Most Absurd TD Claim: Electric Singing & Dance Theory

[Chi Meson]

Most absurd "TD" claim

A Parody of SOME TD threads.

for example (this is all made up)

Hi,

I have very little training in physics. Mostly I’m self-taught, but I have figured out the true way that light is emitted from light bulbs. You see it has nothing to do with electrons or electric energy. In my theory, the light is a manifestation of the energy force contained by the power of something I call quasi-particles which lie in conjunction with their equally charged counter quasi-particles. When these quasi-particles are induced into a “dance” by the impetus of “electric singing” which is induced by the chemical interactions that happen in a battery. There is no solid evidence that any electric charge actually flows through a light bulb when it is glowing. If anyone wishes to refute this, go ahead and I will refine my theory to show you how you are wrong. Anyone can see it is obvious that the electric song and dance theory will explain every electric phenomenon. Please don’t use any math in your arguments.

 

[jimmy p]

what does TD mean?

 

[The_Professional]

Theory Development

 

[jimmy p]

that's a pretty wacky theory. If he changed quasi-particles to miniature chickens he may have had something...

 

[Chi Meson]

I might have to apologize for this, although I was not referring to anyone in particular. I have finally sworn off even looking into the TD sub-forum because 3/4 of all posts basically look like the fake one I posted above. It was something that I had to get out, then it became enjoyably funny. It seems that many people assume that Physics is a democratic process, where any "speculation" counts as a theory and is just as valid as any other theory. It's is amazing that some poeple have, by merely staring at their toenails for long enough, have trumped the cumulative study and research of all physicist since Galileo.

Anyhow, it was fun if not funny. Give it a shot. How absurd can you get?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Lets see, quasi-particles and the counter quasi-particles get together and start dancing and singing and then there's a big light show...I wonder if the Blue's Brothers are aware of their competition.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's is amazing that some poeple have, by merely staring at their toenails for long enough, have trumped the cumulative study and research of all physicist since Galileo.

After reading Newton's Principia:

" at once came to the conclusion that Newton could have dispensed is knowledge in a much wider field had he known less about figures. It gave me a distaste for mathematics from which I have never recovered."

-T.A. Edison

 

[Chi Meson]

After reading Newton's Principia:

" at once came to the conclusion that Newton could have dispensed is knowledge in a much wider field had he known less about figures. It gave me a distaste for mathematics from which I have never recovered."

-T.A. Edison

"Edison is a jerk."

-N. Tesla

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Edison is a jerk."

-N. Tesla

Yes, anyone setting out to defend Edison's character would have a long, uphill slog in front of them.

 

[Nereid]

A Parody of SOME TD threads.

Hi,

I have very little training in physics. Mostly I’m self-taught, but I have figured out the true way that light is emitted from light bulbs. You see it has nothing to do with electrons or electric energy. In my theory, the light is a manifestation of the energy force contained by the power of something I call quasi-particles which lie in conjunction with their equally charged counter quasi-particles. When these quasi-particles are induced into a “dance” by the impetus of “electric singing” which is induced by the chemical interactions that happen in a battery. There is no solid evidence that any electric charge actually flows through a light bulb when it is glowing. If anyone wishes to refute this, go ahead and I will refine my theory to show you how you are wrong. Anyone can see it is obvious that the electric song and dance theory will explain every electric phenomenon. Please don’t use any math in your arguments.

for example (this is all made up)

Can't possibly be a real TD post, too few spelling, grammar, punctuation mistakes.

 

[Chi Meson]

Another mistake! Also notice that the "poster" said nothing about how stupid Einstein was.

 

[Lonewolf]

It's not quite unreadable enough either. You need to add another 4 paragraphs without whitespace...

 

[Artman]

"1st ofall, einstein was totally rong. I invented a motor that I'm plan to build when I got the money. it uses magnets and static electricity and will power my entire trailer. the magnets aer aimed so that their negative poles pull toward a piece of metal and then then pass the metal and pull towrd the next piece of metal. I know that the metal will attract the magnets so I have to make it so it doesn't so i use the static electricity to make the metal repell the magnets by reverseing the polarity of the armature by a process thta i have develpoed that i can't tell you about because i want to paton it. can you tell me anything that are reasons why it won't work? I won't really listen because it will work because i have thought about it long and hard for about half an hour now and i can't think of any reason why it won't work. I don't know how to do the math so if anyone could help me with the equations that would be grate."

another made up post.

 

[megashawn]

In the beginning there was the word...

Wait, that ones been done before

:)

 

[Chi Meson]

"1st ofall, einstein was totally rong. I invented a motor that I'm plan to build when I got the money. it uses magnets and static electricity and will power my entire trailer. the magnets aer aimed so that their negative poles pull toward a piece of metal and then then pass the metal and pull towrd the next piece of metal. I know that the metal will attract the magnets so I have to make it so it doesn't so i use the static electricity to make the metal repell the magnets by reverseing the polarity of the armature by a process thta i have develpoed that i can't tell you about because i want to paton it. can you tell me anything that are reasons why it won't work? I won't really listen because it will work because i have thought about it long and hard for about half an hour now and i can't think of any reason why it won't work. I don't know how to do the math so if anyone could help me with the equations that would be grate."

another made up post.

I am not worthy.

 

[Artman]

I am not worthy.

Aww, I loved yours; it has dancing, singing quasi particles in it.

 

[Nereid]

Yes Chi's did have a certain poetry to it, or some nice images that might help the reader remember the paradigm-breaking idea. But, as Lonewolf said (could apply to Artman's too), it's far too short.

BTW, didn't some physicist write a spoof of a sociology paper a few years ago, and actually got it published? Seems I recall a nice story that a (female) sociologist - one of the very few to have smelled a rat, so to speak - challenged the paper, the physicist liked her response, and, well, they ended up getting married. Probably not a grain of truth, but it's a nice story, don't you think?

 

[arildno]

Yes Chi's did have a certain poetry to it, or some nice images that might help the reader remember the paradigm-breaking idea. But, as Lonewolf said (could apply to Artman's too), it's far too short.

BTW, didn't some physicist write a spoof of a sociology paper a few years ago, and actually got it published? Seems I recall a nice story that a (female) sociologist - one of the very few to have smelled a rat, so to speak - challenged the paper, the physicist liked her response, and, well, they ended up getting married. Probably not a grain of truth, but it's a nice story, don't you think?

The story is definitely true, the physicist is Alan Sokal.
(I think the bogus paper was called "Towards a new hermeneutics of quantum gravity")

His wife is, however, an anthropologist, not a sociologist (I think..)

 

[arildno]

Here's the link to Alan Sokal's homepage:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal