I saw this at another board and it is too good not to share. With thanks and appreciation to "Nereid" for finding this and posting it "...<snip>...a stringent test of General Relativity was performed ...<snip>... GR passed with flying colours. This experiment shows GR to be valid to +/- ~5 x 10-5. A popular account: http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1066_1.asp A preprint: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0308/0308010.pdf ..." I checked out the preprint----it's written in good clear style and is techically easy to get ahold of----basically just involves measuring the index of refraction n = 1 + R<sub>Schw</sub>/r that causes bending of a ray of light passing near the sun where r is the dist of closest approach and R<sub>Schw</sub> is the Schwarzschild radius of the sun (radius of an equal mass bh) this index of refraction (of curved space) was what Eddington was checking in 1919 as first test of GR and it was what they were checking using Casini satellite on its way to Saturn as described in the Sky/Telescope article and in the online preprint. The accuracy seems really great to me. Has this been discussed here already?
Mark: Thanx for the interesting post and the URL. I read Quantum Theory & Relativity for Dummies like articles, so I do not know enough to comment on this experiment. I am happy to know about it. Albert & Niels are two of my heros.
the whole gang of early 20th C physics what people, what stories how can this particular forum (JamesR's Physics&Math) be made better? MacM trolling the FTL illusion thread seems like a energy-hemorrhage for all participants I like him but if he doesnt get at least minimally orthodox I wil put him on my ignore list I want this forum to work for me (and incidentally you) I like the kind of modest relaxed intelligence in the general tone of it---people being cogent without showing off or doing gamesmanship stuff. I got a really good first impression from you, jamesR and other people like that Lets find something we like to talk about. I forget if you said you tried Siobahn's cosmology calculator. If you do (i've said this but will repeat it) be sure to put 0.73 into the lambda box and 0.27 into the omega box. she has the default settings be zero and one, just so her students will have to stop and think (I imagine) and do something before the use the calculator Do you know Ned Wright's cosmology site? I guess you do but will ask anyway. He has a cosmology calculator too, and some spacetime diagrams, and FAQ and recent news and goodies like that. since 1998 cosmology has become amazing what's something about cosmology you dont understand but want to try to----I promise nothing! sunlight is beautiful out in the garden now so I'll send this and think about it later
Then come on over to physicsforums.com. There are many more scientists there than here, and the moderators there actually do their jobs. Crackpots simply aren't tolerated. I think you'll like it. - Warren
What a friendly suggestion! Thanks, Warren, and let me invite you to migrate over here. It is not actually clear to me that James R is NOT doing his job, as you seem to think. And you might enjoy the change of atmosphere. But there is a curious forgotten issue that is always hiding in the bushes when one mentions crackpots and that is the issue of intellectual freedom. When you say "crackpots simply aren't tolerated" it reminds me that the toleration or intoleration of dissident opinion is never quite as simple as one supposes.
It is one thing to allow people to speak freely. It is quite another to try and hold a discussion with people who are unwilling to leason and/or attempt to learn. Moderators have to walk the edge between oppresion and moving the idiots. This is a privately owned forum, and if Porfiry wishes to give moderators the rights to moderate, they have every right too. I understand that you're talking more about it limiting discussion, but there is no reason to deal with it if no value is returned. The crackpots on this forum have yet to provide anything of value. Hence the reason the ignore feature is now my friend. It is much easier to follow the intelligent discussion when the crackpot posts are invisible. If by chance they say something intelligent, I'm guessing somebody will respond out of amazement and I'll know to read it.
