Merged Relativity+ / Farsight

Farsight said:
No, I did relativity+ in 2008/2009, though I'd written bits starting from 2006.
...
Click to expand...
Ah yes, I see, thank you.
I was thinking of the date of this related bit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20071014033508/http://www.relativityplus.info/


Farsight said:
...
It's made a contribution in the fight1 against speculative celebrity woo and a return to robust evidential physics2. I've certainly noticed a shift, and that the things I've been saying are featuring3 more and more in papers and media. They aren't labelled as relativity+ of course, but don't forget that that's just my working title, and it's based on a host of papers that haven't enjoyed much publicity. We're getting there.
Click to expand...
Hilited superscripts by Daylightstar

Could you elaborate on 1, 2 and supply references to 3?
 
Farsight said:
Not really. It was something minor to do with the Dirac large numbers hypothesis and the relative strength of the forces and Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide! I had a look for it but couldn't find it. I think I changed a couple of words or took a line out or something. It was no big deal. It wasn't as if I got mass or gravity wrong.
Click to expand...
It is a sign of pathological thinking. You very confidently state predictions that you claim follow from your great insight into physics, yet you simply remove them and ignore them when they turn out to be obviously inconsistent. You have never addressed your reasoning that produced the commitment in the first place.
 
Farsight's Thread

Since I haven't been able to find a thread dedicated to Farsight and his particular views of physics, I've decided to create one.

So, Farsight, if you would care to state your case, maybe we can have a thorough and interesting conversation without it being disrupted or disrupting other threads.
 
I'm enagaged in the battle against woo, wackyvorlon. In that respect I'm not that different to Randi or Dawkins, but I'm interested in different things. I don't care a fig about the paranormal or creationism, they really don't feature much in the UK where I live. Instead I'm interested in physics. It's a save the planet thing. Sounds trite I know, but save physics, save the planet really starts to sound important when you get into the fundamentals of matter and energy.

It kicked off big time back in 2005 when our two older children gave up all their science subjects. In addition the Maths Tower at Manchester University had been demolished (I used to have classes there on things like impedance), I found out that physics A levels were down 56% in twenty years, and I got concerned that the world was dumbing down. So I thought I'd do my bit and started giving "homework help" on physicsforums. I do maths tutoring now and then, so a lot of it was a piece of cake even though you're not supposed to do their homework for them. But I found myself struggling to answer the big questions like What is time?, and getting brickbats for trying. After a while I came to realise that there was an issue with the terms like t and E and m and C in the equations. Nobody seemed to realise what they really meant, and there was a circularity in the definitions. So I wrote a bunch of internet essays like Time Explained and Energy Explained. They were pretty rubbish to start off with, but I got feedback and improved them.

Then I found out about The Trouble with Physics. That was a laugh. If you do a search-inside you see references to "seer". And I'd been using the username "Farsight" since 2002 when I was on ADVFN. That's a shares website, Farsight was all about being a farsighted stockpicker. Anyway, in a kind of daisy-chain fashion I ended up reading a whole stack of papers that you don't get to hear about. Plus a lot of original material that was nothing like what they said it was like. I came to realise that modern physics was infested with quacks peddling stuff like time travel and the multiverse. None of it was backed up by scientific evidence at all. Instead it was insulated from the scientific evidence and engineered to be non-falsifiable. What was backed up by the scientific evidence was the many and various papers I'd read. It all pointed back to relativity and electromagnetism. And with that came the distinct impression that relativity was the Cinderella of modern physics. She has some ugly sisters. Take a good look at that thread we were talking on to catch my drift. It was a relativity question, but now it's a string theory thread.

Another "woo" subject I find myself getting into is quantum mysticism, which is peddled to attract attention and sell books and magazines. I was talking about it today as it happens: see the physicsworld article Catching sight of the elusive wavefunction along with The secret lives of photons revealed. For more details read A Physics-based Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Ed Klingman, where I get a mention. Or see Jeff Lundeen's home page. It's looking like wavefunction is real along with the wave nature of matter, and an interaction is something like a Fourier transform rather than a probability collapse caused by the God-like act of observation. In a nutshell, the Copenhagen Interpretation is shot to pot, and only fit for popscience hereon. It's on the way out, and I'm pleased to say I've done my bit.
 
Farsight said:
I'm enagaged in the battle against woo, wackyvorlon. In that respect I'm not that different to Randi or Dawkins, ... It's a save the planet thing.... save physics, save the planet ... sound important ...
...
For more details read A Physics-based Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Ed Klingman, where I get a mention. ... In a nutshell, the Copenhagen Interpretation is shot to pot, and only fit for popscience hereon. It's on the way out, and I'm pleased to say I've done my bit.
Click to expand...
Hilites by Daylightstar
You were mentioned in your capacity as the first respondent to a physicsworld article.

Which bit exactly do you believe you have done to contribute to 'the Copenhagen Interpretation being on the way out'?
 
I'm enagaged in the battle against woo, wackyvorlon. In that respect I'm not that different to Randi or Dawkins, but I'm interested in different things. I don't care a fig about the paranormal or creationism, they really don't feature much in the UK where I live. Instead I'm interested in physics. It's a save the planet thing. Sounds trite I know, but save physics, save the planet really starts to sound important when you get into the fundamentals of matter and energy.
Click to expand...


Gosh, that whole post was basically just vainglorious chest pounding.

1. You are not battling woo... you are woo.

2. You are not trying to save anything, all you do is haunt forums and UFO internet shows. These don't have any influence on the world of physics. Write something up and try to have it peer reviewed in a real physics journal. Then please let us watch.

The only bit you have played so far is that of "Il Dottore" and you might not want to boast of it.
 
Farsight said:
I'm enagaged in the battle against woo, wackyvorlon. In that respect I'm not that different to Randi or Dawkins, but I'm interested in different things. I don't care a fig about the paranormal or creationism, they really don't feature much in the UK where I live. Instead I'm interested in physics. It's a save the planet thing. Sounds trite I know, but save physics, save the planet really starts to sound important when you get into the fundamentals of matter and energy.

It kicked off big time back in 2005 when our two older children gave up all their science subjects. In addition the Maths Tower at Manchester University had been demolished (I used to have classes there on things like impedance), I found out that physics A levels were down 56% in twenty years, and I got concerned that the world was dumbing down. So I thought I'd do my bit and started giving "homework help" on physicsforums. I do maths tutoring now and then, so a lot of it was a piece of cake even though you're not supposed to do their homework for them. But I found myself struggling to answer the big questions like What is time?, and getting brickbats for trying. After a while I came to realise that there was an issue with the terms like t and E and m and C in the equations. Nobody seemed to realise what they really meant, and there was a circularity in the definitions. So I wrote a bunch of internet essays like Time Explained and Energy Explained. They were pretty rubbish to start off with, but I got feedback and improved them.

Then I found out about The Trouble with Physics. That was a laugh. If you do a search-inside you see references to "seer". And I'd been using the username "Farsight" since 2002 when I was on ADVFN. That's a shares website, Farsight was all about being a farsighted stockpicker. Anyway, in a kind of daisy-chain fashion I ended up reading a whole stack of papers that you don't get to hear about. Plus a lot of original material that was nothing like what they said it was like. I came to realise that modern physics was infested with quacks peddling stuff like time travel and the multiverse. None of it was backed up by scientific evidence at all. Instead it was insulated from the scientific evidence and engineered to be non-falsifiable. What was backed up by the scientific evidence was the many and various papers I'd read. It all pointed back to relativity and electromagnetism. And with that came the distinct impression that relativity was the Cinderella of modern physics. She has some ugly sisters. Take a good look at that thread we were talking on to catch my drift. It was a relativity question, but now it's a string theory thread.

Another "woo" subject I find myself getting into is quantum mysticism, which is peddled to attract attention and sell books and magazines. I was talking about it today as it happens: see the physicsworld article Catching sight of the elusive wavefunction along with The secret lives of photons revealed. For more details read A Physics-based Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Ed Klingman, where I get a mention. Or see Jeff Lundeen's home page. It's looking like wavefunction is real along with the wave nature of matter, and an interaction is something like a Fourier transform rather than a probability collapse caused by the God-like act of observation. In a nutshell, the Copenhagen Interpretation is shot to pot, and only fit for popscience hereon. It's on the way out, and I'm pleased to say I've done my bit.
Click to expand...

Wow, Modesty is your middle name. Can you refer me to some peer reviewed papers of yours so I can read more about this revolution in physics?
 
Last edited:
I'm confused by the term "duming down".

Could someone please explain it for the lay person?
 
dafydd said:
He must have misplaced those peer reviewed papers of his.
Click to expand...


Why do you always want to make science so difficult? It should be as easy as posting some rubbish on the 'net...

Farsight said:
So I wrote a bunch of internet essays like Time Explained and Energy Explained. They were pretty rubbish to start off with, [...]
Click to expand...


Hell, it worked for the Time Cube guy and that solid surfaced iron Sun nut. Huh? It didn't?
 
It did work Geemack. For example I've done my bit to explain why time travel is woo. Keep an eye out for people saying things like "time is change". There's a lot more of them around these days. Of course there's still other people trying to peddle woo and profit by it, but the balance has shifted, and nowadays they get resistance instead of people just lapping it up.
 
Farsight said:
It did work Geemack. For example I've done my bit to explain why time travel is woo.
Click to expand...
I am currently reading Sean Carrol's "From Eternity to Here - the Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time", and nowhere does he say that time travel is possible. But he does tell about the calculation that shows that in order to create a wormhole that would enable time travel you would spend more energy than exists in the entire universe. So it is quite clear to me what you are fighting here. Your own conception of what physicists say?

Keep an eye out for people saying things like "time is change". There's a lot more of them around these days.
Click to expand...
Are you still talking about physics here? If yes, I would like to know if you would be able to measure time without the change of the status of, say a pendulum, or a crystal?
 
Farsight said:
It did work Geemack. For example I've done my bit to explain why time travel is woo. Keep an eye out for people saying things like "time is change". There's a lot more of them around these days. Of course there's still other people trying to peddle woo and profit by it, but the balance has shifted, and nowadays they get resistance instead of people just lapping it up.
Click to expand...

This could be interpreted to mean that you were responsible for this outlook on the nature of time.

I dont believe that the scientific communities opinion on the nature of time itself has changed very significantly at all in almost 100 years. There is still the root philosophical problem of what "time is" (as you could argue for "energy" and other things) but what the leading thinkers of 100 years ago mused upon the nature of time itself has not changed dramatically.

This is in part due to the fact you do not need to have a deep philosophical underpinning in order to make practical use of the concept (as defined a priori) in physics...

It is also because it is a damn difficult problem to make headway with, if only because of the problems one encounters within the language barrier and the philosophy aspect.

The reason why I mention philosophy so often is that all the "formulations" of what time is that I have seen do not change established results one bit nor do they add anything extra of any practical use at present.

Nothing wrong with striving to understand the very foundations but I think most physicists and mathematicians have a very practical approach to their understanding of time when it comes down to calculating a problem in their field.
 
Farsight said:
... the Copenhagen Interpretation is shot to pot, and only fit for popscience hereon. It's on the way out, and I'm pleased to say I've done my bit.
Click to expand...
Hilites by Daylightstar
Daylightstar said:
...
Which bit exactly do you believe you have done to contribute to 'the Copenhagen Interpretation being on the way out'?
Click to expand...


So, let's try again.
Which bit exactly do you believe you have done to contribute to 'the Copenhagen Interpretation being on the way out'?
 
Farsight said:
It did work Geemack. For example I've done my bit to explain why time travel is woo. Keep an eye out for people saying things like "time is change". There's a lot more of them around these days. Of course there's still other people trying to peddle woo and profit by it, but the balance has shifted, and nowadays they get resistance instead of people just lapping it up.
Click to expand...

So you have no peer reviewed papers published.
 
Whatever happened to "Physbang" who used to follow "Farsight" around the interweb exposing his nonsense wherever it was posted?

Using a popular internet search engine to look for those two names shows that Farsight has lost debates and been laughed at on a dozen different forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom