Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #586013 > unrolled thread

Re: Updated crackpot index?

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-18 14:53 -0500
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Vitaliy Bazzoli <zvt@viavzl.oi> - 2022-12-18 20:41 +0000
    Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-22 09:29 +0100
      Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-23 02:00 -0500
        Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-24 09:57 +0100
          Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 15:32 -0500
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-25 11:17 +0100
              Re: Updated crackpot index? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-26 14:10 -0500
                Re: Updated crackpot index? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2022-12-27 09:36 +0100
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Thurman De palma <eaan@phapremr.an> - 2022-12-27 13:57 +0000
                    Re: Updated crackpot index? Y A <angel0000000010000000000000@gmail.com> - 2023-01-09 02:21 -0800
                  Re: Updated crackpot index? Emmet Robustelli <uttl@etlmms.re> - 2022-12-29 21:28 +0000
            Re: Updated crackpot index? Luigi Tumicelli <llei@cumiicli.lu> - 2023-01-09 09:04 +0000

#586013 — Re: Updated crackpot index?

On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:

Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
(I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite 
it. For now treat these as additions)

38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an 
expert are "worshiping" him.
Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"

39. X points for Silence is consent: "I notice that there are no 
comments on my
manifesto. That means that you all agree with it!"
Or the opposite: Whining that nobody is taking their "manifesto" seriously.

40. References to things like "Old Biology" (textbook standard biology) and
"New Biology" (the crank's version of biology including bizarre changes,
the crank believes his version is or will be accepted)

21. Expand Baez's Item #21: "I won a Nobel Prize for my discovery" when 
they didn't.
"I was offered the Nobel Prize but I turned it down because it's worthless."
Less delusional, fewer points: "I should have won a Nobel Prize for my 
discovery."
Sour grapes  because they didn't win a Nobel: "The Nobel Prize is 
worthless"/
"the committee awarding it is corrupt", etc.
Bonus points for claiming multiple Nobel Prizes.

41. Claiming 'One day my work will be discovered by "cyber 
archeologists" studying the dawning of the Information Age' by digging 
through Usenet posts or Google archives.
Bonus points for references to extraterrestrial aliens.
Bonus points for creating a physical book which will eventually be 
discovered and appreciated.

42. X points for each new "theory" depending on one of their previous 
unproven "theories" treated as being factual.

43. X points for refusal to engage in a discussion of the theory. 2X for 
launching ad hominem attacks against the engaging person instead.

44. X points for ignoring or refusing to work out a science textbook 
style example problem where, for example, numbers are plugged into a 
formula to get some value.
(for example, if a falling object falls at a speed of v=gt, what speed 
is it falling after t=5 seconds)

45. X points for stating experts merely repeat what they were told, 
brainwashed, indoctrinated, or are parrots. The mere fact that
experts agree on X (simply because X happens to be true) means that they
"parrot" one another.

46. Using crackpot-only words or phrases, usually intended as an insult.
Classic examples: "Einsteinian" and "relativist".

47. Rejection of data provided or experiments that require sophisticated 
data analysis. Likely because they don't understand the problem in the 
first place.

48. Megalomaniac/Narcissistic personality disorder claims such as "I was
chosen by God/the gods" or "I am a demigod" or "I am smarter than all 
the experts in the field, past and present"
Textbook Dunning-Kruger Effect.

49. X points for each reference to an unproven or disproven conspiracy 
theory. 2X points for stating the conspirators are out to get them or 
are a victim of the conspiracy.

50. X points for claiming their theory is a fact or "proven" when in 
science theories can only be disproven.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#586017

Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> On Sunday, 18 December 2022 at 20:53:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>> 
>> Several proposed additions to J̶o̶h̶n̶ B̶a̶e̶z's̶ C̶r̶a̶c̶k̶p̶o̶t̶ I̶n̶d̶e̶x̶.
>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to h̶i̶s̶ e̶x̶c̶e̶l̶l̶e̶n̶t̶ l̶i̶s̶t̶ or rewrite
>> it. For now treat these as additions)
> 
> And how much would you give for insisting that adjusting a clock to your
> ISO idiocy means putting it into some "Newton mode"?

barijnia pizdu Mockba

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586356

Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>
> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
> it. For now treat these as additions)


> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
> expert are "worshiping" him.
> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"


Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in, what 
you try to find out.

Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.

But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of 
your claim is required.

For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether 
physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this is 
'crackpottery'.

But it is very difficult to proove impossibility and the absense of 
something hidden (like secret cults, for instance).

Such open questions are therefore not settled by your decision to place 
them in such a list. And other solutions are also difficult, because 
secret cults are actually hidden.


...

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586420

On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>
>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>> it. For now treat these as additions)
> 
> 
>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
> 
> 
> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in, what 
> you try to find out.
> 
> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.

No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of 
science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict 
because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults 
have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with 
no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the 
scientific method.
> 
> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of 
> your claim is required.

The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a 
cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
> 
> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether 
> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this is 
> 'crackpottery'.

No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is 
claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.

The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or 
series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots 
make but most others would not.  "Microbiology is a cult!" for example, 
when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the 
scientific method.

ALL scores are based on statements in the purported crackpot's post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586500

Am 23.12.2022 um 08:00 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>>
>>
>>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>
>>
>> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in,
>> what you try to find out.
>>
>> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 'crackpottery'.
>
> No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of
> science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict
> because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults
> have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with
> no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the
> scientific method.

Well, the Catholic Church maintains actually universities and produced 
own scientific studies.

In former times the Pope wanted to decide, whether certain theories were 
true or not and quite few lost their lives, who disagreed.

Sure, to kill 'heritics' is directly opposed to the scientific method, 
but was once actual reality.


>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
>> your claim is required.
>
> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.

The 'crackpots' don't say, that science would be a cult.

The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it 
away from the scientific method.

Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own 
people.

This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish 
heretics anymore.

Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the 
claim, but whether or not this would be real.


>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>> is 'crackpottery'.
>
> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.



Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek real 
truth.

But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the lasts 
truth in the universe.

So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.

This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a 
necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.

> The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or
> series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots
> make but most others would not.  "Microbiology is a cult!" for example,
> when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the
> scientific method.
>
Before you can use a statement in a 'crackpost list', you need to 
proove, that the statement is actually wrong.

For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate 
for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong.

If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true.

In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586533

On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.12.2022 um 08:00 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>>>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>>>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or rewrite
>>>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>>>
>>>
>>>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>>>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>>>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>>
>>>
>>> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in,
>>> what you try to find out.
>>>
>>> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as 
>>> 'crackpottery'.
>>
>> No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of
>> science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict
>> because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults
>> have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with
>> no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the
>> scientific method.
> 
> Well, the Catholic Church maintains actually universities and produced 
> own scientific studies.
> 
> In former times the Pope wanted to decide, whether certain theories were 
> true or not and quite few lost their lives, who disagreed.
> 
> Sure, to kill 'heritics' is directly opposed to the scientific method, 
> but was once actual reality.

The Catholic church has changed, from not accepting science whatsoever 
to quite accepting of science. (meanwhile, certain fundamentalists will 
respond to an astronomy article stating "Galaxy XYZ is 1 billion light 
years away meaning the light we see was emitted 1 billion years ago" 
with "WRONG, Earth and the universe was created 6,000 years ago!!!") A 
religion can accept and teach science while still having actual faith 
beliefs in the religion itself)
> 
> 
>>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
>>> your claim is required.
>>
>> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
>> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
> 
> The 'crackpots' don't say, that science would be a cult.

They certainly do! Just read s.p.r. for all the crackpots calling 
relativity and those who believe in it a cult, when relativity is a 
valid theory under the scientific method, so is a part of science.
> 
> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it 
> away from the scientific method.

Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it 
still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with 
evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
> 
> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own 
> people.
> 
> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish 
> heretics anymore.

Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have 
different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the 
relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was 
no takeover.
> 
> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the 
> claim, but whether or not this would be real.

The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the 
scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved, 
gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
> 
> 
>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>
>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek real 
> truth.

That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns 
them crackpot points.
> 
> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the lasts 
> truth in the universe.
> 
> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.

Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature 
is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will 
be better models one day.

> 
> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a 
> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.

