0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hi folks.There are too many crackpots here to make this place a pleasant place to post anymore. Too many people who don't even know basic terms and find that they have to fight and defend what they believe then to be rather than pick up a good text or contact an expert to find out. I suggest that we all gather at the place where this doesn't happen and take it from there. Jeff - You ask a lot of good questions but a lot of crackpots are making them horrible to follow. It'd be great if you changed your place of posting to one where that doesn't happen.To the rest of you - Why is it that you can't do what everyone else does to learn physics? I.e. pick up good text, learn math, read about the philosophy of physics, and especially contact an expert in the field you're interested in and learn from him. DO NOT claim that he's wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about. DO NOT claim that he doesn't know what a frame of reference is, etc. Assume that he's right no matter what. And keep assuming that until you've become an expert in the field. Then and only then do you logically have the right to disagree.
Assume that he's right no matter what. And keep assuming that until you've become an expert in the field. Then and only then do you logically have the right to disagree.
Quote Assume that he's right no matter what. And keep assuming that until you've become an expert in the field. Then and only then do you logically have the right to disagree.There is a big difference between trying to tell an expert he/she is wrong, and questioning what he/she says in order to gain a better understanding. One thing I cannot do is pretend something makes sense to me if it doesn't; that is not learning.
Whom should one assume is right? How does the non-expert decide who is right when experts differ? The only way I see is to question everything until something makes sense. If that discomfits some experts, I apologise, but that's how it is. In geological circles, I didn't get the label "Bloody Bill" for nothing. 
It seems to me there are a few different types:The truth seeker, but not yet knowledgeable. Eg "Is there any way to deny this time travel theory that I have". These often present as an oddball idea, use terms we would consider confusing, and show faulty reasoning. However, they are open to an explanation and willing to learn. I am happy to spend time with these as some are youngsters keen to learn.
Genuine oddball eg aetzbar - is pi is a single number ?No point, he can't even understand the basics. Give up on him as quickly as possible.
Crank, theorist etc. usually easy to spot, but not always easy to ignore. Maybe I ought to.
Crank masquerading as truth seeker. Less easy to spot. There is a thread which starts out as seemingly innocent question on free fall, where the OP doesn't make his preconceived theory apparent until a lot of work has gone into answering questions. Even though he didn't prove his case, because he misunderstood and rejected key points, he still feels he has 'won'. Tempting to correct his error, but is there any point? Only if he is directing innocents to the thread as proof of his theory?PS Alan Calverd. I saw part of the thread on free fall, saw the point at which he ignored your analysis. I agree with you. I've had some experience with explosives and my daughter has been trained in explosive demolition. She LOL, as she put it. You might be interested in this link...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN
I hope you guys don't throw the baby out with the bath water. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, I'll never have the intellect to understand the math behind physics but I thoroughly enjoy thinking about the different aspects of it and trying to understand some of it in basic terms. I agree, there are crackpots who won't listen or accept explanations that are being offered and argue back with the same "believes" over and over again, which can't logically be argued. There is obviously the whole spectrum of knowledge level on this site. You could go off on your own, make your own playground and invite only those you want to play with or, just ignore those that you feel are crack pots....they will eventually get bored and go away. I hope you don't go away.
You misunderstand. The my forum is different than other forums only in that nobody can be mean/rude/insulting to other members. So long as members follow the rules they can stay.
And people surely don't get bored with my website. They all love it.
Sorry, I got the impression there was other criteria beyond normal manners.
I hope you were not thinking I was suggesting your site is boring.
I meant that ignoring crack pots on any site will eventually make them bored and ultimately (hopefully) go away.
My friend, please try to endure these crackpots for a while yet. Not until you've exhausted every effort to bring them to the understanding that I'm convinced is your one and only goal, then give up on them.
one given to eccentric or lunatic notions
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status. Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.
.. one also have to recognize the use, and pleasure, of being corrected (now, please don't read more into that, than what I aim for in this specific context:) ....
All: I'm afraid that
... that poster ....
I forgot exactly how evil some people are on the internet. These evil pricks stick together like clicks (sp?) and insult people whenever they find that they've been proved wrong.
These slime bags should be shot.
Quote from: PhysBang... that poster ....What poster? Do you mean John or myself?
It's a good idea not to copy them, which is why I prefer to be one against many in an argument without anyone backing me.
Quote from: David CooperIt's a good idea not to copy them, which is why I prefer to be one against many in an argument without anyone backing me. I disagree. Newbies, amateurs and layman often make the mistake that the majority opinion is the right one.But each to his own.
The danger with that is that you end up teaching people to go with the herd instead of learning to think.
You're probably right though to think that most people will go with the herd - that seems to be the normal way of things, but it's not something I want any part in because the whole approach of judging the correctness of a position by the number of people supporting it, regardless of how idiotic that position might be. Most of the worst problems in the world are caused by this.
This tells me that you missed my point. The point is not for members to jump in to agree with the correct physics but to jump in to correct the flawed reasoning.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 26/02/2015 19:06:28This tells me that you missed my point. The point is not for members to jump in to agree with the correct physics but to jump in to correct the flawed reasoning.You're right - a correction should only be needed once, but if a correction has been ignored it's well worth someone else repeating it to try to make the ignorer register it. That's a place where numbers of people saying the same thing probably can make a difference.
I've just done that for someone else here.