|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Peter Woit's "Expanding Crackpottery"
See Not Even Wrong blog for details.
Woit: “In many ways I also share Lubos’s concern. Like lots of people, over the years I’ve been deluged with examples of what I’ll call “unconventional physics”, in a spectrum ranging from utter idiocy to serious but flawed work.” Of course you do because you are the “keeper of the flame for the standard model", just as Lubos is the “keeper of the flame for string theory". You both have your religions and your dogmas. You just belong to different churches. Woit: “Much of it shares the all-too-common feature of making grandiose claims for new understanding of fundamental physics, based on vague ideas that often use not much more than a few pieces of high- school level physics and mathematics.” Just So! And I suppose simple equations like E = mc^2 and E = hv do not pass muster in your church of Ptolemaic complexity. Give it some thought, my friend. Will you be able to open-mindedly evaluate the successor to the standard model, which must eventually come along because this is science not religion, or are you forever “married” to your religion? RLO |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Peter Woit's "Expanding Crackpottery"
General Omar Windbottom wrote:
See Not Even Wrong blog for details. Woit: “In many ways I also share Lubos’s concern. Like lots of people, over the years I’ve been deluged with examples of what I’ll call “unconventional physics”, in a spectrum ranging from utter idiocy to serious but flawed work.” Of course you do because you are the “keeper of the flame for the standard model", just as Lubos is the “keeper of the flame for string theory". You both have your religions and your dogmas. You just belong to different churches. Certain theories are just completely baseless crackpottery, but there are others that have some possibility of being true, but they just don't have enough proof to be undeniable yet. Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Peter Woit's "Expanding Crackpottery"
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... General Omar Windbottom wrote: See Not Even Wrong blog for details. Woit: “In many ways I also share Lubos’s concern. Like lots of people, over the years I’ve been deluged with examples of what I’ll call “unconventional physics”, in a spectrum ranging from utter idiocy to serious but flawed work.” Of course you do because you are the “keeper of the flame for the standard model", just as Lubos is the “keeper of the flame for string theory". You both have your religions and your dogmas. You just belong to different churches. Certain theories are just completely baseless crackpottery, but there are others that have some possibility of being true, but they just don't have enough proof to be undeniable yet. Yousuf Khan Burden of proof is upon the claimant. My theory is bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes. That has some possibility of being true, but it just doesn't have enough proof to be undeniable yet. Please find a black hole and check for broken eggshell. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Peter Woit's "Expanding Crackpottery"
Androcles wrote:
Burden of proof is upon the claimant. My theory is bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes. That has some possibility of being true, but it just doesn't have enough proof to be undeniable yet. Please find a black hole and check for broken eggshell. Burden of proof is always upon the claimant. But people are willing to accept certain ideas, if they seem to build upon existing accepted laws rather than try to rewrite them. So such ideas as Superstring Theory, or Dark Matter Theory are accepted because they don't contradict the existing known laws of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Yet the burden of proof isn't that high on them, because they simply predict stuff we can already predict from Relativity and QM. But ideas that try to refute, contradict, or rewrite existing laws, even mildly, are severely savaged. An example would be modified gravity theories; these theories are just a slight modification to existing laws, yet they bring great controversy. Yousuf Khan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Peter Woit's "Expanding Crackpottery"
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message ... Androcles wrote: Burden of proof is upon the claimant. My theory is bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes. That has some possibility of being true, but it just doesn't have enough proof to be undeniable yet. Please find a black hole and check for broken eggshell. Burden of proof is always upon the claimant. But people are willing to accept certain ideas, if they seem to build upon existing accepted laws rather than try to rewrite them. So such ideas as Superstring Theory, or Dark Matter Theory are accepted because they don't contradict the existing known laws of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The theory of a virgin birth is accepted by millions of dorks. That doesn't make it science. I don't accept Superstrings or Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin or Dork Matter, but I do accept the theory of the existence of known dorks. How can I not when there are enough of you around with your heads up your arses? Yet the burden of proof isn't that high on them, because they simply predict stuff we can already predict from Relativity and QM. Relativity was written by a known dork. QM is a different subject, incompatible with Relativity. But ideas that try to refute, contradict, or rewrite existing laws, even mildly, are severely savaged. An example would be modified gravity theories; these theories are just a slight modification to existing laws, yet they bring great controversy. A better example is emission fact. ****wits and dorks would rather believe in crackpot theories than simple logic and provable mathematics. You tell me that a crackpot theory that is based on a crackpot theory is accepted, I say accepted only by the millions of dorks out there, the same idiots that accept virgin births. Eat ****, 10 billion flies accept it and that many flies can't be wrong. In science, the burden of proof is upon the claimant. Dork Matter, Einstein's Relativity and Superstrings are not science. Galilean relativity is science, and it makes no exception for light. My theory is bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes. That has some possibility of being true, but it just doesn't have enough proof to be undeniable yet. Please find a black hole and check for broken eggshell. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 27th 08 06:47 PM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |