| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mountain man" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 04:26:36 AM |
| Object: |
Operation Crackpot Patrol |
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
OTOH there always remains those who do not share
this confidence in the current series of physics theories,
those who may not even subscribe to them, and those
who in fact subscribe to other interpretations, some
of which may be consistent and original.
The former party, claiming the higher moral ground
and the standard party line is historically statistically
dominant in responding to the posts of the latter, and
those threads in many instances resolve essentially to
the invocation of "crackpot".
In an historical context it should be mentioned that
the term "crackpot index" was used, and in fact was
a simple method of rating potentially revolutionary
contributions to physics. Here is an early version:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news95_e.html
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
So we find the current situation wherein there now
seems to be routinely promulgated by a profile, a
hanger on, or a member of the former party, a list
of posters and profiles constituting the latter party.
Therefore, because the discernment of balance is
essential to all things, this list of "crackpots" should
in fact be balanced by a list of those of "The
Crackpot Patrol", the former party, and hangers on.
Who are these brave knights in glittering ascii?
Who are those purists who ride to defend the faith?
Who are they who roam the threads to eek out crackpots?
Who are the members of the sci.physics crackpot patrol?
Have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 04:43:48 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:wHLHd.125898$K7.23773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
What the hell do you expect if you keep peddling your crap over and
over again, in spite of it having been demolished every time you
raised your head?
[snip]
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 07:53:44 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cspc73$klr$4@hercules.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:wHLHd.125898$K7.23773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
What the hell do you expect if you keep peddling your crap over and
over again, in spite of it having been demolished every time you
raised your head?
QUESTION 1:
Does the refractive index of the gas influence the results
obtained in the gas mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 1:
Yes.
QUESTION 2:
Was the refractive index of the gas employed actually
used in any of the calculated results for MMX and all
other gas-mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 2:
No
QUESTION 3:
Why not?
ANSWER 3:
Idiot. Imbecile. No aether [Uncle Al]
The argument is demolished [Franz Heymann]
Crackpot and/or moron, not worthy of *any* response [Mati Meron]
Have a nice day boyz,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:42 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:IgZHd.126556$K7.40660@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cspc73$klr$4@hercules.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:wHLHd.125898$K7.23773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
What the hell do you expect if you keep peddling your crap over
and
over again, in spite of it having been demolished every time you
raised your head?
QUESTION 1:
Does the refractive index of the gas influence the results
obtained in the gas mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 1:
Yes.
A better answer would run along the following lines
In principle, but only in the case of a non-null result.
Have a look at Fizeau's experiment.
QUESTION 2:
Was the refractive index of the gas employed actually
used in any of the calculated results for MMX and all
other gas-mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 2:
No
QUESTION 3:
Why not?
The actual answer is that a correction for the nature of the medium is
irrelevant in the case of a null result.
You have tried this one before and it was shot down in more detail
before. More than once.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Jan 2005 10:04:10 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csraae$i68$2@titan.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:IgZHd.126556$K7.40660@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cspc73$klr$4@hercules.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:wHLHd.125898$K7.23773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
What the hell do you expect if you keep peddling your crap over
and
over again, in spite of it having been demolished every time you
raised your head?
QUESTION 1:
Does the refractive index of the gas influence the results
obtained in the gas mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 1:
Yes.
A better answer would run along the following lines
In principle, but only in the case of a non-null result.
Have a look at Fizeau's experiment.
IOW you agree that the physics of the apparatus
requires the consideration of the refractive index
of air in order to achieve an accurate result, but
that since M&M did not know this, could not
understand the results obtained and classified
the experiment as a null result.
QUESTION 2:
Was the refractive index of the gas employed actually
used in any of the calculated results for MMX and all
other gas-mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 2:
No
QUESTION 3:
Why not?
The actual answer is that a correction for the nature of the medium is
irrelevant in the case of a null result.
Merely a conventional procedural issue, and has
absolutely nothing to do with essence of physics.
Were the other gas-mode experiments listed
by Cahill also a null result?
You wont simply admit that Cahill has a valid point
about the absence of a term for the refractive index
of the gas in all gas mode michaelson interferometer
experiments?
Michelson-Morley (1881) results not null, instead 6.22 km/s (air)
Michelson-Morley (1887) results not null, instead 6.80 km/s (air)
Miller (1925) results were not null, instead 8.22 km/s (air)
Illingworth (1927) results were not null, instead 3.13 km/s (He)
You have tried this one before and it was shot down in more detail
before. More than once.
As I said before Crackpot patrolman Heymann you appear to suffer
from a shooting gallery mentality.
Have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
22 Jan 2005 04:58:30 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:_gkId.128692$K7.98416@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csraae$i68$2@titan.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:IgZHd.126556$K7.40660@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message
news:cspc73$klr$4@hercules.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in
message
news:wHLHd.125898$K7.23773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
What the hell do you expect if you keep peddling your crap over
and
over again, in spite of it having been demolished every time
you
raised your head?
QUESTION 1:
Does the refractive index of the gas influence the results
obtained in the gas mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 1:
Yes.
A better answer would run along the following lines
In principle, but only in the case of a non-null result.
Have a look at Fizeau's experiment.
IOW you agree that the physics of the apparatus
requires the consideration of the refractive index
of air in order to achieve an accurate result,
Not if the result is a null
but
that since M&M did not know this, could not
understand the results obtained and classified
the experiment as a null result.
It was. The presence of the air is irrelevant if the result is a null
result.
QUESTION 2:
Was the refractive index of the gas employed actually
used in any of the calculated results for MMX and all
other gas-mode interferometer experiments?
ANSWER 2:
No
QUESTION 3:
Why not?
The actual answer is that a correction for the nature of the
medium is
irrelevant in the case of a null result.
Merely a conventional procedural issue, and has
absolutely nothing to do with essence of physics.
Were the other gas-mode experiments listed
by Cahill also a null result?
The good ones were. The bad ones have been shot down before. Umpteen
times.
You wont simply admit that Cahill has a valid point
about the absence of a term for the refractive index
of the gas in all gas mode michaelson interferometer
experiments?
Of course I won't. He is just throwing red herrings around.
Michelson-Morley (1881) results not null, instead 6.22 km/s (air)
Michelson-Morley (1887) results not null, instead 6.80 km/s (air)
Miller (1925) results were not null, instead 8.22 km/s (air)
Illingworth (1927) results were not null, instead 3.13 km/s (He)
You have tried this one before and it was shot down in more detail
before. More than once.
As I said before Crackpot patrolman Heymann you appear to suffer
from a shooting gallery mentality.
And you must be a masochist, judging by the way you come up for more
punishment.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 09:02:15 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Well, having been "wet" by Uncle Al in my E = wLF thread in exactly the
same language as Jack Sarfatti, and seeing Franz Heymann or is it
Heydrich use the same language (unless the posts are melding), I think
I've figured out why Kerry almost won: the sci.research type gay
follies and their subsidiaries originate from New York! Bin Laden
(hypothesis) tried to bomb his own old cronies out of guilt, and hasn't
touched them since (the Islamist two-step).
What happens if he's got a 3-step?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 09:50:09 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Hey, this is so good that I'll reply to myself.
Theory: the gays control ECE (East Coast Education). Proof: (other
than expletive deleted): look what's coming out from there. Look at
polls. Look at hostility to the "male outgroup" compared to the "male
ingroup". etc.
Conjecture: the gays control the State Department and at least half of
the British Foreign Office and the Islamists, just as they were highly
placed among the Nazis (Goering and/or Goebbels - I get their names
confused; Hitler's tendencies himself, rather repressed though - just
killing as many people as he could, especially victims and calling them
victimizers (sound familiar on this forum?).
Oops: I have to go on an errand. I'll be back if I live that long.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 11:21:26 PM |
|
|
O.K. I'm back from the errand (Osher).
Actually, it's worse - it's Sado-Masochism. I'm not a psychologist
(I'm married to one, but she doesn't do internet forums), but I could
wrap most of you around my psychological knowledge. There's no such
thing as an internet forum run by "sadistic seekers of truth". It's
Sadists period.
What does this have to do with physics? Well, actually physics and
engineering. Corporations and government are wed to
physics/engineering/chemistry, law, and accounting. It's where the
non-military part of the political power comes from (actually, the
weapons also come from there if not the people). Since Creative
Geniuses tend to be the first in their field, and are almost always
either ousted or bought out by corporations or governments,
Sado-Masochism is the philosophy of big corporations, big government,
and most political/educational gays. They inter-pollinate. The real
Creative Genius ideas comes from mathematicians and philosophers and an
occasional rebel in other fields.
A. Einstein. "Got" his ideas from Ricci (mathematician) and
Levi-Civita (mathematician) in tensor analysis (then called the
absolute differential calculus) and Riemann (mathematician) who in turn
(Riemann) got many of his from Gauss (mathematician). Also in special
relativity, got his ideas from Lorentz and Fitzgerald (at least one
Fitzgerald was a mathematician, and maybe Lorentz) and Minkowski
(mathematician).
B. Heisenberg. Got his ideas from Planck, Maxwell, Prince Louis de
Broglie, Bohr (first two mathematicians, de Broglie more of a
mathematician than a physicist if I recall), etc.
C. Sir Isaac Newton and Leibniz. Got their ideas from Pierre de Fermat
(mathematician) and Archimedes (mathematician - Greek whose works they
read), except Leibniz and Sir Isaac were also philosophers at which
they excelled. Fermat and Archimedes discovered main equations or
their equivalents of calculus, though not all, Fermat codiscovered
probability theory with Pascal and modern number theory which led to
cryptography and so on, discovered analytic/Cartesian geometry before
Descartes and made important optics theory which turned out correct
(Descartes' was wrong).
D. Loop Quantum Gravity and Superstring/Brane/M-theory. Based on
Hamiltonian, Lagrangian (generalized), algebraic geometry, algebraic
topology, all from mathematicians.
I'll let my case rest temporarily and return to how the World is Run.
Hitler was this repressed gay who early drew the attention of German
Intelligence and became a Corporal in German Intelligence where he made
his main contacts with German industrialists. Why do industrialists
keep so close to Intelligence? Actually, it's a 2-way street.
Intelligence needs industry for the latest spying tools and
counterspying tools, for communications and transporation support, and
of course the chance to profit doesn't hurt them. Industry uses
Intelligence and Law Enforcement to help it prevent theft of its
technology and personnel or "illegal" startups plus to keep tabs on
politicians and on the public pulse economically and in other ways.
In fact, we now learn that with "the end of the Cold War," the CIA is
now engaged mainly in Economic Espionage (well, excluding the latest
role in stopping Terrorism at least overtly). Really? Sputnik didn't
scare the West economically?
Some non-gays get in the club or were there to start. Mean Joe Brown
may have been the Meanest Man in Town, but non-gay physicists have been
weeded to be the Coldest Fish in Town other than gays.
I'll let the tight-***** tight-mouth opposition talk now when they wake
up. I'll try to answer in due time if I'm not puking.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 01:11:06 PM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:wHLHd.125898$K7.23773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
| Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
| confidence that many now hold and share in the current
| modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
| level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
|
| OTOH there always remains those who do not share
| this confidence in the current series of physics theories,
| those who may not even subscribe to them, and those
| who in fact subscribe to other interpretations, some
| of which may be consistent and original.
|
| The former party, claiming the higher moral ground
| and the standard party line is historically statistically
| dominant in responding to the posts of the latter, and
| those threads in many instances resolve essentially to
| the invocation of "crackpot".
|
| In an historical context it should be mentioned that
| the term "crackpot index" was used, and in fact was
| a simple method of rating potentially revolutionary
| contributions to physics. Here is an early version:
| http://www.mountainman.com.au/news95_e.html
|
|
| The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
| employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
| in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
| http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
| have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
| exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
|
| So we find the current situation wherein there now
| seems to be routinely promulgated by a profile, a
| hanger on, or a member of the former party, a list
| of posters and profiles constituting the latter party.
|
| Therefore, because the discernment of balance is
| essential to all things, this list of "crackpots" should
| in fact be balanced by a list of those of "The
| Crackpot Patrol", the former party, and hangers on.
|
| Who are these brave knights in glittering ascii?
| Who are those purists who ride to defend the faith?
| Who are they who roam the threads to eek out crackpots?
| Who are the members of the sci.physics crackpot patrol?
Pete, take the high ground. We don't need any more list making trolls
on these groups. ;-)
FrediFizzx
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
18 Feb 2005 04:49:12 PM |
|
|
I want to join this club. Where's our home page?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
19 Feb 2005 04:38:47 AM |
|
|
"John Schutkeker" <jschutkeker@sbcglobal.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:Xns9601B54C2548lkajehoriuasldfjknak@151.164.30.48...
[snip]
Posting 20 successive silly notes to sci.physics in quick fire is a
way of making sure that most readers will avoid reading your posts in
future.
--
Franz
"A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can
produce outstanding work"
P.M.S. Blackett
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
19 Feb 2005 03:43:52 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:cv74vm$4e3
$3@titan.btinternet.com:
Posting 20 successive silly notes to sci.physics in quick fire is a
way of making sure that most readers will avoid reading your posts in
future.
Did you say something...?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
19 Feb 2005 08:31:36 PM |
|
|
John Schutkeker wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:cv74vm$4e3 $3@titan.btinternet.com:
Posting 20 successive silly notes to sci.physics in quick fire is a
way of making sure that most readers will avoid reading your posts in
future.
Did you say something...?
No, did you answer to something that wasn't said?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Feb 2005 04:04:26 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in news:cESRd.13260$cW2.5239
@fe2.texas.rr.com:
John Schutkeker wrote:
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
news:cv74vm$4e3 $3@titan.btinternet.com:
Posting 20 successive silly notes to sci.physics in quick fire is a
way of making sure that most readers will avoid reading your posts in
future.
Did you say something...?
No, did you answer to something that wasn't said?
I retract my original answer and replace it with this one. My posting
habits are my business, and nobody else's, and what Heymann perceives as
silliness may be my own, personal brand of sarcasm. If he doesn't like my
messages, he knows where the 'plonk' button is.
And I still want to join OCP. In my first action as the newest member, I
move that we begin compilation of a master list, containing the usernames
the cranks and what they say. Then we put it into the group's charter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Feb 2005 09:19:19 PM |
|
|
John Schutkeker wrote:
I retract my original answer and replace it with this one. My posting
habits are my business, and nobody else's, and what Heymann perceives
as silliness may be my own, personal brand of sarcasm. If he doesn't
like my messages, he knows where the 'plonk' button is.
And I still want to join OCP. In my first action as the newest
member, I move that we begin compilation of a master list, containing
the usernames the cranks and what they say. Then we put it into the
group's charter.
Roge that..
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Feb 2005 09:45:41 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in news:XwxSd.29729$911.20001
@fe2.texas.rr.com:
I move that we begin compilation of a master list, containing
the usernames of the cranks and what they say. Then we put it into the
group's charter.
Roger that.
So how do we get started on this list?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Feb 2005 11:14:14 PM |
|
|
John Schutkeker wrote:
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in
news:XwxSd.29729$911.20001 @fe2.texas.rr.com:
I move that we begin compilation of a master list, containing
the usernames of the cranks and what they say. Then we put it into
the group's charter.
