If this is a joke, it's a very good one

Re: Re: If this is a joke, it's a very good one

JPK said:
But it as entertaining as this?
Click to expand...

It's much, much funnier. It's the grandiosity and paranoia that do it:

"Q: Lots of good points but if even our most basic science is so full of holes why do scientists simply ignore this and forge ahead inventing more bizarre new theories to add to the fray?

A: What else can they do? No doubt they would gladly fix all these glaring problems if they had the proper understanding, but they don’t. They are our science authority today and so are unwilling to admit that all they really know is what they've been told -- a centuries-old legacy of scientifically impossible beliefs from a much simpler time (electrons and galaxies have been known for barely a century). Since our scientists still lack a true understanding of our universe they have little choice but to staunchly defend the science legacy they have inherited, continuing to work within this flawed framework. "

You will notice that amongst the things those stupid, stupid scientists can't explain is why pipes burst in winter and why putting things on tables doesn't break them. This man is an antigenius. Or a comic genius.
 
Can this explain ... the energy expended by gravity as it drives the dynamics of the universe?
Click to expand...

As we all know, it takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff...
Click to expand...

Yet a fridge magnet is not glued to the fridge -- it is held by magnetic energy.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think that maybe science should abandon this idea that "force" and "energy" are the same thing.
 
What? Aboandon the idea that something measured in newtons must be identical to something measured in newton-meters? Never! This is the whole basis of orthodox scientific thought! That clang you just heard was the sound of my mind closing.
 
Q: How can freezing water expand, even bursting
metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?

A: According to today's science, this is impossible.
Click to expand...
Errr - Hydrogen bonds???
 
The site seems to be promoting a book. If you look up the book on Amazon, you will find that:

"Customers who bought titles by Mark McCutcheon also bought titles by these authors:

David Icke..."
 
Mojo said:
The site seems to be promoting a book.
Click to expand...
In which case he is either genuinely in error, or a swindler. Either way we should get in touch with him. Who's the Top Physicist round here?
 
Re: Re: Re: If this is a joke, it's a very good one

Stitch said:
But that is a joke - the author is a humorist
Click to expand...

That is the scarey part.
This other guy is for real.

JPK
 
Anyone with the appropriate background care to leave a review of this guys book? Apparently, it's doing quite well on Amazon.

Review it here.

It's the 32d bestselling physics book. I know, but it means that somebody must be buying it, believing it, and making life more difficult for the rest of us. If we could only harness the power of the fridge magnet.
 
:bump4

It's still selling ... to five star reviews ... if anyone's a member of Amazon, could we fight back?
 
I plead ignorance. I'll admit that I was under the impression of what this individual is saying. Of course I believed in the "we use only 10% of our brain" crap until I started reading swift.

I believe I understand the theory as proposed by Einstein. But I don't think that his theory explains what gravity is but instead provides a mechanism for how it works and solves a problem the resulted from Newtonian physics.

According to Wikipedia:
While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question.
Click to expand...
So, again, I'm not a physicist and I'm not challenging anyone just trying to understand.

What is wrong with the article? Do we understand what gravity is, if so what is it?
 
I'm reading the Q&A and I must admit that much of it sounds like woo.
 
*aarghll...*

Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black
Holes and how even light can't escape?

A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a simple oversight.
Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear
energy and collapses. But starlight only shines from intact,
functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to
expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out,
smashed light bulb.
Click to expand...

Yow. Reflection is for sissies. Any genuine visible body creates its own light, dontchaknow.

As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible,
and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science.
No device (or natural phenomenon) can operate endlessly
without draining a power source, and certainly no device can
operate without a power source at all. Yet, our science states
that an object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would
oscillate back and forth endlessly from one end of the planet
to the other.
Click to expand...

Yow. "Our science" is evidently totally unaware of the phenomenon of friction, too. And space is, like, totally EMPTY, right?

Even if he should have anything worthwhile to say in that book, this kind of stuff tends to give me a certain bias...
 
Ai yi yi. Someone needs to go take an intro physics class. There are many available at your local university.

I'm going to go leave a bad review, but since I don't have that PhD yet, maybe no one will listen. Worth a try, right?
 
I just submitted this to Amazon - hopefully someone will notice it before wasting their money.



I wish there were a 'negative stars' option. I won't go into detail (see previous negative reviews for that), but the author quickly demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of basic physical principles. He has obviously read quite a bit of the current physical and cosmological literature aimed at the public (Weinberg, Krauss, Greene, ect.), but misunderstood a great deal. I would recommend that the author take an introductory physics course before attempting another work of fiction and confusing people beyond measure. Skip this one.
 
Floyt said:
*aarghll...*



Yow. Reflection is for sissies. Any genuine visible body creates its own light, dontchaknow.



Yow. "Our science" is evidently totally unaware of the phenomenon of friction, too. And space is, like, totally EMPTY, right?

Even if he should have anything worthwhile to say in that book, this kind of stuff tends to give me a certain bias...
Click to expand...

Actually if I can remmember two explanation of why black hole shine. The first one was the friction and acceleration of the matter being attracted toward the black hole, the second one was the high energy particule created by pair (matter/anti-matter) somehow get split at the event horizon... I do not want to hijack the thread but can comeone remmmebr if both are valid ?
 
