PDA

View Full Version : Are you a Quack?



Diamond
2004-Jan-26, 02:03 PM
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

\:D/

(PS Apologies, I missed the final 'l' on the URL)

Glom
2004-Jan-26, 02:05 PM
Not found.

Diamond
2004-Jan-26, 02:24 PM
Not found.

Edited. Sorry. #-o

Glom
2004-Jan-26, 02:34 PM
You should send that to Sam5.

Spacewriter
2004-Jan-26, 02:35 PM
Good stuff. I had a commentator leave a message on my blog the other day about how he came up with a helical spiral model of light that allows light to be both a wave and a particle simultaneously...

Diamond
2004-Jan-26, 02:59 PM
You should send that to Sam5.

He would reply that it's an ad hominem and by the way, have you seen how Einstein's mistakes in his 1905 paper get ignored....blah blah blah.

Sam5
2004-Jan-26, 07:51 PM
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

\:D/

(PS Apologies, I missed the final 'l' on the URL)

From your link:

”Attacks on established theories, based on distaste”

From Einstein’s 1916 book”

”We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of center.”

LOL!

Kaptain K
2004-Jan-26, 08:42 PM
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

milli360
2004-Jan-26, 11:09 PM
[”Attacks on established theories, based on distaste”

From Einstein’s 1916 book”

”We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of center.”
Einstein's theories were hardly based upon his distaste. But even that would be better than based upon misunderstanding.

Diamond
2004-Jan-27, 09:11 AM
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

\:D/

(PS Apologies, I missed the final 'l' on the URL)

From your link:

”Attacks on established theories, based on distaste”

From Einstein’s 1916 book”

”We thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought to possess something of the nature of center.”

LOL!

As I said, Sam5 is unlikely to recognise himself as the quack in question. Since he managed to fill someone else's thread with personal attacks upon Einstein, he will certainly deny that his views are based on personal distaste and arrogant ignorance, even though to the rest of us, they are.

Crackpots rarely acknowldge themselves as crackpots. They regard themselves as "superrational" and "superincisive" in their reasoning. Never, ever, do they admit any part of their "alternative view" to be wrong even when shown direct evidence of the falsity of their statements. (For example: he'll never admit that his use of pendulum clocks demonstrating the relativistic effects of gravitation to be false, despite his own reference telling him so)

There's a whole section in crank.net called "Einstein was wrong" and you'll see a lot of the same poor misunderstandings by lots and lots of people who think they are superior to Einstein, yet cannot follow simple reasoning nor work with such things as metrics, tensors or even calculus.

Sam5 is by no means unique or even in the slightest bit original. But he's on this board, so unless that changes, we'll just have to deal with it.

russ_watters
2004-Jan-27, 04:27 PM
Great link. Not really news to any of us I'm sure, but an entertaining read nonetheless.

What I want to know is what makes most of us when, we see something we don't understand or don't like, try to understand it, yet a guy like Sam summarily (yet strangely thoroughly) reject it without ever really learning it?

I had some major trouble with these concepts when I first read "A Brief History of Time" in high school. They seemed pretty absurd. But I made some effort to learn them.