Crackpot science is fun

[absolute1]

Wouldn't it? What is American policy? Democracy. Everyone enjoys freedom. So does science, so does molecules and this chaos universe. One may say how can any form or pattern be created if we're all chaos. Look again, the earth is round, universe spiral, many natual things have geometry. They're all made up of atoms, and all atoms are chaos. Wth, how did they form circles geometry. Yeah, so why doesn't one spend more time on finding out that answer instead of holding on to the concept that chaos can't create order? I feel bad and unfair for the one of get bashed of their new ideas and thoughts. Every science level have controversy. Even Eistein level. So if there are controversal, there must be 1 right, the other wrong, or both right or wrong. Either way, 1 of them is a crackpot if not both. However, at the same level of intelligent, they dare not to call each other crackpot because they know themselves well. Now days, even a kid can call a professor crackpot by jumping on the bandwagon. Seriously, 99% of the people comes up with new theory going to be wrong. I only know 1 person who could get it right. God. Science is like realigion where Catholic, Protestant, Buhhism, Taoist.... as Newtorian, Quantum, Reletiviy... Remember back in the old days where one say the earth is round will be chopped. Now a day, where one say the earth is flat will be chopped. Wave, particle, particle, wave, right wrong, wrong, right. Let's move on.

For those who in crackpot category. I admire you. Not because you have come up with some radical theory, but because your heart is great and you just want to find out the truth and sharing it with others. Though at the time you might think that because you just want to get recognize and be a badazz, but it's ok, you'll find out the true reason is because you want to help. Let me help you to becomes a more helpful person.

First, you must not give up yet. Second, you must change your attitude. See yourself as not a scientist or physicist, but a philosopher. Do not bother to try convincing anyone if it gets too hot. "refer to the grass is blue", if someone doesn't tune in with what you say, it doesn't matter what you say. Now let's move to the technical details of developing your theory.

Actually one have plenty resources of developing a powerful theory that could beat any veteran scientist. Why? Not because you're smarter than them, but because you're born later than them. You witness many experiment result that they didn't. You know the truth of certain reality that they didn't have the chance to witness. So those are the clues... reality facts. Science is develope to describe and fuse these facts together to make sense, so if you can do that, you have succeeded. What are the facts? They are everywhere, they are phenominas. I will give you a list as many as I could for you as food for thought. If anyone knows more facts, let's list them. We'll have some fun and carefree time. These are the list that you can investigate. I'm not talking about the how, I'm talking about the why, then the how.

 

1) spining object - when object spin, they are stable.

2) terminal velocity - object achieve zero acceleration at certain free fall speed.

3) lift phenomena

4) attraction, repulsion phenomena

5) pyzoelectric, pyroelectric phenomenas

6) superfluid, superconductivity phenomena

7) resonance

 

these are just a few. There are more that I don't know. Look for the one with high tech experiment, cuz that's our next clue. Careful on your sources. Wrong source means you'll mess up yourself and your work. Be open mind and don't be too serious. If it is the truth, you should explain most of not everything with ease. Good luck to you. Peace out.

[swansont]

Is there a point to any of this? I mean something to discuss?

[Phi for All]

Is there a point to any of this? I mean something to discuss?

You should "see yourself as not a scientist or physicist, but a philosopher", swansont. This is a diatribe from the heart of misunderstanding. Surely some "fun and carefree time" will ensue.

 

 

 

 

 

Or not.

[absolute1]

Dang, now you're even bashing the philosophers. I'm not taking part in this.

[Sayonara]

I don't know about you Phi, but I find that the people who research ebola immunity and cancer cures and fossil fuel alternatives are basically just in it for the laughs.

 

The crazy radicals!

[absolute1]

Sayonara, are you being serious? Don't you have dreams? Radical dreams? Or you do but you don't take it seriously? Truthfully guys, up to this point I don't exactly know if we can budge the Law of Energy Conservation. But can you feel it? Deep down inside of you, your heart really settle for this law? What ever you do is whatever you get? No more no less? No magic? No miracle? Just think how dull one heart would feel. I'm being sincere, just ask your heart.

[insane_alien]

who cares what the heart thinks. reality certainly doesn't.