Mojo said:
The site seems to be promoting a book. If you look up the book on Amazon, you will find that:

"Customers who bought titles by Mark McCutcheon also bought titles by these authors:

David Icke..."
Click to expand...


uuuuhhhhhh that David ICKe makes me shudder. Beyond delusion.
 
Aepervius said:
Actually if I can remmember two explanation of why black hole shine. The first one was the friction and acceleration of the matter being attracted toward the black hole, the second one was the high energy particule created by pair (matter/anti-matter) somehow get split at the event horizon... I do not want to hijack the thread but can comeone remmmebr if both are valid ?
Click to expand...
Unsure about the first one, but the second one you mention is called Hawking Radiation - when pairs of virtual particles (particle/antiparticle) which bubble in and out of semi-existence all the time drift near a black hole, and one falls behind the event horizon, the other is promoted to 'real particle', and runs away as Hawking Radiation. Or something like that.



That website is appalling! He seems to think that scientists 'discovered' black holes because they saw a big black star in the sky and said "hey, I wonder what that is?"

Anyone know anything about this Discover magazine he's quoting? It seemes that his entire knowledge base comes from there.
 
The guy's constant touting of the magical "gravity energy" is giving me a headache.
 
Aepervius said:
Actually if I can remmember two explanation of why black hole shine. The first one was the friction and acceleration of the matter being attracted toward the black hole, the second one was the high energy particule created by pair (matter/anti-matter) somehow get split at the event horizon... I do not want to hijack the thread but can comeone remmmebr if both are valid ?
Click to expand...

The first one is valid.

Any black hole that has matter still infalling creates an accretion disk around it (if rotating, which all holes are expected to do, being collapsed stars they would maintain the angular velocity of the star when they collapse). As gases and matter fall into the hole, they circle it at ever increasing velocities. This is basic orbital mechanics. Near the event horizon, gases are rotating very quickly, and rubbing against each other (as not all are on the same path). The friction creates a high amount of heat, such that the black-body radiation of the accretion disk emits X-rays. Since this is outside the event horizon, this radiation can be detected. If I recall correctly, this is the reason that Cygnus X-1 is considered a black hole...it emits a high level of X-rays that cannot be accounted for otherwise.
 
I can't even begin to assess the damage done to my brain reading this.

All of his so called problems stem from the fact that he refuses to believe that you can generate force without energy! In fact, he repeatedely mentions how W = Fm gives the right answer but is "clearly wrong".

Ugh. He contradicts himself so much it's sad.
 
Science can't explain why the laws of physics prevent turkey sandwitches from turning into black holes!
 
Blogged

I just blogged about this!

w w w. rockstarramblings dot blogspot dot com
 
The actual Final Theory isn't expounded on the site, IIRC, so here it is for those who would like a chuckle:

The simple and basic idea behind The Final Theory is that all matter is expanding at 4.9m/s^2, and therefore objects (close to Earth) appear to accelerate towards it at 9.8m/s. Great, huh?

Yes, that is the only case for which the hypothesis works for, and you can have fun thinking about the enormous number of properties of gravity for which it is obviously and completely wrong. There's a record of email correspondence between the author and someone with some critical thinking skills at homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html (sorry for not making that a proper link, but I still need 4 more posts to level up and gain the "post link" feat lol)

He then somehow generalises this chronically flawed hypothesis to magnetism, although God only knows how.
 
drfrank said:
The actual Final Theory isn't expounded on the site, IIRC, so here it is for those who would like a chuckle:

The simple and basic idea behind The Final Theory is that all matter is expanding at 4.9m/s^2, and therefore objects (close to Earth) appear to accelerate towards it at 9.8m/s. Great, huh?

Yes, that is the only case for which the hypothesis works for, and you can have fun thinking about the enormous number of properties of gravity for which it is obviously and completely wrong. There's a record of email correspondence between the author and someone with some critical thinking skills at homepage.mac.com/ruske/ruske/finaltheory.html (sorry for not making that a proper link, but I still need 4 more posts to level up and gain the "post link" feat lol)

He then somehow generalises this chronically flawed hypothesis to magnetism, although God only knows how.
Click to expand...

Waaah! I've just been reading "The Great SF Stories (1949)", ed. by Asimov, and there is a story in there by John Macdonald ("Flaw"), that is basically about this very idea. 1949! And HE was smart enough to treat it as fiction.
 
Dr Adequate:
Yes, it's definitely an old idea and I'd heard about it being mentioned in "The Dilbert Future" before (although I can't confirm that for certain myself).

The reference by Floyt is pretty interesting, though :)

I suppose you might draw parallels with ID - all the new bad arguments are based on old bad arguments ;)
 
Last edited:
Lol

rwguinn said:
you were Waaayyyyyy too kind.

In the words of prof. Peter Schickele: "Hats back on, gentlemen--an idiot"
Click to expand...

I guess my whole point was that this Woo figured out the "Theory of Everything", but instead of submitting it for peer review he writes a book and sells it to Creduloid Nation on Amazon. I wonder if he uses Michael Menkin's anti-alien mind control hats?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom