To all crac...err...alternative scientists

[BenTheMan]

Sure. But to suggest that one only does the mathematical fomalism as an addendum to the experiment trivializes a lot of great physics.

[D H]

With relativity, it became scientific, once again, to drift off into the nebulous worlds of imaginary science.

 

Theoretical physics without experimental validation is the same as philosophy: Mental masturbation. (Or so said an experimentalist to me many years ago in an attempt to divert me from going into theoretical physics. My adviser did a better job, different story). Of course, theoreticians have similar nice words about experimentalists. Both are needed.

 

How exactly does "imaginary science" differ from pschoceramics? Einstein was very aware of the need for experimental validation of his theories. It is the experimental validation that distinguishes relativity (for example) from wishful thinking.

 

If we introduced string theory back then, it would have been called alchemy.

Some call string theory alchemy now. Or even worse, such as "not even wrong". Mainly because to date nothing out of string theory is measurable.

 

Another thing about Einstein was his personna. He was not the cold, arrogant and cynical scientist, but a kindly grandfather figure that made science far more approachable to the masses. He was the nice guy that the majority of people could identify and relate to.

What is this cold, arrogant and cynical stereotype? Scientists can be a bit avant-garde, a bit quirky, and a small minority admittedly fit the socially inept stereotype. Einstein grandfatherly? He was a two-timing (make that six-timing) womanizer.

[BenTheMan]

Of course, theoreticians have similar nice words about experimentalists.

 

I don't know man---I was utterly im-(explitive)-pressed that some rocket scientists in NASA could fire a rocket at a commet 3 million miles away and hit it.

 

All I do is fiddle with pens all day:)

[pioneer]

If you look at applied science, such as engineering, the only science you can really use is connected to science that is already proven in the lab. It also has to be science that is, not a random in occurance, but something that is very predictable and therefore able to be scaled up.

 

If one is building a bridge, one needs firm data in metalurgy. One also needs firm calculations in mechanics. If the architech tried to design for for form instead of function, then the engineers and scientists would have to make the theoretical form subject to scale-up before beginning.

 

Theoretical science is sort of the architecture of science. It is design for both form and function. The function is based on what we already know, but the form may or may not yet be solid enough to be scaled up. Often form is designed to catch the imagination to create incentive.

 

I was not aware that Einstein had been sort of a womanizer. That could explain the calm smile that is often seen in pictures of him. It also seems to indicate that some science stars have their own female groupies.

 

Scientists are often taught to question things, but this is often limited to anything that is new. The stuff already there is often exempt. If you question at that level, then science questions your ability to question.

[Retrograder]

To me science seems to be a pretty big field, and probably does have room for the "crackpots". I'd say their participation is as important today as its always been. Obviously there are some pretty aweful theories that some divise that really make one cringe. If it is the same as in playing the guitar, then those little clangers can really inspire one at times, and be the catalyst for one of the best compositions.

 

It seems to be a portion of what considers itself to being the most accurate science that is a little intolerant of the crackpot (just an impression). It's actually understandable, but at closer inspection, is there really much difference in attitude going on? The mind is a strange thing. A crackpot can be as certain of their insight and theory as any mainstream scientist can be. And I already know that a mainstream scientist will say they can produce evidence to back up their theories. Evidence of what though? In the bigger picture, it seems to me we still don't know much about anything.

 

I watched a programme about three years ago regarding 100 years of a certain scientific pioneer (can't remember who). One of the people at the conference basically said that now science knew about 5% of how the brain worked, 7% of something else or other. There is still room for the crank.

 

A crackpot obviously hasn't attended lectures and gone through the paces of having to get work in on time, study endlessly and stressfully to get a pass in their chosen field. Who really has the time to question things the most?

I'm not suggesting at all that the crackpot has the relevent skills to conduct many of the sceintific experiments, or think long and hard on a problem in a scientific way. Yet sometimes it is very likely that fresh insight will rejuvinate a long going problem. That insight may come from within the scientific community, or it may easily come from an outside source.

 

In the music world I have never had a guitar lesson in my life, but have been told I'm pretty good and it shocks people that noone taught me to play the way I do. To me that doesn't make sense, because that information is available, and all I needed was the time and the passion. And this is why we need to be more tolerant toward the so called crackpot, who is not seemingly qualified. Information is rampant nowadays, all over the internet. Just be prepared to see an increase in theories, most of which will be crap. Yet a pearl is always a pearl regardless of the source it comes from.

 

As for Einstein, a symbol of genius. A genius footballer from the 50s wouldn't be seen as such nowadays, yet their contribution is set in stone.

[DrDNA]

When is Einstein going to return?

[swansont]

There is still room for the crank.

 

What contributions have cranks made to science in the last, say, 50 years?

[Retrograder]

What contributions have cranks made to science in the last, say, 50 years?

 

LOL!..)) If one hasn't, there's no reason to assume one may not make a contribution tommorrow.

And just think of all the magnificent mainstream discoveries made the last 50 years in a parallel universe, where the "cranks" are you. Do it for your brothers eh?

 

When is Einstein going to return?

 

Dunno, but judging by todays higher standards he or she would have to be some Mind. If there is to be something of the impact the old Einstein had, how would we even react to it? A lot of people have suffered redicule in many fields of study when they attempt to bring a change in perception. Darwin instantly springs to mind. Or that guy that said the earth was round.

[timo]

If there is to be something of the impact the old Einstein had, how would we even react to it?

I assume the people whose unexplained experimental results are suddenly explained in a consistent way would be very happy.

[Retrograder]

I assume the people whose unexplained experimental results are suddenly explained in a consistent way would be very happy.

 

Oh yeah, that's for sure. Been sat here thinking that there really have been other scientists since Einstein that have had as big an impact on the scientific community itself, but what Einstein had was the public all going around saying "this guy's a genius, E=MC^2". But hardly anyone really knows what that means, nor really know any other work of his. Someone in the field of Genetics or the studies of brain/mind, that cracks a substantial puzzle about life may trigger a significant impact on the public. Or maybe whoever manages to explain gravity.

 

Was reading up on gravity just now, and found this guy's site, who seems to think he's solved the mystery. He'll send you $500 is you can prove him wrong apparently!

 

http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03018.html

[timo]

One would think getting the five hundred bucks would be easy because

This is it! The most accurate theory of gravitation in the world ever made, guaranteed! If I am wrong, I shall gladly remove it from the net, and I will also write an apology for my mistakes and give you five hundred dollars ($500) for your trouble if you are the first person to find a more accurate theory of gravity.

Well, from a quick glance I would say that any theory that makes at least one quantitative prediction about gravity is more accurate than a theory that does not make a single one quantitative prediction (although I might have missed the quantitative predictions during skimming the text). Newtonian Gravitation (which indeed is a very, very good theory of gravity), for example.

 

However, he's gonna keep his money because...

The theory has to be copyrighted before mine (before the year 1997) to avoid any imitation theories.

... afaik, there is no such thing as a copyright on a gravitational (or any other scientific) theory. You could still try the trick with Newtonian Gravity and hope he'll not find out that Newton does not hold a copyright on it - drink a beer on my health if you manage to get the money.

[swansont]

LOL!..)) If one hasn't, there's no reason to assume one may not make a contribution tommorrow.

 

There are lots of reasons to assume one will not tomorrow. That was covered in the second link of the OP.