|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
5th August 2014, 12:08 PM | #2641 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
That's what they say. But like I was saying to edd, Einstein referred to the electron when he was talking about a body in his E=mc² paper, and said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. Not the measure of its interaction with some field. So if you're rooting for the Higgs mechanism, you'll be wearing this on your T-shirt:
Ah, the particles that are said to be responsible for the weak interaction. The W and Z weigh in at 80GeV and 91GeV. And they're said to mediate beta decay. Like when a 939MeV neutron decays into a proton, electron and antineutrino? Ho Hum. Methinks you need to read The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. He tells us all about the W boson which dates back to 1983 with its lifetime of 10-25 seconds, and that what was actually detected was an electron. He says "Rubbia urged his collaborators to work day and night before his visit to various institutions in the USA. He took a picture of a 'W-event' with him. There, Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow all happily agreed that it was the long sought-after W boson (which confirmed their theory, by the way)…". Only Burton Richter was right when he said it wasn't a W, but by then it was way too late.
Originally Posted by ben m
Oh yes? Unzicker tells us it has lifetime of 10-25 seconds. Free as a bird eh!? He goes on to say it had to exist because "the bottom quark needed a partner, as the Ws and Zs had to exist because otherwise the standard model was wrong". We’ve never seen a free quark remember? The top quark was "seen" to decay into a bottom quark and a W boson. But we’ve never actually "seen" a top quark, or a bottom quark, or a W boson. The top quark was inferred... from particles that were inferred. Yes we have, there is a cross section for annihilation direct to gamma photons. See for example this. It's academic anyway, because your muons decay to electrons and neutrinos, then we can annihilate the electrons with positrons, and we're left with photons and neutrinos. It does, doesn't it? Especially when the fabulous Higgs boson is said to decay into two gamma photons. Like Einstein said in his E=mc² paper: a radiating body loses mass. And like I said: all of it. Because the Higgs boson doesn't get its mass from the Higgs mechanism. Oops! |
5th August 2014, 12:26 PM | #2642 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
5th August 2014, 12:36 PM | #2643 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Nor have I seen gravity, neutrinos, viruses, Brazil, or, for that matter, you. That does not make them any less real.
Not everything happens simultaneously; that difference between simultaneity and sequence is "time." It has an extent. Whether or not time really passes is a question of philosphy, not physics. But the passage of time is easily and consistently measured in many ways, so if it's a fiction, it's certainly a useful one. I'm a pragmatist. I don't think that any description of the universe's underpinnings is necessarily correct. In fact, below a certain level, I'm not sure that the 'truth' is comprehensible, or whether it's even meaningful to speak of truth in that context. So I'm not too concerned with whether a model is based on a fiction. I *do* care about whether the model accurately predicts the results of experiments. To me, Model A is better than Model B only if 1) Model A makes more accurate predictions, 2) Model A makes equally good predictions over a wider range, or 3) Model A is simpler without sacrificing accuracy. In that context, what does it mean to say that time doesn't pass? Do you mean that dTx/dT0=1 for any reference frames x and 0, and that all distances and speeds vary? If so (and that's what I think you're saying), 1) Does that make my models more accurate? 2) Does it make my models apply over a wider range of problems? Or 3) Does it make the math simpler? If so, how? What are some actual examples? If not, then by what standard is it better? In our universe, all measurements for the local speed of light give the same result. In our universe, if we synchronise two clocks, separate them, and bring them back together, they're likely to show different times, indicating that they've experienced different rates of time passage. How do you take "Measurements show c constant" and "measurements show dTx/dT0 varies" and conclude that it's more accuate to say that c varies and dTx/dT0=1?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
5th August 2014, 01:02 PM | #2644 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
The former. See his E=mc² paper where he actually used an L rather than E:
Originally Posted by Einstein
People tend to struggle with this, but see Compton scattering. That's where a light wave is used to move an electron. The light wave loses kinetic energy as a result. If you did another Compton scatter with that light wave, and another and another and another, then in the limit you have removed all of the kinetic energy from the wave, and you have no wave left. All of the wave energy has been converted into the motion of electrons. Now look at pair production. You can convert a photon into an electron and a positron. So in a way an electron is made out of something that can be converted into the motion of electrons. In a way the electron itself is "made out of motion". Or "made out of kinetic energy". But what we actually say is that matter is made out of energy. Yes. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Not a measure of something else. The wave nature of light and matter ought to make this clear. Photon momentum is a measure of resistance-to-change in motion for a wave moving linearly at c. Electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. Inertia is just the flip side of momentum. That's why the photon conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. Just like Einstein said. |
5th August 2014, 01:12 PM | #2645 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
The interaction with the field determines the value of the mass. The presence of mass has various effects, which Einstein worked out, including effects on kinematics (p = beta gamma m, for example) and on energy content (E^2 =m^2 + p^2 for example).
There is no conflict whatsoever between Einstein's work and the Higgs mechanism. Seriously, were you under the impression somehow that Higgs, Englert, Brout, and every particle physicist from 1950-2014 have been unaware of E=mc^2? Please note, for example, that the electron and the muon are different particles with different rest masses. All three of them obey E=mc^2 and p = beta gamma m and all the rest of that, but one of them does it with m ~= 0 and one does it with m=0.511 MeV and one does it with m=103 MeV. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the principle "something has to tell all muons to have 103 MeV rest mass". (Notice "energy conservation" or "e=mc^2" doesn't do this. If I collide an electron with a positron, after accelerating them to 1000 MeV each (total energy, m+K), they collide and make muons with m=103 and K=897 each. (Not m=0 K=1000, not m=1000 K=0, etc.) If I collide an electron with a positron after accelerating them to 100,000 MeV each, they collide and make muons with m = 103 and K = 999897 each. Something in nature is determining that special "103" value, and E=mc^2 isn't doing it.) There's nothing wrong with the Higgs as a hypothesis for what that principle is. Please note that the Higgs mechanism was derived, and has been checked a thousand times, by people fully trained in special relativity.
Quote:
Here's a self-evalution question, Farsight: you and I have interacted on this board for, what, several years now? On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "no respect" and ten being "hero-worship", how much do I trust your intuition to guess that there are errors in an actual, predictive theory for which I've taken grad-level classes, taught undergrad classes, done hundreds of calculations, and personally spend most of my time experimenting on? Go ahead, pick a number. Go negative if you need to. |
5th August 2014, 01:27 PM | #2646 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No, really, it's physics. And it's one of the most important things in physics. Once you understand that clocks don't literally measure "the passage of time", you appreciate that when a clock goes slower it's because the regular cyclical motion inside it is going slower. And that this is true for an optical clock. A light clock. After that you appreciate what Einstein was on about when he said a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. Then you're off and away with gravity and black holes and the early universe, etc. It's like pulling a thread with Einstein's name on it, and out comes a string of pearls.
Just look hard at what a clock really does. Separate the science from the fiction. I am. We do physics to understand the world. I will not settle for non-comprehensible. It means things move and change occurs, and we attach the label time to this, but we remain aware that time is not in itself some thing that flows or through which we can travel. It is a dimension of measure, derived from change or motion, not a dimension that offers freedom of motion like the dimensions of space. It doesn't mean that. And it doesn't change the math. It changes the meaning. dTx isn't the passage of time, it's a clock rate. An optical clock rate. So is dT0. At a different location. And when an optical clock goes slower somewhere, it's because the light goes slower there. They've just been in locations where optical clock rates are different because the speed of light is different. Because clocks "clock up" motion, and light clocks are no exception. They do not literally measure the flow or passage of time. Honestly, das, that's just a figure of speech. It's down to the wave nature of matter. Have a read of The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. Right I have to go. It's good to talk! |
5th August 2014, 01:41 PM | #2647 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
How do you have motion without time?
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
5th August 2014, 01:49 PM | #2648 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
That is a question that Farsight has spent a lot of time and effort to not answer.
Farsight says here that he is a physics expert, but you might notice that he has never actually shown how to do a single physics problem or application. So he makes claims about a physics that does not use time as anything but something that arises from motion, but he has never produced anything that someone can use and therefore nothing that anyone can compare to observations and experiments. |
5th August 2014, 01:56 PM | #2649 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
5th August 2014, 02:04 PM | #2650 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I was about to log off, but to show that I'm nothing like KK's ad-hominem aspersion:
I've answered this question before. You just have motion, it's there, it's empirical, you can see it happening. Clocks clock it up. Cogs move, the big hand moves, the little hand moves. Then you move into the kitchen and move your head and eyes to look up at the clock. Then light moves to your eye, and electrochemical signals move in your brain, and you think "the time is ten o'clock". Ever watched a science fiction movie where some guy has some gizmo that can stop time? It doesn't actually stop time. You can't see time moving or flowing or passing. The gizmo stops motion. And the moral of the tale is this: You don't need time to have motion. You need motion to have time. Night night. |
5th August 2014, 02:34 PM | #2651 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
Exactly what is ad-hominem about KK's statement? He is not basing his evaluation of your claims on whether you are or are not an expert in physics, but on their merits. Ad-hominem would be saying, "You are an idiot, therefore you are wrong." I see nothing like that in his post. Would you like to rephrase your statement now?
|
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius |
|
5th August 2014, 02:51 PM | #2652 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Why is it important? If it doesn't affect any experimental outcomes, if you can't suggest any experiments that will demonstrate that it's true or false, why is it important?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My central question from the previous post (and occasional earlier posts) was: 1) Does that make my models more accurate? 2) Does it make my models apply over a wider range of problems? Or 3) Does it make the math simpler? If so, how? What are some actual examples? If not, then by what standard is it better? If you don't like that question in terms of dTx/dT0, then phrase it in whatever is different about your view. But how would it be an improvement? |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
5th August 2014, 03:12 PM | #2653 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
I will not settle for the non-comprehensible. Not in physics, and not in literature either.
The so-called masterpiece 個人的な体験 is just columns of weird characters, so the so-called "experts" who call it a literary masterpiece are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They say they understand it because they "speak Japanese" which can be "studied" in some sort of "schools", but that's what they would say. They keep telling me there are millions of people who understand it, but that's what they told Galileo. Bah, don't tell me about translations, I know the original text is gibberish. Listen: "言語: 日本語, フランス語, フランス語", that's a direct quote from the source. You can't translate fundamental gibberish into sense, that's the fundamental law of Shannon theory, look it up. I will not settle for the non-comprehensible. |
5th August 2014, 03:24 PM | #2654 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Still ignorant about the Higgs mechanism after over a year, Farsight?
If not maybe you can answer these questions: Farsight: (1 November 2012) Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory? Farsight: (19 November 2012) What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic? Or simply acknowledge that Farsight: (20 November 2012) It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT such as the Higgs mechanism violates SR |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 03:24 PM | #2655 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Book-thumping.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Farsight, to use your favorite sort of argument, that theory denies Feynman. Change state as a function of time. Farsight, you only have an idea that there is anything but yourself in all of reality. Thus, solipsism is right and only your consciousness exists. |
5th August 2014, 03:35 PM | #2656 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
The Higgs mechanism is not a "story". The science is that the Higgs mechanism gives mass to elementary fermions (including electrons and quarks) and the massive W and Z gauge bosons. And For example, about 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron) is due instead to the kinetic energy of quarks and to the energies of (massless) gluons of the strong interaction inside the baryons
Only we do not have to see a free quark to know that they exist . Followed about crackpot nonsense about "light in a box", Farsight ! |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 03:38 PM | #2657 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
No, Farsight, repeating ignorance does not make it correct: Farsight: (20 November 2012) It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT such as the Higgs mechanism violates SR
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 03:49 PM | #2658 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You need to go back to high school learn what energy is, Farsight !
Kinetic energy is a property of a system. Energy is not a "thing". Matter has kinetic energy. It can never be "made of" kinetic energy. That is why Einstein stated "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content" - he was not ignorant enough to think that a body is made up of energy. Instead a body has "energy-content" which includes all energy - binding, etc. as well as kinetic. What E=mc² is all about is that energy and matter are equivalent. A system with energy E can be treated as a system with mass mc². A system with mass m can be treated as a system with energy E/c². |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 03:54 PM | #2659 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
So what doesn't go "slower somewhere"? So far all you have asserted is that time doesn't go slower. Certainly if one is going to assert, as you have, that time is just a label that "means things move and change occurs" while asserting, as you have, that said motions and changes do occur slower in some places. Then time slowing is an appropriate, well, label to describe those circumstances.
One of the aspects of crackpot physics seems to be a particular distain for certain labels. Another seems to be an avoidance of applying ones own ascriptions particularly when it leads to one of those distained labels. |
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
5th August 2014, 04:06 PM | #2660 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Who Do You Mean We Kemo Sabe ?
