Well Folks,

Crack-pottism is rocking P&M forum then and there.

I think we need to agree on a working definition for crack-pot theories to proceed normally.

What is this crack-potting all about..?

Suppose IF i propose a revolutionary theory, that goes like this :

"The universe is dynamic and moving in all three dimensions at any point of time. All of us don't realize this fact and heavily rely on our subjective-relative (wtf that means) movements.

I get into a car and about start. So far I, the car and the rest of universe are well synchronized. the moment I start guess what happens. I give an energy to the car and depending upon the orientation of the car the car falls out of synchronization with the rest of universe. The Road and the surroundings and rest of the universe start moving opposite to my intended direction.

Oh, the road is moving, right, hence the wheels of my car start rotating, but the car still remain in the absolute space. only the rest of the universe is moving and thats is inherent movement of the universe. When i change the direction my orientation changes and hence it appears to change direction.

This movement of Universe, call it Absolute Movement of the Universe (AMU) which is omni directional, is real not the normally percieved movement of car. All i am doing is giving dynamic energy and dynamic orientation to the car. All the Newtonian Laws hold good. so are other formulae to calculate velocity, acceleration, momentum etc.

The axiom is : AMU is real and it is exploited by energy and orientation of the observer and his premitive tools.

Other axioms would follow soon"

Now, I would not be surprised if You call me a Crack-Pot, a newtonian one. I know i am screwing all of you, well, i think you cannot disprove me either, anyway i can find out how to overcome.

Now, back to biz. Define Crack-pottism. Beware, genuinely confused or not questions should not be stamped as crack-pot questions.

Edit : hi, typo corrected

I wouldn't attempt to "disporve" you. :)

By the way, QUESTIONS are never "crack-pot".

Statements, made with no supporting evidence and with no attention paid to evidence to the contrary are crack-pot.

A crackpot is anyone who disagrees with me using a self-made, unproven theory which greatly alters our perception of the universe.

I think you could pretty much use some word find tool to see, that if certain phrases or strings of words are found in a particular article, then it is crackpottery, and hence pointless to read.

I hate crackpots, because in their mind, you can NEVER prove them wrong, contrary to any evidence presented. They just continue their naive and ignorant existence of feeling important when they're not


I HATE CRACKPOTS.

Andre,

with -5 starting credit, one can still claim to have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions (50 points) and escape crack-pot index with net 45 points. This, ofcourse, is a long hand for crack-pots..! can we afford that..??!

or what about

1. suggesting that they deserve a Nobel prize. (20 points)

2. suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas they now advocate (30 points)

-5+20+30 = 45..:o

i think you only need to be above 0 on the scale to be considered a crackpot

yeah, i had already seen them. lethe says 0 is the threshold. that seems a bit severe though but could really help the board. we got 2 defns. so far one each from HallsofIvy and Ryans. hopefully, it seems we could have our own crack-pot index soon.

28 points.. how,how..? thats why you put 50 points as threshold..?;) please modernize the plato's prisoners and correlate to crackpots for working definition..

mostly its the other way around, here we have experimental evidences and original maths on our side as against crack-pots... goodnight, Andre.

Crack-pottery is forgetting to have your new theory of All peer reviewed by your fellow crackpots before you want to have it published in Nature.

still 40 is too high, Andre.

Global warming is one of those things the media latches onto to get everyone in a spin, as they so like to do as the recent SARS outbreak showed.

A few things that I do not understand about this theory of yours

6. The simultaneous Methane, carbon dioxide and d18O, dD and d13C isotope changes were mainly caused by the Clathrate gun or the absence of clathrate gun activity, hence.
7. Isotope ratios are not primarily about temperatures but about (some yet)unknown and perhaps complicated fractionation processes mainly induced by the clathrate gun.

What are d18O, dD and d13C. I'm thinking that d13C is Carbon-13 and d18O OXYGEN 18, but how are they related to the activity of these methane reservoirs at the bottom of the ocean.
Am I correct in saying that, as they are so far below the surface of the oceans, little cosmic radiation reaches them to make their contents radioactive?

Methane, of course is CH4. So during a big methane hydrate surge, I believe the carbon 13 at that time is diluted by the c12 released by the methane, so we see a drop in c13 (even though it really stayed the same, the ratio of c13/c12 changed).

Also, the methane released from hydrates has a different signature from swamp methane, and so scientists can track the source. Pretty cool, huh?

The C and H may combine with d18O or d16O to form CO2 or H2O, affecting our readings today of d18O from ocean sediment cores or ice cores. The C may also find its way into CaCO3, calcium carbonate of foraminifera shells. These are analyzed in those ocean sediment cores to get the data for those graphs on carbon isotopes, oxygen isotopes, hydrogen (deuterium), etc.

Now you can grade my thoughts. :)

p.s. yes I know I am getting off-topic, but I guess I might be viewed as a crackpot, so I'll just blame it on my eccentricity.... ;)

Not crackpottery, seems like good science to me.
You know though that theories regarding the past history of the earth will never be universally accepted. as we will never be able to go to the past to verify them. Some theories however are just more probable than others.

Originally posted by ryans
Not crackpottery, seems like good science to me.
You know though that theories regarding the past history of the earth will never be universally accepted. as we will never be able to go to the past to verify them. Some theories however are just more probable than others.

no theory can ever be universally accepted, in that sense. we can never know whether the entire universe obeys the same laws of physics, has the same physical constants, etc. you can only base you theories on data you interpret.

i don t see how theories about the history of earth are any different from any other theories.

a scientific theory can only be disproved, it can never be proved.

Originally posted by Andre
Crackpots are positively identified when hitting 50 points on the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html)

Based on this, Andre is a 15 pt crack pot hehehehe. You mentioned "einstein" "feynmann" and "newton" ;)

only in jest my friend...:D :m:

Originally posted by Andre
Yet my definition

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a crackpot (who attemps good science) is a previous prisoner returning to Plato's cave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

still stands.

Andre,

Here in P&M the definition of crack-pot, if i understood properly, is "anyone who intentionally or ignorantly or both misinterprets good science and stick to his view for whatever reason".


If anyone attempts good science why do you like to call him a crack-pot and at the same time previous prisioner of cave..? for that matter why do you want yourself to be called crack-pot if you are right..?

any crux on being crack-pot..? if you are really interested in good science in normal sense please stop playing the role of a crack-pot here.. personally i feel you are capable of being a good scientist rather than a crack-pot or champion of crack-pots.
;)

edit: typo