The Emergence of Crackpots from the SciForums Space-Time

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by BenTheMan, Mar 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Do you think the same thing about the Holocaust denial literature?

    This clearly illustrates the problem. It's ok to make a bunch of bullshit comments about physics, because, hey, it's just physics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I'd have to correct the typographical error of 'of' to 'off'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    1. I don't need to read any more than the titles to know that you are full of shit.

    2. I had to go to San Antonio this weekend to see my girlfriend. Internet porn is only good for so long.

    3. You are still a crackpot. About this you are mistaken.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    I think you should take this advice and apply it to yourself.

    Anyway, I promised you a response to "Time Explained", so [POST=1344338]here[/POST] it is.
     
  8. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    You tie yourself down with circular self-justifying psuedologic. These scientist have superior intellects, so their magical machine that gives the answer before the question isn't crackpot. But my down-to-earth time is a measure of motion isn't worth looking at because it's crackpot? That is just so patently ridiculous.

    This is my dismissal of the theoretical possibility of time travel: TIME EXPLAINED. Take a long hard look at it. See if you find any flaws in the logic. You won't, and you can't, yet you come on here full of rage and abuse. You're the one attacking innovative thinking.

    But you're the one exhibiting intellectual dishonesty flying off into rage and insults as a substitute for reasoned rational dialogue. And it's not a strawman topic. It's utterly relevant, because here we have established respected scientists talking about a totally crackpot idea. And you're defending them. Had you not done so I would have apologised for saying you swallow this stuff. But it seems that you do.

    I seem to recall you dismissing my contribution before these "established thinkers" came into the conversation.

    Yep. Because I consider you to be dishonest. If you were honest you'd read RELATIVITY+ and give some sincere feedback, or at least you'd pass on it without all the bile.
     
  9. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Yep, as rational and scientific as ever Ben, Actual Physicist. I suppose you can judge a book by its cover too, and answer questions before they are asked. LOL.
     
  10. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I have spent a significant amount of time practicing just this. If you can't judge a paper's content by the Abstract, then it's not worth reading.
     
  11. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Edit: Post deleted.

    No, I''ll make an effort to avoid the abusive mudslinging and try to remain civil.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2007
  12. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Good to see that you're not shallow.
     
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Listen, you abhorrent concatenation of puerile drivel, for the second time, I have made absolutely no statement regarding the Ultimate computer, or whatever your strawman is called. Stop right now placing words in my mouth. You are criticising me for a viewpoint which I have not expressed. Thus, you are demonstrating to all that you are inherently dishonest in your debating technique. In my book that is infinitely worse than castigating a fool in robust language for his stupidity.
    Point 1: I notice you have not addressed my itemised justification for not wasting time in reading your work.[I mean, get serious. The notion that you could come up with an improvement on General and Special Relativity without the math would be hilarious if it were not so sad. Do you really think I should invest time in studying the ravings of an arrogant fool?]
    Point 2: You attacked - which has been my central point from the outset - the notion that time travel was a plausible concept. That suggestion was made by intelligent, educated, knowledgeable scientists employing innovative thinking. Therefore you have attacked innovative thinking. Do you deny this?
    Point 3: Your intransigence in attacking an idea that is wholly consistent with current theory would be acceptable if you took the position that you believed what you offered was an improvement, but yet you acknowledged the quality of what had gone before. You have not taken that position. True you claim to be a fan of Einstein, but in dismissing the work and conclusions of established scientists as crackpot you fully merit being met with rage and abuse. [It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.]
    It is becoming abundantly clear that you have little idea what intellectual dishonesty is, despite your close association with it. Please revisit my posts. I wholeheartedly agree that they contain insults (the rage is simulated), but they are also well structured and the arguments logically presented. Perhaps you are unaccustomed to dealing with intelligent individuals who can also use robust language and express their opinions with clarity.
    Your recollection, I believe, is faulty. I became dismissive and accused you of arrogance when you declared the theoretical possibility of time travel was nonsense.
    I feel being considered as dishonest by such as youself is a badge of honour. [In over 4,500 posts on this forum I have never once deleted a post, other than accidental duplciates. Any amendments, other than typographical corrections, have been explained.]
    I've already provided feedback on on your Time Isn't Money thread.
    Trust me, all my feedback, including the bile is wholly sincere.

    FarSight, recognise you brought all of this on yourself because of your inexcusable arrogance in denigrating the work of established scientists. I am not claiming that such scientists are correct, I am stating that they deserve a measure of respect. If you choose not to accord them that respect because of your jumped up notions of your own superiority then I shall emphatically castigate you for your arrogance. Live with, or change.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2007
  14. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Not only are you abusive, you're dishonest to boot. Here are the words from your very own mouth:

    Clearly these scientists are not respected by you. Ironic, isn't it. Here you are appealing to your readers to adopt an open minded approach to your ideas, while simultaneously condemning such an approach by intellects doubtless superior to your own. So why should I favour the speculations of a non-entity with more credence than those of individuals who have proven their quality?

    Now that counts as your support for these quality superior individuals who are selling us on a computer that can tell you the answer before you ask the question. It's like a sketch from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and you're siding with it to hurl abuse at crackpots? LOL! The way you actually come out with open minded approach in the same sentence fair takes my breath away.

    Nope. Because your "itemised justification" is more doublespeak dishonesty. Watch my lips: It's no justification at all. Here you are on a forum and your "open minded justification" for not reading an essay is that it can't possibily offer anything. LOL. Science at its shimmering best.

    Yep. I deny it. I haven't attacked innovative thinking. I've attacked CRACKPOT thinking, and it's relevant to this thread. I do this because I understand time, and can demonstrate this with carefully worded, well-reasoned essay. Now we could analyse the content therein and reach some rational conclusion, but your catch-22 "open mind" tells you it isn't worth reading. If you can't take it, don't dish it.

    Oh don't try to pretend I'm the one being intransigent. You are. It's as plain as day. Embarrassingly so. And don't pretend the abuse started at that point. It started when the thread started, and it's been delivered without justification. When challenged, the justification has not been forthcoming. I can justify my assertions with logic. You justify yours with abuse and "simulated" rage.

    The bile is sincere... you know, you should really try reading what you post before you commit it. And try reading back through some of your other posts. I wouldn't be too proud of them if I were you.

    Can we have a moderator here please?
     
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    We haven't seen this so-called well-reasoned essay, as yet - will it be forthcoming?
     
  16. Four Winds Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    Um, I was going to post my theory about how God evolved from frogs, but, um, well, nevermind,
     
  17. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,924
    Why am I not a crackpot

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Farsight, meet Ophiolite. Ophiolite's name is on a lot of ignore lists for flamebaiting.
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Yet, your posts clearly indicate that you've embraced crackpot thinking.

    This gem from what you've termed V2.1, for example:

    "The universe is not a block universe, it is a world in motion. The worldlines are only in mathematical space, and in your head. There is no future, there is no past, only the now that is always now, the now of Presentism. We don’t travel in time at one second per second. We don't travel in time at all. Relativistic clocks don’t travel in time at different rates, they travel in space at different degrees of c, and when they collide, they collide at the same location and at the same time whatever their faces say is local time. Local time."

    Granted, I haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about, and I don't think you do either, but it does bring a tear my eye every time I read it.
     
  20. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    Farsight is quite right about that comment on time. If you think he is crazy, just try and sit through a education on the Space-Time continuum and the endless number of universes theory. Farsight's quote is mild by comparison.
     
  21. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I don't know what you mean by "right"...
     
  22. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    There is also no shortage of people on this forum who view him as one of the good guys for the most part.
     
  23. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Don't try to be too haughty. Einstein couldn't find his own way home, but i haven't met a taxi Driver yet who can't tell you the shortest, safest, or quickest ways to where you want to go. I doubt most scientists know the difference between hair styles or how to properly cut someone's hair so it configures itself that way.

    Actually, in many cases a niave point of view to Physics, temporal mechanics, or even chemistry is refresshing. If the expert takes nothing away from it that is fine, but if he refuses to listen and possibly educate the laymen then why the hell did he become a scientist?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page