Debunking Crackpot Theories on Special and General Relativity | calphysics.org

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter blumfeld0
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the legitimacy and validity of theories presented by authors associated with calphysics.org, particularly in relation to special and general relativity. Participants explore the nature of speculative research and its reception within the scientific community, questioning the boundaries between credible research and crackpot theories.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express uncertainty about the legitimacy of the theories presented on calphysics.org, questioning whether they are mathematically sound.
  • Others argue that the research is speculative but may still be considered legitimate as it attempts to push beyond established theories.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the lack of experimental support for the theories proposed by Haisch, Puthoff, and Rueda, despite their publication in peer-reviewed journals.
  • One participant highlights the potential bias in labeling researchers as either 'cranks' or 'legit,' suggesting that such binary classifications may overlook the complexity of individual contributions.
  • A question is posed regarding how the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis relates to established measurements from Gravity Probe B, indicating a desire for deeper technical engagement with the theories.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about Puthoff's credibility, referencing his involvement in paranormal research as a point of concern.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the legitimacy of the theories discussed. There are competing views on whether the research is credible or speculative, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the classification of the authors and their work.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the speculative nature of the research and its reception in the scientific community, highlighting the absence of experimental validation and the challenges in categorizing researchers based on limited information.

blumfeld0
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
hi. have you ever known that someone's ideas or theories were wrong but have a hard time figuring out exactly what was wrong with them? I've run across a lot of bad sites about special relativity and General relativity. it was usually pretty obvious when there were crackpots writing them.
well I've come across, http://www.calphysics.org
specifically, http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

i have absolutely no idea what they are talking about? are these people legit?
can someone just glance at this article and can make out what they are trying to do, but more importantly, does their idea work, mathematically, at least?

thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see anything to wrong about it. It is speculative research that goes beyond established canon, but that's the point of research. As far as I can see they seem 'legit' if you want to phrase it in such terms.
 
They aren't crackpots for sure, but some way off the beaten track. It will be interesting to see what the PF heavyweights think.
 
The good news: Haisch, Puthoff, and Rueda have actually been published in respected peer reviewed journals, including Phs. Rev. A.

The bad news: their theories don't have much (if anything) in the way of experimental support, nor are they particularly well received by the mainstream.
 
Thanks, Pervect. I should have recognised Puthoff, apparently he was involved in paranormal research, which is enough to put me off.
 
How does their quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis explain the geodetic and frame dragging precessions being measured by Gravity Probe B?

Garth
 
Puthoff is a quack. Search his name on Randi.org. Anything connected to Puthoff is almost certainly quackery.
 
Is everyone either a qauck/crank or legit? Is it a simple binary classification? I think this is a false dichotomy.

For example, without intending any offense, I'm sure there are folk over at http://www.cosmocoffee.info" that would assume on the basis on Garth's posts that he is a crank. This would be an unreasonable assumption, but one that may be made if we want to divide everyone into cranks or 'legit' researchers on the basis of a few opinions about mainstream models.

In this case under discussion, this research is clearly very speculative but if they are channeling it through journals rather than merely promoting it on the web then it must conform to a reasonable standard in the process, even if it turns out to be wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate Generalize Special Relativity for Flat Spacetime
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Dirac's derivation of the action/Lagrangian for a free particle
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Relativity: the Special and General theories
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Why Does Special Relativity Not Contradict General Philosophy?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Does the metric in general relativity depend only on position because of the equivalence principle?
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Undergrad Does string theory falsify the theory of special relativity?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad A problem in the equations for Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad GR as Gauge Theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Alternative theories to General Relativity
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Graduate "TImescape" models
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K