The Emergence of Crackpots from the SciForums Space-Time
- Thread starter BenTheMan
- Start date
- Status
Haven't had the time to read all 18 pages but reading a few, I get the general gist. It saddens me too that people have gotten into this "scientific mysticism" lately and love movies like "what the bleep do we know?" Giving the idea that their ideas could be just as relevant as anyone with a PhD.
It was funny, the other week my dad tried to give his own explanation of gravity to me, that the reason everything works is because every particle and object in the universe is going in every direction at once, and thus stays together like a gyroscope stays up. And he kept saying that instead of objects "pulling" towards each other like gravity, they "suck" toward each other, and the universe "sucks." He thought this was a witty saying and so kept repeating it.
All I could do was sit and laugh inside my head, because obviously when something has forces acting on it in every direction they cancel each other out. But when I tried to explain this to him, he just kept saying that the universe "sucked." Since all the science he's gotten since the 60's is from things like the discovery channel and spin offs. Which is now populated with people talking about string theory and M theory making metaphors with bubbles as different universes and talking about time travel with fancy looking equations on blackboards behind their heads.
Now the science channel and discovery is great for getting some people interested or excited about science, but there's not a whole lot of learning going on. Just rough metaphors that get confusing in translation. It makes me yearn for a show that actually teaches you physics, chemistry or anything that isn't as boring as high school text books. Or even hope for a movie like "The Bleep that we DO know!"
But of course that wouldn't be as popular as a deaf woman appearing in multiple ways across the screen representing different dimensions, and crystals in glass tubes that are labeled with "LOVE" and "HATE" representing love as white and a perfect snowflake, while hate is colored red crystals with bubbly and strange patterns.
As probably previously mentioned, I think most of it stems from the huge gap that has formed between informed people, and the uninformed. While science keeps giving you more and more to learn in certain fields, people are more and more discouraged from trying to learn it. And while there are some scientists who try to explain things, they either explain it too simply with bubbles as multi-dimensions, or too complexly in mathematical theorems that only other scientists can understand.
Now the saying that "those who really understand something can explain it to the uneducated" doesn't seem like it can hold true because no one really understand anything perfectly. But if you can only explain things and think of them in mathematical equations, or metaphors so bad a 3 year old likes it, you have to face that you don't understand it that well.
Anyways that's my two cents, sorry for being so long.
It was funny, the other week my dad tried to give his own explanation of gravity to me, that the reason everything works is because every particle and object in the universe is going in every direction at once, and thus stays together like a gyroscope stays up. And he kept saying that instead of objects "pulling" towards each other like gravity, they "suck" toward each other, and the universe "sucks." He thought this was a witty saying and so kept repeating it.
All I could do was sit and laugh inside my head, because obviously when something has forces acting on it in every direction they cancel each other out. But when I tried to explain this to him, he just kept saying that the universe "sucked." Since all the science he's gotten since the 60's is from things like the discovery channel and spin offs. Which is now populated with people talking about string theory and M theory making metaphors with bubbles as different universes and talking about time travel with fancy looking equations on blackboards behind their heads.
Now the science channel and discovery is great for getting some people interested or excited about science, but there's not a whole lot of learning going on. Just rough metaphors that get confusing in translation. It makes me yearn for a show that actually teaches you physics, chemistry or anything that isn't as boring as high school text books. Or even hope for a movie like "The Bleep that we DO know!"
But of course that wouldn't be as popular as a deaf woman appearing in multiple ways across the screen representing different dimensions, and crystals in glass tubes that are labeled with "LOVE" and "HATE" representing love as white and a perfect snowflake, while hate is colored red crystals with bubbly and strange patterns.
As probably previously mentioned, I think most of it stems from the huge gap that has formed between informed people, and the uninformed. While science keeps giving you more and more to learn in certain fields, people are more and more discouraged from trying to learn it. And while there are some scientists who try to explain things, they either explain it too simply with bubbles as multi-dimensions, or too complexly in mathematical theorems that only other scientists can understand.
Now the saying that "those who really understand something can explain it to the uneducated" doesn't seem like it can hold true because no one really understand anything perfectly. But if you can only explain things and think of them in mathematical equations, or metaphors so bad a 3 year old likes it, you have to face that you don't understand it that well.
Anyways that's my two cents, sorry for being so long.
I agree with almost everything you have said. For example, the canonical pop explanations of some of the concepts behind string theory are often misleading. As with anything, you really have to get into the details of something to truly understand it.
For example, if I ask a mechanic how my engine worked, I'm sure he could sum it up in ten minutes. But in now way does that ten minute explanation qualify me to go out and build my own engine. In no way can I call the engineers at GM and say "I have a new engine design that is far better than the stupid engines you have been building for the past 100 years".
This is essentially what people think they can do in this (and other) internet forums. Just because they read a summary of Einstein's life and a Wikipedia article on Special Relativity, they think that they can rewrite all of physics since 1920.
Explaining an inherintly mathematical concept to someone without the background is often a useless endeavor. I have tried three times to explain the idea behind Lorentz Invariance to Farsight, and everytime he comletely ignores my discourse. Unless one takes the time to work through the mathematical details of such ideas, they will never understand them. I speak from experience.
For example, if I ask a mechanic how my engine worked, I'm sure he could sum it up in ten minutes. But in now way does that ten minute explanation qualify me to go out and build my own engine. In no way can I call the engineers at GM and say "I have a new engine design that is far better than the stupid engines you have been building for the past 100 years".
This is essentially what people think they can do in this (and other) internet forums. Just because they read a summary of Einstein's life and a Wikipedia article on Special Relativity, they think that they can rewrite all of physics since 1920.
Explaining an inherintly mathematical concept to someone without the background is often a useless endeavor. I have tried three times to explain the idea behind Lorentz Invariance to Farsight, and everytime he comletely ignores my discourse. Unless one takes the time to work through the mathematical details of such ideas, they will never understand them. I speak from experience.
zajhein,
First, no one asked u to tell us all that crap and waste our time.
So if u r so special then whats stopping u from telling us what ticks in an atomic clock.
All the so called experts here are so dumb, they dont focus on the question but everything else, and we are supposed to threat these people respect.
First, no one asked u to tell us all that crap and waste our time.
So if u r so special then whats stopping u from telling us what ticks in an atomic clock.
All the so called experts here are so dumb, they dont focus on the question but everything else, and we are supposed to threat these people respect.
It's the fact that you think all that is crap is the very reason why you know and understand so little.
Atomic clock? The "ticks" come from the decaying of cesium atoms.
...says the nutball whacko who thinks the Moon landing was fake.
Oh my, the irony.
:worship:
Oh ya , I bow before thou god of thee knowledge for u have told exactly what ticks in a decay.
But alas u have no idea what bangs on what in the tick
...says the nutball whacko who thinks the Moon landing was fake.
Oh my, the irony.
Look whos taking the man who made history
;The man who single handedly proved my each and every point of the fakery wrong. Do u think u r JamesR or what ?
If u have any bralls down there then go to that thread and prove my remaining point sworn u Kunkle head.
...says the nutball whacko who thinks the Moon landing was fake.
Oh my, the irony.
and theres no end in sight.
LOL, you ignore me and keep banging your Lorentz Invariance drum despite my replies. You say "Farsight you're wrong about a variable c because of this here law that says c is not variable, QED I've proved you wrong". Laughable.
We can go in circles as long as you like. As soon as you show me why my arguments are wrong, I will continue repeating them.
Farsight, you're wrong because every observation we'ver EVER made confirms that c is a constant. You're wrong because we've explicitly tested Lorentz Invariance and confined the violations to a very high scale.
You are invoking Lorentz Violations with impunity.
Apart from the Shapiro Effect. And Pound-Rebka. And anything that exhibits any time dilation. But you sweep it all under the curved spacetime carpet.
Sigh. Lorentz Invariance still isn't relevant. You will always measure c to be the same because light defines your time.
You keep banging your drum and going round in circles.
I'll do some physics.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It would make a pleasant change.
Yeah, like you would even find out about it, Ophiolite.
Spacetime curvature seems like a self-evident idea and it is not falsifiable. Lorentz invariance is something that should have to be proven but under its own rules it can't be proven. We can construct experiments that appear to work but since we can only figure this out by calculation, the calculation simply massages the evidence.
Spacetime curvature seems like a self-evident idea and it is not falsifiable. Lorentz invariance is something that should have to be proven but under its own rules it can't be proven. We can construct experiments that appear to work but since we can only figure this out by calculation, the calculation simply massages the evidence.
No, it's got real consequences. For example, the rule that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180° is no longer valid in curved space.
Why are you calling "self-evident" something that was not generally believed to be true until about a century ago, and that even today some find unacceptable?
Lorentz invariance can't be proven beyond all doubt any more or less than any other scientific theory, but it can be tested by checking for seasonal variations in the laws of physics in our rest frame as we orbit the sun. The validy of Lorentz invariance is also reflected in the success of Lorentz invariant theories. A good example is mechanics, which was originally Galilean-invariant. When a Lorentz-invariant version was proposed (introducing relativistic momentum, among other things), it was found to make much better predictions under relativistic conditions (eg. in particle accelerators) than Newton's original version did.
Where's this coming from?
Now thats what i call crack pot science.
As the old song goes, " Pardon me if I'm argumental..."
Which atomic clocks are the ones that rely on DECAYING atoms?
On the contrary, EVERY measurement of the velocity of light that has ever been made and published has provided a DIFFERENT value for the speed of light.
Which light speed measurement experiments have you been reading about?
And I have an ENORMUS ( do I mean "enormous"? ) problem with someone who is unable or unwilling or both, to think on their own regarding serious science matters.
I think it would be, as Data commented, enlightening, if we were able to verify ( or not ) your own high school credential.
- Status