Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[catsmate]

One thought on Farsight's failure to show calculations:

All of the mistakes Farsight is making are, well, the sort of mistakes you're expected to make when learning physics. All Freshman physics students will, at some point, write down a unit-imbalanced equation. Everyone will, at some point, convince themselves that some non-invariant quantity is invariant, or vice versa. Everyone will mis-assign, or double-count, or (God knows) make a sign error in an energy-budget problem. Everyone will slip up in an occasional vector problem and multiply the scalar magnitudes where they wanted the dot product.

And most people stop doing this real fast. How? Because when they get it wrong, somebody (professor/TA/classmates/tutors) tell them, "that's wrong, try again, here's another problem to try which will clarify your mistake if you solve it." Physicists get better at physics by practicing problem-solving until they're good at it.

Farsight, and perhaps crackpots generally, appears to have no problem-solving practice. When he sees a physics problem, his "hermeneutical scholasticism" that D'rok identified kicks in; he wants to invent an answer and then defend it by abstract textual argument.

I want to emphasize that, not only does this cause problems for this particular answer, but this is why Farsight doesn't have any problem-solving practice. That's why he doesn't have 500 unit-conversion problems under his belt like all physics students do. That's why he doesn't have any vector/scalar problems. That's why he doesn't have any high-school-level potential energy budget skills.

It's not that Farsight is espouses crackpot ideas because he's a bad physicist. I think that the intellectual habits of his crackpottery have made him a bad physicist.

Very well put. IIRC Faright has no background in university level physics, this is probably why he doesn't know how little he actually understands.

I like posting here. This is a skeptics forum where people dismiss simple plain-vanilla physics backed by rock-solid empirical evidence because they believe in physics which has no experimental support and which they don't understand at all.

Will you be posting some of this "rock-solid empirical evidence" sometime?

So much so that they dismiss what Einstein said as "cherry picking".

Physics has progressed since Einstein.

Plus I use it as a test-bed to develop the simple
plain-vanilla physics explanations.

Probably because you are demonstrably incapable to providing the mathematical basis for your claims.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

dT² = dt² - dx² - dy² - dz²dS² = -dt² + dx² + dy² + dz²where c = 1, which is commonly done for convenience.

Both of those sign conventions are in common use. Wald and Misner/Thorne/Wheeler use the second convention, which MTR call the "Landau-Lifshitz Spacelike Convention (LLSC)." The two red pages at the beginning of MTR list the sign conventions used by 37 books and papers.

I think you are right about the c^2 bit (and the typo) but the negative sign still eludes me.

The sign of the time term is different from the signs of spatial terms because the geometry of spacetime is non-Euclidean. If all of the signs were positive, then the equation would define a Euclidean metric and time would behave just like a fourth spatial dimension, which it is not.

No particular problem with what Farsight write above except it is a bit verbose. I think one thing that's not been made as clear as it could is that this 'interval' is zero for any two points on the same light ray and for points in general can be negative. That's ok though - it isn't the same as a distance - it's more a convenient construction for two points that will have the same ds² for everyone. When a lot of things are relative in relativity finding the things that aren't relative is very handy.

Adding to what edd said: The equation we're talking about is often called a line element, and is often used as a succinct description of the spacetime pseudo-metric (where the "pseudo-" refers to the fact that it can be negative, which is impossible for a true metric). In the context of relativity, we often get sloppy and drop the "pseudo-", so you'll see people writing and talking about the metric tensor.

As edd said, ds²=0 means the separation between the two spacetime events being compared is light-like: a single ray of light can connect the spacetime coordinates of both events.

With the LLSC convention (which is now more widely known as the MTR convention), a negative value for ds² means the separation is time-like: It is possible for a massive (sub-light-speed) particle to participate in both events.

If ds² is non-negative non-positive, so the separation is either light-like or time-like, then there can be a causal connection between the two events: They are close enough in space, and far away enough in time, for a photon or some massive particle to travel from one to the other quickly enough so that one event can influence the other.

A positive value for ds² means the separation is space-like: The events are so far apart in space, and so close together in time, that any communication between the two events would have to travel faster than the speed of light. Since (we have good reason to believe) nothing can go faster than light, there cannot be any causal connection between two events whose separation is space-like.

The invariance of ds² implies the objectivity of causality: all observers will agree on which causal relationships are allowed by the geometry of spacetime. Relativity allows each observer to choose his/her/its coordinate system almost arbitrarily, so the objectivity of potential causal relationships is an important and non-trivial result.

Wikipedia's current article on spacetime says pretty much what I wrote above, with more symbols.

Getting back to the subject of this thread: In Einstein's 1916 paper on Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity), equation (1) shows the line element Farsight injected into our discussion of crackpot physics. Einstein's equation (3) shows the fully general form of that line element. That's where Farsight got lost. There are 72 more numbered equations in that paper. Farsight has spent years denying several of Einstein's main results in that paper, including the equivalence principle and the admissibility of rather general coordinate transformations. You can read some of that denial by following Farsight's links in post #820 above.

[size=-1](The JREF Forum software is no longer rendering LaTeX properly, so some of those posts will contain LaTeX code instead of the mathematical equations you would see if the software were working. I don't know when or whether that software problem will be fixed.) [/size]​

 

[RobDegraves]

I like posting here. This is a skeptics forum where people dismiss simple plain-vanilla physics backed by rock-solid empirical evidence because they believe in physics which has no experimental support and which they don't understand at all. So much so that they dismiss what Einstein said as "cherry picking". The irony is just delicious. Plus I use it as a test-bed to develop the simple plain-vanilla physics explanations.

Actually I am curious as to why you post here rather than publishing in real journals of physics.

Is it because all the experts are colluding to exclude you from their ranks? All of them?

Why post complex physics to people who are not physicists and dismiss the comments of those who claim to know physics and say you are wrong?

Are you just seeking an audience that knows so little that you will seem correct without the burden of proof? Or is it something sinister and conspiratorial?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Hmmm, it would appear that dS² = -dT²
I am a little rusty with my vector calculus but it would appear that at least one of these quantities would be a complex number.

Now, what are S and T?

There is a little more to it than that. Take a look at PROPER TIME and PROPER LENGTH.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

While entertaining myself by following one of Farsight's links, I found this:

It's okay to make beginner's mistakes when you're first learning a difficult subject. No one expects an amateur or student to get everything right.

It's also okay to give up on a difficult subject when you discover you just don't have the mathematical and/or scientific background required to understand it. Life is short. You can't learn everything.

It's not okay to pretend to understand a difficult subject while making beginner's mistakes and ignoring expert correction. That pretense and willful ignorance is what distinguishes cranks and crackpots from students and amateurs.

That entire post was addressed to Farsight. If anyone here would like to read a summary of Farsight's misunderstandings of general relativity, you could start here.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Yes there is. The "experts" are feeding you drivel like the sky's falling in and the universe revolves around the Earth, and you're lapping it up. So much so that when I offer Einstein's relativity instead, you dismiss it as cherry-picking crackpot physics. You have a mysterious psychological drive to cling to woo. And I have a not-so-mysterious psychological drive to teach you to be skeptical about it. If don't do this, you are doomed to be a Perpetual Student forever, like some kid who never graduated from high school.

I'm not sure you understand what skepticism really means in science. The mathematics of GR (which is a model of the behavior of the universe) allows one to view the universe as revolving around the earth. Remaining skeptical means suspending judgement about how to interpret that, not rejecting it -- since it can be demonstrated mathematically.
You consistently misinterpret Einstein and show virtually total ignorance of quantum field theory and yet make the claim that you have a "psychological drive to teach" -- including about the Higgs mechanism, which is based on QFT. What are you teaching but your own misconceptions and home-spun drivel? Basically, I'm just too savvy to fall for your brand of nonsense -- and -- it appears just about everyone else here is too.

 

[edd]

Actually I am curious as to why you post here rather than publishing in real journals of physics.

Farsight clearly thinks a large proportion of his claims are exactly what Einstein thought. Naturally one doesn't usually attempt to publish papers claiming what is already accepted - you'd write a textbook instead. And Farsight has indeed written a book.

On the other hand if you wanted to point out a flaw in the Higgs mechanism tha puts it at odds with other accepted theories and you think noone has noticed it before - you'd write a paper.

 

[Farsight]

No particular problem with what Farsight write above except it is a bit verbose. I think one thing that's not been made as clear as it could is that this 'interval' is zero for any two points on the same light ray and for points in general can be negative. That's ok though - it isn't the same as a distance - it's more a convenient construction for two points that will have the same ds² for everyone. When a lot of things are relative in relativity finding the things that aren't relative is very handy.

The important point is that when you look at what's actually there and understand what the mathematics is based upon, you see why the interval is invariant.

What's that about the interval is zero for any two points on the same light ray? If you could "pursue a beam of light with the velocity c" like Einstein's thought-experiment, we'd see you cover distance x in a time t wherein x = ct. The interval is x, not zero. You're like the parallel-mirror light-clock where the light is moving like this ―. The light-path length isn't zero, even though you can't measure anything or see anything or move locally etc.

 

[Farsight]

Very well put. IIRC Faright has no background in university level physics, this is probably why he doesn't know how little he actually understands.

I understand this stuff really well.

Will you be posting some of this "rock-solid empirical evidence" sometime?

I'm forever doing it.

Physics has progressed since Einstein.

Yeah yeah, dismiss Einstein.

Probably because you are demonstrably incapable to providing the mathematical basis for your claims.

I just gave one. And I explained why the maths applies. Sorry about the typos. All you ever do is snipe.

 

[edd]

I will give the most charitable reading of the above post, especially as until then I was not disagreeing with Farsight on much of this - but ds is clearly zero and that is the 'interval' I was referring to.

 

[Farsight]

Actually I am curious as to why you post here rather than publishing in real journals of physics.

It's fun, and it's a good place to work up an explanation. For example I've saved a lot of my posts from the Higgs boson thread, and will use them to write an essay. Maybe I'll turn it into a paper.

Is it because all the experts are colluding to exclude you from their ranks? All of them?

No, but if you haven't got credentials it's a lot more difficult to get a paper in a journal. You need to do that to get a paper on arXiv. There is a degree of collusion I suppose, but it isn't some conspiracy-theory thing, more of a closed-shop thing.

Why post complex physics to people who are not physicists and dismiss the comments of those who claim to know physics and say you are wrong?

I post simple physics to try to dispel some of the woo peddled by people who claim to know physics. They tend to say something like "the mathematics is too complicated for you to understand", and get away with it.

Are you just seeking an audience that knows so little that you will seem correct without the burden of proof? Or is it something sinister and conspiratorial?

No. I tend to post here when I see people peddling garbage and others lapping it up even though they don't understand it.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight clearly thinks a large proportion of his claims are exactly what Einstein thought.

I'd say some element of what I say is what Einstein thought. Unfortunately when I give the quotes to back that up, people tend to dismiss them.

Naturally one doesn't usually attempt to publish papers claiming what is already accepted - you'd write a textbook instead. And Farsight has indeed written a book.

It's supposed to be off sale, but I've just checked, and one of the used copies is on sale for sixty nine quid. Collector's item! I'll do a new book sometime.

On the other hand if you wanted to point out a flaw in the Higgs mechanism that puts it at odds with other accepted theories and you think noone has noticed it before - you'd write a paper.

I'll think about it. Maybe I could collaborate with somebody.

I will give the most charitable reading of the above post, especially as until then I was not disagreeing with Farsight on much of this - but ds is clearly zero and that is the 'interval' I was referring to.

Apologies, I misread what you were saying. When ds is zero the two events are separated by a light-like "null" interval, but the separation isn't zero.

 

[Farsight]

I'm not sure you understand what skepticism really means in science. The mathematics of GR (which is a model of the behavior of the universe) allows one to view the universe as revolving around the earth. Remaining skeptical means suspending judgement about how to interpret that, not rejecting it -- since it can be demonstrated mathematically.

Being skeptical is pointing out that you're free to use any coordinate system you like, just as you're free to use any map you like, but that doesn't mean the sun goes round the earth, just as it doesn't mean the earth is flat and rectangular.

