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: Pentcho Valev on 9 Dec 2008 07:17 On Dec 9, 2:41 am, mluttg...(a)orange.fr wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > 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 Curiously, Maxwell's theory predicts that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer. Of course, Einsteinians would tell you the opposite. Two fundamental lies taught by Einsteinians: 1. Einstein introduced his 1905 light postulate because the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment forced him to do so. 2. Einstein introduced his 1905 light postulate because Maxwell's theory forced him to do so. The two lies have been repeated so many times that, in accordance with Goebbels' principle, they are now absolute truths. Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Juan R. on 9 Dec 2008 08:28 On 9 dic, 02:59, bill <cosmo...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > 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). This is addressed in page 12 of the Report "Science in the 21st century: social, political, and economic issues" http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html In their Nobel Lecture, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer said us about being often told by 'expertises' that they were addressing something that would "not have worked in principle". Moreover, their first attempt to publish a letter describing the scanning tunnel microscope was rejected by referees. > Georges Charpak's multiwire proportional chamber was initially > subjected to similar treatment (6, New Scientist, October 24, 1992). The above work includes a list of thirty four Nobel Laureates whose awarded work was rejected by peer review and 'expertises'. Of course, the list of achievements rejected by 'expertises' is much larger. There exist hundred of cases are not listed in above report. Even Issac Newton, who is considered the important scientist of the history, was rejected so strong by their colleagues, that Newton decided not to publish their works and merely distribute them to some colleagues and friends. We know Newton work today because his friends convince him to ignore 'expertises' criticism and publish his theories.
From: GSS on 9 Dec 2008 11:56 On Dec 8, 11:21 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 8:42 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: ...... > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. However, > > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines > > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that > > discipline. This is the main distinguishing feature of all sciences > > where the ethos of questioning the blind faith, questioning the > > postulates, axioms and dogmas is recognized as a healthy sign and is > > encouraged. > > > 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. Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > any scientific discipline. All attempts to gag or suppress any dissent > > on the current paradigm of Physics, will amount to a crime against > > humanity. > > > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be > > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. 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. The mainstream > > need not accept all dissenting opinion straight away; in fact they > > should not. But the mainstream must pay heed to the dissenting > > opinion, must consider it patiently and if possible discuss it openly. > > Slowly and steadily all valid points from the bulk of dissenting > > viewpoints, will get assimilated in to the mainstream and constitute a > > progress in the concerned scientific discipline. > > > The current global financial crisis had started brewing many years > > ago. The excessive use of credit system, inadequate control and > > regulatory mechanism, high leverages, greed driven derivatives and > > hedge funds, were all pointing towards an eventual collapse of the > > financial system. I understand that many intellectuals and experts in > > the field, who dared to point out the above lacunae in the financial > > system, were dubbed as 'crackpots' and 'cranks'. In retrospect, after > > the current collapse of the global financial system, those 'crackpots' > > and 'cranks' will now appear to be the sages of the system. > > > Similar grave situation is now brewing in the field of fundamental > > Physics. The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks' of Physics are trying > > their level best to highlight the inadequacies, flaws and lacunae in > > the prevailing paradigm but they are persistently being snubbed and > > gagged by the mainstream. Like the global financial system, it should > > not become too late to start paying heed to the dissenting viewpoint > > in fundamental Physics. > > > GSS > > There's a difference between being snubbed and being gagged. Yes, snubbing is the initial response and gagging is the final. >As far as > I know, no one has made any attempt to put you at a disadvantage in > disseminating your positions. However, on the other hand, no one has > put you at special advantage, giving you a leg up where you have > deficiency. > That is O.K. > I agree with you that dissent is healthy and that constant re- > examination is and should continue to be a perpetual practice in > science. However, doing that does not automatically impart quality, > nor does it automatically rate attention. There are certain metrics > for the quality of scientific work which have *nothing* to do with > whether the prevailing model is supported or not. Unless those metrics > are met, there is no reason to offer warranty against being ignored. > > PD Does your notion of the 'metrics for the quality of scientific work' include the following? (a) A quality work in Physics must provide causal linkage between different phenomena attempted to be represented through an appropriate mathematical model. For example, for GR to be a 'quality scientific work' it must provide a causal linkage between the physical entity of mass-energy content (in a certain region of space) and the *metric* of spacetime manifold which is a mathematical abstract entity. What is the causal link between a physical entity and an abstract notion. More specifically, what is the physical causal mechanism through which the mass influences the metric of spacetime? (b)A quality work in Physics must provide logical explanation for the physical phenomenon attempted to be represented through an appropriate mathematical model. For example, for SR to be a 'quality scientific work' it must provide a logical explanation as to why the second postulate is assumed to be valid? (d) A quality work in Physics must provide sufficient information concerning a physical phenomenon so as to enable mental visualization of the same. For example the standard model of particle physics provides an excellent mathematical representation of numerous micro particles (including photons and electrons) and their mutual interactions, but does not provide sufficient information to enable us mentally visualize the shape size or structure of any of these particles. Should we regard the standard model of particle physics as the 'quality scientific work'? GSS
From: GSS on 9 Dec 2008 12:07 On Dec 9, 2:58 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > GSS wrote: > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. > > I assume you meant "religions". Yes. > I am sorry. My mistake, I relied on the spell-checker! > The problem around here is that all too many people unfamiliar with > modern physics mistake understanding and agreement with "unquestioning > faith". >. You can understand and agree with the mathematical structure of a theory like SR or GR. But when you agree with the founding postulates of these theories, there is no 'understanding' involved, it is only a matter of "unquestioning faith". > "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" > -- Arthur C, Clarke > > "Sufficiently advanced understanding is indistinguishable from faith." > -- Tom Roberts > Wrong. > The key is to advance YOUR OWN understanding so that you can distinguish > them. > Using your advanced understanding kindly explain how exactly MATTER influences the METRIC of spacetime manifold? If you cannot do that, it will imply an unquestioning faith. > > 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 mathematical structure of SR and GR demand understanding, but their founding postulates demand an unquestioning faith. The two can be easily distinguished. > > 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). >. This is either your misunderstanding or wrong belief that people with dissenting viewpoint don't understand the relevant theory or are ignorant of the relevant information. Just for a typical example consider Bryan G. Wallace. http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm > > 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. > It is your misunderstanding that all persons who do not agree with you are 'crackpots' or 'cranks'. Obviously, people who explore possible alternatives must understand the current state of the knowledge on the relevant subject. But your assumption that they don't, reflects your personal bias. > 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). > Say for example, I put up a dissenting opinion that (a) Second postulate of relativity is invalid, wrong and misleading. (b) Spacetime is not a physical entity but only a mathematical abstraction. (c) Curvature of space or spacetime is a misleading notion. Physically space cannot get curved, it can only get deformed. (d) It is wrong to assume that matter can physically influence the metric of space or spacetime. Now you are bound to pronounce all of the above 'dissenting opinions' as impossible, simply because of your 'unquestioning faith' in Relativity. Will you like to have a broad general discussions on these dissenting opinions? GSS
From: PD on 9 Dec 2008 12:32
On Dec 9, 10:56 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 8, 11:21 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 8:42 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ..... > > > An unquestioning faith is the keystone of all regions. However, > > > demanding an unquestioning faith in any of the scientific disciplines > > > will surely lead to stagnation and self destruction in that > > > discipline. This is the main distinguishing feature of all sciences > > > where the ethos of questioning the blind faith, questioning the > > > postulates, axioms and dogmas is recognized as a healthy sign and is > > > encouraged. > > > > 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. Exploration of all possible alternatives, hypothesis and > > > viewpoints, is absolutely essential for the well being and progress of > > > any scientific discipline. All attempts to gag or suppress any dissent > > > on the current paradigm of Physics, will amount to a crime against > > > humanity. > > > > It is certainly not necessary that all dissenting opinion must be > > > workable, brilliant or acceptable to the mainstream. 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. The mainstream > > > need not accept all dissenting opinion straight away; in fact they > > > should not. But the mainstream must pay heed to the dissenting > > > opinion, must consider it patiently and if possible discuss it openly.. > > > Slowly and steadily all valid points from the bulk of dissenting > > > viewpoints, will get assimilated in to the mainstream and constitute a > > > progress in the concerned scientific discipline. > > > > The current global financial crisis had started brewing many years > > > ago. The excessive use of credit system, inadequate control and > > > regulatory mechanism, high leverages, greed driven derivatives and > > > hedge funds, were all pointing towards an eventual collapse of the > > > financial system. I understand that many intellectuals and experts in > > > the field, who dared to point out the above lacunae in the financial > > > system, were dubbed as 'crackpots' and 'cranks'. In retrospect, after > > > the current collapse of the global financial system, those 'crackpots' > > > and 'cranks' will now appear to be the sages of the system. > > > > Similar grave situation is now brewing in the field of fundamental > > > Physics. The so called 'crackpots' and 'cranks' of Physics are trying > > > their level best to highlight the inadequacies, flaws and lacunae in > > > the prevailing paradigm but they are persistently being snubbed and > > > gagged by the mainstream. Like the global financial system, it should > > > not become too late to start paying heed to the dissenting viewpoint > > > in fundamental Physics. > > > > GSS > > > There's a difference between being snubbed and being gagged. > > Yes, snubbing is the initial response and gagging is the final. I do not see where you are gagged. > > >As far as > > I know, no one has made any attempt to put you at a disadvantage in > > disseminating your positions. However, on the other hand, no one has > > put you at special advantage, giving you a leg up where you have > > deficiency. > > That is O.K. > > > I agree with you that dissent is healthy and that constant re- > > examination is and should continue to be a perpetual practice in > > science. However, doing that does not automatically impart quality, > > nor does it automatically rate attention. There are certain metrics > > for the quality of scientific work which have *nothing* to do with > > whether the prevailing model is supported or not. Unless those metrics > > are met, there is no reason to offer warranty against being ignored. > > > PD > > Does your notion of the 'metrics for the quality of scientific work' > include the following? Yes and no. Details following. > > (a) A quality work in Physics must provide causal linkage between > different phenomena attempted to be represented through an appropriate > mathematical model. For example, for GR to be a 'quality scientific > work' it must provide a causal linkage between the physical entity of > mass-energy content (in a certain region of space) and the *metric* of > spacetime manifold which is a mathematical abstract entity. What is > the causal link between a physical entity and an abstract notion. More > specifically, what is the physical causal mechanism through which the > mass influences the metric of spacetime? It depends on what you mean by "causal mechanism". If you mean causal mechanism something chosen from a pick list of *conventional* mechanisms, like little massive particles interacting with other little massive particles or a material fluid impinging on objects, then I disagree. The repertoire of causal mechanisms inherited from classical physics is woefully deficient for the wide variety of phenomena from modern physics. And indeed it is woefully deficient to describe even classical phenomena. As long ago as 1687, the fact that gravity did not have an apparent way to reach across space from one massive body to another body other than "spooky action at a distance" was bemoaned. However, this does not mean that nature OWES us an explanation in terms of particles banging on particles or fluids, especially if those mechanisms are conspicuously absent. > > (b)A quality work in Physics must provide logical explanation for the > physical phenomenon attempted to be represented through an appropriate > mathematical model. For example, for SR to be a 'quality scientific > work' it must provide a logical explanation as to why the second > postulate is assumed to be valid? No, I strongly disagree that the presumptions built into a model must be defensibly plausible as a prerequisite for comparison to data. And in fact, a number of highly successful theories have postulated certain assumptions that are wildly implausible according to current understanding. In science what is done is to *suspend* disbelief in those implausible premises provisionally, until the model can be developed to the point where it makes specific predictions that are distinct from competing models can be compared to experimental measurement. If a model succeeds in its predictions, then no matter how implausible the premises are, science then *continues* to suspend disbelief in those premises, because they do show obvious success after all. It is natural, however, for physicists to re-examine *why* they thought those premises were so implausible in the first place, and in the course of that they do uncover hidden assumptions that turn out to be unwarranted. > > (d) A quality work in Physics must provide sufficient information > concerning a physical phenomenon so as to enable mental visualization > of the same. For example the standard model of particle physics > provides an excellent mathematical representation of numerous micro > particles (including photons and electrons) and their mutual > interactions, but does not provide sufficient information to enable us > mentally visualize the shape size or structure of any of these > particles. Should we regard the standard model of particle physics as > the 'quality scientific work'? No, I strongly disagree with this, too. Mental visualization is constrained by our visual and tactile senses, which are tuned to a small and unrepresentative slice of reality. Our mental grasp of the universe has proceeded at a pace far quicker than our sensory faculties or our brains (attuned to those faculties) can evolve, and as a result we struggle to pigeonhole something of class F into one of the categories, A, B, or C that our mental visual models span. The problem with mental visual models is that they carry baggage. When we say electrons are "like" particles, then we are correct that in some ways they are, but we are incorrect in other ways, and the statement that they are like particles does not draw that line between what is right and what is wrong. So if we visualize electrons as particles, then we invariably make mistakes, because we drag in an attribute to particles that is NOT APPROPRIATE for electrons. The value of mathematics in physics is that it *minimally* describes a model without unnecessary and inappropriate baggage. It contains *exactly* what is needed in the model and nothing more. Very often, it is impossible for our minds t make an accurate mental visual model without resorting to mental analogies (it's "like" these things) that end up bringing in the incorrect garbage. So in sum, I'd say "No" to all three of your characterizations of quality in physics. They do not work well, and for this reason they are dispensed with in physics, and appropriately so. PD |