BenTheMan Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Perhaps this will get me reprimanded, and maybe the post will even be moved, but it's worth a shot. John Baez is a famous mathematician (and I THINK relative to hippy folk singer Joan Baez, but don't quote me). He has come up with a ``Crackpot Index'' whereby one can quantify the level of crackpottery that is present in an individual's claim. In another thread, one of our beloved SFN members Farsight is vigorously defending a claim that matter is made of photons, and that time is not the fourth dimension. I figured that we should apply this index to Farsight, and see where it takes us... Also, Farsight's responses to actual science stop midway through the third page, where he begins complaining about something or another. Anyway, here goes. I'll do the first three pages, and if anyone is interested, we can keep a running tally of Farsight's crackpot index. This could be fun The Crackpot IndexJohn Baez A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics: A -5 point starting credit. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. Index = -5. Ok' date=' let's count If a pion decays into photons, what is it, in essence, made out of? Something fundamental that cannot be reconfigured as one or more photons? No. The opposite. Index +=1. It's very simple, and no Higgs Bosons are required. Index +=1. There is no electromagnetic force. It's a pseudoforce. You create it when you create fermions out of bosons. It's easily explained in terms of geometry. Index += 4. Yep. Index = 1 OK, a neutral pion, It's a rubbish particle. Index += 1. The result [of pion decay] is photons, or leptons that can be annihilated to result in photons, or neutrinos (still leptons) that can also be annihilated to result in photons. Or something else that can be annihilated to result in photons. What about neutrinos. Index += 1. The geometrical configurations that we label as fermions are simply de-configured back into the things we label as bosons Index += 1. It's quite simple: the real fundamental "particle" isn't a pion, or a gluon, or anything else that lasts a nanosecond or we can never observe. It isn't even the proton or the electron. It's the photon. Index += 3 My point is that the photon is the fundamental "particle", and that explains Lorentz Invariance. Index += 2 Index = 9. The electron is a spinning photon, and that's why it has charge and mass. Index += 2. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. But sigh, here you go: because a photon can be broken into two photons, as demonstrated by pair production, wherein each is reconfigured as a stable “moebius doughnut” soliton. Index +=2. Index = 13. This is a bigger job than I thought. I will skip to the bigger points. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. Skip these---I feel bad for recounting the ones that I already counted anyway. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). It's Farsight's toy model RELATIVITY+....These guys have never seen CHARGE EXPLAINED. ... All this when he won't actually look at the geometrical qualitative model that is RELATIVITY+' date=' and will not engage in sincere debate on the concepts therein. ... Ben is demanding THE STANDARD MODEL EXPLAINED, and if there's one little thing that I don't cover, he'll claim he's proven that RELATIVITY+ is wrong. ... And Ben would rather believe in time travel than sit down and actually read and critique TIME EXPLAINED? ... But I'm not going to give you NEUTRINOS EXPLAINED. ... When I've written THE STANDARD MODEL EXPLAINED I'll let you know. ... But of course, you can't actually point out any errors in say MASS EXPLAINED. ... I wouldn’t answer because it’s not relevant to anything I’ve said in RELATIVITY+. ... You aren’t asking simple questions about my ideas. You’re asking me to explain the Standard Model, or account for various phenomena that I have explicitly omitted from the RELATIVITY+ essays. ... I've said it before and I'll say it again: the whole point of my RELATIVITY+ model is that I'm challenging the axioms of your mathematics. ... You won't even read TIME EXPLAINED, yet you insist that time travel is possible. ... You don't have to even read MASS EXPLAINED because you know it's wrong? ... If you really want to give a Science-based criticism of Farsight's Theories try giving a Science-based criticism of TIME EXPLAINED. ... etc...[/quote'] I'll count each of these once. Index += 5 x 10 = 50. Index = 63. =JB]5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". Hmmm. Farsight avoids most of these. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory"' date=' as if this were somehow a point against it. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) [/quote'] Again, elegantly sidestepped, but I bet I could get him to admit a few of these things... 20 points for talking about how great your theory is' date=' but never actually explaining it. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) [/quote'] 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. This is in his RELATIVITY+ work, but I'm too lazy to dig through it. Index += 30. Index = 93. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. None here, but... 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. It's ridiculous Kafkaesque absurdity. It is remarkably similar to a medieval theocratic court quoting evidence from the bible whilst dismissing evidence that isn't in the bible, and meanwhile judging the heretic on his ability to quote from the bible. He uses the work Kafkaesque in this thread like he just learned it. Index += 40. Index = 133. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) Farsight has never done this, but I could imagine him rattling off something similar to the first one or the last one. Finally, 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Yep, you got it. Index += 50. Index = 183. So Farsight is at 183, a VERY respectable score. Maybe others can point out places that I have missed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 =JB]5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". Hmmm. Farsight avoids most of these. Well, I did find quite a few instances of this. Just look at his Relativity+ and his "Time Explained" threads for instances of mention of Einstein. I'm too lazy to count, so I will give him an arbitrary score of 100, based on the three threads I saw. He did mention about giving a critique of his "theory" in the beginning of his "explained" threads. OK guys' date=' what do you think? I'm not sure I'm quite happy with it myself. I'm not sure why, maybe it needs more work. So if you could point out any errors or suggest improvements I'd be grateful. [/quote'] Courtesy of this link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php?searchid=344959 in energy explained, and in a few other explained threads. +60 more So that's 183+160 = a grand total of 343 points so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted August 29, 2007 Author Share Posted August 29, 2007 Just look at his Relativity+ and his "Time Explained" threads for instances of mention of Einstein. Not ``Einstein'', ``Einstien''. At least he never misspells his name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Yes, no, yes, no, but I think you are all being blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Yes, no, yes, no, but I think you are all being blind. Science is about skepticism, and evidence. Show me a prediction which we can test. Show me how this prediction does better than existing theory. When evidence comes in that confirms your prediction, I will abandon my acceptance of the former concept and explore in greater detail the new one. Ben, you've really gotta warn a brother before opening a thread like this. I almost shit myself just reading the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Perhaps this will get me reprimanded, and maybe the post will even be moved, but it's worth a shot.No need to move it, and as far as I'm concerned you've used a good litmus test to prove your point, rather than just throwing ad homs and flames everywhere. I really like your use of Baez's index here (he is Joan's cousin, iirc). No reprimand, have some reputation points instead. Gratz, Ben. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Not ``Einstein'', ``Einstien''. At least he never misspells his name yeah, yeah, I don't care . Next you'll tell me that its Feynmann, not Feynman. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyways, so far, 343 quack points for Farsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 No reprimand, have some reputation points instead. Gratz, Ben. Woohoo. I almost posted this in ``speculations''. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 You should start this thread on any other science boards you post on . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 Don't worry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someguy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 he never said time wasn't the fourth dimension. he just preferred to call it dimensions 3 + 1 because time is significantly different to all the other dimensions which are spatial. "1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false." who cares what is widely agreed upon. what is widely agreed upon is often clearly false to few. if you are so certain you are right, you wouldn't need to post this thread. would you? yet you do. why is that? perhaps so you can feel secure and more dominant in the safety of numbers of persons that agree with you since you are insecure about your ability to disprove him? perhaps not. it doesn't matter, I don't condone picking on anyone, no matter who it is, or for what reason. you shouldn't engage in such childish and unenlightened behaviour if you want to consider yourself a scientist. what matters about farsight is only his theories who cares if you think him a crackpot. you should listen to his ideas. suppose they were all false but one thing triggered a thought process for you that allowed you to discover something. with your attitude you would never find this. you care so much about your reputation points compared to those of others, you care about support of others and that they join with you in bashing another. perhaps you were made fun of this way and you look for the opportunity to do the same so you can feel better about yourself, something of the alpha male complex. you don't find this primitive behaviour? I do. i think that we are all equal as human beings but still, we are all different. there is always somebody smarter than you, somebody more knowledgeable than you, better looking than you, faster than you, funnier than you, and more anything else than you. you would not want people to mock you for those things. yet you would mock others. do you think you are perfect? or do you think you should start mocking yourself for all your flaws? perhaps you would just prefer for someone else to do it for you. its a good thing most other people are beyond such lame behaviour otherwise you might have alot of crap to deal with. I don't wish to be hated by anyone, i don't wish for people to be mean to me or insulting. i do wish for people to be nice and respectful and to like me also, even if i am nothing more than text. but the best way to achieve that is if nobody acts the way you did when you started this thread. don't hate, it's better for everyone. I expect that you will attack me for posting this, and perhaps others will also, or maybe some of you will combine forces and attack me all together like this entire thread is aimed at doing. but i don't care i just wanted to say my peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farsight Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Well said, someguy. The problem with something like TIME EXPLAINED is that it shoots down the crackpot notions of time travel that permits absurd paradox, and the block universe that allows no free will. The reason why BenTheMan (a String Theorist, LOL!) will not discuss it and instead seeks to discredit me with silly abuse, isn't because TIME EXPLAINED is dreadfully wrong. It's because it's dreadfully right. Interestingly, Baez fails his own crackpot test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 isn't because TIME EXPLAINED is dreadfully wrong. It's because it's dreadfully right. Then come up with some #*^%&$ predictions already, so that people can TEST the idea. Being right can't just depend on someone's say-so; that's how religion works, not science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Well said, someguy. The problem with something like TIME EXPLAINED is that it shoots down the crackpot notions of time travel that permits absurd paradox, and the block universe that allows no free will. The reason why BenTheMan (a String Theorist, LOL!) will not discuss it and instead seeks to discredit me with silly abuse, isn't because TIME EXPLAINED is dreadfully wrong. It's because it's dreadfully right. Interestingly, Baez fails his own crackpot test. Bad move Farsight, 30 more quack points for you: 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) 373 points . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 Damn. All the people I want to give reputation to I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 you can`t! why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 It says I have to spread it around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 How delightful I think you have to give rep to X amount of others before you can give rep to the same person again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I wish I were Farsight - so much loving attention! Two (at least) whole threads to trashing him!. Seriously, I don't get it. Who cares? Like who really cares what Farsight thinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaper Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I wish I were Farsight - so much loving attention! Two (at least) whole threads to trashing him!. Seriously, I don't get it. Who cares? Like who really cares what Farsight thinks? The issue is, is that this is a science forum where people do come here to not only discuss but learn new things. A lot of people browse this forum, and people who are not educated will be misinformed if we allow him to post what ever he wants without criticism. Plus, he is pretending to be an expert on the subject. That's why we are doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norman Albers Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I've listened to good physicists invoke "handwaving arguments" to put off what most see as niggling details, but they are no substitute for scarce logic. (This is another of my cartoons in Pitfalls of Theoretical Physics.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I wish I were Farsight - so much loving attention!Two (at least) whole threads to trashing him!. Seriously, I don't get it. Who cares? Like who really cares what Farsight thinks? Fair comment, and indeed upheld by some, however.... to Ignore/delete/censor etc... would run counter to our aim as a Science Based site and the Fairness that goes with that goal. I do agree that it IS wearing a little thin now being as he`s been given Every opportunity to support his claims and has consistently failed to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xerxes Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 The issue is, is that this is a science forum where people do come here to not only discuss but learn new things. A lot of people browse this forum, and people who are not educated will be misinformed if we allow him to post what ever he wants without criticism. Plus, he is pretending to be an expert on the subject. That's why we are doing this.Ya, sure, that's right, I agree. But my point is this: Trash Farsight in his own threads (or in his responses to other people's) if you disagree, but why waste bandwidth starting multiple new threads specifically for that purpose? It looks suspiciously like bullying to me, which I think the forum should oppose. Certainly I find it personally distasteful (so there...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 It looks suspiciously like bullying to me, HE Started it! just kidding, (well no I`m not, he did) but you know what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenTheMan Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 Xerxes--- It's the same problem that scientists have with things like Intelligent Design. First you think ``It's so stupid, how can anyone actually believe that?'' Then, the next thing you know, school boards are trying to vote on cirricula based on it. The problem is that scientists don't feel obligated to respond to unscientific claims. It is, in a sense, beneath us. Many times, the gaps in logic are so glaringly obvious that we don't even take time to point them out---i.e. the person violates well-known experiments, well-known principles, or just common sense. The ``fringe scientists'' then claim that, because scientists refuse to answer their claims, their claims must be correct because there IS no reply. This then sets the stage for the fringe scientists to claim that they are being ``repressed'' or ``excluded from the academic club''---they portray themselves as underdogs. But the simple reason is, their ideas are so WRONG that they don't even deserve to be called academic. And we all know that the public LOVES an underdog. If you don't believe me, go back and reread the Baez crackpot checkpoints... Most of the higher point ones all center around this central point. This is (in a sense) what Lee Smolin did in his book. I am not suggesting that Loop Quantum Gravity is a fringe science, I think that there is a lot of interesting research going on there. But when I read in fora (like this one) posts be people who don't even know what string theory is, it is quite upsetting. There are a large class of people who shit from their mouths about things they don't know. (You can, for example, read anything I've ever posted about GR ) Farsight, elas, someguy and fatty are all examples of this, insomuch as I can tell. but why waste bandwidth starting multiple new threads specifically for that purpose? It looks suspiciously like bullying to me, which I think the forum should oppose. Is it bullying when we all come to the same conclusion about Farsight being wrong? The point is that the discussion is more or less civil, but Farsight takes being told that he was wrong WAY to personally. He has had many chances to defend his claims, most of which he ignored or danced around. Anything that disproves his idea is labelled ``red herring'' and soundly ignored. Important points are called ``nitpicking''. He fails to understand science IN THE LEAST, and he refuses to take the time to learn the math. He has taken a manifestly unscientific approach to the criticism, and instead of pointing out defficiancies in the standard model (of which there are many), or in our arguments, he has recast everything as ``irrelevant'' or ``nitpicking''. This tells me that he either doesn't know what he's talking about, that he does know what he's talking about and it's wrong, or that he just doesn't care to ever have his ideas seriously critiqued. As for this thread, perhaps it is a waste of bandwith, and I've been accused of worse. But no more a waste of bandwith than ``RELATIVITY +''. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts