dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I missed that bit.
Why is there so much crackpot physics?
- Thread starter Perpetual Student
- Start date
I missed that bit.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
We have already had this debate on another thread.
I don't regard speculative conjectures made by accomplished professionals as "crackpot." I am writing here about people who have publicly promulgated conjectures that contradict scientific evidence. Many of these people (like EU peddlers) have cultivated a religious like following. Typically, they have no understanding of the science they are contradicting. Many of them don't know enough mathematics to solve a quadratic equation, yet think they can contradict stuff like general relativity with their folksy home-spun conjectures.
In contrast someone like Tegmark, who is an accomplished physicist and cosmologist, full well knows his conjectures are speculative and is willing to subject his thinking to whatever scientific evidence may someday be available.
Frankly, I find your inability to make this distinction a bit "crackpot."
You shouldn't make a distinction based upon the qualifications of the author. You should make the distinction based on the science, taking note of the supporting evidence and the logical argument and the predictive mathematics etc.
There's plenty of people out there who think they can contradict scientific evidence, and general relativity, and Einstein, etc etc etc, and who have cultivated a religious-like following. The thing is, some of them are professional physicists. Think Hawking. Some of them have no understanding of the science because they're essentially mathematicians rather than scientists adhering to the scientific method.
Don't treat the guy like some high priest of physics. If it's BS it's BS, it doesn't matter whose mouth it comes from. And note this: conjectures are sometimes deliberately armoured against being disproven by scientific evidence. They rumble on for decades wasting everybody's time and money, and people believe in them despite the total lack of supporting evidence.
And I find you siding with Tegmark's universe made of mathematics to be deeply ironic.
Not at all. The vast majority of physicists certainly aren't crackpots. I suppose you could claim that some of the things in the textbooks are crackpot, but I think it's better to say that they're wrong. IMHO the biggest crackpots are the celebrity physicists promoting themselves by peddling woo.
Errm... are you trying to suggest you know more about physics than Stephen Hawking?
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
I am making distinctions based on the science. As I have said several times now (you do not seem to be paying attention), I regard conjectures as "crackpot" when they contradict established and proven scientific theories -- like EU nonsense. Professionals with qualifications (like Linus Pauling) can certainly take a crackpot direction, but when respected professionals go out on a limb with some conjectures that go beyond current knowledge, they are not necessarily crackpots.
Please explain how and when Hawking has contradicted scientific evidence. To my knowledge he has accepted reality when he has been demonstrated to be wrong.
An example: A respected professional might speculate about GR in scenarios where GR has no experimental evidence, but anyone persisting in some conjecture about GR that contradicts experimental evidence is indeed a crackpot, regardless of credentials. In any case the kind of stuff that "rumbles on for decades" seems to die out over time unless they become the core beliefs of some cult, in which case they do become crackpot theories.
I am not "siding" with Tegmark. I find his conjectures strange but interesting. Note the thread I stared about Craig Hogan (a physicist at the University of Chicago) and his work at Fermilab, which might support Tegmark's conjectures. However strange and counter-intuitive the concept, if it can be supported by evidence, it merits consideration. At first sight, Einstein's theories were strikingly strange and counter-intuitive. Was he a crackpot?
I might add that even if some theory were proven wrong, it does not follow that the author of that theory is a crackpot -- as long as he/she accepts being wrong. Crackpots either start their "careers" promulgating wrong theories and persist in the face of evidence or continue to advocate some conjecture -- at first plausible -- even after it is proven to be wrong -- like Fred Hoyle.
Last edited:
No. But since you mention it, I know more about time than Stephen Hawking. Have a look on the internet at what he says, and I'll tell you about it if you like. Straight up.
No, not necessarily. But knowing what you do about c = √(1/ε0μ0) you must surely know about the vacuum impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0). And yet you dismiss "the electric universe" as nonsense whilst giving credence to "the mathematical universe". That seems a bit black and white, with a whiff of Emperor's New Clothes.
I don't think he has. But note that he has specialised in topics that have not been subject to scientific evidence.
Agreed.
I'm afraid M-theory is one of them.
Fine, no problem, but IMHO you should apply your criteria evenly.
No. And don't forget, other people worked on relativity before he did, Lorentz, Poincare, Fitzgerald, and Voigt to name but a few. SR wasn't that novel. But also remember that SR wasn't "mainstream" until the late twenties, and GR languished until its "golden age" that started in about 1960. See post#2 here. So I imagine there were people in the intervening years who called him a crackpot. Remember the snippet on page 53 of Graham Farmelo's The Strangest Man, which was referring to Einstein in 1923: "At that time, Cunningham and Eddington were streets ahead of the majority of their Cambridge colleagues, who dismissed Einstein's work, ignored it, or denied its significance".
Agreed. IMHO whilst they're being proven wrong and refusing to accept the scientific evidence, they're fighting tooth and claw to maintain their standing. That's when they call the challenger a crackpot.
So what do you know that he doesn't? And how do you know you know it (rather than just think you know you know it)?
In fairness when conventional science can not explain things that can be observed with ones own eyes such as the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world, many of which contain stones weighing hundreds of tons, people are compelled to 'think out of the box".
Therefore, the door is open to these crackpots to try to explain what real scientists can not.
I'm sure if i gave you the ACTUAL answer as to the question of how they were made, you'd call me a crackpot too though LOL (not that I have one)
Therefore, the door is open to these crackpots to try to explain what real scientists can not.
I'm sure if i gave you the ACTUAL answer as to the question of how they were made, you'd call me a crackpot too though LOL (not that I have one)
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
OK, so you're claiming here that the existence of ancient megalithic structures proves that some aspect of modern science is wrong.
Do you have any evidence to back that claim up?
(Though perhaps you should go over to General Skepticism & Paranormal and start a new thread there.)
Clearly, I did not say that, I said modern "science can not explain" these things not that it was wrong! If fact I have given a great answer to question asked on this thread by the TS IMO. Perhaps you should have read my post again before answering as such.
Ted, you have now made several "testy" responses to perfectly polite posts. I read your post the same way ctamblyn did. If this was a misunderstanding---well, please get used to it, it happens all the time in written communication. Don't get mad, don't blame the poster, just respond to the post and clarify your meaning.
If you find it happening a lot, perhaps the problem is not that other people are failing to read---perhaps the problem is that you're not writing clearly enough, and that other people are merely failing to read your mind.
Fair enough Ben. Thanks! I think my answer is good one though as to why there is so much crackpot physics.
I guess you may have been focusing on the last sentence of my post. IMO the existance of the structrues themselves and the belief that there are technologies we do not have at this very second is not conditional on our science being incorrect.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
OK, if I misunderstood then I apologise.
So, if we assume (for the sake of argument) that modern science is not mistaken or incomplete in some respect, why can't it explain "the creation of ancient megalithic Structures all over the world"?
ETA: Never mind, you answered my question in your post to ben m.
ETAA: Actually, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "the existance of the structrues themselves and the belief that there are technologies we do not have at this very second is not conditional on our science being incorrect"? Perhaps in different words, as I want to be sure I understand your position correctly?
Last edited:
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
I don't quite get why you're so fixated on Tegmark. He's completely up front about his mathematical universe ideas being highly speculative, and has relegated them to a "just for fun" status. He has suggested possible observations that would confirm these ideas, and there's no reason to think he wouldn't be willing to abandon them should they be found wanting. Furthermore, I see no a priori reason to reject them. They're neat, interesting, probably not correct, but worth thinking about. So what's the problem?
Last edited:
As a sort of astrophysics hobbyist I think that most people can't really get a grip on theories and actions that seem to be counter to the way they interact with the universe. Things beyond 3 dimensions, things happening at such small sizes as to be practically magical. Things that move so fast as to change their state in spacetime.
For the avg shmo this has to sound like a lot of hooey. Hence, the woo that sounds like a more comfortable,easy to follow universe, wins out.
One of the reasons I happen to like the Michio Kaku's, Neil Degrasse-Tyson's and Hawkings of the world is their ability to explain complex actions in real world terms. I hope that PBS ,Discovery...etc will keep making these types of programs so as to help educate the public that physics isn't out there just making stuff up (regardless what some people on this forum may think).
BTW, anyone who thinks they understand the concepts of spacetime more than Hawking(who holds Newton's Chair btw....he's not just some TV scientist) is pretty much fooling themselves. and I thought I was arrogant.......
For the avg shmo this has to sound like a lot of hooey. Hence, the woo that sounds like a more comfortable,easy to follow universe, wins out.
One of the reasons I happen to like the Michio Kaku's, Neil Degrasse-Tyson's and Hawkings of the world is their ability to explain complex actions in real world terms. I hope that PBS ,Discovery...etc will keep making these types of programs so as to help educate the public that physics isn't out there just making stuff up (regardless what some people on this forum may think).
BTW, anyone who thinks they understand the concepts of spacetime more than Hawking(who holds Newton's Chair btw....he's not just some TV scientist) is pretty much fooling themselves. and I thought I was arrogant.......
Not an issue although I'm sure you understand exactely. "The belief that there are technologies we do not have at this very second" as used means that given the tools for building and possible methods to move rocks weighing up to hundreds of tons for large distances available thousands of years ago when these ancient megalithic structures were built, these structures should not exist without exception;therfore, logiclly there was an alternate technology used that we do not have at this second.
Last edited:
Many of these so called "unexplained" structures have been explained. But the woomeisters who make Ancient Alien shows and books just ignore that part.
Glaciation has a lot to do with stone movements, not to mention many of the megalithic structures were carved over many many years. It seems impossible to us because we can't imagine 200 people doing nothing but eating,sleeping and carving huge stones for 25 years or so. But it's the easiest explanation for most of them and thus, the most likely.
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
Thank you for the clarification.
The highlighted part above has been discussed many times in the GS&P section; I heartily recommend checking out some of those threads.