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. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Andrewgray, if you had actually read that article you'd find that it appears to from another person of Farsight's ilk - all of his references are to work he's published himself: in other words to understand why he's right and everyone else is wrong you have to ignore all the other science and learn his version of things... Can you say "woo-woo".
    Time does not exist? If it didn't then how can there be a consecutive sequence of events? The arrow of beans (Farsight's explanation post) is given by the fact that one bean FOLLOWS another, they don't all go in at once.
    All this time away from Sciforums and I come back to find the loonies are still crawling out of the woodwork.
    Pseudoscience please, for Farsight's "explanations", moderator!
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    8,967
    Hi Andrew---

    Not sure what to say to this---is he ridiculing you? I have glanced through your "Model of Reality" book online---presumably he thinks you're wrong? Or he agrees with you and he is ridiculing science?

    I want to be clear that this post is not directed at people like you. You have developed some new theory which you think is right. I cannot really comment on your work because I only have a superficial understanding of it. If I ridiculed your work, I would be no better than Farsight or Singularity, who ridicule GR with little or no understanding of the subject.

    The difference between you and them is that you actually have some experience with physics. Form your profile, you studied at UT under Wheeler, and (I assume) have at least a master's degree in physics.

    Yes, an interest

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The difference with string theory is that it undoubtedly contains something that looks like our universe. It is not easy to get, say, deSitter vacua from strings, but the framework can accomodate these solutions. String theory also contains the standard model. So in this sense, string theory is able to describe our universe. Other things, like chiral fermions in small representations of non-Abelian gauge symmetries are natural in string theory---if you take E8xE8 and compactify on an orbifold, you can get these things out very easily. In the standard model, these things are all ad hoc---that is, there is no reason to expect fermions in small representations---they are put in by hand.

    When Farsight or Singularity or Zanket pop up and say "Everything is wrong, and I will show you how without examining the mathematical structure of the theory", it devalues the work that others have done. Because of the structure of these internet fora, these idiots' opinions are given equal weight as expert opinions. This problem is exacerbated by the, umm, loose moderation on SciForums. If the Physis and Math forum were moderated as tightly as the Biology and Genetics forum (where intelligent design posts are regularly axed), I would have no problem.

    Either way the point is this---If Farsight posts something like "XXX Explained", and I say to him "You break Lorentz Invariance", he should look at his work and see if I am right, and explain to me why I am mistaken (I have been mistaken before, ask my students). But if I say "You break Lorentz invariance" and he says "No you're wrong" without even thinking about the comment, how can one hope to call what is happening science? I have pointed out a critical flaw with Farsight's work, and he is content to stick his fingers in his ears and talk loudly.

    The same is true for zanket. I pointed out that one must define their reference frames at a single point to avoid tidal forces.

    One does not have to go too far to figure out that high energy theory is in trouble. The problem is that the problem is too hard, and we don't have enough data. The death of the SSC is what caused all of this---had it opened up last decade, we would be busy trying to measure the properties of the higgs and SUSY, instead of talking about multiverses.

    But there are other reasons to ignore this article you posted. This person is not affiliated with a university, and presumably this article has not been peer reviewed. I still find it hard to believe that there exists such conspiracies in phyiscs. Even the first scentence of the abstract discredits the work "Much recent work in “physics” is known to be wrong, with some shown to be nonsense with mathematical rigor."

    Also, Mirman clearly does not understand compactification :"However it has long been known that physics (thus a universe) would be impossible in any dimension but 3+1 [1]. String theory and its extensions are therefore impossible." Classically, the compactified degrees of freedom are inaccesible, and not subject to the standard dimension counting arguments (i.e. the inverse square law is only possible in 3+1 dimensions, etc.). If you'd like me to refute Mirman's work point by point, I will do so to the best of my abilities, but in another thread.

    But this is what observations TELL us. This is not some thrown together patchwork---the Lambda_CDM cosmological model is very precise, and (with the exception of a few errant data points at the end of the CMB data, which are expected to be errant for experimental reasons), it explains all of the observations.

    Categoricall not. The difference is that these theories are mathematically consistent, observationally consistent, and constantly tested by people whose job it is to test them.

    If you want to change physics, you have to derive some experimental results. You have to show where your theory is better than all of the existing theories. Period.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417
    Most people live in delusion. The greater the delusion, the harder the truth hits them. Such individuals may be great in number, but small in balls. Numbers don't matter. If you can get the truth out to the right people (honest people), it will go far.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    No way have you pointed out a critical flaw in RELATIVITY+. How many times have I got to say it: we will always measure c to be 300,000km/s and we will observe all the other "laws" of physics to be unchanged. You're kidding yourself and actively trying to kid everybody else. You read as far as the titles and that was enough to start calling me a crackpot! You still haven't read the essays, and you're still bad-mouthing me like you're some flat-earth medieval burner of heretics. You are utterly non-rational. And utterly, utterly, dishonest. What's the matter, are you so paranoid that String Theory is a busted flush that you feel the need to hammer down any nascent competition? On a goddamn physics forum for chitchat?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2007
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I rest my case.
     
  9. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Flaw = You violate Lorentz Invariance.
     
  10. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    So violating an unproven theory proves that a new theory is wrong?
     
  11. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    No I don't = No Flaw.

    You read as far as the titles and decided that was enough to cry crackpot. I twisted your arm into being rational and you agreed you'd read the RELATIVITY+ essays, but you never meant to did you? All you ever intended to do was carry on badmouthing something you don't understand, don't want to understand, and more to the point, don't want anybody else to understand. And look at you now, ducking and diving with a wriggle-off-the-hook copout so you can avoid getting nailed to the floor.

    You are most definitely the one here with your fingers in your ears. Your arrogance and dishonesty is shameful.
     
  12. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    That's what they do all right. Science and Law in most of the world these days is characterized by dishonesty and arrogance. They follow neither scientific nor ethical standards.
     
  13. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Until you adress the Lorentz Violations, I see no need to continue reading your essays. Tell me in detail why your ideas DONT violate Lorentz Invariance and I will continue my revision of your work.
     
  14. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    What I find interesting (and highly amusing!)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    is that there are people responding to this thred is that they have NO earthly idea what Lorentz transformations even are. No need to mention any names, they find fault with anything truly scientific.

    If - and I emphasize IF they'd actually like to learn anything (instead of just the usual whining they do, so I doubt it) they could take a look at the article here http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...7 Lorentz Invariance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us that talks in great detail about various attempts to break the symmetry.

    Also, if they aren't math-challenged (which I expect the dummies to be), they could also take a look at this: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...l Lorentz Invariance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

    But since they claim that all science is evil and constantly lies, I also don't expect them to come away any smarter - in fact, I doubt they will take the trouble to read either of those references.:bugeye:
     
  15. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Ben: I've made it crystal clear why I don't break Lorentz Invariance. It's very simple: because light defines our time. That's why the speed of light is always measured at 300,000km/s even though c varies. We can never see this variation. And because of that, the laws of physics will always look the same. There is no "detailed" explanation because it's that simple. If I wrote a whole essay on it you'd just cook up some new dodge to avoid reading that. You promised to give open-minded rational scientific feedback on RELATIVITY+, but you haven't, and clearly never intended to. Bah, your credibility is shot to pot.

    What's the problem, Read-Only? The only problem here is that Ben said he'd be rational and scientific like I want him to be and would take the trouble to read RELATIVITY+ and give considered feedback. But he's still cooking up reasons why he shouldn't. Talk about transparent.

    "Imagine you are about to create a universe. How would you do it? As soon as you say "let there be the laws of physics" you would immediately face a problem. Do the same laws hold for everyone in your universe regardless of where they are? Or do the laws change as you move about or face in different directions? Clearly the most equitable and fair way to proceed would be to make the laws of physics the same for all observers. To a physicist such equality and fairness of physical laws is called a symmetry, and the symmetry that requires the laws of physics to be the same for all observers is known as Lorentz symmetry..."

    "A central feature of Einstein's Special Relativity is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. As a result we have to give up on the idea of a universal time. If an event occurs at position and time as measured by an observer in frame O then for an observer in a frame O' moving with velocity in the -direction it occurs at..."
     
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Easy there, Farsight.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I wasn't talking about you or Ben - I was refering to the truly NON-scientific type that seemed to wander in here with nothing to say except to disparage ALL science and all scientists.
     
  17. Farsight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,475
    Sorry Read-Only. My mistake.
     
  18. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    People like Read-Only actually PROVOKE people to consider all science to be lies. I think I jumped on Ben wrongly a while back and he responded in kind, so I can't say that he's got that much of a pattern yet, but it is totally stupid to judge something without reading it.

    I would have to doubt that the Lorentz equations would in principle have to have all their coordinates go to zero for a framework to be valid, even though I don't know for sure why. I just don't know how it would be proven, except by assuming that a framework in which they don't go to zero is not a valid framework, and there you have a circular definition.

    One thing that I'm pretty sure of is that Einstein never said that time stops when an object is traveling at the speed of light, but a lot of people have said that he said it. A lot of people will also tell you that you are nuts if you don't think that it happens but I don't think any of them have any idea how to prove time dilation. Whoever can prove it one way or the other is best off writing a book.
     
  19. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    It is quite clear that you only have a superficial understanding of what Lorentz invariance actually MEANS. Sure, the speed of light is constant to all observers in all frames. This is a consequence of Lorentz invariance. you deserve a cookie for realizing this.

    What you do not understand is that the concept of Lorentz Invariance is actually much deeper than this. If you would bother to understand the concepts, you would realize this.

    Oh damn. You and MetaKron are questioning my credibility. What ever will I do. How am I to get a job now?

    Look---I have given you rational scientific feedback. The ideas you present are not consistent with Lorentz Invariance. But instead of engaging in a debate about it, you have aparently lost your temper. Perhaps if you can't handle being told you are wrong you should be a philosopher, not a scientist.

    I do wonder sometimes---how do you people know I haven't read Farsight's essays? I made a comment a while back to the effect of "I know it's garbage from the title", but since then I told Farsight I would read his work.

    MetaKron you don't know what you're talking about. Time dialation is a consequence of the Lorentz Transforms. And it has been proven with atomic clocks and such. Hold on while I do a google search, and I will let you know how long it took to find this link:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html#c2
    http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page18.html
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/050225a.html
    http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/muons1_.html

    Less than a minute.
     
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    This is the most superficial explanation of Lorentz Invariance.
     
  21. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    And it should be the cesspool and the three-day ban for Oli's comments like this.
     
  22. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I don't think you can whine loud enough this time...
     
  23. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    Do u think that acceleration can influence time ticks inside a molecule.

    I dont know what actually ticks inside the molecules that we count as time, but what if G forces ie. Gravity or Acceleration or Centrifugal forces affect these ticks ?

    BTW the geostationary satellites, do ticks slowdown or speedup above there ?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page