Why is there so much crackpot physics?
- Thread starter Perpetual Student
- Start date
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Crackpot celebrating Easter.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Some recent discussions have inspired me to revive this old thread.
When it comes to physics, I do believe that crackpot theories are created primarily by those who lack the mathematics skills needed to deal with the real thing. Learning the math needed for modern physics takes time and effort and not everyone can do it. Understanding the mathematics allows one to follow a complex argument to its conclusion. Once one has taken that journey, there is no reason to embrace anything but the scientifically based conclusions that constitute mainstream physics.
It seems that those who have a passion to understand physics but can't deal with the math must either accept their fate or make up stuff to help deny their failure. People who are comfortable with themselves do the former while crackpots do the latter. We can then add narcissistic behavior and other psychological factors to further define the mix of characteristics creating the crackpot.
When it comes to physics, I do believe that crackpot theories are created primarily by those who lack the mathematics skills needed to deal with the real thing. Learning the math needed for modern physics takes time and effort and not everyone can do it. Understanding the mathematics allows one to follow a complex argument to its conclusion. Once one has taken that journey, there is no reason to embrace anything but the scientifically based conclusions that constitute mainstream physics.
It seems that those who have a passion to understand physics but can't deal with the math must either accept their fate or make up stuff to help deny their failure. People who are comfortable with themselves do the former while crackpots do the latter. We can then add narcissistic behavior and other psychological factors to further define the mix of characteristics creating the crackpot.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Given the habit of certain of the crackpots here to ignore calls to show the mathematical basis for their claims this is highly plausible.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I'd agre. I have a layman's understand of physics, but I don't know the math. I can, however, usually point one to the people who do understand the math, and upon whose expertise I rely.
I commented in antoehr thread about a particular poster, but one of the hallmarks that always makes me chuckle is the claim that they'll use logic, instead of math. Often stated in various ways/methods (it's commons sense, it's obvious, look at the drawings, etc). It makes me chuckle.
Math is, simply, a formalized logical structure. With anything that's quatifiable, if it can be shown by logic it can be shown by math. And the math is a much more precise and detailed logical argument than words...it's harder to hide assumptions or sneak in unproven variables if you have to write it all out.
Math aside, even those claiming to rely on logic can rarely construct their ideas in ANY sort of formal logical notation.
Most seem to believe that logic="it seems this way to me".
I commented in antoehr thread about a particular poster, but one of the hallmarks that always makes me chuckle is the claim that they'll use logic, instead of math. Often stated in various ways/methods (it's commons sense, it's obvious, look at the drawings, etc). It makes me chuckle.
Math is, simply, a formalized logical structure. With anything that's quatifiable, if it can be shown by logic it can be shown by math. And the math is a much more precise and detailed logical argument than words...it's harder to hide assumptions or sneak in unproven variables if you have to write it all out.
Math aside, even those claiming to rely on logic can rarely construct their ideas in ANY sort of formal logical notation.
Most seem to believe that logic="it seems this way to me".
The real reason why there’s so much crackpot physics is conviction. It works a bit like religion. I don’t know if you’ve ever had any conversations with Young Earth Creationists, but you can show them the fossils, the strata, the radio-carbon dating, and even the bible, but they just will not have it. In the end they defend their conviction by calling you names. Kind of makes them feel better I suppose. Physics crackpots are just the same. You can show them the explanation, the evidence, the references, and even the mathematics, but they just will not have it.
You can show them even the simplest things, but nothing will loosen their grip on the woo they don’t understand. A nice easy one is the invariant Lorentz interval in special relativity. The spacetime “distance” between event1 and event2 is always the same regardless of how you might move. The invariant interval is described by the expression:
It’s related to Pythagoras' theorem, and you can work it through from first principles using that old favourite the parallel-mirror light clock. Check out the simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. We've got two parallel-mirror light clocks in front of us. Event1 is when we set them both running, keeping clock1 as the local clock whilst clock2 is the travelling clock on an out-and-back trip. Event2 is when they meet back up.
We see the light moving like this ǁ in the local clock1, and each reflection adds 1 to t1. But because it’s just sitting there, x1 y1 and z1 are zero for the whole gedankenexperiment.
We see light moving like this /\ in the travelling clock2. Treat one side of the angled path as a right-angled triangle, and the hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). It's like Pythagoras' theorem h² = o² + a² because you work out the height of the triangle via o² = h² – a². Hence o = √(h² -a²). Only the hypotenuse h is 1 and we tend to write v/c instead of just v. Hence we write it as √(1 –v²/c²). The reciprocal is just language convention. If the travelling clock2 is going at .99c the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.2 = 1/0.142 = 7. So there's a sevenfold time dilation. That means t2 is a seventh of t1. And because it’s only on a straight-line out-and-back trip x2 is non-zero whilst y2 and z2 are zero. Forget them.
