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: gb6724 on 9 Dec 2008 14:14 On Dec 9, 5:17 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 > pva...(a)yahoo.com Discrimination. To call Einstein a crank is sickening, and classic of the most horrible racist aspects of fascists.
From: gb6724 on 9 Dec 2008 14:34 On Dec 9, 12:14 pm, "gb6...(a)yahoo.com" <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 5:17 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > pva...(a)yahoo.com > > Discrimination. To call Einstein a crank is sickening, and classic of > the most horrible racist aspects of fascists. Kansas will become the center of the United States. It is the center of the United States.
From: eigen on 9 Dec 2008 14:42 On Dec 8, 10:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: .... > Tom Roberts Sir, if you know all about relativity why dont you tell us 1. What TIME is ? 2. What LIGHT is? 3 What GRAVITY is? 4 What bended SPACE time is? I mean not evade with abstract explanations, but putting your finger on it and tell me "look this is TIME" etc
From: eigen on 9 Dec 2008 14:55 On Dec 8, 10:58 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: .... > Tom Roberts On the other hand I just spot an error you made in your ppt paper on page 9 Brillet and Hall Experiment (1979) where you say single mode laser heterodyne this is impossible, because heterodyne involves 2 frequencies Are you sure you understand the difference between homodyne arrangement and heterodyne ???
From: gb6724 on 9 Dec 2008 15:12
On Dec 9, 12:34 pm, "gb6...(a)yahoo.com" <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 9, 12:14 pm, "gb6...(a)yahoo.com" <gb6...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 5:17 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > pva...(a)yahoo.com > > > Discrimination. To call Einstein a crank is sickening, and classic of > > the most horrible racist aspects of fascists. > > Kansas will become the center of the United States. It is the center > of the United States. How can there be a science crank, you people are sicker than Stalin. Toilet brain. Don't get me cranky, boy. |