Where's a good crackpot when you need one?

[ubavontuba]

Uba, when you do take a look around the IR Forum you will see that the people who post there are amateurs who know the fundamentals. It isn't so important to me if you ever do cite a case in which someone was able to advance physics apart from the peer-review process. I think that it can happen, despite the fact that it hasn't. What would astonish me is if someone could advance the field of physics apart from having seriously studied it in some way. It is the wild speculations from those who are imaginative but ignorant that we suppress here, not those of the serious amateur.

I did take a look at the IR forum. It is both interesting and disappointing. Or, I should say it is exactly what I expected and feared.

The papers presented are about as interesting as numerous others I've looked over, but I prefer a more open, "brainstorming" method. I guess beggers can't be choosers. Maybe I'll present something there someday and see what happens.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Quite literally, these guys were (and are still) as professional a bunch of astrophysicists that should exist on the planet.

Anyway, awhile back I had an interest in black holes and began to analyze the consequences of black hole phenomena. I came to a conclusion (independently) that some rotating black hole singularities must form rings.

So, I went to this website and asked a question. I asked if a black hole singularity could be in the shape of a ring. I was told no.

So, I persisted and wrote back. They didn't believe me. Finally (on their own), they found a reference to Kerr black holes and acknowledged that black holes could form rings. Again, these guys are supposed to be top-notch. I still have the e-mails.

Can't have been 'as professional a bunch of astrophysicists that should exist on the planet' if they hadn't heard of the Kerr Newman solutions. I'm in my 4th year at uni, and the Kerr metric makes up a sizable chunk of my black holes course, and most of the people intent on doing astrophysics for their PhDs are doing the course, and even before the beginning of the year, a fair few had heard of the Kerr metric.

Infact, I'd wager anyone whose done any meaningful course in black holes (ie got past the Schwarzschild metric) will know about the possibility of a ring singularity. Certainly anyone whose at PhD level in that material must have, because it's the most 'interesting' one and definitely the lecturers in relativity/black holes here know of ring singularities (and they perhaps do deserve the description 'as professional a bunch of astrophysicists that should exist on the planet').

 

[ubavontuba]

For much of the 20th century, the physicists who 'advanced physics' (however you measure that) were born in countries with 'advanced economies'.

Yes. People need the proper tools and support structure to achieve. Unfortunately I didn't have that when I was young, but I'm making sure that my son does. He should do well.

I would like to implore everyone to be involved in your children's educations. Help them whenever and wherever you can.

 

[quantumdude]

You're splitting hairs here. The fact that "professional" researchers were seeking this same knowledge is a testament to its value.

Good grief. You still don't get it!

Yes, I acknowledge that he did some original work. But it is still plainly obvious that a calculation from Maxwell's EM theory done in the mid-20th century is not an advance in physics.

Sure, it's all completely done. That's why we have practical fusion, artificial gravity, warp drive, instant communications, and truly sentient artificial intelligence today.

You obviously ignored my words when you wrote this crap, so I am going to return the favor.

Okay. I just hope that you're right in your assumptions.

My assumptions are based on my professional experience. I would be astonshed to find that they are wrong, but if it turned out that way I would adjust my worldview to accommodate that information. Is it possible that you are as courageous with your worldview? It seems not.

 

[quantumdude]

I did take a look at the IR forum. It is both interesting and disappointing. Or, I should say it is exactly what I expected and feared.

That's your problem.

The papers presented are about as interesting as numerous others I've looked over,

My money says that you can't understand one iota of what has appeared in our IR Forum.

 

[ZapperZ]

First of all, I do not wish to "discredit PF." Where did you get that idea from? I think PF is great! I'd just like PF to be a little more tolerant of the odd condition known as "humanity."

Other forum tolerates your idea of "humanity". So go there.

As far as my "misuse of evidence" is concerned. Can you be more specific? Can you provide references that refute my "evidence?" As far as I know, I have been nothing but forthright and factual.

1. I asked gave you a challenge to show where, within the past 100 years, something not done in peer-reviewed journal has made a significant contribution to the advancement of physics. Who and what did you come up with? I call this a misuse of evidence. Your "data" were faulty. I mean, Einstein? Just because he wasn't practicing his craft DISPITE the fact that he was well-trained in physics? You shouldn't be telling Tom that HE is the one splitting hairs.

2. You used "internet forum being choked to death" as "evidence" of over-moderating when, to the contrary, it is that these forum were NOT being moderated, but rather, over ran with crackpottery that is the reason for why they're garbage. Again, you simply took something and twist it to support your point, when in reality the evidence points to the opposite.

3. You used speculations abound to support your arguments, i.e. it doesn't matter whether such a thing has happened or not. It just sounded good so you'll make it up and use it as IF it is a valid evidence. It doesn't matter that internet forums have NOT produced any documented evidence that initiated the things you were claiming. That doesn't stop you from making such a statement.

These are MY evidence that you have no idea what a valid evidence is, and that you misuse them even when they actually point to the opposite of what you were trying to use them for. Are these clear enough?

This is a very good question. I suppose that the explanation lies with the way my mind works. I couldn't really quantify my level of understanding, but my mind likes to puzzle things together. Sometimes, it's quite remarkable.

Here's an absolutely true story that you're not likely to believe, but I can prove it.

I sometimes use a very reputable forum to ask specific questions (I won't publicly reveal who this is, but PM me if you feel a need to know). Quite literally, these guys were (and are still) as professional a bunch of astrophysicists that should exist on the planet.

Anyway, awhile back I had an interest in black holes and began to analyze the consequences of black hole phenomena. I came to a conclusion (independently) that some rotating black hole singularities must form rings.

So, I went to this website and asked a question. I asked if a black hole singularity could be in the shape of a ring. I was told no.

So, I persisted and wrote back. They didn't believe me. Finally (on their own), they found a reference to Kerr black holes and acknowledged that black holes could form rings. Again, these guys are supposed to be top-notch. I still have the e-mails.

There are other interesting incidents like this, but I'd rather not carry on.

I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed. You are making a claim that's no different than a psychic who is now saying that he/she made a correct prediction. Can you, on the other hand, tell me how many times you have been wrong? If you throw out enough crap at something, one of them is bound to stick. That's what psychics do. No one seems to remember how many of their predictions are wrong. All they seem to highlight is how amazing that they got so-and-so right.

I have had many random ideas that I thought of that in fact turned out to not be that far from what have been discovered. But I have also a long list of things that I have thought of that were utterly wrong. So all this "I have been right before" claim does nothing to me. You might as well talk to a wall, because that is what you're getting here.

I never said Einstein was an "amateur." I was responding to arildno's comment that many competent physicists might pursue other careers (he specifically mentioned engineering, I just broadened the example).

No, you twisted the evidence as mentioned above.

And oh, the Mpemba effect, can you tell me how that has advanced the body of knowledge of physics? If you have read my journal, you'll understand when I ask this: "It may be interesting, but is it IMPORTANT"? That issue is what separates the men from the boys.

I read many, MANY, interesting little tid-bits of stuff that people have "discovered". Go read the Ig Nobel site if you are curious. But you are confusing an "interesting discovery" with an "important discovery". Everything that is interesting many not be important!

Again, this is another one of MY evidence where you have a problem in analyzing the "evidence" given to you. Either you simply do not know what the Mpemba effect is but still think it supports your argument, or you know what it is, but didn't realize that it is just an interesting curiosity having little to do with a new physics, or even an important application. Either way, this re-enforces my claim that you dont' know what a valid evidence is.

Zz.

 

[ubavontuba]

Can't have been 'as professional a bunch of astrophysicists that should exist on the planet' if they hadn't heard of the Kerr Newman solutions. I'm in my 4th year at uni, and the Kerr metric makes up a sizable chunk of my black holes course, and most of the people intent on doing astrophysics for their PhDs are doing the course, and even before the beginning of the year, a fair few had heard of the Kerr metric.

Trust me (or not). These guys are professional scientists, engineers and astrophysicists. They should've known... but they didn't. It took a rank amateur (me) to point it out to them.

Infact, I'd wager anyone whose done any meaningful course in black holes (ie got past the Schwarzschild metric) will know about the possibility of a ring singularity. Certainly anyone whose at PhD level in that material must have, because it's the most 'interesting' one and definitely the lecturers in relativity/black holes here know of ring singularities (and they perhaps do deserve the description 'as professional a bunch of astrophysicists that should exist on the planet').

How much you want to wager?

 

[quantumdude]

After reading all of the posts in this thread, it is my opinion that it has run its course. Uba, if you want to know why we do not tolerate the crackpot view here then re-read the posts in this thread. Every objection that you have raised has been rebutted there.

Since I don't see this thread doing anything other than running in circles, I am going to lock it.

 

[chroot]

Here's the bottom line ubavontuba:

We've been here longer than you, invested more of ourselves in this site than you have, considered this problem longer than you have, and come to a conclusion which is now supported by more than 30 staff members of diverse backgrounds and belief systems.

Collectively, our staff has probably invested something on the order of 60 thousand man-hours supporting, encouraging, and maintaining this forum. Our enormous body of experience has led us to the conclusions we have made. You, an outsider to this forum and presumably to running science forums in general, probably cannot understand some of our decisions -- but our success is indisputable evidence that we're doing something right.

We can observe other forums with more relaxed rules, or no rules at all. We don't want to be like them.

We can look at our own history, since we used to have much less strict rules in the past. We believe the current policies have been much more successful, from both a quantitative and qualitative perspective.

We appreciate your concerns; the same concerns were weighed carefully a year ago when we made our decision to eliminate crackpots from the site. We all agree that things are better this way, and they're simply not going to change. You are not the first opposed to our rules, and you certainly won't be the last. If this forum is not for you, we understand, and wish you well.

- Warren