Entertaining Crackpottery

[lpetrich]

Back to the original subject, a good technique for dealing with crackpots is to propose some rival form of crackpottery. Bertrand Russell countered Great Pyramid enthusiasts by talking about the Great Sphinx. When he encountered an Anglo-Israelite, he'd propose some rival version of the Anglo-Israelite hypothesis, that the people of Great Britain are descended from the lost ten tribes of Israel, or else only two of them.

Likewise, Martin Gardner's most indignant responses to Fads and Fallacies came from believers in Wilheim Reich's orgone therapy, who were affronted that he discussed that therapy alongside the likes of Dianetics. Believers in Dianetics felt likewise about orgone therapy.

It's true Jim. I give robust scientific evidence to support my case. See for example Why C is the limit.

None of the "evidence" that you cite goes against mainstream phyiscal theories. In fact, some of the evidence that you cite is contrary to your theories.

lpetrich dismisses that scientific evidence.

There you go again, Farsight.

Imagine that you only had the observations and experimental results available in previous centuries. What would you have thought about atoms and why?

I'd have thought there's evidence for this hypothesis, what further experiments can we do to understand more? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism#Corpuscularianism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sceptical_Chymist, which dates from 1661. ...

Please summarize the atomist arguments that they made. The first one mentions interpenetration, while the second one mentions none.

Farsight, imagine that someone I'll call Longicogitans claims that atoms do not exist, because he does not see any granularity in the materials around him. What observations and experiments would you recommend to Longicogitans to show that atoms exist? Especially observations and experiments that could have been done before the 20th cy.

[Farsight]

No. Do the research yourself. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_the ... l_evidence. And pay attention to Dalton in 1803, then Avogadro in 1811. Then pay attention to this:

"Atoms were thought to be the smallest possible division of matter until 1897 when J.J. Thomson discovered the electron through his work on cathode rays."

You're a century out. But hey, don't mind me. You carry on entertaining your crackpottery.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's true Jim. I give robust scientific evidence to support my case.

There is a difference between robust and obese - just saying...

[lpetrich]

No. Do the research yourself. ...

(More quote-mining snipped)

Farsight, I'd expected you to argue in your own words, describing observations that one can make and experiments that one can do. Longicogitans would say "Farsight, you don't have a case for the existence of atoms."

[ChildInAZoo]

You don't need WIMPs. Space is dark, it has its vacuum energy with a mass-equivalence, and it is not homogeneous.

Please provide a calculation of a galaxy rotation curve that matches the observed curve. Unless you are lying about the need for dark matter.

[lpetrich]

You don't need WIMPs. Space is dark, it has its vacuum energy with a mass-equivalence, and it is not homogeneous.

Please provide a calculation of a galaxy rotation curve that matches the observed curve. Unless you are lying about the need for dark matter.

I wouldn't want to accuse Farsight of outright lying. I think that he honestly believes that nonmathematical arguments and quote mining are better than quantitative tests. In effect that "calculation can only lead you astray."

[Farsight]

I don't think that. How many times do I have to tell you that mathematics is a vital tool for phyiscs? And how many times do I have to tell you that to really understand even a simple expression like E=mc² you have to understand the terms. So you have to understand what energy is, what mass is, why the speed of light c is constant and why c is the limit, and while your'e at it, what charge is all about. You can't understand the mathematical terms using mathematics. You have to look at the scientific evidence. Incredibly you're so wrapped up in the mathematics that you won't, but you believe in crackpot stuff like the multiverse for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Please provide a calculation of a galaxy rotation curve that matches the observed curve. Unless you are lying about the need for dark matter.

No. As I've said previously it would be too time consuming and it's fruitless. It doesn't tell us anything about the configuration of the non-uniform energy density - whether the energy is spatial or particulate.

[lpetrich]

I don't think that. How many times do I have to tell you that mathematics is a vital tool for phyiscs?

In some limited domain, it would seem, while out of it, "calculation can only lead you astray".

And how many times do I have to tell you that to really understand even a simple expression like E=mc² you have to understand the terms.

Farsight, you are sneaking in new physical theories under the guise of doing so. Theories where only word games, er, qualitative arguments are allowed.

You can't understand the mathematical terms using mathematics. You have to look at the scientific evidence.

So "scientific evidence" can never be quantitative?

Incredibly you're so wrapped up in the mathematics that you won't, but you believe in crackpot stuff like the multiverse for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Why are multiverses so much sillier than photon-loop electrons?

Please provide a calculation of a galaxy rotation curve that matches the observed curve. Unless you are lying about the need for dark matter.

No. As I've said previously it would be too time consuming and it's fruitless. It doesn't tell us anything about the configuration of the non-uniform energy density - whether the energy is spatial or particulate.

Farsight, that attitude will NEVER get you taken seriously in the mainstream of the scientific community. You can whine all you want about how difficult it is to get published, but hasn't it ever occurred to you that your theories may not deserve to be published?

So why not write a paper for Physical Review Letters or some similar journal arguing that the Einstein-de Haas effect shows that intrinsic spin does not exist? You shouldn't have much writing to do, so don't complain about how little time you have.

[Farsight]

Why are multiverses so much sillier than photon-loop electrons?

Because there no evidence for the former, and ample evidence for the latter: pair production, magnetic dipole moment, Einstein-de Haas, Einstein's original paper and the photon in the mirror-box, annihilation to gamma photons, spin. To put all that on a par with the multiverse is absurd. The multiverse is quackery. If you beg to differ I dare you to start a thread. I will demolish it.

So why not write a paper for Physical Review Letters or some similar journal arguing that the Einstein-de Haas effect shows that intrinsic spin does not exist? You shouldn't have much writing to do, so don't complain about how little time you have.

Because the gatekeepers are people like you, with no regard for scientific evidence, a belief in moonshine, and a penchant for dismissal of the bleeding obvious.

[lpetrich]

As I said, I'd created this thread in honor of varieties of pseudoscience and crackpottery that we find entertaining.

I don't know who is old enough to remember Immanuel Velikovsky and his followers claiming 100% vindication in the early 1970's. Velikovsky even claimed that he did not know of any of his assertions that were falsified by later work. Other pseudoscientists could claim similar triumphs.

Hoerbigerites could point to the enormous quantities of ice in the outer Solar System -- many of the outer planets' moons, comets, Kuiper Belt objects, ... they could even claim that the Kuiper Belt is Hoerbiger's ice ring. Oxygen is the third most common element in the Solar System, and is also very common outside the Solar System, meaning that the colder and more condensed parts elsewhere likely have plenty of ice in them.

Before there were anti-Einstein crackpots, there were anti-Newton crackpots, and some of them had also rejected the wave theory of sound. A certain Rev. Alexander Wilford Hall argued at length that gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, heat, and sound are composed of particles.

Reverend Hall was fond of pointing out that the sound of a locust could be heard for more than a mile. If the wave theory of sound were correct, he argued, it meant that a gigantic mass of air, weighing thousands of tons, had to be kept in constant agitation by a tiny insect. No sane person could believe this, he said, although he did not explain how the tiny locust could fill the gigantic space with a substance.
(MG, Fads and Fallacies)

Likewise, a certain Joseph Battell rejected wave theories, claiming that the wave theory of sound is a "monstrous lie".

Such anti-Newton crackpots could claim vindication in the development of quantum mechanics, because wave-particle duality is an important part of it. However, QM supports wave as well as particle features, which may disappoint them. Looking at sound, it is also a particle as well as a wave; quanta of sound are called "phonons". It's difficult to detect quantization effects for audible sound, but the heat inside of condensed materials is mainly carried by ultra-ultrasound waves whose wavelengths are not much greater than the those materials' atom separations. For temperatures much lower than a material's "Debye temperature", one can see the effects of quantization in the material's specific heat, which becomes proportional to the cube of the temperature. At very low temperatures, however, other heat-capacity mechanisms may take over, like conduction-electron excitation in metals.

[lpetrich]

Why are multiverses so much sillier than photon-loop electrons?

Because there no evidence for the former, and ample evidence for the latter: pair production, magnetic dipole moment, Einstein-de Haas, Einstein's original paper and the photon in the mirror-box, annihilation to gamma photons, spin. To put all that on a par with the multiverse is absurd.

Farsight, NONE of what you listed is contrary to mainstream physics, no matter what you may want to believe. In fact, you've shown VERY little understanding of many of the fundamental theories of mainstream physics. Quote mining != understanding.

The multiverse is quackery. If you beg to differ I dare you to start a thread. I will demolish it.

I shall.

So why not write a paper for Physical Review Letters or some similar journal arguing that the Einstein-de Haas effect shows that intrinsic spin does not exist? You shouldn't have much writing to do, so don't complain about how little time you have.

Because the gatekeepers are people like you, with no regard for scientific evidence, a belief in moonshine, and a penchant for dismissal of the bleeding obvious.

Cry me a river, Farsight. Why don't you do that and see what the referees say?

[Farsight]

Farsight, NONE of what you listed is contrary to mainstream physics, no matter what you may want to believe.

I know none of it is contrary to mainstream physics. None of the things I talk about are. The difference between you and me is that I'm working out the underlying reality from the scientific evidence, and you don't want to. You aren't interested in scientific evidence, you prefer the mathematics, and you prefer mysticism.

...Such anti-Newton crackpots could claim vindication in the development of quantum mechanics, because wave-particle duality is an important part of it.

Newton arguably anticipated the quantum nature of light with his corpuscles and fits of easy transmission and reflexion. Very interesting guy was Newton. He knew how gravity worked, and that light and matter were convertible into one another. But people don't seem to read what he actually said. And they don't seem to understand why he was so interested in Opticks.

Cry me a river, Farsight. Why don't you do that and see what the referees say?

Here's an example response:

Dear Mr John Duffield,

Apologies from this late editorial decision on your submission FOOP239 entitled "A qualitative 3+1 dimensional geometrical model"

Before entering a submission to the reviewing process, we check whether it obeys criteria such as the following:

- Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?
- Does the paper contain original ideas and new results?
- Are the arguments and calculations accurate and correct?
- Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and worded well?
- Does the overall quality agree with our very tough standards?

I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics.

Specific comment by one of the Editors: This manuscript lacks sufficient foundational quality. We must advise the author to submit his manuscript somewhere else.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

With kind regards,

Gerard 't Hooft
Chief Editor

I see you've started a multiverse thread. That'll be fun. But not now, the wife is biting my ankles for a trip to the beach.

[ChildInAZoo]

So the referee told you that your work in fundamentally bad. And you didn't try to improve your work?

[Farsight]

That wasn't a referee, that was the editor, and that's not what he said. But yes, I did try to improve my work. I'm constantly trying to improve it. But let's not talk about me, let's stay on topic and talk about lpetrich's crackpottery.

[lpetrich]

Farsight, NONE of what you listed is contrary to mainstream physics, no matter what you may want to believe.

I know none of it is contrary to mainstream physics. None of the things I talk about are.

So your theories have do not improve over mainstream physical theories in predictive power???
If anything, given your attitude towards mathematics, they do even worse.

The difference between you and me is that I'm working out the underlying reality from the scientific evidence, and you don't want to.

So you are claiming that verbal arguments can access some level of reality that mathematical arguments cannot? So Hoerbigerian.

You aren't interested in scientific evidence, you prefer the mathematics, and you prefer mysticism.

Cry me a river, Farsight. Why don't you do that and see what the referees say?

Here's an example response:

Farsight, hasn't it ever occurred to you that your response may be a good description of your work? Instead, all I see from you is what Martin Gardner described in his classic:

"To me truth is precious.... I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong... . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. ... But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still."

These sentences are from the preface of a booklet, published in 1931, by Charles Silvester de Ford, of Fairfield, Washington, in which he proves the earth is flat. Sooner or later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.

...Such anti-Newton crackpots could claim vindication in the development of quantum mechanics, because wave-particle duality is an important part of it.

Newton arguably anticipated the quantum nature of light with his corpuscles and fits of easy transmission and reflexion. ...

So now you're quote-mining Newton? Perhaps we should keep a score of whose work has been quote-mined by Farsight. So far: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, and Wikipedia.