When the two clocks meet back up we can be confident that delta s is the same for both clocks because the travelling clock covered a total distance x2 = vt1 = 0.99t1. Whatever the value of t1, delta s1= t1 and delta s2 = √(-0.142t1²) + √(0.99t1)² = 0.02t1 + 0.98t1 = t1. Simple. What’s even simpler is to look at what you’re dealing with, and realise the two total light-path lengths between event1 and event2 are the same in both clocks. That’s what underlies the invariant interval. Macroscopic motion comes at the cost of a reduced local rate of motion. That’s why there’s a minus on the t. And get this: there's no literal time flowing in these clocks, just light moving back and forth between the mirrors. All a clock does is “clock” up some kind of regular cyclic local motion. That’s really useful for when you’re looking at things like black holes, when you’re really up against the crackpots.
You can show them even the simplest things, but nothing will loosen their grip on the woo they don’t understand. A nice easy one is the invariant Lorentz interval in special relativity. The spacetime “distance” between event1 and event2 is always the same regardless of how you might move. The invariant interval is described by the expression:
It’s related to Pythagoras' theorem, and you can work it through from first principles using that old favourite the parallel-mirror light clock. Check out the simple inference of time dilation due to relative velocity. We've got two parallel-mirror light clocks in front of us. Event1 is when we set them both running, keeping clock1 as the local clock whilst clock2 is the travelling clock on an out-and-back trip. Event2 is when they meet back up.
We see the light moving like this ǁ in the local clock1, and each reflection adds 1 to t1. But because it’s just sitting there, x1 y1 and z1 are zero for the whole gedankenexperiment.
We see light moving like this /\ in the travelling clock2. Treat one side of the angled path as a right-angled triangle, and the hypotenuse is the lightpath where c=1 in natural units, the base is the speed v as a fraction of c, and the height gives the Lorentz factor γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). It's like Pythagoras' theorem h² = o² + a² because you work out the height of the triangle via o² = h² – a². Hence o = √(h² -a²). Only the hypotenuse h is 1 and we tend to write v/c instead of just v. Hence we write it as √(1 –v²/c²). The reciprocal is just language convention. If the travelling clock2 is going at .99c the Lorentz factor is 1/√(1-0.99²/1²) = 1/√(1-0.98) = 1/√0.2 = 1/0.142 = 7. So there's a sevenfold time dilation. That means t2 is a seventh of t1. And because it’s only on a straight-line out-and-back trip x2 is non-zero whilst y2 and z2 are zero. Forget them.
When the two clocks meet back up we can be confident that delta s is the same for both clocks because the travelling clock covered a total distance x2 = vt1 = 0.99t1. Whatever the value of t1, delta s1= t1 and delta s2 = √(-0.142t1²) + √(0.99t1)² = 0.02t1 + 0.98t1 = t1. Simple. What’s even simpler is to look at what you’re dealing with, and realise the two total light-path lengths between event1 and event2 are the same in both clocks. That’s what underlies the invariant interval. Macroscopic motion comes at the cost of a reduced local rate of motion. That’s why there’s a minus on the t. And get this: there's no literal time flowing in these clocks, just light moving back and forth between the mirrors. All a clock does is “clock” up some kind of regular cyclic local motion. That’s really useful for when you’re looking at things like black holes, when you’re really up against the crackpots.
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Yep.
This is as good a time as any to observe that the highlighted portion of Farsight's calculation is incorrect.
This isn't the first time Farsight's made that particular mistake:
5 April 2012:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8174348&postcount=957
29 April 2012:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8241601&postcount=140
4 May 2012:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8256316&postcount=248
The highlighted equality does not hold. It's possible that at least one of the highlighted exponents is misplaced.
With the exponents as written, Farsight's expression yields a complex number:
√(-0.142t1²) + √(0.99t1)² = 0.376829 i t1 + 0.99 t1 = (0.99 + 0.376829 i) t1
I don't know why Farsight put a minus sign in front of the 0.142, and I hesitate to ask. It looks as though Farsight doesn't understand that the delta s1 and delta s2 invariants are supposed to be computed using the line element he quoted.
Yes, many of us recall coming up against crackpot ideas about black holes. Some have been promoted by a fellow who's spent years denying Einstein's equivalence principle and the admissability of coordinate transformations, even as he claims to be the only person who truly understands the papers in which Einstein presented those principles in their general form.
Speaking of mathematics, the fellow Farsight reminded me of is not very good at it.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Shakespearean farce-physics
This example comes from another thread, but it's more on-topic here than there.
When measured in metres per second, the accepted speed of light is 299792458 m/s. The square root of 299792458, divided by 3 times pi, is about 1837.127186 (Farsight's arithmetic was less accurate than mine).
When measured in centimetres per second, the accepted speed of light is about 29979245800 cm/s. The square root of 29979245800, divided by 3 times pi, is about 18371.
When measured in miles per hour, the speed of light is about 670760005 miles per hour. The square root of 670760005, divided by 3 times pi, is about 2748.
When measured in furlongs per fortnight, the speed of light is about 1802617499785 furlongs per fortnight. The square root of 1802617499785, divided by 3 times pi, is about 142456.
Expressing the speed of light in inches per minute:
According to the formula Farsight gave for the ratio of the proton's mass to that of the electron, that ratio is about 1837, or 18371, or 2748, or 142456, or 89000, or any value you like provided you're willing to invent a brand new system of units (as the French did in 1799).
So Farsight's formula provides no definite value for the mass ratio in question. It explains nothing, and has no predictive value. It's less than worthless.
Farsight's first post didn't say anything about a conversion factor of "λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres where n is a dimensionality conversion factor n". In a subsequent post, when Farsight invented that conversion factor out of whole cloth, Farsight failed to explain how that conversion factor is to be applied to his original formula. Several days have gone by, but Farsight still hasn't explained how that conversion factor is to be applied.
So it's fair to guess. If "sits on top of" means we should divide by that conversion factor, then Farsights original formula becomes
That's not right. Multiplying instead of dividing wouldn't help much. There doesn't appear to be any way to rescue Farsight's formula by applying Farsight's alleged conversion factor.
As if any attempt to rescue Farsight farce-physics weren't doomed already, Farsight still hasn't explained why his "dimensionality conversion factor n" should take on the value 1 when he's using the mks system. If n can be chosen arbitrarily, then anyone can select the value of n that makes the calculation match the experimental value. (Farsight couldn't, of course, but I'm talking about anyone who's capable of doing the relevant arithmetic.)
[size=+1]Fiction, Fantasy, and Willing Suspension of Disbelief[/size]
Authors of science fiction and fantasy assist their reader's desire to suspend disbelief by providing a haze of technobabble. Here's an example from Joss Whedon, who directed and wrote the screenplay for The Avengers:
Crackpots often employ that same technique. They're appealing to readers who are willing to ditch their skepticism when they first encounter sciency-sounding terminology, no matter how irrelevant or nonsensical.
For example:
That was entirely off-topic, partly wrong, and largely gibberish. The purpose of that paragraph was to pretend Farsight has answered the criticisms of his absurd formula for the proton/electron mass ratio, and to create an impression that the topic Farsight had gone quite far out of his way to introduce was now "almost exhausted" and should no longer be discussed in that thread.
Einstein's attempts to unify electromagnetism and gravity have nothing to do with Farsight's absurd formula. Farsight's huffing and puffing about spin or "everything hangs off the motion of light" is manifest nonsense as well as irrelevant to the thread in which he went out of his way to say those things.
Farsight isn't right. Farsight's formula for the proton/electron mass ratio was wrong, hilariously wrong. Anyone can make a mistake, but Farsight defended his formula by spouting the kind of technobabble seen in superhero movies and comic books.
When called on his mistakes and technobabble, Farsight pretended the scientists were risking their credibility when they identify nonsense as nonsense. That's not how it works.
More technobabble:
Compare that with:
The Avengers may not have been as funny as farsics, but it's a similar brand of humor:
The Avengers even has some valid psychological insights:
Compare:
This example comes from another thread, but it's more on-topic here than there.
[size=+1]The eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man's hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor his heart to report, crackpottery that could surpass what Farsight wrote above. [/size]
When measured in metres per second, the accepted speed of light is 299792458 m/s. The square root of 299792458, divided by 3 times pi, is about 1837.127186 (Farsight's arithmetic was less accurate than mine).
When measured in centimetres per second, the accepted speed of light is about 29979245800 cm/s. The square root of 29979245800, divided by 3 times pi, is about 18371.
When measured in miles per hour, the speed of light is about 670760005 miles per hour. The square root of 670760005, divided by 3 times pi, is about 2748.
When measured in furlongs per fortnight, the speed of light is about 1802617499785 furlongs per fortnight. The square root of 1802617499785, divided by 3 times pi, is about 142456.
Expressing the speed of light in inches per minute:
According to the formula Farsight gave for the ratio of the proton's mass to that of the electron, that ratio is about 1837, or 18371, or 2748, or 142456, or 89000, or any value you like provided you're willing to invent a brand new system of units (as the French did in 1799).
So Farsight's formula provides no definite value for the mass ratio in question. It explains nothing, and has no predictive value. It's less than worthless.
Farsight's first post didn't say anything about a conversion factor of "λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres where n is a dimensionality conversion factor n". In a subsequent post, when Farsight invented that conversion factor out of whole cloth, Farsight failed to explain how that conversion factor is to be applied to his original formula. Several days have gone by, but Farsight still hasn't explained how that conversion factor is to be applied.
So it's fair to guess. If "sits on top of" means we should divide by that conversion factor, then Farsights original formula becomes
(c^½ / 3π) / λ = (c^½ / 3π) / ((4π / n) c^1½) = (c^½ / 3π) / ((4π / 1) c^1½) = 1 / (12 π2 c)
From c = 299792458 m/s, Farsight's formula with his correction factor (and n=1, as Farsight claimed) tells us the dimensionless mass ratio is about 28.164 picoseconds per meter.That's not right. Multiplying instead of dividing wouldn't help much. There doesn't appear to be any way to rescue Farsight's formula by applying Farsight's alleged conversion factor.
As if any attempt to rescue Farsight farce-physics weren't doomed already, Farsight still hasn't explained why his "dimensionality conversion factor n" should take on the value 1 when he's using the mks system. If n can be chosen arbitrarily, then anyone can select the value of n that makes the calculation match the experimental value. (Farsight couldn't, of course, but I'm talking about anyone who's capable of doing the relevant arithmetic.)
[size=+1]Fiction, Fantasy, and Willing Suspension of Disbelief[/size]
Authors of science fiction and fantasy assist their reader's desire to suspend disbelief by providing a haze of technobabble. Here's an example from Joss Whedon, who directed and wrote the screenplay for The Avengers:
Crackpots often employ that same technique. They're appealing to readers who are willing to ditch their skepticism when they first encounter sciency-sounding terminology, no matter how irrelevant or nonsensical.
For example:
That was entirely off-topic, partly wrong, and largely gibberish. The purpose of that paragraph was to pretend Farsight has answered the criticisms of his absurd formula for the proton/electron mass ratio, and to create an impression that the topic Farsight had gone quite far out of his way to introduce was now "almost exhausted" and should no longer be discussed in that thread.
Einstein's attempts to unify electromagnetism and gravity have nothing to do with Farsight's absurd formula. Farsight's huffing and puffing about spin or "everything hangs off the motion of light" is manifest nonsense as well as irrelevant to the thread in which he went out of his way to say those things.
Farsight isn't right. Farsight's formula for the proton/electron mass ratio was wrong, hilariously wrong. Anyone can make a mistake, but Farsight defended his formula by spouting the kind of technobabble seen in superhero movies and comic books.
When called on his mistakes and technobabble, Farsight pretended the scientists were risking their credibility when they identify nonsense as nonsense. That's not how it works.
More technobabble:
Compare that with:
The Avengers may not have been as funny as farsics, but it's a similar brand of humor:
The Avengers even has some valid psychological insights:
Compare:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
^Remarkable!
Or something.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................else.
Kwalish Kid
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 509
Masterful work, Clinger.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
None of the crackpot physicists who turn up here have ever overturned a fundamental law of physics.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 13,833
Mainstream science has on purpose been mislead. The reason for this is that knowledge is power and by keeping the true knowledge to themselves, a breakaway shadow civilization has been able to remain one step ahead of the rest of us and been able to maintain their power.
The false knowledge has lead to mainstream science becoming incredibly messy. People are starting to sense intuitively that something isn't quite right with science but they usually can't tell exactly what the problem is, and of course even most scientists themselves don't know what really has been going on and how they have been mislead.
The total mess in mainstream science has lead to a whole spectrum of alternative theories, stretching from rarely accurate to often crackpot kook theories. Without the requirement of rigorous scientific validation it's easy for anybody to come up with all kinds of outrageous ideas and with the Internet today, to spread those ideas has become a piece of cake.
The false knowledge has lead to mainstream science becoming incredibly messy. People are starting to sense intuitively that something isn't quite right with science but they usually can't tell exactly what the problem is, and of course even most scientists themselves don't know what really has been going on and how they have been mislead.
The total mess in mainstream science has lead to a whole spectrum of alternative theories, stretching from rarely accurate to often crackpot kook theories. Without the requirement of rigorous scientific validation it's easy for anybody to come up with all kinds of outrageous ideas and with the Internet today, to spread those ideas has become a piece of cake.
Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
It's quite amazing how you can read the exact same words as I type yet get the completely opposite meaning from them.
Picture my post but written by Perpetual Student.
oh noes, what just happened?Zeuzzz
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,211
I just wrote about it in the consciousness thread. Lack of mathematical and creative freedom in physics is why people challenge it, confusing the two as if they are the same thing. The internet is helping.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
It's quite amazing how you can read the exact same words as I type yet get the completely opposite meaning from them.
Picture my post but written by Perpetual Student.
Picture some one who has read your Baalbek thread.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
... For example, the quoted text above.