Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The most detailed and thorough ether-type crank theory I've seen

  1. May 27, 2004 #1
    the most detailed and thorough ether-type "crank" theory I've seen

    although I adore both naive and reasoned scientific [or philisophical] rebellion and creativity- I don't really buy these ether/plasma crackpot-esque cosmology type theories [ I think there is a lot of straw-men and incompatible ideas- like the whole background dependence issue is blown out of proportion] but this "Sorce" theory is really turning out to be something different- not different as in more real/true- but as in more creative/rigorous/detailed and even ELEGANT- like a detailed fictional physics for a scifi epic [like Greg Egan] or ancient religious cosmologies- I'm a cog-sci/AI man so I appreciate the beauty of an idea more than it's validity-

    I guess in the past one of the main fans of Sorce Theory came to these forums to try to pick a fight with too little mathematical knowledge and too much aggresiveness- and he was of course ignored [I have argued with him as well on another forum ]- but since his banishment he has been transcribing the Sorce Inventor's books online-the author of the theory seems to be a VERY imaginative and bright fellow- and now there are two books with close to a thousand pages of his beautiful/strange/unique concept of matter- the author's grasp of the subject seems quite profound- and his arguments are quite illuminating/challenging/neato- his mathematical conjectures are too advanced for even math-saavy non-physicists like me to really evaluate/de-bunk- and wait till you see all of his new terms- it reads like another language in places![ just skim past the overblown attacks agains the physics establishment ]


    so I'm just curious what trained physicists think of this huge work- and what are the primary mathematical errors/ misrepresentations/ etc? "reality" and scientific conspiracy accusations aside- what do you think of his creativity and his cool gedankenexperiements?

    here are the two books published so far:

    http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Books/TheOrb/TheOrb_1.1.pdf

    http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Books/W2/W2_1.0.pdf

    that is A LOT of stuff! so what do you is the good- the bad- and the "fugly" here :biggrin:

    ALSO: do any of you know of any other crankish/fringe theories with this much detailed text/math? if so please post a link- I'm always looking for new and unique creations of singular/genius/insane minds

    ___________________________

    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories

    http://setai-transmedia.com
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2004 #2

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I haven't read this stuff, but one of the things I have noticed in "crackpot" theories is conveniently complicated math (with new twists of "calculus" that were also invented by the author), and brand-new terminology that does not conform to the standard "language" of physics. It gives the author an easy mode of attack by which he can say "you just did not understand what I said."

    The worst cases are when the author "picks and chooses" among accepted physics facts and laws, but then redefines other words, terms, and phrases. It ends up sounding like someone who wants to have a heated conversation in a cafe in Paris using only a tourist's phrase-book.

    Then again, as you noticed, this guy seems to have sewn up all the holes with his "new vocabulary" explanations. I can't follow it, so I can't say it's wrong.

    Just as an example, here's a paragraph from page 182 of "The Orb":
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2004
  4. May 28, 2004 #3
    "At this point (the Michelson-Morley experiment and thereafter) scientific theory decided in favor of illusion by maintaining the kinetic atomic theory and denying that mathematical axioms are either self-evident, true, or intuitively understood." from page 6 of the great document. Notice "in favor of illusion", implying that what follows is support of that idea. What follows is "denying that mathematical axioms are either self-evident, true or intuitively understood". This is clearly a subtle way to insert the idea that one should accept some things as "self-evident", "true" and or "intuitively understood".

    On finishing Chapter I, I find nothing of substance at all; little more than verbal nuances cast about with studied nonchalance. The entire first chapter is little more than chaff and can certainly be ignored.

    Chapter II appears to be worthless filler. The title implies he is going to speak about reality and mathematics but seems not to take the subject seriously. I do not know if he brings up Duggie and Glird to ridicule them or to use them as support for his coming contentions. Either way it seems to me not to serve any decent purpose.

    Chapter III seems to be little more that a continuation of clap trap begun in Chapter II. The author gives no indication of what he wants the reader to draw from this discourse.

    In Chapter IV (setting a hypothetical speed of light to nine miles per hour) he says, "If, however, one of the men starts from point B at three miles per hour toward the beam as the light leaves A, the light should still pass that man at nine miles per hour, and pass the second stationary man at nine miles per hour.", a rational statement of the circumstance. However, he follows this up with "A little thought will convince the reader that this physically impossible…". Is he joking or what? I would say it has sure be a "little" thought!

    On finishing Chapter IV, I come to the conclusion that the writer either does not understand relativity or is trying to make fun of the subject. Chapter V and VI just seem to continue this bazaar collection of poorly thought out gedenken experiments with no purpose beyond entertainment that I can see.

    I read out to Chapter VIII before I finally gave up trying to find a purpose to this piece of trash. I personally think it was written for entertainment purposes; certainly not as serious science.
     
  5. May 28, 2004 #4
    it is all rather light-haearted and odd- especially the second book [which contains all sorts of weird humurous routines]- one wonders if the author is just toying with the reader's sensibilities- the works seem to be designed first and foremost to entertain- strange entertainment indeed!

    one experiment I thought odd: take a jar and blow hot cigar smoke into it and set it next to a roaring fireplace- the smoke in the jar will drift toward the flames and collect on the flame-ward side of the jar- the conjecture is that entropy is the downward stroke of a thermodynamic cycle and that heat is not the bottom of energy- that heat can attract matter and cause clumping- heat seeks it's own level- kinda reminds my of some of Ilya prigogine's ideas


    another odd idea that seems too easy and some kind of illusion- du Gabriel says that Einstein's conjecture that an observer in a closed room could never tell whether he is in an accelerating ship or being pulled by gravity is incorrect- all the observer would have to do is take a heavy object in the room [or himself]-climb to the ceiling and drop the object- during the fall- if he was in a rocket there would be a perceptible increase in the acceleration that could be felt and measured because the heavy mass would be an appreciable portion of the rocket's mass- but if it's just a room under gravity the fall would not cause any change in the pull of gravity-


    ___________________________

    /:set\AI transmedia laboratories

    http://setai-transmedia.com
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2004
  6. Jun 5, 2004 #5
    The only reason I responded to this particular post is that I thought I held the title as "the most detailed and thorough "crank" theory I've seen" and I apparently can not jerk down a rational educated comment on my thoughts for love or money. How about it guys, is there anybody here with a great and impressive education who would bet their reputation on refuting anything I have said?

    There seem to be plenty of people willing to comment on the other ridiculous ideas put forward here! Somebody ought to be able to give Russell an alternated perspective on my trash.

    Got no guts? -- Dick
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: The most detailed and thorough ether-type crank theory I've seen
Loading...