Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[pelastration]

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.

 

[marlon]

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 want to 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

 

[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 going to 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

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Zeteg]

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 let's 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]

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 let's 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?

 

[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

amen to that...

marlon

 

[CrankFan]

If someone gets cranky in this thread is he a metacrank?

 

[Andre]

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 https://www.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, 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.

 

[chroot]

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]

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.

 

[Andre]

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]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.

 

[elas]

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]

Will I Dream? - SAL 9000

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]

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?

 

[Garth]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Garth]

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]

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.

 

[Garth]

Quite - but at the time was not the "scientific method" itself a little crackpot?

The clear 20-20 vision of hindsight!

GArth

 

[Terry Giblin]

I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute

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 realized 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]

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 realized 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.

 

[Garth]

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]

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]

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, 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 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]

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]

I know that comment refers to Metacristi's comments, and don't want to start a new debate, 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 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.