Roger that.
So how do we get started on this list?
Got me... wasn't my suggestion.. my name is up there, but it don't go with
that quote..
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Schutkeker" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
24 Feb 2005 08:24:31 AM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in
news:GczSd.29135$Bx5.7422@fe1.texas.rr.com:
John Schutkeker wrote:
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in
news:XwxSd.29729$911.20001 @fe2.texas.rr.com:
I move that we begin compilation of a master list, containing
the usernames of the cranks and what they say. Then we put it into
the group's charter.
Roger that.
So how do we get started on this list?
Got me... wasn't my suggestion.. my name is up there, but it don't go
with that quote..
I can't do it, because I just got here, and I don't know who's who yet. Is
there any way we can conscript someone?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 10:27:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:26:36 GMT, "mountain man"
<hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
OTOH there always remains those who do not share
this confidence in the current series of physics theories,
those who may not even subscribe to them, and those
who in fact subscribe to other interpretations, some
of which may be consistent and original.
The former party, claiming the higher moral ground
and the standard party line is historically statistically
dominant in responding to the posts of the latter, and
those threads in many instances resolve essentially to
the invocation of "crackpot".
In an historical context it should be mentioned that
the term "crackpot index" was used, and in fact was
a simple method of rating potentially revolutionary
contributions to physics. Here is an early version:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news95_e.html
The series of essentially polite dismissive appellations
employed in the ascii exchanges, by the former party
in relation to the latter party -- such as "layman" --
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html
have in recent years given rise to far less tolerant
exchanges which I shall not f*ing belabour here.
So we find the current situation wherein there now
seems to be routinely promulgated by a profile, a
hanger on, or a member of the former party, a list
of posters and profiles constituting the latter party.
Therefore, because the discernment of balance is
essential to all things, this list of "crackpots" should
in fact be balanced by a list of those of "The
Crackpot Patrol", the former party, and hangers on.
Who are these brave knights in glittering ascii?
Who are those purists who ride to defend the faith?
Who are they who roam the threads to eek out crackpots?
Who are the members of the sci.physics crackpot patrol?
Have a nice day,
To: Dale Means
You, as The Layman, in your 1996 screed,
http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_6.html have, by reference, put
your finger on THE problem, (though most will not recognize it, owing
to your circumlocutory prose), namely:
"The Miracle of the Vacuum"
in a discipline where miracles are given short shrift*. That the void
vacuum can carry the forces of gravity, and the waves of radio, and
lastly, the quality of permittivity, is and are, indisputably,
miracles. You show that the acolytes bridge the chasm by geometry at a
distance, a process which, though indefensible, is nevertheless
fiercely defended by blind loyalty.
As to new theories, take a look at an excerpt from my Dual Space
theory at http://www.dualspace.net which however leaves out the first
8 chapters that are able to show how the universe is created from a
larger space that many might identify as the "quantum vacuum", but I
prefer not to acquire the quantum taint, in asmuch as no one in any
quantum field can identify its (QV) contents.
* the best cliche I could come with, on short notice.
John Polasek
If you have something to say, write an equation.
If you have nothing to say, write an essay
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 01:50:45 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
Name an empirical exception; provide an empirically sound
alternative. End of discussion.
[snip whining]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 07:53:40 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:41F00B95.827F33A6@hate.spam.net...
mountain man wrote:
Of course we are all very much aware that the level of
confidence that many now hold and share in the current
modern series of physics theories is often extreme. This
level of confidence of course may be quite justified. ;-)
Name an empirical exception;
Why were the error bars associated with the
empirical measurement of the value of G altered
by CODATA in 1998 from 0.013% to 0.15%?
In an age of such obvious perfection in all things
under the flaming sun, please explain why the
uncertainty in the measurement of G increased.
provide an empirically sound
alternative. End of discussion.
One might explain physics to a chemist by saying it is
a mixture of empiricism and theory; the one without the
other severely lacks what might be termed integrity.
Empirical evidence cannot be presented without some
form of pre-determined bias according to the theory
being employed to engage the parameters of change.
You know all about this. End of discussion.
OTOH it is the theoretical side of physics, firmly planted
on the dual foundations of the GR and Q theories. It is the
foundation of the theory, not being cohesive, which provides
the immediate exception.
When you have a unified theory of all the forces of nature
that is consistently applicable on all of the domains of
natural phenomena (eg: a quantum theory of gravity)
only then will physics reassume some form of integrity.
Yes. Integrity. At the moment, like the antics of the
sci.physics crackpot patrol, physics lacks it at a
foundational level.
Have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Jan 2005 02:08:58 AM |
|
|
One of the most important chances to advance
a stuck in the mudd sitatuation is
*to realise that you are stuck in the mudd!!*
once you are not awarehta there is something wrong with your health
you can be happy and smugg (wich have some advatages for itself)
but suddeny you migh tget a hearth attack and you will wonder
how the hell it happened to me !!
fortunately enough
the situationinscince is not as dramatic as i presented
it was just to make a point
scince is not a case of to be or not to be for mankind at this point of
history
but it might one day be
forinstance:
the fa;iuorof scince to harness the hydrogen energy to everyday life
is nt crucial just now
but one day might be !!
thisis only one among too many examples of the poumpous
self chest drumming snobish scintific cociety.
the list is long and i will not go all along it
the faliur of expalining and realy understanding *any* repeat any
attraction foce
is just a little example.
the faliuof of realy understanding atomic and nuclear real structure.
with models that are far away form reality7
the very too abstract character of qm that by being too abstract
becomes of very little practical use in our everyday life
(the real achievements of modern technologies are not of the
existing theoretic scince
those achievements belong much more to the private experimental scince
in private labouratories mostly based on practical trial and error
systems
not on the curent dominat scince
that 'dominat scince' is laging much behind thoat experimental system
of trial and error of labouratories
and later has the cheak and crookedness to ateribute it to itself
scince (and not only scince) has always advanced by the polarised
dualism
between the 'estabishment' and the 'outsiders'
it was always that somje assertive people took to themselves
the monopoly on the 'right things'
but fortunately enough it was always the golden rule:
you can cheat one - all along his life
you can cheat everybody just once
but you cant cheat everybody- forever!!
i do not claim that all existing scince is cheating - far from that-
a lot of marvelous achievements
but the poit it
the existiong situation if far from right to be smugg!!
so bottom line
no one has the right to be the 'thought police!!
preedom of thinking is the 'air for breath' fo radvance
not mentioning that too many opportunists hear
that nominated themselves a s the though tpolice
are just miserable people who contributed nothing to the adbavce of
scince
and making themselved the easy life of chest drumming with others
achievemnts
while
doing thier best to fail any attempt to make some unconvetional
advance.
and not to mention that many of them are crackpots themselves
that faile to see the too many contradictions in existing scince.
--------------
all the best
Y.Porat
-----------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
20 Jan 2005 09:52:29 AM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
Therefore, because the discernment of balance is
essential to all things, this list of "crackpots" should
in fact be balanced by a list of those of "The
Crackpot Patrol", the former party, and hangers on.
Cute. It's a troll, of course.
7/10
Fusa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: Operation Crackpot Patrol |
21 Jan 2005 11:00:07 PM |
|
|
"Jim Black" <ghytrfvbnmju7654@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1106236349.806873.162350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
mountain man wrote:
Therefore, because the discernment of balance is
essential to all things, this list of "crackpots" should
in fact be balanced by a list of those of "The
Crackpot Patrol", the former party, and hangers on.
Cute. It's a troll, of course.
It aint.
Over half the ascii pumped out by the crackpot patrol
in execution of their destiny does not refer to physics
and is not even fit for alt.usenet.kooks.
Have a nice day.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
