Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[catsmate]

<much snippage>

An interesting site and probably an important one regarding the transition from hunter/gatherer to settled agricultural lifestyle. The wheat DNA analysis is interesting in this regard.
However, so what? Why do you assume the known technology of the neolithic era couldn't have accomplished this? The blocks are relatively soft limestone, quarried nearby, and the remains of flint tools have been found.

 

[tedlazer]

An interesting site and probably an important one regarding the transition from hunter/gatherer to settled agricultural lifestyle. The wheat DNA analysis is interesting in this regard.
However, so what? Why do you assume the known technology of the neolithic era couldn't have accomplished this? The blocks are relatively soft limestone, quarried nearby, and the remains of flint tools have been found.

Are you refuring to this post below and Gobekli Tepe? Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres, your saying 'carved by flint tools and put in place by??' I am am saying that without a lost technology the cavemen did not, nor would have any reason to construct this site 11 thousand years ago period. Flint tools, and a few strong cavemen LMFAO!

Moreover the only full quoted responce to the post below answers again the TS's question per my responce at the top of the last page. Also note the tone of the responce. This is why in so many area's (yes this but the very tip of the iceberg) science is losing its credibility amoung many the masses. It's less of a big deal that science can't explain something IMO.

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
By Andrew Curry
Smithsonian magazine, November 2008

"Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe"

Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres!

The very existence of carved, shaped and positioned megalith rings of this size seems to show that the old theories of human origin and evolution have been wrong. Humans obviously did not emerge from caves and they had some kind of tools in hand even before the Mesopotamian Empire existed, and the desire to create massive monuments, including artistic carvings in the stone.


Pama Punku

17.8 thousand feet above sea level. Stones 26 feet hiigh weighing from 100-300 tons. Holes in the some of the stones appearing as though they were drilled perfectely and the stones themselves are cut at perfect right angles. I retract the granite sorry, these are andesite.

 

[dafydd]

Are you refuring to this post below and Gobekli Tepe? Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres, your saying 'carved by flint tools and put in place by??' I am am saying that without a lost technology the cavemen did not, nor would have any reason to construct this site 11 thousand years ago period. Flint tools, and a few strong cavemen LMFAO!

Moreover the only full quoted responce to the post below answers again the TS's question per my responce at the top of the last page. Also note the tone of the responce. This is why in so many area's (yes this but the very tip of the iceberg) science is losing its credibility amoung many the masses. It's less of a big deal that science can't explain something IMO.

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
By Andrew Curry
Smithsonian magazine, November 2008

"Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe"

Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres!

The very existence of carved, shaped and positioned megalith rings of this size seems to show that the old theories of human origin and evolution have been wrong. Humans obviously did not emerge from caves and they had some kind of tools in hand even before the Mesopotamian Empire existed, and the desire to create massive monuments, including artistic carvings in the stone.


Pama Punku

17.8 thousand feet above sea level. Stones 26 feet hiigh weighing from 100-300 tons. Holes in the some of the stones appearing as though they were drilled perfectely and the stones themselves are cut at perfect right angles. I retract the granite sorry, these are andesite.

Ancient people built huge monuments. We already know that. So what? What does this have to do with crackpot physics?

 

[The Man]

Ego. They want the fame from being the "next Einstein", they want to think of themselves as that. They might also think they are "sticking it to 'The Man'" by railing against the scientific "establishment".

I just hate when things get ‘stuck’ to me (perhaps I should shower more often).

Certainly (humor aside) though I think that is a big part of it. The notion of confronting established thinking. However, it demonstrates a lack of knowledge about how and why that particular thinking was established in the first place (it produces results more useful than the previous thinking). Also this “railing against the scientific "establishment"” usually just takes the form of attempting to redefine established words and phrases already used in the particular field. So it is more of just an established method of “railing against the scientific "establishment" as opposed to just using the methods of the scientific "establishment" to show your ‘new thinking’ has more or more accurate predictive or explanatory ability than the established thinking (hey, that’s what the real Einstein did, so the "next Einstein" shouldn’t expect to get away with producing anything less).

Explanations like "physics is hard" don't really fully explain it, I think. The vast majority of people out there don't have much more than a cursory understanding of physics either, yet the vast majority of them are not crackpots. There's a lot more to a crackpot than that.

Indeed, most of my friends don’t have much more than a very basic understanding of physics. Though the difference is that they aren’t trying to claim themselves as having some revolutionary insight into physics. Quite frankly the reason they don’t have much more than a very basic understanding of physics is because they don’t much care about physics. So the problem comes when someone just thinks they have some intuitive insight into physics yet can’t seemed to be bothered to actually learn some physics. To which, ego certainly fits the bill. Because even if they do learn how poorly modern physics is served by our intuitions, for some reason (even inexplicable to and by them) their particular insight must be correct and it is up to all those established physicists to work out exactly why.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Are you refuring to this post below and Gobekli Tepe? Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres, your saying 'carved by flint tools and put in place by??' I am am saying that without a lost technology the cavemen did not, nor would have any reason to construct this site 11 thousand years ago period. Flint tools, and a few strong cavemen LMFAO!

Moreover the only full quoted responce to the post below answers again the TS's question per my responce at the top of the last page. Also note the tone of the responce. This is why in so many area's (yes this but the very tip of the iceberg) science is losing its credibility amoung many the masses. It's less of a big deal that science can't explain something IMO.

Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
By Andrew Curry
Smithsonian magazine, November 2008

"Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about 11,000 years old, crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe"

Numerous 10-12 metric ton carved rocks over 22 acres!

The very existence of carved, shaped and positioned megalith rings of this size seems to show that the old theories of human origin and evolution have been wrong. Humans obviously did not emerge from caves and they had some kind of tools in hand even before the Mesopotamian Empire existed, and the desire to create massive monuments, including artistic carvings in the stone.


Pama Punku

17.8 thousand feet above sea level. Stones 26 feet hiigh weighing from 100-300 tons. Holes in the some of the stones appearing as though they were drilled perfectely and the stones themselves are cut at perfect right angles. I retract the granite sorry, these are andesite.

This has nothing to do with crackpot physics, but it is a classic example of crackpot archeology!

 

[Farsight]

But you haven't provided hard scientific evidence.

Farsight: It's a conviction thing. Creationists won't listen when you show them fossils, strata, carbon dating, glaciation, magnetic reversals, etc.

But you haven't provided anything like that level of evidence. So it is an utterly false analogy.

Anybody see how this works yet?

 

[sol invictus]

Anybody see how this works yet?

We all saw how it works already.

You provide some evidence that's completely consistent with standard theories of physics, and assert it shows that those standard theories are wrong. When this is explained to you, you respond by providing the same evidence again. After many iterations, you become hostile and accuse everyone of ignoring the evidence you provided.

 

[Tubbythin]

Anybody see how this works yet?

Yeah. I think it goes something like this.

1) You make big claims about something. And say that you have amazing amounts of evidence to support it and that everybody else is clearly wrong.
2) You are kindly asked to provide the evidence that shows you are right and everybody else is wrong.
3) Rather than providing the evidence you make some unsupported claims.
4) You are asked again to provide the evidence.
5) This time you tell everybody what books you've read.
6) You are kindly asked to provide the evidence for your claims.
7) This time, rather than providing the evidence you make out that the evidence is somehow analogous to the evidence for evolution.
8) You are kindly asked to provide the evidence again, rather than just insisting that you have huge amounts of evidence.
9) Rather than providing the evidence you attempt to make out that others are ignoring the evidence that you have completely failed to provide.

 

[Farsight]

Pardon?

The whole concept of travelling through time is false. We don't even travel forward in time. So backwards time travel is a dead duck. You don't need a chronology protection conjecture, because there's no such thing as negative motion.

And what do clocks actually measure? What scientific data have you analysed?

They clock up some kind of regular cyclic motion and show you a cumulative display that you call "the time". I've analysed clocks. Pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, quartz clocks, atomic clocks, optical clocks. That's what they all do. People say they "measure the flow of time", but that's baloney.

ETA. That seems to be a book on philosophy, not physics.

It's about what Einstein and Godel thought.

But what evidence can you give that your thoughts are in better agreement with the scientific evidence than those of the more learned in the field?

Because what I describe matches what you see.

I'm sure you're not. I totally believe that you think you know what you are talking about.

And I do. Open up a clock and look at that time flowing in there. Oh, you can't?

Incredibly some professional physicists who are highly regarded do not grasp it, and instead talk about motion through spacetime, multiple arrows of time, how to build a time machine, and so on. Crackpot stuff.

Not really.

Yes really. Think about those creationists. They believe in nonsense and dismiss the evidence that proves it's nonsense. You're not as different to those guys as you like to think.

 

[Farsight]

What? I'm sitting still and time is still passing.

Whoosh! There it goes! Er, no it doesn't. Things move, that's all.

 

[Farsight]

We all saw how it works already. You provide some evidence that's completely consistent with standard theories of physics, and assert it shows that those standard theories are wrong. When this is explained to you, you respond by providing the same evidence again. After many iterations, you become hostile and accuse everyone of ignoring the evidence you provided.

LOL! It wasn't me being abusive and dishonest sol. You lost the argument. Get used to it. And don't let me catch you spinning that space is sucked inwards in a gravitational field woo again.

 

[dafydd]

Whoosh! There it goes! Er, no it doesn't. Things move, that's all.

Sometimes they don't move.

 

[dafydd]

They clock up some kind of regular cyclic motion and show you a cumulative display that you call "the time". I've analysed clocks. Pendulum clocks, mechanical clocks, quartz clocks, atomic clocks, optical clocks. That's what they all do. People say they "measure the flow of time", but that's baloney.
.

See you yesterday then. Can you take some some time out to present any evidence of your so-called theories?

 

[sol invictus]

LOL! It wasn't me being abusive and dishonest sol. You lost the argument. Get used to it. And don't let me catch you spinning that space is sucked inwards in a gravitational field woo again.

And there you go, doing a runner again.

Where's the evidence that contradicts standard physics, Farsight?

 

[Farsight]

Yeah. I think it goes something like this....

Nah. It goes something like this:

1) I show you the evidence, which is as clear as a crystal stream.
2) You dismiss it.
3) I challenge you to show me the evidence to support what you believe.
4) You get all slippery and evasive and start calling me names.

OK, show me some time flowing through a clock.

 

[Farsight]

Sometimes they don't move.

They always do. Even when you're not moving, light is moving into your eyes, your thoughts are there because of motion at the electrochemical level, electrons have a magnetic dipole moment, and so. The only exception to this is a black hole, but let's not talk about black holes because we've done them to death on another thread.

 

[Farsight]

See you yesterday then. Can you take some some time out to present any evidence of your so-called theories?

Sure. But note that it isn't my theory. It's Einstein's. Or maybe Godel's. Even that is questionable, because there's Presentism dating from 1908, and the "time is change" idea goes back to the ancient Greeks.

 

[GeeMack]

Yeah. I think it goes something like this.

1) You make big claims about something. And say that you have amazing amounts of evidence to support it and that everybody else is clearly wrong.
2) You are kindly asked to provide the evidence that shows you are right and everybody else is wrong.
3) Rather than providing the evidence you make some unsupported claims.
4) You are asked again to provide the evidence.
5) This time you tell everybody what books you've read.
6) You are kindly asked to provide the evidence for your claims.
7) This time, rather than providing the evidence you make out that the evidence is somehow analogous to the evidence for evolution.
8) You are kindly asked to provide the evidence again, rather than just insisting that you have huge amounts of evidence.
9) Rather than providing the evidence you attempt to make out that others are ignoring the evidence that you have completely failed to provide.

There is also the complaining about how real scientists won't acknowledge your truth because they're scared of losing their funding. And the whining about how nobody else is covering your lazy butt by proving your claim for you. And the bitching about how they have the gall to expose your lies when you're lying. And the crying about how they point out your lack of evidence instead of talking all sciency with you and giving your claims undeserved validation. And the moaning about how people should just accept parts of your claim without evidence because then the rest of your nonsense will become clear. Those can be sprinkled among the other steps at random.

 

[Farsight]

See 4) in post #655 above.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You do like doing a runner, don't you Farsight?

Nah. It goes something like this:

1) I show you the evidence, which only I think is as clear as a crystal stream.
2) You dismiss it ask for clarifications and further explanations.
3) I challenge you to show me the evidence to support what you believe change the topic, dodge the repeated questions, and generally start doing the Gish Gallop.
4) You get all slippery and evasive and start calling me names nevertheless rise to my challenge, provide the evidence, and politely ask, once again for clarifications and further explanations of your original evidence.

Fixed that for you.

OK, show me some time flowing through a clock.

Clocks work by "some kind of regular cyclic motion and show you a cumulative display that you call "the time""

Who said that? Why, it's this guy, from Poole England, called Farsight!

What is the "regular cyclic motion" in a muon clock? In radioisotope clocks?