You consistently misinterpret Einstein and show virtually total ignorance of quantum field theory and yet make the claim that you have a "psychological drive to teach" -- including about the Higgs mechanism, which is based on QFT. What are you teaching but your own misconceptions and home-spun drivel?

That the Higgs mechanism is said to be reponsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, that it isn't involved when radiation in a box adds mass to that system, that "cosmic treacle" is junk, that the cause of electron mass is only assumed to be Yakuwa-like, and that there's a symmetry that should replace the "frightfully ad-hoc" "toilet" of the standard model. What's not to like? It's not as if I'm peddling some theory I've dreamt up. I'm telling you about Einstein's E=mc².

Basically, I'm just too savvy to fall for your brand of nonsense -- and -- it appears just about everyone else here is too.

You're not at all savvy, you lap up nonsense you don't understand, and you will not listen to somebody like me who gives you explanations and evidence and references. You find a way to dismiss everything. On the Higgs boson thread you latched on to the units issue like, but when I start to explain it starting with how we define both the second and the metre using the motion of light you just aren't listening. Instead you bump this thread.

 

[edd]

Apologies, I misread what you were saying. When ds is zero the two events are separated by a light-like "null" interval, but the separation isn't zero.

Don't think an apology is needed. Here I think we're in agreement.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Being skeptical is pointing out that you're free to use any coordinate system you like, just as you're free to use any map you like, but that doesn't mean the sun goes round the earth, just as it doesn't mean the earth is flat and rectangular.

I believe the claim is that, under GR, the sun going around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun are merely optional ways of looking at the system. As you may have noticed in other threads, it is my opinion that if one wants to distinguish between these options in order to declare a preferred perspective, one must go beyond GR. However, the physicists here say that finding a preferred frame by some other means would violate GR. That remains something that I am still working on! That's what I call skepticism, which is quite different than your continued blathering of uninformed declarations.

That the Higgs mechanism is said to be reponsible for only 1% of the mass of matter, that it isn't involved when radiation in a box adds mass to that system, that "cosmic treacle" is junk, that the cause of electron mass is only assumed to be Yakuwa-like, and that there's a symmetry that should replace the "frightfully ad-hoc" "toilet" of the standard model. What's not to like? It's not as if I'm peddling some theory I've dreamt up. I'm telling you about Einstein's E=mc².

Even a physics dabbler like me can readily see that you are ignorant of quantum field theory and consequently not in a position to have any opinion on the subject.

You're not at all savvy, you lap up nonsense you don't understand, and you will not listen to somebody like me who gives you explanations and evidence and references. You find a way to dismiss everything. On the Higgs boson thread you latched on to the units issue like, but when I start to explain it starting with how we define both the second and the metre using the motion of light you just aren't listening. Instead you bump this thread.

Everyone here is aware of how the units of time and distance are defined and understand that it is irrelevant to the proton mass to electron mass ratio nonsense you posted. After embarrassing yourself with your juvenile analysis of the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron, you declared you would provide some "surgical evidence," which you have not yet produced -- of course -- how could you? Why don't you just admit you made a high school introductory level error in thinking and move on? Then: study some QFT!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And in the case of this crackpot physics, quite a few JREF members do claim to at least understand that physics (or key aspects of it anyway), myself included.

Even the ones that aren't professional physicists?

For "Plasma Cosmology" (PC), yes.

As RC has never tired of pointing out, PC, as presented here by its main advocate, is a horrible mish-mash. And it takes not much more than critical thinking (plus some familiarity with things like galaxies, the CMB, and element abundances) to work out just how much of a dog's breakfast it is.

Certainly a deep understanding of some of the bits does require a pretty good grasp of some physics which most people do not encounter until in their final year or two of an undergrad degree (if then; plasma physics for example); however, to understand the key aspects of at least some - even most - of the main components requires little more than high school physics, plus a good understanding of contemporary (extra-galactic) astronomy and cosmology. A PhD in physics and a decade of research and/or teaching is not required.

I'm curious: how many different fields of study do you have comparable levels of knowledge in, and more importantly, what should one do to acquire such knowledge?

My passion is astronomy, and am a keen amateur. So fields of study directly relevant to astronomy are ones I have - I think - some acquaintance with. That includes quite a bit of modern physics, but by no means all (high temperature superconductors? you don't see observational signatures of any of those with Chandra!).

The paths to learning are many; if you have the time and energy (and $$$!), a formal university degree, majoring in physics, would be ideal. If not, you could set out to teach yourself ... but while there's no shortage of resources (including people who are more than willing to give great amounts of their time - for free! - to help you out, e.g. at Physics Forums), self-study does require a fair bit of dedication and self-will. It helps, greatly, if you really really enjoy learning Of course, if you're like PS, and have a mathematics degree (or two), you'll very likely find learning enough about physics to be able to spot the black hole at the heart of most crackpot physics (at 50 paces too) quite straight-forward.

 

[Farsight]

Don't think an apology is needed. Here I think we're in agreement.

Good stuff edd. The stuff I come out with where it all comes down to the motion of light is coloured by A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. IMHO more's the pity that Einstein didn't revisit SR giving priority to motion, but I guess like Maxwell and Minkowski, he just didn't live long enough.

 

[Farsight]

I believe the claim is that, under GR, the sun going around the earth or the earth revolving around the sun are merely optional ways of looking at the system. As you may have noticed in other threads, it is my opinion that if one wants to distinguish between these options in order to declare a preferred perspective, one must go beyond GR. However, the physicists here say that finding a preferred frame by some other means would violate GR. That remains something that I am still working on! That's what I call skepticism, which is quite different than your continued blathering of uninformed declarations.

Watch my lips: the Earth goes round the Sun. That isn't blathering, that's what happens. All GR says is that you're free to use a geocentric coordinate system. That doesn't mean the Sun goes round the Earth. Just as when you're on a roundabout it doesn't mean the universe is revolving around you. Because I'm on a roundabout too, and it can't be revolving around the both of us, now can it?

Even a physics dabbler like me can readily see that you are ignorant of quantum field theory and consequently not in a position to have any opinion on the subject.

Yeah yeah. You are ignorant of scripture, and consequently not in a position to have any opinion on the preachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I bought the T-shirt.

Everyone here is aware of how the units of time and distance are defined and understand that it is irrelevant to the proton mass to electron mass ratio nonsense you posted.

No they aren't. Time and distance are both defined using the motion of light, and mass ratios are dimensionless just like harmonics. Are you ever going to stop and think about this? Will you even look at the the watt balance section of the wikipedia kilogram article? Did you spot the bit that says "The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter"? And how do you define the second and the metre? Using the motion of light. But sigh, this is hopeless. If I can't get you to understand the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, no way am I going to get you to understand this.

After embarrassing yourself with your juvenile analysis of the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron, you declared you would provide some "surgical evidence," which you have not yet produced -- of course -- how could you? Why don't you just admit you made a high school introductory level error in thinking and move on? Then: study some QFT!

I haven't embarrassed myself. You have. You think the Sun goes round the Earth. And that The Sky is Falling In. And if anybody challenges what you think via a reasoned counterargument backed by evidence and explanation and Einstein, you don't respond in kind, you just dismiss it as irrelevant cherry-picking nonsense, because it doesn't square with what you think you know. You just won't listen, you offer no counter argument, no counter evidence, and no counter nothing. Why is there so much crackpot physics? Because of suckers like you.

 

[dafydd]

I understand this stuff really well.

No you don't.

 

[Giordano]

Yeah yeah. You are ignorant of scripture, and consequently not in a position to have any opinion on the preachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I bought the T-shirt.

[/I]

I just need to point out that if you were ignorant of scripture, you would certainly not be in a position to offer any opinion about scripture, and you would be at a major disadvantage in offering an opinion on the preachings of the Holy Roman Church as they applied to scripture. If I never read (or even looked at) a book, could I form a legitimate opinion about it?

Not understanding quantum field theory DOES prevent you from having a legitimate opinion about quantum field theory and about any theory in physics that is based on quantum field theory.