hermanntrude Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 There's a popup which goes with it too, when you hover the mouse over it, it says I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered the fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.
swansont Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The people to whom this applies will generally not think it applies to them.
doG Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 The people to whom this applies will generally not think it applies to them. Yeah, it's a good example of an inside joke.
A Tripolation Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Yeah, it's a good example of an inside joke. I don't think that's what swansont meant... More along the lines that people who are quacks don't know that they are quacks.
doG Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I don't think that's what swansont meant...More along the lines that people who are quacks don't know that they are quacks. Yeah, I know what he meant. He just said it differently than I. All I basically said is that only those who aren't quacks will get it so it's an inside joke for the non-quack crowd.
John Cuthber Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 I just love the idea that there's a "President of physics". Anyway, might it be better to just refer those people to whom it applies to this thread? You know, a nice helpful post saying "An idea like yours has been discussed here." and a link. Now all I need to do is work out a suitable term, a bit like "Rickrolling", for it.
timo Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Sure, you've got your fancy lab coats and your real diploma. But I am a logical thinker who questions things and can think out of the box. Also, I scored 154 in an online IQ test. 1
Sisyphus Posted December 14, 2009 Posted December 14, 2009 Oh, they'll "get it," they just won't think it applies to them. "Haha, aren't those crackpots ridiculous? So distracting from MY new theory." On that not-at-all-ironic note, I happen to have a philosophy degree. And with all due respect to Randy, I don't think we're the ones coming up with crackpottery, because we (are supposed to) know how ideas work, and know what we (don't) know. Just from SFN, it seems like most of them are either kids or non-scientist technical people. But I'm guessing he had a specific person in mind when he drew that.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 people who are quacks don't know that they are quacks. Well if the reflection in the mirror looks like a duck and quacks like a quack...
CaptainPanic Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 Don't be so hard on the crackpots. Many of them are just kids. We've all gone through a stage during our education where we knew too little, and thought too much. Stages where we thought that the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics don't apply to our idea. The real difference between kids and true crackpots is that kids learn, and crackpots try to teach us.
ajb Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 I just love the idea that there's a "President of physics". Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell DBE FRS FInstP is the president of physics.
Sisyphus Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 Well if the reflection in the mirror looks like a duck and quacks like a quack... ...then it probably is a duck. But ducks don't recognize their own reflections.
John Cuthber Posted December 15, 2009 Posted December 15, 2009 Jocelyn Bell Burnell is president of the IOP, but not of physics. "...then it probably is a duck. But ducks don't recognize their own reflections." Is that why people think that ducks's quacks don't echo?
Phi for All Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Can I be President of Computer Science?I can see you handing out cookies from the campaign bus. Vote Democrash!
ajb Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Jocelyn Bell Burnell is president of the IOP, but not of physics. Yes, indeed. Sorry you missed the humour in my post.
John Cuthber Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 Yes, indeed. Sorry you missed the humour in my post. Another possibility is that you missed the humour in mine.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 16, 2009 Posted December 16, 2009 People, when someone makes a meta-joke you only need to meta-laugh. Maybe ajb saw the humor in yours and though it would be funny to make yet another joke on top of that?
Severian Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 But, but, but, I am going to write a paper overturning the laws of physics any day now!
ajb Posted December 17, 2009 Posted December 17, 2009 People, when someone makes a meta-joke you only need to meta-laugh. Maybe ajb saw the humor in yours and though it would be funny to make yet another joke on top of that? and so the circle remains unbroken...
hermanntrude Posted December 20, 2009 Author Posted December 20, 2009 I actually have overturned physics: http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7083/84102087.jpg
UC Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 I actually have overturned physics: http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7083/84102087.jpg No, I believe you have rotated physics 180 degrees. Overturning would imply a reflection, IMO
Severian Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 No, I believe you have rotated physics 180 degrees. Overturning would imply a reflection, IMO I disagree. Your objection is implicitly assuming an embedding in 3 dimensions. The physical representation in hermanntrude's work is 2-dimensional, with no assumption of embedding, so he/she has indeed overturned physics.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now