 

just because reality follows a set of rules doesn't mean its dull. if you look around its actually pretty interesting and exciting.

[foodchain]

I think crackpot science is fine as long as you know how to call such truly. I don’t want to call all modern hypothesis crackpot science, but I would think that crackpot science as called requires a delusional following while at the same time being 100% wrong at every little detail all the way up to basic cornerstones of science. Such as with physics I think its really easy to get it wrong on every little detail, while with biology its easier to see with people who follow a “science” or crackpot science that does not include evolution. With chemistry I do not think crackpot science can succeed being so much of its easily made empirical.

 

I mean with string theory would it be to early to call such crackpot science, or would a better wording be brash endeavor, or finally would it be better to call it a theory we really cant study at this time.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, quantum mechanics is magical. Anyone who disagrees with me, feel free to explain what caused a measurement to measure a particular state as opposed to another.

[absolute1]

Guys, all this crackpot thing boil down to "does the Law hold?" Mainstream is strong right now because the Law hold. So mainstream will only survive if the law continue to hold. The key answer to this would be a perpetual machine. If you look for the answer, you will find it. I remember the quantum father always rip their hair out because "this can't happens!, electron will spiral toward the center". They go so hard on themselves for the law of Energy conservation. If they just run over the law instead of go around it, they would be so much happier. Science would explain better and much more things with sense. By the way, I'm not talking about "the absolute Law of Conservation of Energy", I'm talking about what if there is another undiscover form of energy? The law of energy would still valid, it just our ignorance that made that law relative instead of absolute. Anyway, I thank you all for participate in this post. I have proved to myself enough time that the current Energy Law of conservation is incomplete. I won't bother you guys anymore about this. I will find this out myself and hopefully, change your heart. Until then, I ask that you have sympathy for those who just trying to help.

 

Sincerely,

Absolute1

[insane_alien]

MAinstream science survives today because it adapts to fit the data. the theories called laws just now are only called laws because it was the word used at the time of their discovery. they also tend to be the most tested theories in science and not one single bit of data says they are false.

 

if we find out that there is a way to circumvent those, then a new theory will take their place and the rest of science will adapt. but at the absolute minimum, the energy conservation laws are a staggeringly brilliant approximation.

[Phi for All]

Most crackpots, in my experience, fall prey to the idea that education is a flawed and stifling process that inhibits creative thinking, and that thinking creatively is the only thing that will help us out of the rut we've dug ourselves into, because science is full of old men who were educated the same old way.

 

And that's bad because after all, education is a flawed and stifling process that inhibits creative thinking....

 

 

 

Crackpot science is lazy and lacks rigor. It's arguments are flawed and it's logic is circular. It's a "get-smart-quick" scheme.

[insane_alien]

although it involves neither getting smart nor being quick about it.

[Royston]

Plus crackpot science is only fun for the crackpots. For the rest of us, it's tedious, relentless, and a waste of valuable time.

 

I wish people would realize that you can only start being creative with science, when you fully understand the topic you're tackling...which means a lot of hard work. This is clearly too much to ask...so they skip that bit, and get it hopelessly wrong.

[insane_alien]

the people who say science isn't creative should definitely take a deeper look at quantum mechanics and relativity.

[foodchain]

Most crackpots, in my experience, fall prey to the idea that education is a flawed and stifling process that inhibits creative thinking, and that thinking creatively is the only thing that will help us out of the rut we've dug ourselves into, because science is full of old men who were educated the same old way.

 

And that's bad because after all, education is a flawed and stifling process that inhibits creative thinking....

 

 

 

Crackpot science is lazy and lacks rigor. It's arguments are flawed and it's logic is circular. It's a "get-smart-quick" scheme.

 

 

I don’t think education is lame, I just sort of hate how education is set up. I personally would be better off getting a liberal arts degree, simply for the flexibility. Maybe as student I would like to pursue science from my own view, such as taking x credits in this and y credits in that, but in most universities in the U.S its all been rather industrialized, such as it is you cant really tailor your degree to much to your interests while say having some specific major concentration. Take this for example, I think it would be super cool to try and study if quantum decoherence could help model to origin of life, where the heck am I going to take that idea in college currently? I also think it’s a perfectly valid question, on both counts. So even if you are willing to put up the effort such may not matter overall, so its really the current mechanism I despise because once again its really just seems to industrialized.

