And then people who consider themselves to have expertise in GR tend to be lumping me in with the "Einstein was wrong" people. Even though actually they disregarded what Einstein said, and effectively put themselves into the "Einstein was wrong" camp.
Firstly Einstein wasn't perfect, there's plenty of things he thought about gravity and particle physics we now know to be false, quite a bit of which was known in his day. Secondly part of the issue they,
we, have with your approach is you clearly have no understanding of his work in terms of details, all you have is wordy quotes. Due to your being practically innumerate you have absolutely no way of getting a handle on the details of his work, you rely on wordy summaries and analogies which necessarily are not entirely accurate.
And I think it's a bit of a joke you rag on people who 'consider themslve to have expertise in GR' when you deem yourself to have a better understanding of, for instance, electromagnetism than a Nobel Prize winner in said domain. But that also illustrates my point about arguing by analogy, as you have regularly trotted out waffle about magnetic fields and curl and whatnot, only to then be told that the structure of the electric and magnetic fields in electromagnetism can be reformulated so swap much of the mathematical roles of E and B. If you understood Maxwell's equations on a working level, rather than just looking at pictures of vector fields someone else made, you'd have already known that. Time and again you've shown that your inability to do
any of the quantitative details of pretty much every domain of science you've ever spoken about
is leading you to vapid or even demonstrably wrong statements.
The trouble is in determining who's the crank and who isn't. There are diamonds in the rough.
Yes, we can all read between the lines, you're referring to yourself. Too bad that every opportunity you have had to step up and show you aren't a crank you have failed. You claim to know better than a Nobel Prize winner yet you cannot do the most trivial of standard problems. You claim your work is worth multiple Nobel Prizes yet you cannot give a
single physical system your work can model quantitatively, all the while whining about string theory supposedly having exactly that problem. You are functionally innumerate, in that your mathematical knowledge is below the ability necessary to even get
into a university to study physics, despite you agreeing mathematics is needed within physics. So please tell me by what criteria you are
not a crank, given all of this evidence
for you being a crank.
Yes, there are plenty of people who do
not have science educations beyond high school, who cannot do mathematics beyond high school level, who only discuss science in terms of simplified examples and imprecise analogies but they aren't claiming to understand science better than Nobel Prize winners. How do we identify such people, distinguishing them from cranks? They ask honest questions, not because they want an excuse to throw in their 2 cents but because they honestly want to understand. When they don't know something they don't just make up some word salad superficial waffle, complete with the occasional picture of a knotted straw from McDonalds, they go looking for the information and if it doesn't exist they start open and honest discussions. They listen when they are corrected, when their mistakes are explained to them, and they try not to repeat them again. They realise to understand certain topics requires putting in some time and effort and if they really want to understand said topics then
they put in some time and effort rather than saying "Sod it, I know better".
Seriously, please give me your criteria for someone to be or not to be a crank. And then explain why you don't fall on the wrong side of that line.
I think they should be able to refer to scientific evidence and make a case even if there isn't a suitable peer-reviewed article to refer to.
Not all science is in journals and not all journals publish science, sure. But that is just another reason for someone, when they are really interested in a subject, to put in the time to learn some of the details. I could write 2 papers in particle physics, one bullshit, the other valid, and 99% of people couldn't tell them apart no matter how incoherent the BS one is, provided I throw in enough equations and use enough buzzwords. For someone versed in even an undergraduate degree nonsense equations and abuse of terminology sticks out like a sore thumb. Sure I could write a paper to fool an undergrad but the point is the additional understanding of the details provided to someone via learning means they are able to critique things for themselves. I've said it before, I'm
certain I know more problems with theoretical physics domains like supersymmetry, supergravity, string theory, compact dimensions, extensions to the Standard Model etc than any hack here, all because I understand some of the details and therefore I see gaps here and there. Likewise when reading papers, I can evaluate them myself, allowing me to extract interesting ideas/methods and to ignore boring and perhaps even wrong ideas/methods. You, Farsight, rely on others to summarise actual physics for you, as you do not understand it.
And again, we can all read between the lines, you are saying "Even though my work has been rejected by every reputable journal I sent it to I still think it is good and have 'scientific evidence'." about your work. No, in your case your problems are manifold and have been discussed on many forums, after you plastered it on just about every English speaking science forum you could find. If you were lucky you got feedback from reviewers of your paper but I suspect your work was just summarily rejected after only a cursory read, during which time it is obvious you're all waffle with nothing to say, and you were told something to the effect of "This journal isn't best suited for
your kind of 'article'." by the editor or journal admin. No matter, you've got all those forum responses to learn from.
An idea/model/claim/whatever stands and fails not on the name or qualifications of the author(s), the location the work was done, the font used to write it up or the method by which it is disseminated, it stands and falls on its evidence, reason and detail. As yet you have not presented anything which in any makes anyone familiar with science in a reasonable way think you have ideas worth pursuing. The peer review system of journals is not perfect, some work falls through the cracks, but
your work is not such an example. Now you can keep telling yourself that,
lying to yourself, you obviously have time and money you can (or think you can) afford to spend on kidding yourself in that way, but if you do we'll still be doing this dance this time next year, the one after that, the one after that, the one after... you get the point. A good honest scientist, who cares about science and truth, listens to criticism of their work and, rather than saying "Sod you, I'm going to pay to publish my work if you won't!", says "How might I improve my work so as to address the criticisms commonly raised in regards to it?". Your problem (one of your problems) is you went into science (or want to get into science) to do something big, rather than to just do
some science and see where it leads you. You want to make a name for yourself, your constant "Oh, and I'm John Duffield" illustrates that, showing you're in it for the accolades rather than for the love of science and passion of finding things out. Your ever deepening denial and more ridiculous things to advertise your ideas shows that. Accepting correction gets a true scientist closer to the truth, in your case it means accepting your supposedly brilliant insights, with all your supposed deep understanding (despite having no quantitative understanding of experimental data nor any experimental experience yourself) are just tosh.
This "diamond in the rough" stuff is you wanting to play the plucky underdog destined for vindication and Nobel Prizes. You went (or tried to get into) science for all the wrong reasons and you've reaped exactly as expected, nothing but derision.
