Do you like the new crackpot policy?

[arildno]

The hydra DOES pay PF, or what?

 

[Chi Meson]

I got to 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.

 

[enigma]

The hydra DOES pay PF, or what?

Oh yes. Otherwise it'd never have been placed there in the first place.

 

[arildno]

Nice hydra!
(But, I wouldn't come too close to it, all the same..)

 

[anti_crank]

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]

My hat's off. Wait, I'll go get a hat so I can take it off...





OK, my hat's off!

 

[Nereid]

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

 

[jcsd]

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]

Who can cast the first stone?

"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

 

[Garth]

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

 

[chroot]

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

 

[quantumdude]

I found http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html a fascinating insight into The Crackpot Problem.

 

[Garth]

And of course this one:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Garth

 

[russ_watters]

I found 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]

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?

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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 ideas 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 completely, and delete the archives!

 

[Chronos]

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]

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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[enigma]

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?

 

[marlon]

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]

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[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 traveling 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

 

[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

 

[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

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

 

[marlon]

But i was primarily referring to GOD in a religious way...
marlon

 

[pelastration]

Time traveling 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 traveling means) please go and ask advise of your doctor.

 

[marlon]

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 traveling 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