[absolute1]

Good news guys,

 

I just proved overunity in equations. Now I just need to verify it by a simple experiment. Then, going to to make the machine, sell it in the black market, then tell it to the world at a later time.

 

 

Hahahaha, okay I laughed for you guys already. Happy?

[Royston]

I don’t think education is lame, I just sort of hate how education is set up. I personally would be better off getting a liberal arts degree, simply for the flexibility. Maybe as student I would like to pursue science from my own view, such as taking x credits in this and y credits in that, but in most universities in the U.S its all been rather industrialized, such as it is you cant really tailor your degree to much to your interests while say having some specific major concentration. Take this for example, I think it would be super cool to try and study if quantum decoherence could help model to origin of life, where the heck am I going to take that idea in college currently? I also think it’s a perfectly valid question, on both counts. So even if you are willing to put up the effort such may not matter overall, so its really the current mechanism I despise because once again its really just seems to industrialized.

 

Incidentally, you can do exactly that with my Uni...i.e mix subjects, and attain a degree. So you can get formal education in seemingly unrelated subjects, and it'll be up to you to prove the rest...or fill in the gaps as it were.

 

I was encouraged to go down the 'creative' avenue, because I'm (not blowing my own trumpet) good at art, and music...but at heart I'm a scientist, (at least I hope judging by my grades) and it took me a long time to realize this. I'll happily give you more info, just send me a PM.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Snail

[mooeypoo]

Good news guys,

 

I just proved overunity in equations. Now I just need to verify it by a simple experiment. Then, going to to make the machine, sell it in the black market, then tell it to the world at a later time.

 

 

Hahahaha, okay I laughed for you guys already. Happy?

 

.... what is your point in posting here?

 

Judging from your lack of interest to actually DEBATE and your quite obvious cockiness and condescending posts, you might be better off posting in other forums rather than this one.

 

Unless your intention to change science is true, in which case you need to drop the attitude and start a scientific debate, with all that such a debate entails - proof, logic and substantiation.

 

Ready for it?

[YT2095]

.... what is your point in posting here?

 

Judging from your lack of interest to actually DEBATE and your quite obvious cockiness and condescending posts,

 

not to mention an imagination Walter Mitty would be proud of.

[swansont]

Guys, all this crackpot thing boil down to "does the Law hold?" Mainstream is strong right now because the Law hold. So mainstream will only survive if the law continue to hold. The key answer to this would be a perpetual machine. If you look for the answer, you will find it. I remember the quantum father always rip their hair out because "this can't happens!, electron will spiral toward the center". They go so hard on themselves for the law of Energy conservation. If they just run over the law instead of go around it, they would be so much happier. Science would explain better and much more things with sense. By the way, I'm not talking about "the absolute Law of Conservation of Energy", I'm talking about what if there is another undiscover form of energy? The law of energy would still valid, it just our ignorance that made that law relative instead of absolute. Anyway, I thank you all for participate in this post. I have proved to myself enough time that the current Energy Law of conservation is incomplete. I won't bother you guys anymore about this. I will find this out myself and hopefully, change your heart. Until then, I ask that you have sympathy for those who just trying to help.

 

Sincerely,

Absolute1

 

Finding a new phenomenon that is currently unexplained, formulating a new hypothesis, testing and experimenting to see if it's true — there's nothing crackpot about that. It's what scientists do.

 

Electrons not spiraling into the nucleus is a great example of science in action. It take a special kind of skewed perspective to put that forth as a negative.

[absolute1]

.... what is your point in posting here?

 

Judging from your lack of interest to actually DEBATE and your quite obvious cockiness and condescending posts, you might be better off posting in other forums rather than this one.

 

Unless your intention to change science is true, in which case you need to drop the attitude and start a scientific debate, with all that such a debate entails - proof, logic and substantiation.

 

Ready for it?

 

 

Finally, someone that I could talk to. Actually, I have my reason for those lines. As you can see, I am not the one who started the fire. Drop my attitude, I've gave people sincerity and what do I get in return? Debate, proof? I've posted my debate, a phew try to gave some opinion which didn't made any good point. Then they close the post down with 2 problem still unsolve and open for debate. Ready for what? You bring it on. I know I am not the heavy type science person, but what I know must be solid. I believe in good strong foundation and not some 20 dimensions logic.