I know and value the ignore feature too (though at this board I have not used it so far) at the moment I frankly cannot see how I would handle the problem you mention if it were my responsibility (if I owned a board or moderated a forum) but fortunately it isnt. I seriously like seeing people take unpopular positions and argue for them, or pursue uncommon intellectual interests I dont like it when bullying and verbal abuse is used to prevent discussion and silence dissent. But crackpots can be a time-consuming nuisance. The role of the censor (who must decide what is legitimate nonconformity and what is baloney and trolldom) is a very difficult role to play well and I suspect that the power to censor can actually be bad mentally for the person who has to exercise it overmuch. Something I've seen work very well at another forum is the practice of moving threads to a separate Loony-Land, a section specifically for very far out threads, where they can indeed be freely continued! The section of the board used for this can be called some by simple dignified name like "New Theories" but most people realize it is a cloud coocooland where you go if you have an emotional need to prove Einstein was wrong. Threads dont have to be moved very often because the mere prospect of having your thread put out to pasture in "New Theories" is enought to keep many people at least semi-orthodox I dont know how much trouble it is technically to move a thread. People when they are being at least moderately orthodox are more amusing in my opinion---it is just the slightest edge of eccentricity that I enjoy in people. As if daring the moderator to move their thread but not quite going over the brink. So from what Ive seen I think that system works well . Are you a regular or oldtimer here BTW? I saw some feedback where people were saying the board had lost excitement and others were saying no it was just the fall semester and people had less time etc etc. The board looks fine and healthy to me as a newcomer. How do things look to you?
Mark: You are right that it is a very fine line to tread in deciding how to deal with crackpots. You might like to read the sticky thread on "Alternative theories policy" in this forum. As a general guideline, I tend to take the approach that as long as constructive discussion of real science is happening, I lean towards allowing threads to remain on this forum rather than moving them elsewhere. I think that watchers of discussions between scientists and crackpots can actually learn a lot of good science, as well as picking up tips on the application of the scientific method. The difficult part is deciding where to draw the line. Personally, I do not believe in censorship, because then the crackpots can legitimately claim persecution. It is better that their ideas be shown up for what they really are. <i>I dont know how much trouble it is technically to move a thread.</i> No trouble to move a whole thread. Big trouble to move individual posts - in effect it can't be done.
Mark, The line between valid science and crackpotism is a thin one, certainly -- but it's easily discerned. People who follow the scientific method are not crackpots, even when that method leads them to unpopular positions. People who occupy these unpopular positions should certainly be allowed as much freedom to speak as those who hold the orthodox views. At the same time, those holding unpopular views should be held to the same standard of scrutiny to which the orthodox view is held. If the unpopular opinon is actually shown to be untenable, it must be abandoned. This is science, and sometimes it hurts. I once heard Penzias respond to a question from his audience by saying "Of course we feel emotionally attached to our theories! Of course we champion them! If we didn't, how could we enjoy going to work in the morning?" No one likes being proven wrong, but scientists have to deal with that possibility as an occupational hazard. Those who can't simply don't belong on a science forum. If you notice, I made several thousand posts to this forum before giving up on it. I was even at one point one of the central members trying to nudge this board's retinue of crackpots back onto the scientific method with (mostly) reasoned guidance. The rabid anti-logical spam these people post later frustrated me to the breaking point, and honestly I now only scan this forum for laughs. There is very little actual scientific discussion here -- topics almost invariably get hijacked into metaphysics, philosophy, or semantics within a page or two. It generally seems the only threads immune to this hijacking are those concerning topics simply beyond the crackpots' meager comprehension. For example, they didn't bother the rather advanced mathematical topics lethe used to lead here (which have continued on physicsforums.com). Some members continue to discuss rather advanced science here, and I applaud them. However, I am deeply disheartened when a confused high school student asks a simple question about physics, only to spark a profanity-laden 20 page thread between five crackpots and James R about the definition of "reality." It is my belief that these thread starters typically don't come back. I admire James' manner -- he is tolerant and patient and humble -- traits I know I lack. At the same time, those traits don't seem to have won him much at all -- the crackpots are still posting the exact same inane crap they were posting last year, and simply pretending no one has ever successfully challenged them. This deep intellectual dishonesty just offends me, and I choose to participate in venues which actively reject members who cannot be intellectually honest. I greatly enjoy helping others learn, which is why I participate actively in Drexel University's Dr. Math program, teach astronomy courses, and post regularly on physicsforums.com. There simply does not seem to be much education going on here, although, mainly to James' credit, much is attempted. I wish that would change, but implementing that change -- i.e., kicking out the crackpots -- is too similar to censure for James' taste. So be it -- there are other places for me to go. - Warren
Marcus, is that you? I'm only going by the style of your prose... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Warren
First: I see some people being helped here. I think Chroot is too pessimistic about this forum. Second: I have often been frustrated and annoyed by crackpots and those using fallacious arguments. But when I get too annoyed, I give up on a thread. Third: It is fun arguing with a crackpot for a while, and as James R. says, others might learn something from the arguments. Fourth: I am reminded of my now deceased ex wife. An argument with her had one of three outcomes. Give up and say she is right no matter what you think. Allow the argument to continue forever. Kill her. The last alternative was given serious consideration many times, but when the kids grew up, I found a 4th alternative: Leave her. Killing the crackpots is not a viable alternative here, but ignoring them is.
