Why is there so much crackpot physics?

W.D.Clinger said:
I thank BurntSynapse for recommending the kind of graduate course I've been teaching, but it looks to me as though BurntSynapse may have more need for that kind of course than ben m.

We certainly expect students who finish that course to be able to explain the PM processes they've been taught.
Click to expand...

Hm. I guess I would have to ask: How much time & effort would we expect you to invest in explaining the benefits Larceny to members of a group primarily interested in discussing "Why is there so much useless software?"

Personally, I wouldn't expect you to invest much time/effort in a sub, sub, sub topic with no plausible prospect of mutual benefit in the exchange. True?

If you wanted to identify weaknesses in your advocacy, you'd set reasonable investment limits based on when you thought discussion became unproductive. I think we are similar in this regard.
 
Last edited:
BurntSynapse said:
Hm. I guess I would have to ask: How much time & effort would we expect you to invest in explaining the benefits Larceny to members of a group primarily interested in discussing "Why is there so much useless software?"

Personally, I wouldn't expect you to invest much time/effort in a sub, sub, sub topic with no plausible prospect of mutual benefit in the exchange. True?

If you wanted to identify weaknesses in your advocacy, you'd set reasonable investment limits based on when you thought discussion became unproductive. I think we are similar in this regard.
Click to expand...
Hmm ...

Here's my interpretation of what you just wrote, BS: "I, BS, personally consider JREF members - or at least those who took the time and trouble to respond to any of my posts in this thread - to be irredeemably closed-minded, on topics to do with how physics research should be directed and managed." More crudely, "I put a modest amount of effort into bringing the horse to water; alas, I could not make it drink!"

Here's something for you to ponder: why did you fail - apparently so completely - to communicate the value of your ideas to the JREF members who avidly and assiduously read your posts?
 
I wanted to remind myself what BurntSynapse sounded like when he was still trying to explain his actual position, rather than (a) criticizing the form and content of requests for explanations or (b) criticizing the closedmindedness of the requesters. Here's what I found (bolding mine):

BurntSynapse said:
My goal in being here is to learn. I wanted to find skeptics with more experience than I in identifying and discussing crackpot physics because this is a problem for those of us in the starship community who want to do good, reliable work and avoid doing crackpot physics.

If I can learn why my claims do or do not qualify as crackpot physics, I can either present my ideas better, or go back to skiing and making buttloads of money financially enslaving the population for credit card companies. :D
Click to expand...

That attitude didn't hold up very long.
 
BurntSynapse said:
Hm. I guess I would have to ask: How much time & effort would we expect you to invest in explaining the benefits Larceny to members of a group primarily interested in discussing "Why is there so much useless software?"
Click to expand...
I haven't suggested Larceny could revolutionize physics or make it possible for us to travel faster than light. Had I done so, I'd have been promoting crackpot physics.

I haven't suggested that using one particular representation of SO(3) might uncover a faster-than-light loophole in Maxwell's equations or the theory of relativity. Had I done so, I'd have been promoting crackpot physics.

I haven't shown disrespect to physicists and other domain experts. Had I done so, I'd have violated an important principle of project management.

I haven't pretended the project management processes described by the PMBOK Guide are so esoteric they can't be understood without taking graduate courses in the subject. Had I done so, I'd have been dishonest.


The PMBOK Guide describes 44 project management processes in 9 knowledge areas. Here's a list:

  • Project Integration Management
    • Develop Project Charter
    • Develop Preliminary Project Scope Statement
    • Develop Project Management Plan
    • Direct and Manage Project Execution
    • Monitor and Control Project Work
    • Integrated Change Control
    • Close Project
  • Project Scope Management
    • Scope Planning
    • Scope Definition
    • Create WBS (work breakdown structure)
    • Scope Verification
    • Scope Control
  • Project Time Management
    • Activity Definition
    • Activity Sequencing
    • Activity Resource Estimating
    • Activity Duration Estimating
    • Schedule Development
    • Schedule Control
  • Project Cost Management
    • Cost Estimating
    • Cost Budgeting
    • Cost Control
  • Project Quality Management
    • Quality Planning
    • Perform Quality Assurance
    • Perform Quality Control
  • Project Human Resource Management
    • Human Resource Planning
    • Acquire Project Team
    • Develop Project Team
    • Manage Project Team
  • Project Communications Management
    • Communications Planning
    • Information Distribution
    • Performance Reporting
    • Manage Stakeholders
  • Project Risk Management
    • Risk Management Planning
    • Risk Identification
    • Qualitative Risk Analysis
    • Quantitative Risk Analysis
    • Risk Response Planning
    • Risk Monitoring and Control
  • Project Procurement Management
    • Plan Purchases and Acquisitions
    • Plan Contracting
    • Request Seller Responses
    • Select Sellers
    • Contract Administration
    • Contract Closure

The processes in that list apply to engineering projects in which the desired outcome is known to be possible in principle. When someone claims those processes can be applied to achieve an outcome that appears to be impossible (according to our current understanding of our best scientific theories), that person has some explaining to do.

BurntSynapse has been careful not to explain how the processes in this list could achieve faster-than-light travel.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Hmm ...

Here's my interpretation of what you just wrote, BS: "I, BS, personally consider JREF members - or at least those who took the time and trouble to respond to any of my posts in this thread - to be irredeemably closed-minded, on topics to do with how physics research should be directed and managed." More crudely, "I put a modest amount of effort into bringing the horse to water; alas, I could not make it drink!"

Here's something for you to ponder: why did you fail - apparently so completely - to communicate the value of your ideas to the JREF members who avidly and assiduously read your posts?
Click to expand...

Here, my ideas are ignored in favor of putting words in my mouth, with the apparent goal of criticizing an opinion I do not hold.

If this might qualify as "avid and assiduous reading", the answer to your question seems straightforward.

As for communicating value: a goal is implied which is far different than the stated one I presented. It is even quoted by WD, but as no problem appears perceptible to either of you, so I'm not sure what might be productive to say.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
I haven't suggested Larceny could revolutionize physics or make it possible for us to travel faster than light. Had I done so, I'd have been promoting crackpot physics.

I haven't suggested that using one particular representation of SO(3) might uncover a faster-than-light loophole in Maxwell's equations or the theory of relativity. Had I done so, I'd have been promoting crackpot physics.

I haven't shown disrespect to physicists and other domain experts. Had I done so, I'd have violated an important principle of project management.

I haven't pretended the project management processes described by the PMBOK Guide are so esoteric they can't be understood without taking graduate courses in the subject. Had I done so, I'd have been dishonest.


The PMBOK Guide describes 44 project management processes in 9 knowledge areas. Here's a list:

  • Project Integration Management
    • Develop Project Charter
    • Develop Preliminary Project Scope Statement
    • Develop Project Management Plan
    • Direct and Manage Project Execution
    • Monitor and Control Project Work
    • Integrated Change Control
    • Close Project
  • Project Scope Management
    • Scope Planning
    • Scope Definition
    • Create WBS (work breakdown structure)
    • Scope Verification
    • Scope Control
  • Project Time Management
    • Activity Definition
    • Activity Sequencing
    • Activity Resource Estimating
    • Activity Duration Estimating
    • Schedule Development
    • Schedule Control
  • Project Cost Management
    • Cost Estimating
    • Cost Budgeting
    • Cost Control
  • Project Quality Management
    • Quality Planning
    • Perform Quality Assurance
    • Perform Quality Control
  • Project Human Resource Management
    • Human Resource Planning
    • Acquire Project Team
    • Develop Project Team
    • Manage Project Team
  • Project Communications Management
    • Communications Planning
    • Information Distribution
    • Performance Reporting
    • Manage Stakeholders
  • Project Risk Management
    • Risk Management Planning
    • Risk Identification
    • Qualitative Risk Analysis
    • Quantitative Risk Analysis
    • Risk Response Planning
    • Risk Monitoring and Control
  • Project Procurement Management
    • Plan Purchases and Acquisitions
    • Plan Contracting
    • Request Seller Responses
    • Select Sellers
    • Contract Administration
    • Contract Closure

The processes in that list apply to engineering projects in which the desired outcome is known to be possible in principle. When someone claims those processes can be applied to achieve an outcome that appears to be impossible (according to our current understanding of our best scientific theories), that person has some explaining to do.

BurntSynapse has been careful not to explain how the processes in this list could achieve faster-than-light travel.
Click to expand...

There exist an infinite number of things you have not done which are entirely irrelevant to the question asked.

My question is an attempt to establish a shared opinion from which we might reason together.

Is it true or not true that we would expect you to invest much time and effort in explanations to a self-selected group generally hostile to an arbitrary proposal, absent plausible prospect of mutual benefit in the exchange?
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight. A revolutionary paradigm change (whatever that means) is not needed?
 
BurntSynapse said:
W.D.Clinger said:
I haven't suggested Larceny could revolutionize physics or make it possible for us to travel faster than light. Had I done so, I'd have been promoting crackpot physics.

I haven't suggested that using one particular representation of SO(3) might uncover a faster-than-light loophole in Maxwell's equations or the theory of relativity. Had I done so, I'd have been promoting crackpot physics.

I haven't shown disrespect to physicists and other domain experts. Had I done so, I'd have violated an important principle of project management.

I haven't pretended the project management processes described by the PMBOK Guide are so esoteric they can't be understood without taking graduate courses in the subject. Had I done so, I'd have been dishonest.


The PMBOK Guide describes 44 project management processes in 9 knowledge areas. Here's a list:

  • Project Integration Management
    • Develop Project Charter
    • Develop Preliminary Project Scope Statement
    • Develop Project Management Plan
    • Direct and Manage Project Execution
    • Monitor and Control Project Work
    • Integrated Change Control
    • Close Project
  • Project Scope Management
    • Scope Planning
    • Scope Definition
    • Create WBS (work breakdown structure)
    • Scope Verification
    • Scope Control
  • Project Time Management
    • Activity Definition
    • Activity Sequencing
    • Activity Resource Estimating
    • Activity Duration Estimating
    • Schedule Development
    • Schedule Control
  • Project Cost Management
    • Cost Estimating
    • Cost Budgeting
    • Cost Control
  • Project Quality Management
    • Quality Planning
    • Perform Quality Assurance
    • Perform Quality Control
  • Project Human Resource Management
    • Human Resource Planning
    • Acquire Project Team
    • Develop Project Team
    • Manage Project Team
  • Project Communications Management
    • Communications Planning
    • Information Distribution
    • Performance Reporting
    • Manage Stakeholders
  • Project Risk Management
    • Risk Management Planning
    • Risk Identification
    • Qualitative Risk Analysis
    • Quantitative Risk Analysis
    • Risk Response Planning
    • Risk Monitoring and Control
  • Project Procurement Management
    • Plan Purchases and Acquisitions
    • Plan Contracting
    • Request Seller Responses
    • Select Sellers
    • Contract Administration
    • Contract Closure

The processes in that list apply to engineering projects in which the desired outcome is known to be possible in principle. When someone claims those processes can be applied to achieve an outcome that appears to be impossible (according to our current understanding of our best scientific theories), that person has some explaining to do.

BurntSynapse has been careful not to explain how the processes in this list could achieve faster-than-light travel.
Click to expand...

There exist an infinite number of things you have not done which are entirely irrelevant to the question asked.
Click to expand...
Larceny, for example, was entirely irrelevant to this conversation before you asked me a question about it. When you asked the question, you were pretending Larceny was relevant and analogous to your hobby horse. When I answered your question by pointing out that Larceny is neither relevant nor analogous because I haven't made any claims about it, you pretended my answer was irrelevant to the question you asked.

The other three things I have not done counter your accusation that "we are similar in this regard."

BurntSynapse said:
My question is an attempt to establish a shared opinion from which we might reason together.
Click to expand...
No, your question was yet another transparent attempt to deflect attention from your deliberate failure to explain your position.

BurntSynapse said:
Is it true or not true that we would expect you to invest much time and effort in explanations to a self-selected group generally hostile to an arbitrary proposal, absent plausible prospect of mutual benefit in the exchange?
Click to expand...
If I were making bold claims about physics and mathematics, had chosen to defend those bold claims to that self-selected group, and were genuinely interested in listening to the physicists and mathematicians of that group who have shown an interest in responding to me, I would owe them an explanation of my claim and I would pay attention to what they say.

We are not similar in that regard.
 
BurntSynapse said:
Here, my ideas are ignored in favor of putting words in my mouth, with the apparent goal of criticizing an opinion I do not hold.
Click to expand...

To start with, the goal was/is to figure out what opinion you hold. You have been going on for months with zero serious posts explaining and defending your opinion. For months, all you have done is repeat "You clearly don't understand my opinion. That is not a good summary of my beliefs. I am just relaying expert reports that are beyond discussion." in various ways. You want someone to criticize your actual opinions, you are going to have to tell us what your opinions are.

You may feel like you're repeating yourself. Well, (a) try stating it differently or adding more context, and (b) repeating oneself happens on discussion boards, get used to it, it's not a big deal. Quote your own old posts if you feel something bears reminding.
 
Last edited:
BurntSynapse said:
There exist an infinite number of things you have not done which are entirely irrelevant to the question asked.

My question is an attempt to establish a shared opinion from which we might reason together.

Is it true or not true that we would expect you to invest much time and effort in explanations to a self-selected group generally hostile to an arbitrary proposal, absent plausible prospect of mutual benefit in the exchange?
Click to expand...

I will take it that no revolutionary paradigm change is needed. What does that even mean? Science should change the scientific method and start looking at goat entrails and dowsing?
 
For the last few decades, the efforts of theoretical physicists have been focused on unification theories. Supersymmetry, string theories, superstrings, M-theory, quantum gravity, etc. represent these various efforts.
However, I'm not sure what a "revolutionary paradigm change" might mean with respect to these questions.
These efforts seem to be quite unlike those made by Maxwell. Einstein, Schrödinger, et al, when experimental results demonstrated a need for change. Unlike those breakthroughs, I am not aware of any experiments or observations that show any inconsistency or violation of GR or QM. It is only at the theoretical level (e.g.:the mathematics of black holes) that theory might provoke some need for advance. So, if someone were to develop some universally accepted unification of the fundamental forces and particles of nature, if QM and GR are already in sync with all known experiments, how would that unification be demonstrated experimentally? And if there were no experimental verification, what would be gained? Could we really call that a revolutionary change?
I suspect that because our current models seem to be in perfect sync with experirnents, theoretical physicists have little else to do but concern themselves with these unification efforts, even though the verification of such theories seem to be beyond the range of our current experimental capabilities.
So, other than technological innovation which might be discovered through research -- which might bring about some revolutionary changes in the human condition -- I'm not sure we will have any more "revolutionary paradigm changes."*


*Of course with the help of a good project manager, we might attain faster than light travel (no doubt with the help of the prudent selection of some good quaternions).
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Larceny, for example, was entirely irrelevant to this conversation before you asked me a question about it.
Click to expand...
True.
W.D.Clinger said:
When you asked the question, you were pretending Larceny was relevant....
Click to expand...
False.
W.D.Clinger said:
...analogous
Click to expand...
...depending on many things: potentially.

My hope was that a familiar topic would be more accessible. You know: consider your audience. Obviously I didn't know my audience in this venue especially well, but feel I've learned a great deal.

I hope that clarification is accepted as offered and can serve as an opportunity for discussion of an analogy I'm willing to generalize, given some indication that there is some willingness on your part to extend sincere, provisional assent to anything that might lead to something like mutual agreement about something...I'd have to say agreement on almost anything at this point seems like it would be welcome at this point.
 
Last edited:
BurntSynapse said:
True.

False.

...depending on many things: potentially.

My hope was that a familiar topic would be more accessible. You know: consider your audience. Obviously I didn't know my audience in this venue especially well, but feel I've learned a great deal.

I hope that clarification is accepted as offered and can serve as an opportunity for discussion of an analogy I'm willing to generalize, given some indication that there is some willingness on your part to extend sincere, provisional assent to anything that might lead to something like mutual agreement about something...I'd have to say agreement on almost anything at this point seems like it would be welcome at this point.
Click to expand...

The words are English but that's it. What on Earth are you talking about?
 
dafydd said:
The words are English but that's it. What on Earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Simple! He's explaining how he explained part of his explanation for why he wasn't explaining his actual beliefs.

When we reach infinite recursion depth, a singularity will form, distorting spacetime and allowing FTL travel.
 
dafydd said:
The words are English but that's it. What on Earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Project management is not so intellectually vacuous as you would infer from BurntSynapse's posts, but many of its practitioners are inordinately fond of bafflegab ("language marked by abstractions, jargon, euphemisms, and circumlocutions" -- Merriam-Webster).

I'll translate. (My translations are in red, within parentheses. As with any translation of bafflegab, I've had to make a few guesses.)

BurntSynapse said:
My hope was that a familiar topic would be more accessible.
(You're too stupid to understand project management or physics, so I'll change the subject.)

You know: consider your audience.
(Swine.)

Obviously I didn't know my audience in this venue especially well, but feel I've learned a great deal.
(I will no longer cast pearls before you.)

I hope that clarification is accepted (please take the bait) as offered (without asking what it means) and can serve as an opportunity for discussion of an analogy I'm willing to generalize, (so I can go off on yet another tangent) given some indication that there is some willingness on your part to extend sincere, provisional assent (provided you agree to let me get away with it) to anything that might lead to something like mutual agreement about something...I'd have to say agreement on almost anything at this point seems like it would be welcome at this point. (Any change of subject will serve my purpose.)
Click to expand...
 
Davidlpf said:
Maybe the reason Crackpot physics is so popular on the internet is becasue crackpots have time on there hands than actual physicists.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of an interesting issue with some advocates of crackpottery. They often don't have time to respond to critical questions, even though they seem to have no shortage of of time to compose and post their theories. Does their available time run out just when they finish posting?

Even worse, some of them complain about being piled on -- getting lots of responses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom