Why all the nutcases?

  • Thread starter markci
  • Start date
  • #1
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs? Are chemistry forums full of people who think they can prove that the formula for water is H30?

I mean, I know evolutionary biology forums are full of creationist bull****, but at least those morons have religion as an excuse for their delusions.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs? Are chemistry forums full of people who think they can prove that the formula for water is H30?
You'd be surprised. Cold fusion? Hydrogen "fuel?"

Physics may have more, but that's only because its far less complete than chemistry. Heck, physics could be considered a continuation of chemistry.
 
  • #3
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

I don't know how physics message boards compare to those of other sciences, but I think that nutjobs are attracted to message boards in general because they can't get their stuff publised in peer-reviewed journals. Take any crackpot in this or any other forum and inquire as to his list of publications in such journals. They typically have none, and when they do the publications are usually in journals that are less than reputable ("Physics Essays" comes to mind).

But I'd be surprised if you even got an answer to the question. More typically you get a diatribe about how "The Establishment" is conspiring to protect itself by surpressing the crackpot's revolutionary theory, and that's why he isn't published.

It would be funny if it weren't so very sad.
 
  • #4
To bad we can't suppress the nutjobs before they show. Heck - we could have stopped the Wright brothers dead in their tracks. Those goofballs actually thought they could fly. Whats this world coming too anyway?

We must absolutely stop these nutcases before they actually do something.
 
  • #5
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
756
2
Originally posted by markci
Why is it about physics forums always bring out such nutjobs?

I think it is Einstein's fault.

Most people (including prospective physics students) has heard a description of how a patent-office clerk, out of the academic world, "followed his nose" (as he himself put it once) and revolutionized physics in many ways.

This, together with popularizations that try to motivate people into learning science (disregarding complexity and rigor in the way), allow some to think that it is only a matter of having the right idea, even if they have no clue about the subject.
 
  • #6
quartodeciman
372
0
It is the inventive spirit. People have invented things no one thought possible beforehand. Theory can be considered a form of invention in the thought domain. Just come up with something you think hasn't been thought before (or taken seriously before), and you are inventing something.

If the theorist can't build a device that clearly demonstrates the fruitfulness of those ideas, distinguished from already established ideas, then the theorist feels compelled to argue the matter. Nut cases argue those ideas endlessly.
 
  • #7
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992


Originally posted by ahrkron
I think it is Einstein's fault.
It is the inventive spirit.
I tend to think Einstein is more of a product of it than the source. But I guess a superstar can be a real motivator for others.

It is true though that great inventions/discoveries often come from relative nobodys. Look what those two guys at the bicycle shop did for example.
 
  • #8
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by bandonrun
To bad we can't suppress the nutjobs before they show. Heck - we could have stopped the Wright brothers dead in their tracks.
Those goofballs actually thought they could fly. Whats this world coming too anyway?

Are you serious?

It's not as though the Wright brothers just slapped an airplane together and started flying around in it. They practically invented the "systems approach" to engineering, testing components in simulations before ever leaving the ground. When it came time to make the first flight, enough testing had been done to leave little doubt that the plane would take off.

Furthermore, the physics of flight was well understood before the Wright brothers. It was the ignoramoses who did not understand physics who thought the Wright brothers were nutjobs.

We must absolutely stop these nutcases before they actually do something.

You don't know what you are talking about. The "nutcases" referred to here are those theorists who ignore falsifying experimental evidence, or that their theories are not well-defined, or that they are not falsifiable.
 
  • #9
You don't know what you are talking about. The "nutcases" referred to here are those theorists who ignore falsifying experimental evidence, or that their theories are not well-defined, or that they are not falsifiable.

FACT - There are nutcases.
FACT - It's their problem.
FACT - Only a nutcase would have a problem with this, unless of course you think you have the nuts for the nutjob.
FACT - This thread is a nutjob of nuts for nutcases.

Yer solution
SOLUTION - Let's beat these nutcases into submission...spread them over a slab of bread with jelly on top, and then have them for lunch.

My response
Yer a case for the nuts.

My solution
Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't!
 
  • #10
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by bandonrun
FACT - There are nutcases.
FACT - It's their problem.
FACT - Only a nutcase would have a problem with this, unless of course you think you have the nuts for the nutjob.

You haven't moderated too many message boards, I take it.

The nutcase becomes the problem of the staff of a message board when his unchecked contributions lessen the scientific integrity of the site. That's why we have a separate Forum for Theory Development (safely away from the real science boards), that's why we (the staff) intervene and try to guide errant threads back on track, and that's why we eventually ban nutcases who are so incorrigible as to be an unneccessary drain on the staff's time.

FACT - This thread is a nutjob of nuts for nutcases.

You're posting in it too, skippy.

Yer solution
SOLUTION - Let's beat these nutcases into submission...spread them over a slab of bread with jelly on top, and then have them for lunch.

Once agian: You don't know what you're talking about.

I have over 1000 posts here. Read some of them. You'll see that I first try to guide people in the right direction, and only after that beat them into submission.

My solution
Sometimes you feel like a nut, and sometimes you don't!

How many nuts would a nutcracker crack if a nutcracker could crack nuts?

edit: fixed quote bracket
 
  • #11
Loren Booda
3,119
4
What is the dividing line between a scientist and a crank? (For instance, how many of us would label ourselves as a crank but most others on PhysicsForums as objective thinkers?)

Notice in this thread how much of the labeling (e. g., "krank" meaning "sick" in German) for inept posters refers to mental illness. We don't call these people "n*gg*rs," "b*tch*s" or "f*gg*ts," but feel impunity when degrading a brain disease. How about calling the pseudointellectuals "cancered"?
 
  • #12
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by Loren Booda
What is the dividing line between a scientist and a crank?

That's a hard call to make, which is why we give so much lattitude here in the TD Forum. It is easy to identify someone's work as crackpottery, but it takes a bit longer to identify the man himself as a crackpot. That can only be assessed by the extent to which he defies reason and exeperimental evidence to hold to his views.

Notice in this thread how much of the labeling (e. g., "krank" meaning "sick" in German) for inept posters refers to mental illness.

I think that most people did not know that.

We don't call these people "n*gg*rs," "b*tch*s" or "f*gg*ts," but feel impunity when degrading a brain disease. How about calling the pseudointellectuals "cancered"?

We don't call them "n*gg*rs," "b*tch*s," "f*gg*ts," or "cancered" because we know that crackpottery is not a function of skin pigment, sex, sexual preference, or uncontrolled cell growth.

It is a function of wrong thinking.
 
  • #13
I don't know how physics message boards compare to those of other sciences, but I think that nutjobs are attracted to message boards in general because they can't get their stuff publised in peer-reviewed journals.

As a fully paid up nutcase, may I put a different view.
I publish my ideas on a webpage and come to Theory Developement Forum in the hope that I will get some constructive criticism that will enable me to bring my ideas up to a state where they just might be considered for publication.
This has had some measure of success and I have considerably improved my work and the improvements are ongoing. Some have suggested I should go for publication now, but I know I am not yet ready and need to make more progress if I am going to be taken seriously.

Why is Einstein held up as an example of a good scientist, he tells you that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic, where is the science in that.
Fermi told us that electromagnetism cannot be explained only predicted, and in his opinion the cause of electromagnetism is beyond explanation and will always remain so. Is that acceptable science?
Braithewaite proved by demonstration (at Cambridge University in the 1960's) that Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong and he was swepted aside, but today many people are quietly, almost secretly taking up where Braithewaite left off. They do not like to admit it but that is what their work amounts to.
There is much left to be discovered and I hope my views on vacuum might one day come to count for something, if not I have had the joy of trying. Yes, I am a nutcase; and proud of it.

It is better to try and fail, than not to try at all
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by elas
As a fully paid up nutcase, may I put a different view.
I publish my ideas on a webpage and come to Theory Developement Forum in the hope that I will get some constructive criticism that will enable me to bring my ideas up to a state where they just might be considered for publication.
This has had some measure of success and I have considerably improved my work and the improvements are ongoing. Some have suggested I should go for publication now, but I know I am not yet ready and need to make more progress if I am going to be taken seriously.

OK

Why is Einstein held up as an example of a good scientist, he tells you that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic, where is the science in that.

This is a compound question, so I'll answer the three parts seperately.

"Why is Einstein held up as an example of a good scientist?"

Because Einstein came up with good scientific theories. I take the criteria for "good" to be that they are:

1. Logically valid.
2. Confirmable.
3. Confirmed.
4. Falsifiable.

"Why does Einstein tell us that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic?"

He did not tell us that. His theory is fully consistent with the Maxwell theory, which says that the transmission of light is due to mutually induced oscillating EM fields. This leads us to your Fermi comment, but first the last part of your question.

"Where is the science in telling us that the transmission of light is an act of unexplainable magic?"

It is not science.

Fermi told us that electromagnetism cannot be explained only predicted, and in his opinion the cause of electromagnetism is beyond explanation and will always remain so. Is that acceptable science?

Of course it is acceptable science. The universe is not known a priori, and this precludes full explanations of anything.

I don't know exactly what Fermi said, but I do know that EM is reducible to electric charges in motion. An explanation of EM phenomena would have to include an explanation of the origin of electric charge, and this we do not have. Even if we did have it, it would only introduce a new concept to be explained.

Braithewaite proved by demonstration (at Cambridge University in the 1960's) that Einstein's concept of gravity is wrong and he was swepted aside, but today many people are quietly, almost secretly taking up where Braithewaite left off. They do not like to admit it but that is what their work amounts to.

References please?
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Originally posted by Tom
The nutcase becomes the problem of the staff of a message board when his unchecked contributions lessen the scientific integrity of the site. That's why we have a separate Forum for Theory Development (safely away from the real science boards), that's why we (the staff) intervene and try to guide errant threads back on track, and that's why we eventually ban nutcases who are so incorrigible as to be an unneccessary drain on the staff's time.
Ya know, when I first got here (before I became a mod) I was expecting/hoping TD would be a place for VIABLE new theories. String theory, fate of the universe, probability of life type stuff. When I realized it was a dumpster for crackpots, I was vaguely disappointed. It is entertaining though.

What is the dividing line between a scientist and a crank?
Its quite simple really. By definition, a crackpot is someone who is far off the mainstream. So apply this test to your ideas: would a large majority (75% or so) of scientists consider my ideas to be scientifically viable? If the answer is consistantly no, then you may be a crackpot.

Now this isn't to say that crackpots aren't sometimes right and the "establishment" wrong. Quite frankly, I can't think of such a case, but I'm sure it happens. If you hope to be in that category though, you'd better make damn sure your ideas are on flawless scientific ground, as ideas counter to the mainstream are ruthlessly (and rightly so) scrutinized for errors.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Tom

Einstein states that light travels at a constant speed regardless of the relative velocities of the emitter and receiver. This he claims is a real action; to describe this claim as ‘logically valid’ requires a different dictionary to mine. I would suggest that it is an ‘apparent action’. Moreover to claim that it is confirmable is only valid if the parameters under discussion are restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.

This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters. On my web page there is a graph showing the relationship between fundamental particles including the graviton. At present a number of universities are engaged in the search for gravity waves, neither particle nor wave has yet been discovered so I ask you to assume that both exist. Given that assumption I make the point that the graviton is the only non-magnetic particle and therefore it is logical to assume that gravity waves are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that there is a separate gravity spectrum.
Given that the speed of light varies according to field density then the speed of light in the less dense gravity field or spectrum should be greater than the speed of light in an electromagnetic field. This is partially supported by the (inconclusive experimental finding) that the maximum speed of bosons in a strong force field is in the region of 94 miles per second, compared with ‘C’ in an electromagnetic field and I am suggesting (purely for the point of this debate) that it is ‘C squared’ in a gravity field. Keep in mind that these are maximum not constant speeds.
Note that my proposal does not require any alteration to the mathematics of Maxwell and Einstein, but it improves matters by giving us an explanation for the observed behavior of light in that we are restricted to observations on the electromagnetic spectrum where the maximum speed is 'C' and anything faster than 'C' is still recorded as 'C' by our electromagnetic machinery.
Note also that I am not alone in this sort of thinking, Bohm stated that his ‘unknown force’ was probably capable of speeds in excess of ‘C’. I am in good company even if well below the abilities of likeminded thinkers such as Bohm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
756
2
Originally posted by elas
Einstein states that light travels at a constant speed regardless of the relative velocities of the emitter and receiver.

It is not just that "he said so" and everybody followed. What actually happens is that

1. Classical electromagnetic theory conflicts with Newtonian mechanics
2. There is no reason to believe a priori that simultaneity is an absolute concept
3. Experiment has shown that the speed of light is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source

When embracing 3 and working out its consequences, the conflict in 1 disappears and we get a much better understanding of 2.

To further back this, its many consequences are daily confirmed in a lot of different settings, also, more indirect confirmations come from the accuracy of GR and QFT, both "built over" SR.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
3. Experiment has shown that the speed of light is always the same, regardless of the speed of the source

Not so, the fact that experiments always result in the same speed regardless of the speed of the source cannot not be used as proof that the speed is constant as long as there is an alternative possibility, that is that the reading represents the fastest measurable speed. The question as to which of these two alternatives is correct has never been put to the test.
My argument is that the second possibility is more logical and offers a better understanding of the transmission of light than does the first. It has the distinct advantage of being the non-magical solution.
This possibility blends in with my proposed particle strucure which is the only proposal to date to link the data found by experiment, together in one structure (i.e. mass, density and radii).
If Bohm's 'unknown force' is replaced with the vacuum force then there are some common aspects to the descriptions.
If Braithewaite's experiments are explained using my proposed particle structure then we have the first explanation of Braithewaite's experiments in that the observed effects can be explained as the interaction of centripetal forces and gravitons resulting in the creation of artificial gravity fields.
In short without altering the mathematics of Maxwell and Einstein but simply insisting on the proper examination of all possible interpretations, it is possible to come up with an explanation of observed particle behavior that is more comprehensive than the current interpretation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Tom

Braithewaite proved by demonstration
refernces please

For Braithwaite read Laithwaite (my memory let me down). There are a number of sites which I shall now investigate. Just search on Physics Laithwaite
See also the experiments by Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University togwether with Matsu****a a Japanese multinational company. The unexplained gravity effects they discovered are explainable as the interaction of centrifugal forces and gravitons.

Hilariously control has rejected a four letter word from the company name please reinsert short word for excretia!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
756
2
Originally posted by elas
... the reading represents the fastest measurable speed.

All speed measurements are a quotient between a distance and a time interval. These, in turn, are obtained from two events, triggered by some physical effect.

Whatever this physical effect is, it still has the property of having the same speed in all reference frames, and it can be used as the basis for a definition of simultaneity, giving you relativity all over again.

The only way out would be for you to propose that our experimental devices somehow trigger faster or slower to trick us into thinking that the speed was the same, even when the second event was still not there, or had already happened... I don't see how this would be a better alternative.
 
  • #21
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by elas
Einstein states that light travels at a constant speed regardless of the relative velocities of the emitter and receiver.

Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences.

This he claims is a real action; to describe this claim as ‘logically valid’ requires a different dictionary to mine.

Then you need to get a new dictionary. Logical validity means that no unwarranted inferences are made from one's starting premises, and special relativity satisfies that.

I would suggest that it is an ‘apparent action’.

What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?

Moreover to claim that it is confirmable is only valid if the parameters under discussion are restricted to the electromagnetic spectrum.

Patently false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.

This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters. On my web page there is a graph showing the relationship between fundamental particles including the graviton. At present a number of universities are engaged in the search for gravity waves, neither particle nor wave has yet been discovered so I ask you to assume that both exist. Given that assumption I make the point that the graviton is the only non-magnetic particle and therefore it is logical to assume that gravity waves are not part of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that there is a separate gravity spectrum.

I have no problem assuming that both gravity waves and gravitons exist. I also have no problem with the "seperate gravity spectrum". But given that your assertion that SR only applies to the "electromagnetic spectrum" is false, I don't see what your point is.

Given that the speed of light varies according to field density then the speed of light in the less dense gravity field or spectrum should be greater than the speed of light in an electromagnetic field.

Given that the speed of light varies?

That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Originally posted by elas
[This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters.
The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Learn the scientific method. Learn how to explore and present your ideas scientifically. Learn physics. Learn the existing theories relevant to your work. Then you will be able to both explore and evaluate your own ideas. You'll achieve much more that way.

Its almost as if you believe that classifying yourself as a nutcase somehow liberates you from following the same rules as other scientists. It does not - if you want to ever get any real work done in science.
 
  • #23
russ_watters

The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Is this not precisely what I am attempting to do on my web page?



ahrkron

All speed measurements are a quotient between a distance and a time interval. These, in turn, are obtained from two events, triggered by some physical effect.

Gravitational time delay (as used by Hawking) and the speed of light are related. Using the Gravitational Time Delay Graph to read the acceleration and deceleration of light should explain the experiments referred to by yourself. Extending the graph to the other side of 'C' (mirror image) takes you into the realm of Bohm. I am not in conflict with your statement but, adding to it.

Tom

Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences

Postulate suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth.

All experimenters assume that 'C' is a constant and not a maximum speed. The same sort of error was made by scientist measuring Ozone Depletion but they had the good sense to accept the proposal that there readings were wrong. QP physicists have a closed mind when it comes to alternative possibilities and Relativity physicist flatly reject all experiments (using spinnig objects) and cosmic observations that run contrary to there theories. This is not good science.


What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?

The 'apparent motion' of the planets is orbital, the 'real motion' is a complicated wave pattern. At no priod of time does any planet actually complete an orbit in space; but the 'apparent' motion relative to the Sun is an orbit. Orbits are apparent motion, waves are real motion.

Patantly false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.

I should have written that the graviton is the only particle not subject to the electromagnetic force.
'C' does not apply within a strong force field. According to a report in SciAm attempts to measure the speed of bosons within a strong force field were 'inconclusive' but the report continued with the statement that "there are some reasons to believe that it is about 94 miles per second".


Given that the speed of light varies?
That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.

You promised to review my website and get back to me about three years ago (on two separate occasions!). All members websites can be accessed through the 'Members List". Click on 'Members' > E > elas > www. I have been official rebuked for repeating my site address on Physics Forum, I was accused of advertising by one forum mentor.
Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.

regards
elas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
UltraPi1
144
0
If PF theory development manages to foster one significant development in 50 years. I would consider it to be a smashing success. That means that all the rest is nutjobs end to end.

I say this is to be expected, and to have a problem with this is simply ignoring the reality of it. If you are not at least entertained by theory development - You surely are ... getting up on the wrong side of the bed.
 
  • #25
UltraPi1

My sentiments exactly and if I happen to be that one in 50years I'll buy you a beer.

Cheers
elas

PS Did you visit my website?, would appreciate your judgement as to whether or not the proposition is intelligible and if you are a physicist, does it make sense scientifically? Honest opinions by people with sound common sense are surprisingly hard to come by.
 
  • #26
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by elas
Tom

Yes, it is a postulate. It has been confirmed, and so have its consequences

Postulate suggest or assume the existence, fact or truth.

What?

All experimenters assume that 'C' is a constant and not a maximum speed. The same sort of error was made by scientist measuring Ozone Depletion but they had the good sense to accept the proposal that there readings were wrong. QP physicists have a closed mind when it comes to alternative possibilities and Relativity physicist flatly reject all experiments (using spinnig objects) and cosmic observations that run contrary to there theories. This is not good science.

You keep referring to these experiments that falsify relativity.

Where are they published?

What's the difference? If it is "apparent" to everyone, then in what sense can anyone say that it is not "real"?

The 'apparent motion' of the planets is orbital, the 'real motion' is a complicated wave pattern. At no priod of time does any planet actually complete an orbit in space; but the 'apparent' motion relative to the Sun is an orbit. Orbits are apparent motion, waves are real motion.

Then this "real motion" you speak of is no less illusory than the "apparent motion". There is no reason I should prefer the frame in which planetary motion is wavelike over the frame in which it is elliptical, and vice versa.

Patantly false. The results apply to weak, strong, and gravitational interactions as well.

I should have written that the graviton is the only particle not subject to the electromagnetic force.

That is not what I was objecting to. What I meant is that all field theories of fundamental interactions are relativistic.

'C' does not apply within a strong force field. According to a report in SciAm attempts to measure the speed of bosons within a strong force field were 'inconclusive' but the report continued with the statement that "there are some reasons to believe that it is about 94 miles per second".

I would need to see the article. I have never heard of anyone directly measuring the "speed" of subatomic particles. Also, what exactly do you mean by "strong force field"? Do you mean the field of the "strong force" or a "strong" EM field? (Either way, I think you're wrong, but it would help to be on the same page).

Given that the speed of light varies?
That is hardly "given". You refer to experimental results and to your website, but if you could give me links to both that would help.

You promised to review my website and get back to me about three years ago (on two separate occasions!). All members websites can be accessed through the 'Members List". Click on 'Members' > E > elas > www. I have been official rebuked for repeating my site address on Physics Forum, I was accused of advertising by one forum mentor.

Sorry, I get so many emails and private messages from independent theorists such as yourself that I can't keep track of them all. I won't make any more promises that I cannot keep.

Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.

You answered your own question immediately after asking it.

No, the speed of light does not vary in harmony with time. Time and space vary in such a way as to be in harmony with an invariant speed of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Originally posted by elas
russ_watters

The thing that boggles my mind is that if you KNOW that the methodology behind your ideas (and thus the ideas themselves) is considered by scientists to be scientifically flawed, why do you not attempt to FIX your methodology?

Is this not precisely what I am attempting to do on my web page?
No. Quite the opposite. It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically flawed to as a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science. Its more than just a circular argument - its a death spiral.


But one little specific thing about your ideas:
Does not the speed of light vary in harmony with time in that clocks slow down when acelerated?. True in all times 'C' is constant but times are not costant relative to one another at different points in space.
You quite simly don't understand relativity on the most basic level. The death spiral will continue intil you choose to break it by LEARNING REAL SCIENCE.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically to act a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science.

You keep making this sort of comment without making any attempt to justify them. In the first part of my work I do no more than draw up tables and charts from a standard table of elements to show how the unsolved problems of particle physics can be solved. The key change being the conversion of mass/energy into vacuum force and vacuum force carrier.
These problems are listed in the most elementary of particle physics books, so I assume a person of your obvious knowledge is well aware of them. So let me have constructive criticism in place of your bombastic statements.

You quite simply don't understand relativity on the most basic level.

The second part of my work is an attempt to show how this new particle and atomic structure relates to quantum physics, and here I am open to criticism because QP is the interpretation of predictions, while my suggestions are interpretations based on structure.
If I am not giving the correct QP interpretation of gravitational time delay please outline the correct interpretation, for a person of your brilliance that should be a piece of cake; and if you would deign to use a grammar and spell checker at the same time, you would save your readers the trouble of editing your replies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Originally posted by elas
It appears you are trying to use the fact that your ideas are considered scientifically flawedto act a self-justification for not following, not adhering to, not learning, and therefore not "doing" real science.

You keep making this sort of comment without making any attempt to justify them.
Somehow I left out the word "flawed" in that statement. But I guess it was understood. In any case, you yourself said it earlier and I quoted you:
This is the nutcases’ forum and I am permitted herein to stray beyond normal parameters.
Essentially that is both an admission that your ideas are considered to be flawed and a statement that by accepting that they are flawed, you are released from the requirement that they be sound. Sorry, no. You DO have to follow the same rules everyone else does.
for a person of your brilliance that should be a piece of cake
I've said it before, elias: I'm not an expert on this stuff. I'm an engineer, not a physicist. The vast majority of what I know on this particular subject comes from several readings of "A Brief History of Time." But a single pass through the basics of relativity is all that is required to see your most basic errors, such as the one pointed out by Tom. The way you asked and (sorta) answered your own question indicates that maybe you already know the answers and either just refuse to accept them or choose to ignore them. Thats a big pet peve of mine - people who know the truth and ignore or refuse to accept it.
 
  • #30
UltraPi1
144
0
Thats a big pet peve of mine - people who know the truth and ignore or refuse to accept it.
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take their best shots. Why should anyone have a problem with this? A blindfolded shot in the dark could very well be a trophy above the mantle of accepted truth.
 
  • #31
russ_watters
Mentor
21,955
8,992
Originally posted by UltraPi1
In the scientific world - The truth is a moving target. On Physics Forums (Theory development) - People take their best shots. Why should anyone have a problem with this? A blindfolded shot in the dark could very well be a trophy above the mantle of accepted truth.
Because blind shots in the dark is NOT how real science is done. Real science is done through years of thorough and laborious work in a LAB or on a blackboard, searching methodically for that one little answer.

The saddest thing about this is that people don't get that fact. And the result is that if one of these guys DOES get lucky, no one will ever know it because no one will ever spend the time to sift through millions of pages of crap to find that one little gem. Elas - if you say 10 things that are wrong in a row and then say one thing correct, no one will hear it because no one will be listening to you by the time you get to it. And that's no one's fault but your own.
 
  • #32
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
756
2
I completely agree with russ_watters.

Also, saying one correct thing with the wrong reasons gives us no better understanding. To an extent, it is this understanding what science looks for, not just isolated "conclusions", and even less so if they come from unsustainable assumptions.
 
  • #33
UltraPi1
144
0
Because blind shots in the dark is NOT how real science is done. Real science is done through years of thorough and laborious work in a LAB or on a blackboard, searching methodically for that one little answer.
I beg to differ. The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit, and carry the name nutjob. An appearance at a scientist wastebasket shall proffer a mountain of proof. In many cases - Truth is the falsehood of accepted truth. I.E. The accepted truth that an atom is fundamental is proven false by the truth.

The truth be known to those that put a gun to it's head, and questions it's authority. Never question the man with the gun that waits for the truth.
 
  • #34
ahrkron
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
756
2
Originally posted by UltraPi1
The overwhelming majority of lab work, and blackboard scenerios bear no fruit

Have you seen the Particle Data Group summary of particle data? It is basically a 1000-page volume with all the info we have obtained about particles and fields. Each one of the numbers there is basically a graduate thesis (developed in a lab somewhere), and each thesis involves new ideas on how to obtain, analyse and interpret the corresponding data.

All that work has allowed us to develop a model that describes pretty much every one of those numbers. Not only that; while trying to get these properties together, "lab-people" have developed many technologies in use today in medicine, communications and what not.
 
  • #35
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by russ_watters
The saddest thing about this is that people don't get that fact. And the result is that if one of these guys DOES get lucky, no one will ever know it because no one will ever spend the time to sift through millions of pages of crap to find that one little gem. Elas - if you say 10 things that are wrong in a row and then say one thing correct, no one will hear it because no one will be listening to you by the time you get to it. And that's no one's fault but your own.

And how.

Elas, I finally did look at your website. Not only does not not contain references to any experiments that falsify relativity, it does not even contain evidence that you ever bothered to learn any actual physics.

From the http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s1.htm [Broken] to your website:

Attempts to describe the underlying structure such as Relativity, String theory and various descriptions of atomic structure do not match the observed universe. Gravity does not operate in the manner predicted by relativity with the result that a new "anti-gravity" force is being proposed to account for the difference; this is being done without any idea as to the nature or cause of either gravity or "anti-gravity".

Where's the justification for that, especially the first sentence?

The electron, long thought to be a point object, is now known to have a nucleus surrounded by a field of quantum pairs; although most textbooks continue to refer to the electron as a point object.

Yes, most textbooks refer to electrons as point objects in the first approximation in quantum theory. This is understood.

What is your point here?

Quarks and leptons are regarded as "fundamental particles" without any explanation as to why there is more than one fundamental particle or indeed what makes a fundamental particle.

The textbooks do not explain why there is more than one fundamental particle because no one knows why there is more than one fundamental particle.

As to the second point, you are simply wrong. Both the Electroweak and QCD theories clearly delineate fundamental particles from bound states composed thereof. That is, in the standard model there is no ambiguity between quarks/leptons, and mesons or positronium.

Electromagnetism and light are regarded as being beyond explanation, that is to say it is possible to predict their behavior but it is not possible to explain the cause of that behavior.

I already answered the above point in this very thread. There is no such thing as a full explanation of anything in science. We can reduce electromagnetic phenomena to moving electric charges, some of which have permanent magnetic moments. To explain further, we have to say what generated the charges in the first place. But then someone can look at the generator of charge and ask, "And where did that come from?", ad infinitum.

It is my belief that the inability to properly explain the underlying structure that gives rise to the observed universe is due to the failure to apply Occam's law of economy to the development the Standard Model; this has occurred for historical reasons and a correction is long overdue.

No one failed to apply Occam's Razor to the Standard Model. If that were true, then it would be possible to derive--from the Standard Model--one or more of the constants that are put into the Standard Model, but it isn't possible.

In any case, how pray tell would you correct it? You don't even know what it really tells us.

I propose that we should start with one force and one force carrier and not add any other entity until we run out of explanations using just the one force and its carrier; and then only if we can account for the creation of the new entity. The result of this method is, as Newton suggested; that the universe is a thing of great simplicity.

You are stuck in the 19th century. What you propose here has already been done. Starting from the 19th century picture, we have gravity and the EM force.

Then we discover the nucleus and determine that it is positively charged. We know from decay experiments that the nucleus is composed of positively charged constituents, and we know from EM theory that positive charges repel. So why does the nucleus hold together? There must be a strong force that overpowers the EM force, and it must act only over short distances. Enter the Strong Interaction.

Then, we observe beta decay of a nucleus. After years of analysis, we determine that this interaction does not conserve parity. This is a problem because we know that the EM and Strong forces do conserve parity. Also, this force is a lot weaker than its EM and Strong cousins. The inescapable conclusion is that we are dealing with a different force altogether. Enter the Weak Interaction.

And the fun doesn't end there.

From the section http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s38.htm [Broken]:

To demonstrate conversion I have used Standard Model data for elements 1 to 92 to construct a graph showing mass and electron binding force 1s.

First of all, what is "Standard Model Data"? The Standard Model is a theory, and data comes from experiments.

Second, Standard Model calculations for atoms (especially complex atoms such as Z=92!) simply do not exist. Theoretical chemists have developed methods based on nonrelativistic quantum mechanics to do such calculations, but that is not the Standard Model.

Third, you stated that you posted the graph to "demonstrate conversion" from the Standard Model to the Vacuum Model, but at no point do you ever mathematically demonstrate it!

One advantage that the Vacuum Model has over the Standard Model is that the vacuum force can be directly related to the volume found using the atomic radii.

How?

Where is the math?

In fact, the only attempt you made at presenting any mathematics was in the section on the http://elasticity2.tripod.com/s26.htm [Broken], and you got it wrong:

Note that the total force acting between the plates is F2 plus F2 and therefore the Casimir effect law operates to the fourth power.

No, F2+F2=2F2.

You're confusing addition with multiplication.

In any case, when considering the force on a plate, you cannot add forces do not act directly on the plate you are analyzing. And if you are determining the total force on the capacitor, then that is zero, because the forces are equal and opposite.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through the rest. I see nothing more than a series of essays that contain:

1. Your misinformed personal opinion regarding currently accepted physical theories.
2. Your vague notions of how to correct the perceived discrepancies.
3. Unreferenced, unanalyzed data presented on graphes.

Furthermore, some essential ingredients that are missing:

1. A mathematical definition of your "Vacuum Field" and its time evolution, interactions, etc.
2. A mathematical demonstration of your ideas, including derivations of its main predictions.
3. Experimental results warranting the changes you espouse.
4. Analysis of the data presented.

Without those, you have not one iota of substance at your site, and you should not be surprised to find that serious scientists ignore you, because what you have right now is just the sort of bullsh*t that Russ was talking about.

edit: fixed color bracket
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: Why all the nutcases?

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
183
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
196
Replies
8
Views
577
Replies
16
Views
725
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
63
Views
2K
Top