Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: Ken S. Tucker on 8 Dec 2008 20:04 On Dec 8, 1:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > GSS wrote: > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. > > I assume you meant "religions". Yes. > > The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > faith". > > "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" > -- Arthur C, Clarke > > "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." > -- Tom Roberts > > The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish > them. > > > However, > > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines > > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that > > discipline. > > No scientific discipline "demands" that. What they require is > UNDERSTANDING, not faith. But to you, and to all too many people around > here, the two are indistinguishable. > > > The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks', are extremely important > > members of the scientific community, who are nurturing the important > > discipline of Physics and preventing its degeneration into a religious > > faith. > > Not true. There is no instance in the history of physics of someone > making a contribution to the field without understanding the > then-current theories and experiments. Contrary to your claim, crackpots > and cranks who do not understand the now-current theories and > experiments are not any part of the scientific community. People who > present dissenting opinions with full knowledge of current theories and > experiments are neither crackpots nor cranks -- one obvious difference > is these latter can get published in the mainstream literature. Cranks > and crackpots generally cannot get published in the mainstream > literature, because a major purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting > readers' time with "impossible" nonsense (see my next paragraph for the > meaning of "impossible" here). > > > Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > any scientific discipline. > > Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with > all known experiments". Without knowing the current experimental record, > a crackpot or crank simply does not understand what is and is not POSSIBLE. > > One must generally understand the then-current theories > used when the experiment was published, in order to be > able to read their paper(s) intelligently. The MMX is an > excellent example of this, as are Miller's measurements. > Such papers are inherently embedded in the context and > milieu of physics when they were written. > > > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be > > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. > > No. But it _IS_ necessary that USEFUL "dissenting opinion" be POSSIBLE > (in the above sense). Impossible "dissenting opinion" is useless and can > be safely ignored. That's why so few real scientists pay attention to > this newsgroup -- >90% of the posts are nonsense (or worse), and >99% of > the "dissenting opinions" are IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > > Dissenting > > opinion must be treated as an essential part of the exploration > > process, to explore various inadequacies and shortcomings in the > > current paradigm and to explore various alternatives. > > Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > The scientific literature is full of "dissenting opinion". Practically > all of modern physics was once "dissenting opinion". And there are > several current schools of thought about extending relativity ("doubly > special relativity", "loop quantum gravity", "string theory", ...). But > you won't hear about them around here, because they are all advanced > topics far beyond the capabilities of just about everybody who > contributes to this newsgroup; there are MUCH better forums in which to > discuss them (primarily the literature, not the internet). The cranks > and crackpots around here are in a completely different world, which is > unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). > Tom Roberts Yeah, I'd give a long salute to Galileo as being such a crank. In the modern era, I'd place Planck as being there with his invention of Plancks constant, tending to finite, instead of zero. Regards Ken S. Tucker
From: Dono on 8 Dec 2008 20:45 On Dec 8, 5:04 pm, "Ken Fucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > Ken Sucker :-)
From: bill on 8 Dec 2008 20:59 On Dec 9, 8:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > GSS wrote: > > Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > any scientific discipline. > > Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with > all known experiments". It is, I understand, a basic tenet of physics that although a theory may appear to have been ratified by (i.e. be consistent with) numerous experiments it only takes one (repeatable) experiment to invalidate any theory. The engineers who developed the scanning tunneling microscope were repeatedly informed that on the basis of 'all known experiments' the concept defied classical physics thus would not work (102, Popular Science, April, 1989). Georges Charpak's multiwire proportional chamber was initially subjected to similar treatment (6, New Scientist, October 24, 1992).
From: Uncle Ben on 8 Dec 2008 21:14 On Dec 8, 7:41 pm, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote: > On 8 déc, 22:58, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > GSS wrote: > > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. > > > I assume you meant "religions". Yes. > > > The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > > modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > > faith". > > > "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" > > -- Arthur C, Clarke > > > "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." > > -- Tom Roberts > > > The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish > > them. > > > > However, > > > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines > > > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that > > > discipline. > > > No scientific discipline "demands" that. What they require is > > UNDERSTANDING, not faith. But to you, and to all too many people around > > here, the two are indistinguishable. > > > > The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks', are extremely important > > > members of the scientific community, who are nurturing the important > > > discipline of Physics and preventing its degeneration into a religious > > > faith. > > > Not true. There is no instance in the history of physics of someone > > making a contribution to the field without understanding the > > then-current theories and experiments. Contrary to your claim, crackpots > > and cranks who do not understand the now-current theories and > > experiments are not any part of the scientific community. People who > > present dissenting opinions with full knowledge of current theories and > > experiments are neither crackpots nor cranks -- one obvious difference > > is these latter can get published in the mainstream literature. Cranks > > and crackpots generally cannot get published in the mainstream > > literature, because a major purpose of peer review is to avoid wasting > > readers' time with "impossible" nonsense (see my next paragraph for the > > meaning of "impossible" here). > > > > Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > > any scientific discipline. > > > Yes. The key word is "possible", which in science means "consistent with > > all known experiments". Without knowing the current experimental record, > > a crackpot or crank simply does not understand what is and is not POSSIBLE. > > > One must generally understand the then-current theories > > used when the experiment was published, in order to be > > able to read their paper(s) intelligently. The MMX is an > > excellent example of this, as are Miller's measurements.. > > Such papers are inherently embedded in the context and > > milieu of physics when they were written. > > > > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be > > > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. > > > No. But it _IS_ necessary that USEFUL "dissenting opinion" be POSSIBLE > > (in the above sense). Impossible "dissenting opinion" is useless and can > > be safely ignored. That's why so few real scientists pay attention to > > this newsgroup -- >90% of the posts are nonsense (or worse), and >99% of > > the "dissenting opinions" are IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > > > Dissenting > > > opinion must be treated as an essential part of the exploration > > > process, to explore various inadequacies and shortcomings in the > > > current paradigm and to explore various alternatives. > > > Not when such "dissenting opinion" is IMPOSSIBLE (in the above sense). > > > The scientific literature is full of "dissenting opinion". Practically > > all of modern physics was once "dissenting opinion". And there are > > several current schools of thought about extending relativity ("doubly > > special relativity", "loop quantum gravity", "string theory", ...). But > > you won't hear about them around here, because they are all advanced > > topics far beyond the capabilities of just about everybody who > > contributes to this newsgroup; there are MUCH better forums in which to > > discuss them (primarily the literature, not the internet). The cranks > > and crackpots around here are in a completely different world, which is > > unrelated to science (and thus uninteresting to most scientists). > > > Tom Roberts > > What is you proof that light velocity is independent of the velocity > of the observer? How do you explain his observed red or blueshift? > > Marcel Luttgens- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Easy. The frequency shifts are not velocity shifts. Uncle Ben
From: Koobee Wublee on 8 Dec 2008 21:30
"Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Arthur C, Clarke "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." -- Tom Roberts "Sufficiently gross abuse in understanding is indistinguishable from faith." -- Koobee Wublee "Sufficiently lack of Sagnac effect is indistinguishable in denying the Aether." -- Androcles "Sufficiently being ignorance is indistinguishable from brain-dead." -- Dirk van de Moortel "Sufficiently throwing bullshit is indistinguishable from being a multi-year super-senior." -- Eric Gisse "Sufficiently playing scientist-want-to-be is indistinguishable from being the wizard of Oz." -- Paul Draper "Sufficiently lack of understanding in the principle of relativity is indistinguishable from Dono the one who does not know anything." -- Paul Andersen <shrug> |