
Dec8-04, 11:48 PM
Maybe you could get Greg to replace one of the Mentors with you, or sign you on as a philosophy consultant.
I doubt my knowledge of philosophy is enough to qualify me as a consultant, but I'd be more than glad to help with the cleanup. The consistent argumentation (as opposed to debate or discussion) shown by so many posters bothers me to no end.
Is there a reason you are obsessed with promoting this? I mean, at every turn, without fail, you try to push this into the discussion.
Zz.
Zz I brought SCC in here because it fulfills your stated criteria of a subject to be discussed in a suitable Forum, which is on topic for this thread. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be such a Forum in PF.
Thank you for declaring the limits of your expertise, there are other members of PF who are qualified to sharply criticise cosmological theory and I would value their criticisms. Nevertheless given your criticism above of turbo-1's suggested experiments I would also value a similar discussion with you on the three definitive experiments suggested by SCC.
Garth
Zz I brought SCC in here because it fulfills your stated criteria of a subject to be discussed in a suitable Forum, which is on topic for this thread. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be such a Forum in PF.
Look, the Podkletnov effect also appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (Physica B, and I think it was in 1994 or something). However, other than a discussion of what has been accomplished, and NOT accomplished so far, I would consider any extension to the "theoretical aspect" of this dubious "discovery" as quackery. Why? Because even after years and years of trying to duplicate the effect, and million and millions of dollars being spent (both by NASA and other private institutions), we get ZILCH! Therefore, the original premise that the effect is real has NOT, and so far cannot, be established. In fact, may physicists have publically discounted such effect. This means that any theoretical proposal being brought up is essentially a theory of non-existing phenomenon!
Thus, someone who comes in here, wanting to discuss a theory of the Podkletnov effect can also claim "Look, it appeared in a peer-reviewed journal!" However, it doesn't mean it is still a valid idea or discovery. My first law in requiring that it must first appear in a peer-reviewed journal is the necessary but not sufficient criteria. Before one can even be a candidate to be valid, it MUST first appear in a peer-reviewed journal, or else it is not worth the time to even be looked at. Period!
What you haven't done, or at least I haven't noticed, is show evidence that this thing that you are pushing is actually being taken seriously by the experts in the field. Are the proponents of such ideas being invited to various places and conferences to present them? Are they continually publishing such ideas in respected journals? etc.. etc. I can easily show you that those people who believed in the Podkletnov effect are NOT being invited anywhere to sell their stuff (refer to the upcoming APS March Meeting 2005 abstract listing). In other words, what possible reason is this thing worth considering here, of all places, if it is dead in the water elsewhere?
Thank you for declaring the limits of your expertise, there are other members of PF who are qualified to sharply criticise cosmological theory and I would value their criticisms. Nevertheless given your criticism above of turbo-1's suggested experiments I would also value a similar discussion with you on the three definitive experiments suggested by SCC.
Garth
I wouldn't know.
Zz.
Moonbear
Dec9-04, 11:31 AM
Thank you for declaring the limits of your expertise, there are other members of PF who are qualified to sharply criticise cosmological theory and I would value their criticisms. Nevertheless given your criticism above of turbo-1's suggested experiments I would also value a similar discussion with you on the three definitive experiments suggested by SCC.
If the subject relates to cosmological theory, why would it not fit within the astronomy and cosmology forum? Again, I don't know the science behind SCC, but if it's something credible, then it seems there is an existing forum to discuss it.
I have to agree with ZapperZ regarding publication in peer-reviewed journals being a minimum criteria. I know in my own field, things get published that are just plain wrong, and quickly get buried in dusty, bound volumes of journals. When you read old literature, or even current literature, you have to ask two questions to judge its merit: 1) Was it the best they could do with technology available at the time it was published? 2) Is it still consistent with the best we can do now giving the technology currently available? Often you can find examples that fit criterion #1, and were worthy of publication in their time, but do not fit criterion #2, and have been dismissed and disproven since then. To develop a new theory based on literature that only fits criterion #1 and not #2 would lead to that theory immediately being dismissed.
I can give you an interesting example: I reviewed a manuscript some time ago that had a title stating something was true that was never directly tested, and I happened to have sitting on my desk at the time data that completely disproved the idea. There were other major flaws in the paper, in my opinion, so I recommened rejection of the paper with comments such as that the conclusions don't follow from the data. A few months later, I was doing a lit search and came upon the paper, published in a lesser known journal, one that is somewhat known in the field as a last resort journal...maybe one paper every few issues presents something that's interesting and just didn't cleanly fit with the topics included in better known journals, but generally, it's a crappy journal. They had changed very little from the version I saw. I have not published the contradictory evidence, though have presented it at conferences (it would be premature for me to publish it because it's part of a much larger study that will all be bundled together into one paper if I can overcome some significant technical issues that have stalled going further with this work for now). So, there is stuff in the peer-reviewed literature that is wrong if you trust the conclusions of the authors, which means it is not a guarantee that just because something is published, it isn't wrong. Bad science does slip through the cracks, especially when people continue to resubmit to various journals until the luck of the draw gives them a set of reviewers who are not sufficiently experts on a topic to find the major flaws.
Moonbear & Zz - thank you for your comments. I understand, I had thought that such controversy could have been aired in a thread dedicated to that purpose on PF.
Garth
Well, now that we've moved on from the (broad?) consensus on 'crackpots', we're now into serious (?) discussion of 'fringe' work ('maverick' as Garth put it).
If I hadn't been out for ~ 4 weeks, I'd've likely missed this ... it seems that PF is moving at a pretty astonishing speed!
From my own POV, the last few posts in this thread are beginning to get to 'what is science?', its myths and the realities ... things that were explored by Popper (a philosopher, not a scientist ... apparently he didn't look very closely at what scientists actually do!), Kuhn (he of 'paradigm' fame), Lakatos (my favourite - there's a totally delightful book he wrote on maths), and Feyerabend (rather too wild for my taste).
But, in the spirit of science (hi Crank Fan!), I humbly submit that we here at PF do have a modest source of moderately good data which we can use to test our ideas .... the ~1400 TD threads!
On an interesting note sometimes refutations do work!
Here's a reply from a currnet thread in general physics where poster has had the problems with his idea explained:
hey, yeah, srry bout that, and yes, you are correct, I have very little training in physics, just a few books and such, so srry bout that.
I didn't get to vote in the poll, but I probably would have voted "A site like this needs a TD section. "
I definitely see the downsides of having the section, as it wastes unnecessary resources, but sometimes the posts were amusing. In rare cases, people who responded to those posts taught the posters a lesson and they learned the real scientific theory behind their crackpot posts.
ZapperZ
Dec15-04, 06:34 AM
I didn't get to vote in the poll, but I probably would have voted "A site like this needs a TD section. "
I definitely see the downsides of having the section, as it wastes unnecessary resources, but sometimes the posts were amusing. In rare cases, people who responded to those posts taught the posters a lesson and they learned the real scientific theory behind their crackpot posts.
Those "rare" cases are not worth the wasted unnecessary resources.
Zz.
Tom Mattson
Dec15-04, 08:11 AM
Yes, and the resources include human resources. During the worst of it (in PF's earlier days, when there weren't so many science gurus around) I spent most of my time in TD out of a sense of duty. I got sick of it and almost left for good. The one or two good ideas that may come out of TD aren't worth the headaches. And anyway if the ideas are really that good, then they can be posted in the regular scientific forums.
russ_watters
Dec15-04, 08:36 AM
In rare cases, people who responded to those posts taught the posters a lesson and they learned the real scientific theory behind their crackpot posts. More than that, it provides the opportunity for others to learn from the crackpot's mistakes. Yes, we are aware of that benefit in TD (we debated it for some time), but decided that it wasn't worth the effort.
Thanks for your feedback.
loseyourname
Dec15-04, 07:35 PM
More than that, it provides the opportunity for others to learn from the crackpot's mistakes. Yes, we are aware of that benefit in TD (we debated it for some time), but decided that it wasn't worth the effort.
Thanks for your feedback.
Actually, that advantage of the TD forum remains so long as the threads are archived. Just about mistake that a crackpot can make has been made in one thread or another and anyone who wishes to learn from these mistakes can peruse and absorb.
Chronos
Dec17-04, 02:18 AM
Actually, that advantage of the TD forum remains so long as the threads are archived. Just about mistake that a crackpot can make has been made in one thread or another and anyone who wishes to learn from these mistakes can peruse and absorb.Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.
Gokul43201
Dec20-04, 01:18 PM
Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.
Brilliant !! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Moonbear
Dec20-04, 02:33 PM
Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.
Wow! Somewhat like a public stoning. I hear those used to be very popular events; the whole town would show up for them! :eek:
arildno
Dec20-04, 02:42 PM
Wow! Somewhat like a public stoning. I hear those used to be very popular events; the whole town would show up for them! :eek:
Yep, these were family events.
After all, kids should learn at an early age that crime&nonsense don't pay off!
Terry Giblin
Dec22-04, 03:59 PM
Interesting. Perhaps PF could sponsor a 'crackpot' night event.. say once a week or once a month. I think that would be a lot of fun. Quarantine the controversial posts, sift and sort out the dumb/repetitive ones, then let the fur fly and close the dang thing after a few hours.
"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman
How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?
Stone me.......or bring me to my senses, if you can.
I have spoken, meet and corresponded to some of greatest minds in physics, every agrees the theory is correct, but they will not express an option of whether my interpretation is a valid solution to the DSE, or not.
Regards
Terry Giblin
zeronem
Dec23-04, 12:40 AM
You guys, I just want you to know I got a kick out of reading this thread!! There were some hilarious comments.
Well, Ide like to say that if crackpots are posting their ideas in areas of the Physicsforums they shouldn't be posting at, then why not keep TD for a trashcan of Crackpot ideas? Then slap an advisory for everyone about the TD board. I looked into TD long while back and really it was horrifying. Im still a student and to see crackpot ideas in TD just kills me. I first thought that TD was a place for serious researchers, whereas I could gain an insight on unflawed scientific methodical use of ideal theory development. I should of known that wasn't the case. I kind of doubt researchers would post there work in TD anyways. The existance of crackpots came clear quickly after looking in TD. As a student I was unaware of the existance of the term crackpot untill I simply found the TheoryDevelopment board of the Physicsforums.
If you completely erradicate TD, the crackpots are simply going to post in legitimate boards of PF. This will lead to banning, then will lead for that banned person to create another account. Leave the TD board and screw the crackpots. Just leave them be in there own little flawed universe in the TD trashcan of crackpot ideas. Maintain the integrity of Science in your legitimate boards. Do not Maintain the integrity of Science in TD for it is a hassle and exhausting. Unless you have fun breaking those crackpot ideas into pieces.
I would like for the erradication of TD, however we can assume those crackpots who love posting those crackpot ideas will post their crackpot ideas in a board of the Physicsforums that isn't for crackpot theories. Simply this, if a crackpot believes he has found a way to teleport using a banana, let him believe this and go on to educating those on the works of Bell's Theorem and Quantum Teleportation in the Quantum Mechanics board. The crackpot will soon find that, his ideas are worthless and flawed to begin with. If they dont, wait until they go to college to see if they can make that "A" in a University Physics course. Or if there not in College and out of High School, either tell them to get a life or go to College and seek help from a professor. Or last alternative, tell them to start buying books and do lots of reading, which many of them will not do.
I end my post with this statement. If most of those crackpot ideas in TD were true, we would be colonizing mars or colonizing other habitable planets of distant stars right now. Or the main transportation today would be teleportation. Crackpots tend come up with there crackpot ideas because it is easy for them to do so. That is why there are so many crackpot ideas. In reality, Serious theory development with the scientific method applied is much more difficult.
I think that perhaps a less eupheminstic title for 'Theory Development' would make a more clear signpost as to the actual contents of the forum. Something like 'Crackpot's Corner' perhaps? :)
ZapperZ
Dec30-04, 05:46 AM
"The basic element of quantum theory is the double-slit experiment. It is a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain in any classical way and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality it contains the only mystery ... the basic peculiarities of all quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman
How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?
Stone me.......or bring me to my senses, if you can.
I have spoken, meet and corresponded to some of greatest minds in physics, every agrees the theory is correct, but they will not express an option of whether my interpretation is a valid solution to the DSE, or not.
Regards
Terry Giblin
You have a very delusional idea on how an idea in physics gets evaluated for any kind of validity. Do you honestly think that "spoken, meet, and corresponded" qualify as a valid process for your idea to be (i) taken seriously and (ii) to be considered and evaluated seriously? SERIOUSLY?!
Send your idea in to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot get it to be accepted in a lower-tiered journal (forget Nature, Science, and PRL), then I strongly suggest you stop whinning the fact that no one will take you up seriously, especially when you think physics can be done (or impressed upon) simply by knowing what to quote.
And oh, before you go off on the deep end about these so-called "quantum well", I also suggest you look up the effects of various types of quantum wells in nanostructures such as quantum wires and see for yourself how much of a difference you get between that, and the double-slit pattern! Maybe you asked the wrong "greatest mind", or maybe they just didn't understand what you were spewing considering, based on your postings on PF, you are apt to mix-and-match terms in physics into something that make no sense.
If you want to be taken seriously, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, look in the mirror - that's where the problem lies.
Zz.
Gokul43201
Jan9-05, 07:02 PM
How many quantum wells can I place between the electron gun and the double slits, in the DSE, without affecting to outcome of the expertment?
Pray, tell me how you plan to place quantum wells in your electron path. What are your wells made of ?
Terry Giblin
Jan11-05, 07:46 AM
I accept my methods of announcing my finds could be improved, but what do I do.
As far as I am concerned I solved the DSE by drawing a single line, between the electron gun and the double slits, calling the line a quantum well and using accept QM. - I was therefore able to eliminate the only unknown in the experiment, ie the electron and hence proving Bohr was correct, nothing exists until it is observed as an electron or photon, the rest of the time its a quantum electron.
For example what would happen if,
We used a positron gun instead? - This would not change the outcome of the experiment, from electrons to humans the physics is the same.
We used an electron and positron gun at the same time, pointing in the same direction and then in opposite directions, in the same time phase and out of phase.
Positron interference pattern, double slit, electron gun, multiple quantum wells, positron gun, double slit, electron interference pattern!!!!!!
Attack my physics not my method of getting my message across, its a very simple message, which everyone who has ever studied QM should agree with, its the interpretation which is important.
Regards
Terry Giblin
What is a quantum well? - I don't exactly know but lets assume its a wall or a lift door they all work just as well we just have to be patient and wait, according to probability and QM, eventually an electron will appear.
You have a very delusional idea on how an idea in physics gets evaluated for any kind of validity. Do you honestly think that "spoken, meet, and corresponded" qualify as a valid process for your idea to be (i) taken seriously and (ii) to be considered and evaluated seriously? SERIOUSLY?!
Send your idea in to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. If you cannot get it to be accepted in a lower-tiered journal (forget Nature, Science, and PRL), then I strongly suggest you stop whinning the fact that no one will take you up seriously, especially when you think physics can be done (or impressed upon) simply by knowing what to quote.
And oh, before you go off on the deep end about these so-called "quantum well", I also suggest you look up the effects of various types of quantum wells in nanostructures such as quantum wires and see for yourself how much of a difference you get between that, and the double-slit pattern! Maybe you asked the wrong "greatest mind", or maybe they just didn't understand what you were spewing considering, based on your postings on PF, you are apt to mix-and-match terms in physics into something that make no sense.
If you want to be taken seriously, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, look in the mirror - that's where the problem lies.
Zz.
Terry,
No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post makes that quite clear. This is also not the appropriate place to debate with Zz. Nor is this the appropriate site to espouse your tenuous "theory."
- Warren
Gokul43201
Jan11-05, 08:51 PM
Terry,
No offense, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Your last post makes that quite clear. This is also not the appropriate place to debate with Zz. Nor is this the appropriate site to espouse your tenuous "theory."
- Warren
So I can't respond to " As far as I am concerned I solved the DSE by drawing a single line, between the electron gun and the double slits, calling the line a quantum well" ? :grumpy:
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.