Hi Warren, I take a kind of "social interactionist" view (if that is a real word) which is that crackpotting is a kind of behavior that we provoke in each other inadvertently by taking a superior attitude and relying too much on handed down authority instead of hands-on evidence that is, I dont think it is a fixed characteristic of an individual but something that develops in the situation----however the behavior pattern can get to be a deeply engrained habit so that the person cant easily change but who knows how common that is James R and you seem to agree with each other that crackpot is a fixed personality type----a characteristic perhaps caused by bad toilet training or an abusive older brother or something. You two disagree only as to what to do about it---if you were the mentor you would boot them out and he doesnt. I disagree with both of you at a fundamental level. I think you can take any thoughtful self-respecting person and (unless they have a thorough training in natural science) provoke them to sounding crackpot by doing various things which make them naturally want to challenge authority with whatever weapons they have in hand. Some in the scientific community do things to laymen that antagonize them. When I see someone pontificating like a condescending prig----delivering authoritative pronouncements which may be just parroting some higher-up---I know that trouble is brewing and its going to come flying back in one form or another. Others in the community take a tack which does the opposite---Feynmann comes to mind, John Baez, Carl Sagan, gifted explainers that bring you in rather than alienating and subjecting you. Feynmann said you dont understand a piece of physics unless you could explain it to your mother (I think the image is of a Jewish mother which may be a significant detail) Well what it comes down to is something you just said in your post: At the same time, those holding unpopular views should be held to the same standard of scrutiny to which the orthodox view is held. Which means that maintaining standards of empiricism and rigor in physical theory is absolutely crucial. If physical theory becomes self-indulgent pseudoscience---disconnected from experimental testing----as John Baez and others have expressed concerns that it is, of late----then according to your "same standards" principle the pulpit door is open to the loon.
Good post. I like your style and hope you stay on at sciforums. I think sciforums, when compared to physicsforums, is more hampered by being a many-topic site. Physicists and physicists-to-be will naturally be more attracted to a physics-only site. Patient teachers will be appreciated at both.
Mark Are you aware that John Baez is the originator of the famous Crackpot Index, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html I would suggest you trawl the sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.physics.relativity archive at http://groups.google.com for many examples of crackpots. I for one disagree that the behaviour is provoked by pro's taking a condescending or superior attitude. The crackpot has laready decided that that, and only they, have discovered the Truth. All others are wrong and any attempt to point out real data that contradicts them is treated with scorn. Often these people only have a bare understanding of the matter on which they are self proclaimed experts. There is a classic case of this going in two threads there at present.
In that case there is no answer but sedation! Not even John Baez has discovered the truth although as a loyal fan I wish I could say he had. You strike me as possibly right (in a lot of cases) and I dont want to argue about how much of this behavior is exacerbated by pro's tactlessness and how much is due to Original Sin and the vagaries of human nature. So I will stop taking this unpopular line. I am hoping you will engage in a round robin of stellar evolution questions in Astro forum as a civilized (mildly educational) way to pass the time. though also have registered you fulltime job and family. best wishes
