Where's a good crackpot when you need one?

[arildno]

For the record:
Nicholas Christofilos was a a Greek elevator ENGINEER, which means that he certainly had a decent background in maths and (classical) physics.

Engineers tend to be intelligent and clever fellows, with a passion for physics.
To call him an "amateur" is hardly correct, even though he must be called an independent researcher.

There can be many reasons why persons who are competent enough to do professional physics choose to pursue a career in engineering instead:
1. The topics in engineering seems more interesting
2. You are practically guaranteed a job you are qualified for; there aren't that many positions for "pure physics" researchers even in our days (and in earlier times, there was practically no such jobs, and full-time physicists more often than not had independent means of living, like Lord Kelvin and the de Broglie guys).

 

[Physics Monkey]

Surely by definition a 'reasonable crackpot' doesn't exist?

Haha, it certainly seems like a contradiction in terms.

 

[quantumdude]

Perhaps you missed this reference?

No, I didn't miss it. How could I? You highlighted it in your post.

"9. 'The entrapment of large particles along the magnetic lines of force had been predicted in 1957 by an...amateur scientist, Nicholas Christofilos...He had sent his calculations to scientists engaged in such research, but no one had paid much attention to them. (In science, as in other fields, professionals tend to disregard amateurs.) It was only when the professionals independently came up with the same results that Christofilos achieved recognition.'28"

That calculation is deducible from classical electrodynamics, which is 19th century physics. If he had done it before Maxwell's time then you would be onto a winner. But he didn't, so you aren't.

 

[arildno]

That calculation is deducible from classical electrodynamics, which is 19th century physics.

Which perhaps explains why an (elevator) ENGINEER would manage to do the calculations, as engineers, in general, should be regarded as the experts in applied&theoretical classical physics, rather than theoretical physicists primarily working on other fields of physics.

 

[ubavontuba]

Is that it?

Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that there is 1, 10, or even 100 such contributions, over the last 100 years.

Over that same period, how many crackpot ideas were there? If we assume that, prior to the advent of internet discussion fora, only 10% of crackpot ideas were even written down, let alone communicated via something like sciforums.com. How many crackpot ideas would there have then been, over the 100 years?

So, you're saying we shouldn't look for good ideas because there are so many bad ones? Do you know how many bad patents the USPTO has received over two centuries? Should we discard all patents because there are so many bad ones?

Do you have any idea how many stupid decisions governments have made over the centuries? Should we therefore discard the concept of government and live in anarchy?

Do you realize how wrong Columbus was to think he landed in India? Should we all go back to Europe (or wherever) to eliminate this mistake?

Do you know the number of failed genetic defects it took to create humans from primordial life? Should we just throw all of that evolution away to eliminate the traces of these mistakes?

Do you realize how many rocks must be dug out of the ground to find just an ounce of gold? Should we not bother with looking for gold?

Ideas are the ore of progress. You might need to get your hands dirty, digging for that one golden nugget.

 

[ubavontuba]

For the record:
Nicholas Christofilos was a a Greek elevator ENGINEER, which means that he certainly had a decent background in maths and (classical) physics.

Engineers tend to be intelligent and clever fellows, with a passion for physics.
To call him an "amateur" is hardly correct, even though he must be called an independent researcher.

There can be many reasons why persons who are competent enough to do professional physics choose to pursue a career in engineering instead:
1. The topics in engineering seems more interesting
2. You are practically guaranteed a job you are qualified for; there aren't that many positions for "pure physics" researchers even in our days (and in earlier times, there was practically no such jobs, and full-time physicists more often than not had independent means of living, like Lord Kelvin and the de Broglie guys).

Sure. And Einstein was but a lowly patent clerk and Edison but a lowly telegraph operator and Faraday was a bookbinder and Herschel was a music teacher and Priestley was... well fittingly a priest and Rutherford became a scientist only because he failed to get a job as a schoolteacher and Stradonitz originally intended to become an architect and Loomis was an investment banker and...

Defining the term "amateur scientist" is difficult in the context of history. Many start out to be one thing, but by happenstance become reknown scientists. Some intend to be a scientist in one field, only to find themselves working in another.

 

[ubavontuba]

No, I didn't miss it. How could I? You highlighted it in your post.

That calculation is deducible from classical electrodynamics, which is 19th century physics. If he had done it before Maxwell's time then you would be onto a winner. But he didn't, so you aren't.

Oh! So now any resolution that expands our understanding of existing theories doesn't qualify as a scientific contribution? No need to solve Einstein's field equations? No need to dig deeper into quantum mechanics than Bohr? Give me a break!

 

[Integral]

Oh! So now any resolution that expands our understanding of existing theories doesn't qualify as a scientific contribution? No need to solve Einstein's field equations? No need to dig deeper into quantum mechanics than Bohr? Give me a break!

Expands WHOSE understanding of existing theory? Some of us have been members here at PF for 4-5yrs now. We have seen just about everything a crackpot can come up with. It is amazing how receptive they are. Some of the constants which have been reveled is that a crackpot will repeat the same line (perhaps with a reordering of the words) endlessly. They never will admit a mistake no matter how good the arguments or even proof to the contrary. These discussions end up taking a huge amount of time and energy. The fact is it just gets old after awhile. The mentors have all agreed that we simply do not wish to waste our time beating a dead horse with a few posters who have proven time and again to be uneducatable.

Whether you like it or not the policy is that crackpots will not be tolerated. We would rather spend time helping students how actually wish to learn and may in the future actually make a contribution to the body of knowledge.

Something for you to think about.
You cannot think outside of the box, if you do not know where the sides are.

 

[quantumdude]

Oh! So now any resolution that expands our understanding of existing theories doesn't qualify as a scientific contribution?

If nothing else, you have a real talent for missing the point. As I said the prediction that charged particles can be trapped in a magnetic field is not an advancement of the field of physics. That prediction deductively follows from 19th century physics. Does Mr. Christofilos deserve credit for finding the solution to this particular problem? It certainly seems so. But he did not in any sense advance the field of physics, and any reasonable person would agree with that.

No need to solve Einstein's field equations? No need to dig deeper into quantum mechanics than Bohr?

Are you aware that the solutions to Einstein's field equations were published within a few years (that is, less than a century) after the publication of GR? Are you aware that QM was considered completed a few years (same meaning) after Bohr? And are you aware that by the time Christofilos did his calculations (which was about a century after Maxwell) the field of electrodynamics was considered complete? By the time Christofilos did his work the whole field of electrodynamics had been revolutionised by Feynman, et al. The entire framework in which Christofilos did his work was obsolete by the time he did it, from a physicists' point of view. It is patently obvious that his work did not do anything to advance the field of physics.

Give me a break!

It seems that the only break you need is a good stiff reality check.

And as for your comments to Nereid:

So, you're saying we shouldn't look for good ideas because there are so many bad ones?

Stop being so daft. Of course she's not saying that. What she is saying--and what is perfectly obvious to the rest of us--is that we should look for good ideas in the right places. That means turning our backs on the crackpots and turning our faces towards those who actually know what they are talking about. Imagine that!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

And Einstein was but a lowly patent clerk

Did you just skip my post, he had a PhD in physics when he published his 1905 papers! Hardly a complete amateur!

and Edison but a lowly telegraph operator and Faraday was a bookbinder

Back then you could discover new physics with stuff you had lying around your house, it was the grand era of experimenters. Since then, physics has got to the point where experimental discoveries need expensive equipment, and theoretical physics needs PhDs in maths. 30,000 years ago you could 'discover' the greatest simplest invention of man (fire) by banging two rocks together. Does this mean that every discovery/idea should be that 'simple'? Of course not!

and Rutherford became a scientist only because he failed to get a job as a schoolteacher.

I'd fail at being a school teacher because I have little patience with children (though I'm only 22 myself). Does this mean I lack the knowledge to be a teacher? No, given I've graduated from university in my choosen subject.

Many start out to be one thing, but by happenstance become reknown scientists.

Except for the incredibly exception case, they wanted to be a physicist or have huge interest in it, it's just life prevented them from doing it professionally (Euler initially trained as a lawyer, in accordance with his father's wishes, and he's the greatest mathematician ever to live!). 'Happenstance' implies they just stumbled onto discoveries without even trying. They all spent a great deal of time thinking or experimenting or both.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Mpemba Effect as something well known which modern science initially didn't know about, and was stumbled upon by an amateur (though it is early Sunday morning, I most likely have missed something).

 

[ZapperZ]

ubavontuba: I cannot comprehend that you seriously consider these people you cited as AMATEURS! I mean, c'mon now. Albert Einstein?

There is a severe lack of realization on YOUR PART, that many of these people spent YEARS studying, be it formally or informally, the subject matter FIRST, before they produced their important work. I mean, think about that! Did you think Einstein would have known about the intimate detail of the problems of Maxwell equation under a Galilean transformation without first understanding what maxwell equations really are? Let's get real here.

The way you pick your "evidence", and the way you have misused them, throws even MORE doubt on your ability to clearly comprehend the physics that you are trying to push. I'm sorry, but you have just put yourself into a worse light than when you started. Your attempt at discrediting PF has backfired and has reflected poorly on your ability to examine and analyze information that you have.

Again, none of these things that you have brought up is new. There were many more quacks that had tried to invoke the names of Einstein and Galileo and others before you, so this is a common tactics that most of us here are familiar with. In each of these cases, it is often overlooked that these giants in physics put in a lot of effort to first understand the established physics at the time, and that no one would ever accused them of being ignorant. They may not agree with the results or conclusion, but no one could tell Einstein that he didn't understand classical electromagnetism.

Now, could the same be said about you?

My puzzlement in all of this is that, why didn't you, when you first came here, try to first established your understanding? I mean, couldn't you first make sure that whatever it is you are using the come up with this "different" idea is accurate in the first place? You appear to want to jump head first into something that is VERY complicated that requires that one already understand a number of things. Why aren't you worried that what you think you understood is actually a correct undertanding? Did you, in fact, know beyond a superficial level what "dark energy" or "dark matter" actually was? Do you know what is a GR scalling that allowed us to conclude the rate of expansion of our spacetime?

These may be boring details to you, but these are the TYPE of details that Einstein had to know when he produced his work, something you clearly overlooked when you used him as your "evidence". The fact that you still insist that he is an "amateur" only reveal how bad you are at using your incomplete "data". This does nothing other than calls into question how many other faulty conclusions that you have arrived at.

Zz.

 

[arildno]

You can be certain, ubavontuba, that N. Christophilos knew his classical electrodynamics very well, and that's why he was able to discover a result overlooked by previous workers.
Einstein was perfectly conversant with the frontier research of his time, even though he worked in a patent office.

What is typical with crackpots are that they do not understand those theories they are against, and they won't even know much of the theories they are for.
A typical example:
At one website, a crackpot said that the rocket equation proves that F=dp/dt is wrong, and hence that relativity is wrong.
He made the rookie error of regarding the rocket+remaining fuel-system as a MATERIAL system (consisting of the same particles over time, and for which F=dp/dt is formulated), something it is not.

Thus, he disclosed that he didn't know much about Newtonian physics either.

As long as you do it PROPERLY, F=dp/dt holds for any correctly chosen material system, as it should.

 

[russ_watters]

Einstein wasn't even a "patent clerk" anyway (as if he just did random paperwork) - he was a technical assistant. Even that job required a scientific mind.

 

[quantumdude]

You can be certain, ubavontuba, that N. Christophilos knew his classical electrodynamics very well, and that's why he was able to discover a result overlooked by previous workers.
Einstein was perfectly conversant with the frontier research of his time, even though he worked in a patent office.

That's probably what we should be focusing on here, rather than the question of whether Christophilos' work pushed back the frontiers of physics or not. Although I am convinced it did not, I don't know why I was defending the point so vigorously. After all it was Zapper's challenge, not mine.

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.

Your objection that such suppression *might* result in a good idea being lost has been noted and rebutted, several times. Your case is every bit as untenable as the case that cancer should not be eradicated with chemotherapy, because the cancer *might* consume
some tissue that has a bacterial infection.

In my first post to this thread I responded to your question, "Where's a good crackpot when you need one?" with links to some message boards which are badly riddled with malignant tumors. I would now like to modify my answer:

There is no such thing as a good crackpot. There are only crackpots, and you will find plenty of them at the message boards to which I referred you.

 

[Nereid]

Always look on the bright side of life ...

I feel there's a very valuable needle among the haystack of what uba has written in her posts.

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

However, the vast majority of Homo sap. individuals were born in other countries, in that period. Assuming innate ability to contribute to the advancement of physics has little to do with the country in which you are born, this suggests that the biggest hinderance to the advancement of physics was the inability of whatever social/educational/political/{insert your preferred term here} system individuals are born into to facilitate/foster/encourage/sponsor/{insert your favourite term here} nascent abilities/interest/whatever in those folk.

Not much PF can do about that (except, possibly, consider creating a Chinese/Arabic/Spanish/French/Russian/Portugese version).

Then let's consider what gets a 'bright young thing' hooked to physics, shall we? Best we reach out to solid research that's been done - by psychologists, by historians of science, by those doing research into pedagogy, etc - but maybe we can ignore the scientific method (a la uba) and jot down our perceptions, prejudices, and wishes?

The Nereid view: whatever it is that gets the next Einstein, Hawking, Randall, Zapper, Christophilos, Edison, Garth, arivero, ... hooked, reading the kind of nonsense that crackpots¹ write, in internet discussion fora, is surely way, way, way down the list. If you read the biographies of those who've 'made it', you will see that factors such as good teachers (i.e. those who encourage students to find "the answers" themselves; who inspire a sense of wonder and awe; who ...), well-written books (e.g. 'popularisations' by a giant), a 'good' textbook (the 'young thing' gets swept up with the internal logic of what they read, they dream up extensions, ...), and (above all?) mentors are what counts.

But perhaps Nereid has it all wrong; maybe it's truly exposure to crackpot ideas (and the debunking of same) which is primary. Over to uba - substantiate your claim, please!

¹We're in need of some definitions, none more so perhaps than 'crackpot'. The meaning that PFers employ includes folk who are as oblivious to outside inputs - let alone Popperian falsification - as it is possible to be; the meaning uba seems to use looks (to me) something like "free-wheeling speculation, untrammelled by any consideration of consistency, whether it be internal, with well-established theories, or good observational or experimental results".[/size]

 

[ubavontuba]

Expands WHOSE understanding of existing theory? Some of us have been members here at PF for 4-5yrs now. We have seen just about everything a crackpot can come up with. It is amazing how receptive they are. Some of the constants which have been reveled is that a crackpot will repeat the same line (perhaps with a reordering of the words) endlessly. They never will admit a mistake no matter how good the arguments or even proof to the contrary. These discussions end up taking a huge amount of time and energy. The fact is it just gets old after awhile. The mentors have all agreed that we simply do not wish to waste our time beating a dead horse with a few posters who have proven time and again to be uneducatable.

You are right that many crackpots act and respond in this manner. This behavior bothers me too. There's nothing I can think of that's more aggravating than a closed mind. As I said in the beginning, I feel that amateurs must be willing to listen and learn from the professionals.

However, I find it aggravating that the professionals have closed their minds to the possibility of a unique viewpoint arising out of the chaos of crackpot clutter. Sometimes, there are people that see things in ways that no one else has thought of. For instance, tell me if you can find any references to anyone else perceiving the Einstein EP thought experiment in the same way I have (I can't find any).

It is true that I proved nothing of importance, but had someone challenged Einstein with it early in his research, might it have caused him to adjust his model? Who knows what interesting results he may have conjured if he had to consider these things? Maybe a better understanding of gravity? Inertia? Curved spacetime? Or, maybe he'd of called me a crackpot jerk for messing with his imagery?

Whether you like it or not the policy is that crackpots will not be tolerated. We would rather spend time helping students how actually wish to learn and may in the future actually make a contribution to the body of knowledge.

Okay, that is your perogative. Perhaps you'll hear from my son one day.

Something for you to think about.
You cannot think outside of the box, if you do not know where the sides are.

Well metaphorically speaking, if you don't know where the sides are, you are just as likely to think outside as well as in. However if you are certain of the boundaries, then you are probably more comfortable within. Also, sometimes the sides might appear resolute to one person, and ephemeral to another.

 

[ubavontuba]

If nothing else, you have a real talent for missing the point. As I said the prediction that charged particles can be trapped in a magnetic field is not an advancement of the field of physics. That prediction deductively follows from 19th century physics. Does Mr. Christofilos deserve credit for finding the solution to this particular problem? It certainly seems so. But he did not in any sense advance the field of physics, and any reasonable person would agree with that.

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

Are you aware that the solutions to Einstein's field equations were published within a few years (that is, less than a century) after the publication of GR? Are you aware that QM was considered completed a few years (same meaning) after Bohr? And are you aware that by the time Christofilos did his calculations (which was about a century after Maxwell) the field of electrodynamics was considered complete? By the time Christofilos did his work the whole field of electrodynamics had been revolutionised by Feynman, et al. The entire framework in which Christofilos did his work was obsolete by the time he did it, from a physicists' point of view. It is patently obvious that his work did not do anything to advance the field of 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.

And as for your comments to Nereid:

Stop being so daft. Of course she's not saying that. What she is saying--and what is perfectly obvious to the rest of us--is that we should look for good ideas in the right places. That means turning our backs on the crackpots and turning our faces towards those who actually know what they are talking about. Imagine that!

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

 

[ubavontuba]

Did you just skip my post, he had a PhD in physics when he published his 1905 papers! Hardly a complete amateur!

If you read the history, you'll find that his first paper may have remained in obscurity had it not been for some good fortune.

Back then you could discover new physics with stuff you had lying around your house, it was the grand era of experimenters. Since then, physics has got to the point where experimental discoveries need expensive equipment, and theoretical physics needs PhDs in maths. 30,000 years ago you could 'discover' the greatest simplest invention of man (fire) by banging two rocks together. Does this mean that every discovery/idea should be that 'simple'? Of course not!

Right. A modern version of a fellow with a great idea might be someone that can't test his own hypothesis for the very reasons you reveal. However, this doesn't make his idea any less interesting.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of the Mpemba Effect as something well known which modern science initially didn't know about, and was stumbled upon by an amateur (though it is early Sunday morning, I most likely have missed something).

There you go. A rank amateur with an interesting observation.

 

[ubavontuba]

The way you pick your "evidence", and the way you have misused them, throws even MORE doubt on your ability to clearly comprehend the physics that you are trying to push. I'm sorry, but you have just put yourself into a worse light than when you started. Your attempt at discrediting PF has backfired and has reflected poorly on your ability to examine and analyze information that you have.

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."

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.

In each of these cases, it is often overlooked that these giants in physics put in a lot of effort to first understand the established physics at the time, and that no one would ever accused them of being ignorant. They may not agree with the results or conclusion, but no one could tell Einstein that he didn't understand classical electromagnetism.

You're absolutely correct, and I haven't overlooked it. These guys are my heroes.

Now, could the same be said about you?

All I can really say to this is that the more I learn, the less I know.

My puzzlement in all of this is that, why didn't you, when you first came here, try to first established your understanding? I mean, couldn't you first make sure that whatever it is you are using the come up with this "different" idea is accurate in the first place? You appear to want to jump head first into something that is VERY complicated that requires that one already understand a number of things. Why aren't you worried that what you think you understood is actually a correct undertanding? Did you, in fact, know beyond a superficial level what "dark energy" or "dark matter" actually was? Do you know what is a GR scalling that allowed us to conclude the rate of expansion of our spacetime?

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.

These may be boring details to you, but these are the TYPE of details that Einstein had to know when he produced his work, something you clearly overlooked when you used him as your "evidence". The fact that you still insist that he is an "amateur" only reveal how bad you are at using your incomplete "data". This does nothing other than calls into question how many other faulty conclusions that you have arrived at.

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).

 

[ubavontuba]

What is typical with crackpots are that they do not understand those theories they are against, and they won't even know much of the theories they are for.

Gee, that's a relief! I guess I'm not your "typical crackpot" then, because I'm not "against" any particular theory or hypothesis and I'm not "for" any particular theory or hypothesis either.

 

[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