[Bignose]

absolute, you basically asked for one post to be closed (by writing "I'm sorry but I just lost all interest bringing up topics for discussion in here.") so the mods obliged you. In the other, all you did was post a "conversation" with yourself -- if there was something to actually have other people discuss, why just post and finish a conversation with only yourself?

 

Regarding the "problem" you had with the first thread (the one you basically asked to be closed), your calculations were correct, but the interpretation was way off. Your problem was basically that when two objects of different masses are given the same amount of momentum, they should also have the same amount of energy. But, that isn't true at all -- as your calculations showed. Momentum and energy are not the same thing, that's why there are two different conservation principles. This isn't a "problem", it is why there are two different quantities. Conservation of momentum does not imply conservation of energy or vice versa. In addition, equivalence of momentums does not imply equivalence of energies or vice versa. That is, just because two objects have equivalent momentums in no way whatsoever does it imply that they have to have equal energies.

 

If have something to discuss, I'd hope you take mooeypoo to heart here, and actually start presenting some evidence, logic, and substantiation.

[absolute1]

absolute, you basically asked for one post to be closed (by writing "I'm sorry but I just lost all interest bringing up topics for discussion in here.") so the mods obliged you. In the other, all you did was post a "conversation" with yourself -- if there was something to actually have other people discuss, why just post and finish a conversation with only yourself?

 

Regarding the "problem" you had with the first thread (the one you basically asked to be closed), your calculations were correct, but the interpretation was way off. Your problem was basically that when two objects of different masses are given the same amount of momentum, they should also have the same amount of energy. But, that isn't true at all -- as your calculations showed. Momentum and energy are not the same thing, that's why there are two different conservation principles. This isn't a "problem", it is why there are two different quantities. Conservation of momentum does not imply conservation of energy or vice versa. In addition, equivalence of momentums does not imply equivalence of energies or vice versa. That is, just because two objects have equivalent momentums in no way whatsoever does it imply that they have to have equal energies.

 

If have something to discuss, I'd hope you take mooeypoo to heart here, and actually start presenting some evidence, logic, and substantiation.

 

 

What I said sorry about was that I don't have the appetize to bringing up discussion of other topic because more problems arise when I go into details at conservatioin of energy, but some people mistake that for the post. It probably because it put it in the same post. But does it matter? An issue is an issue and it doesn't matter if I'm interest or not. If you love science you should do it just because you love science. Anyway, first, I thank you for bring up the topic to discuss even though it already closed. I know you do it for science. Second, thank you for verifying my equation is correct, I doubt myself at first too. Momentum and energy is not the same thing, hm... OMG, i agree with you 101% . So let me ask you this, a bullet hit a block and imbeded. They move together after that. Determine the energy using the momentum, then energy method. Each method gives a different value. What value would you pick? Don't tell me it's two different thing. This case have only 1 answer. I'm waiting. The real experiment shows that 1 case is true, the other method is wrong. Tell me which case if you really know what you talking about. If that's the case, what's wrong with the other method? If it's too complicated, you don't have to do it. YOu can just answer me if energy can be calculated from both method, then why 1 wrong? You said this isn't a problem. It is a huge problem if you don't know which value to choose. This is your problem. You just say it's two differnt, unrelated quantity, then how the heck do 1 know what method to use when they have to pick? This is as logical as it can get.

[Bignose]

Determine the energy using the momentum, then energy method. Each method gives a different value.

 

Please show your work on how you got these different values. If you show all your work, we can probably show you where you made a mistake.

 

My experience with these problems is that usually you have to use BOTH conservations of energy and momentum. Usually just one or the other is not sufficient.

 

In order to "pick" which method to use is usually determined by what information is available. There aren't really any better "rules" to determine which one to use. Sometimes you just have to dig in a try one method and see what happens. And then compare with the other. Or, as in the above example, usually you will need both. It all is determined by what information is available.

 

Have you tried working through a university level calculus based physics text? There are many examples in the homework problems where if you work through them you will develop an intuition for which method (or methods) is better in a given situation.