Anyone who can read English can see that assuming that Compton scattering can repeat infinitely will reduce the wavelength of light toward zero. But this does not happen in the real world as anyone who knew about Compton scattering should know, Farsight . Compton scattering happens when the energy of the photon is larger than that of the electron. As the repeated scattering happens the photon wavelength increases , the photon energy decreases and it starts to inverse Compton scatter from the electron - it gains energy ! Repeated Compton scattering results in photons that are in equilibrium with the electrons. Some will lose energy, others will gain energy. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 06:01 PM | #2661 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
|
5th August 2014, 06:05 PM | #2662 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
I see this idiosyncratic nonsense of Mr. Duffield's that time is not fundamental has resurfaced. The fact that our most basic and comprehensive theories of physics regard time is a fundamental concept seems to elude him.
Has he produced one single concept or equation using motion (instead of time) describing a physical system? Is there any way that can be done? Oh yeah, pepperhead: take your hands in front of you and wiggle your fingers -- see motion is fundamental -- not time -- now look inside of a clock -- see there's no time hiding in there. That's what he calls physics. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
5th August 2014, 06:21 PM | #2663 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Back to the OP.
I've noticed in a few threads that there seems to be a reciprocity of respect among crackpots. They say things like, "well he doesn't have everything right but he's got some stuff right." Even though their forms of crackpottery are very unlike each other and often clash, there seems to be a tacit acknowledgment that "crackpots are okay." I see this as a subconscious acknowledgment that they are themselves crackpots. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
5th August 2014, 06:23 PM | #2664 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
This passage shows that you are exactly as I have described: you failed to show how we could describe a physical system without time.
As I have said before, it is not an ad hominem to address facts relevant to the topic at hand. We are discussing crackpot physics and your demonstration of certain phenomena that are at least reminiscent of crackpot physics behaviour. Another of your unsavory behaviours is your claims of persecutions that you address rather than produce useful physics. Making these claims is a fairly bad way of distracting from the fact that I am correct in saying that you avoid questions, in part because they are a way of avoiding my questions. So, in the thread for addressing your theory, would you please provide a description of a simple motion without using time, but with using some specific numbers and equations, so that we could understand how to produce time as an emergent property according to the physics you promote? Surely being able to produce such a simple description is a prerequisite of being able to be an expert in this sort of physics. |
5th August 2014, 07:27 PM | #2665 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
|
5th August 2014, 07:43 PM | #2666 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 08:32 PM | #2667 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
How can there be professional jealousy when nothing about anything you have posted indicates you are any kind of professional. If we have misunderstood that point, please do list your academic background/s, research papers, textbooks or books written, reviews of your work by field specialist, professional positions held,
ANY of that. Pros tend to be proud of their profession and professionalism. I have not so far observed that from you in any way or kind. Exceptional statements require exceptional proof. |
5th August 2014, 08:54 PM | #2668 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Getting back on topic, let's consider how one might recognize crackpottery. Here are some lists of criteria:
John Baez has published his Crackpot index, and it covers a lot of territory. Here are some categories I've identified in it:
Martin Gardner's classic Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1952, 1956) has this list:
John L. Casti in Paradigms Lost (1989) expands on a similar list by Daisie and Michael Radner in Science and Unreason (1982):
Looking at this thread, some of the items in these lists look suspiciously familiar. |
5th August 2014, 09:38 PM | #2669 |
Unbanned zombie poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,384
|
Another aspect of crackpot physics you note here, Kwalish Kid, taking and trying to apply, as just a label, a word like "emergent". Without actually applying the concept or meaning such a label represents. Emergent properties are those that result from the interactions of large numbers of elements or repeated iterations of simple rules. Both require time as an a-prior consideration, for interaction in the former case and repeated iterations in the latter.
|
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ |
|
6th August 2014, 05:37 AM | #2670 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
Farsight is quite fond of finding excuses to not address significant questions.
His recent actions to produce an excuse bring an interesting question to the front: http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/jref-t648.html Farsight includes the following quotation, "I quit in protest of a number of ethical issues; foremost was what I perceived as the president, D.J. Grothe’s constant duplicity, dishonesty, and manipulation..." I, myself, find Grothe to be disgusting and cannot fully support the JREF because of his continued presence. I also left these forums for a while in disgust at the support for misogyny and a priori rejection of philosophy that was rampant in these forums. So while I don't really find the challenges to the Million Dollar Challenge to be compelling, I do understand the issues of trust that someone like Farsight can try to use to lever a reader towards his position rather than using evidence from physics. I suppose that this is an issue that has to be addressed at a larger scale, to ensure that physics (or science in general) education is not associated with people and ideas that will drive people away. PS. I would avoid registering at those forums, as they are run by Farsight and, given his history of threatening libel suits and his residence in the UK, I would not want to provide him with too much personal information. Edit: Thanks for the catch, edd. |
6th August 2014, 05:41 AM | #2671 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
6th August 2014, 06:51 AM | #2672 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Wow. Am I wrong or did he never once mention any of those things that he has against the JREF while he was an active member here?
(although if you read his post over there he doesn't come out and actually say anything, he just says "Then when you look around the internet, it would seem that all is not what it seems. See for example:") I actually liked Farsight sometimes. He knew more physics than most of the other crackpots on here, and while it's not saying much, he knew more physics than me (I'm well aware of all the places where he was wrong, of course, but he does know some basics), and was often actually willing to discuss what he was talking about in a manner that you could even understand what he was trying to say sometimes. He still frustrated me because I felt he'd stop as soon as the discussion got to the point, and he posted in many threads as though his viewpoint was mainstream physics until someone pointed out that it wasn't (and even then he was reluctant to admit that, though at least he would admit it). Anyway, some good discussions came up partly because of his posting here. So there's that. But that post on his forum is just upsetting. I expected him to say things about how "JREF stifles dissent" etc. but not linking to "James Randi and Nazi Eugenics" Anyway... |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
6th August 2014, 06:53 AM | #2673 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 454
|
Indeed he is. That was written by Carrie Poppy: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...omment-page-1/
See the thread about it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=248411 ETA: I see now that i visited Farsight's forum that he explicitely says it's from Carrie Poppy. I wonder how long it will take before Mabus starts posting there |
6th August 2014, 08:38 AM | #2674 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
deleted
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th August 2014, 12:11 PM | #2675 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
It is quite remarkable that so many contributors to this thread who have advocated "alternative theories" have been banned.
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
6th August 2014, 12:31 PM | #2676 |
Trainee Pirate
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 3,664
|
|
6th August 2014, 12:56 PM | #2677 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
For those that are used to more naive audiences, posting on a skeptics' forums must be quite frustrating for them. Instead of being met with acceptance and/or reverence, their ideas and arguments are publicly exposed as the impotent and unsound drivel that they really are. Apparently for some that frustration manifests itself as repeated breaches of the Membership Agreement.
|
6th August 2014, 12:58 PM | #2678 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
|
6th August 2014, 08:05 PM | #2679 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
Not really. In my experience and reading of and from talking to other persons in scientific areas, it is pretty common for persons with what we politely called
alternative theories to come to the field of science/ they are theorizing about with no functional education (other than self reading of some books or - worse - watching history channel or similar very dumbed down science shows), no knowledge of what went into developing the theory/ies they are claiming are wrong, no knowledge of the math done to develop those theories and no understanding of those maths in the theories AND a certain knowledge that they or the person who wrote a false science book they read (with assurance , apparently) that if it is in a book they took the time to read it must be true - it's the other people trying to hold them back/put them down who are reading the fake books promoting the fake theories because obviously they do not know what our crackpot knows. That is why other than carefully worded posts that denote their flaws (personal and scientific) carefully are all I bother with in response to them.OOPS_ the end point: (Edit) Their responses to such criticisms get them banned, not the idiot theories, the responses to having it pointed out that the theories (and thus them - doesn't have to be said, they know that) are ignorant/pathetic and revelatory of their lack of skill, knowledge, ability to function in science and general uselessness. |
6th August 2014, 08:39 PM | #2680 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
There was this article that rang true to me:
http://aeon.co/magazine/being-human/...whos-the-jerk/
Quote:
Point being: Being a crackpot may be correlated with being banned/suspended. But crackpottery does not cause banning. Rather, the confounding variable is that being a jerk can lead to both crackpottery and to jerkish behavior that causes banning. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|