:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
A friend and I went through the list and concluded that String Theory scored a 75.
I love the physics without math claims. Isn' t that a bit like cooking without food?
Have you seen that UPS uses this gag with the guy who is going to transport packages through a wormhole...if he can just work out the whole space-time continuum thing... :rofl:
Whether it is crackpot, only depends on personal views. Maybe there is people appreciate to it the possibility. But I admit it is not a constructive thing for doing.
ZapperZ had that thread on a pretty long time ago when he was..er.. grinding down some pots.
Have to admit I wrote "Feynmann" or something similar once. Hope that doesn't make me a crackpot? :tongue2:
In fact where do you think the limit for being a "crackpot" goes? At 0?
No, what defines a crackpot more than anything else is the method by which they investigate science. Tied in with that is the investigation of subject matter that is generally accepted by scientists to be bogus. The things in "The Crackpot Index" are a refletion of that method.
A good complement to John Baez's page is Warren Siegel's page
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html (you also might enjoy the linked pages, at the bottom).
There's also Edwin Taylor's article
Separate names with a comma.