What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult 
or something?
> 
>> The whole point of the crackpot index is to assign a score to a post or
>> series of posts based on statements and claims therein that crackpots
>> make but most others would not.  "Microbiology is a cult!" for example,
>> when microbiology meets the definition of science/following the
>> scientific method.
>>
> Before you can use a statement in a 'crackpost list', you need to 
> proove, that the statement is actually wrong.

I am not including proofs. It is up to the user of the list to decide if 
a crank claim meets the definition of an entry. Did they call a valid 
science a cult for example.
> 
> For instance: 'flat Earth' is most likely wrong, hence a good candidate 
> for such a list. But first you need to proove 'flat Earth' wrong.

I am not including specific crank beliefs, I want to avoid that. For 
example for my "crackpot language" I want to have examples but don't 
want all the examples be relativity specific. I'll need other examples 
of insults not specific to relativity. I've heard (once) of flat earth 
believers call others "ball earthers" but how common is that?
> 
> If you cannot prove a statement wrong, it could eventually be true.

Ignoring something was proven wrong yet still believing in it and 
parading it is what earns crackpot points.
> 
> In such a case, this claim must not be used in a 'crackpot list'.

Again, I am not including specific crackpot claims. It is up to the user 
to look at, for example, a flat earth post, to see how many crank points 
the poster earns.

Go read the original crackpot index.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586561

Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 23.12.2022 um 08:00 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/22/2022 3:29 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 18.12.2022 um 20:53 schrieb Volney:
>>>>> On 12/8/2022 2:46 PM, Volney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Several proposed additions to John Baez's Crackpot Index.
>>>>> (I have not yet decided whether to add to his excellent list or
>>>>> rewrite
>>>>> it. For now treat these as additions)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 38. X points for stating people who agree with a theory promoted by an
>>>>> expert are "worshiping" him.
>>>>> Or stating "Physics is a religion/cult!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your method is wrong to begin with, because you should not plug in,
>>>> what you try to find out.
>>>>
>>>> Here your 'error' is, that you consider certain topics as
>>>> 'crackpottery'.
>>>
>>> No, it is the person being scored that considers a certain segment of
>>> science as being a religion or cult. This is obviously a conflict
>>> because science is based on the scientific method while religions/cults
>>> have some sort of faith, that is, something you simply must believe with
>>> no observation or evidence of it. That's directly opposed to the
>>> scientific method.
>>
>> Well, the Catholic Church maintains actually universities and produced
>> own scientific studies.
>>
>> In former times the Pope wanted to decide, whether certain theories
>> were true or not and quite few lost their lives, who disagreed.
>>
>> Sure, to kill 'heritics' is directly opposed to the scientific method,
>> but was once actual reality.
>
> The Catholic church has changed, from not accepting science whatsoever
> to quite accepting of science. (meanwhile, certain fundamentalists will
> respond to an astronomy article stating "Galaxy XYZ is 1 billion light
> years away meaning the light we see was emitted 1 billion years ago"
> with "WRONG, Earth and the universe was created 6,000 years ago!!!") A
> religion can accept and teach science while still having actual faith
> beliefs in the religion itself)
>>
>>
>>>> But before you could possibly do that, a discussion of the validity of
>>>> your claim is required.
>>>
>>> The claim is that of the potential crackpot (the science of XXX is a
>>> cult) (followers of Newtonian physics worship Newton), not mine.
>>
>> The 'crackpots' don't say, that science would be a cult.
>
> They certainly do! Just read s.p.r. for all the crackpots calling
> relativity and those who believe in it a cult, when relativity is a
> valid theory under the scientific method, so is a part of science.
>>
>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>> away from the scientific method.
>
> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.


I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.

For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving 
bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number 
of errors in it (well over 400).

These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class 
physicist.

The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly 
published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two 
people (Planck and Einstein).

The other physicist that I totally dislike was Oliver Heaviside (for his 
obstruction of Quaternions).

Another questionable physicists was imho George LeMaitre (because I 
dislike big-bang theory).

Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and 
get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'.

>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>> people.
>>
>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>> heretics anymore.
>
> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
> no takeover.

No.

'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but 
assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.

These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not 
in all.

Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may 
call it 'Conspiracy theory'.

Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong. After proven 
wrong the assumption is invalidated. What is not proven wrong, that is 
still a theory. Therefore 'theory' is a title for the better part of the 
assumptions.

'Conspiracy' is a crime in the Anglo-American legal system, but not so 
otherwise. In many countries a somehow similar thing is 'support of a 
crime'. But the very idea of a conspiracy is often not understood in 
other countries.

Therefore it is a very bad idea to beginn with to call such assumptions 
'conspiracy theories', hence this term should not be used in a 'crackpot 
list'.

>> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
>> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>
> The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
> scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
> gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.

Well, science and religion are certainly not the same thing. Religion is 
based on believe and science also ;-)

>>
>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>
>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>> real truth.
>
> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
> them crackpot points.
>>
>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>
>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>
> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
> be better models one day.

Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly 
know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself, 
because you are not nature.

Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and 
the real world, which only the real world can provide.

We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict 
things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that, 
because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.

IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe 
correctly.

>>
>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>
> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
> or something?

Nothing.

I meant something else:
even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a 
necessary part in any research.

But the errors should be sorted out as soon as possible.


...
TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586669

On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>> away from the scientific method.
>>
>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
> 
> 
> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.

Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
> 
> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of moving 
> bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very large number 
> of errors in it (well over 400).

No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
> 
> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a world-class 
> physicist.

Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.
> 
> The only possibility is, that this particular article was knowingly 
> published with malicious intentions in a cooperation of at least two 
> people (Planck and Einstein).

Since this is based on a false assumption (400+ errors) all that follows 
from this assumption is irrelevant.

> Now you only need to assume a hidden connection and a malicious plan and 
> get a perfect 'conspiracy theory'.

Assumptions are worthless, plus are not part of science. Just because 
something COULD have happened (assuming it actually could) doesn't mean 
it DID happen.
> 
>>> Then, in the next step, the heritics were expelled and replaced by own
>>> people.

And these expelled "heretics" remained silent?
>>>
>>> This is assisted by a takeover of the media, which would not publish
>>> heretics anymore.

Yeah. Right. Another conspiracy necessary.

One part of conspiracies is that the larger they are, the more likely it 
is for someone/multiple someones to spill the beans.

(and it is interesting to know that somehow, the cranks know all about 
the conspiracies)
>>
>> Well conspiracy theories are a crank sign, but different cranks have
>> different beliefs. Specific to relativity, according to some, the
>> relativity cult started with Einstein as the cult leader, so there was
>> no takeover.
> 
> No.
> 
> 'Conspiracy theories' are usually not theories about conspiracies, but 
> assumptions about illegal activities of powerfull and secret groups.

What "powerful and secret groups" was Einstein, essentially unknown in 
1905, part of? Who let this unknown in?
> 
> These assumptions are certainly wrong in most cases, but certainly not 
> in all.

Again, because something COULD HAVE happened, doesn't mean it DID happen.
> 
> Therefore you cannot invalidate an assumption, just because you also may 
> call it 'Conspiracy theory'.

Occam's razor, without evidence.
> 
> Like always: an assumption is valid until proven wrong.

Occam's razor states bizarre complex assumptions can be ignored, at 
least without evidence.

>>> Sure, this system is certainly not scientific. But that was not the
>>> claim, but whether or not this would be real.
>>
>> The entry remains as someone claiming valid science according to the
>> scientific method is a religion or cult, implying faith is involved,
>> gets points for that, as faith is counter to the science being science.
> 
> Well, science and religion are certainly not the same thing. Religion is 
> based on believe and science also ;-)

No, religion has outright faith, beliefs without evidence.
Science has theories/models, these have scientific observations and 
experimental evidence which supports them. Science also knows that 
future evidence can come along which discredits the model but even in 
that case the old model may remain close in the future (like continuing 
to use Newtonian physics at low speeds and weak gravity).
> 
>>>
>>>>> For instance: here you need to discuss the question first, whether
>>>>> physicst build a sect or cult prior to claiming, that mentioning this
>>>>> is 'crackpottery'.
>>>>
>>>> No physicist is claiming crackpottery. The purported crackpot is
>>>> claiming science is a cult to "earn" points for this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most people are not destructive intentionally, hence actually seek
>>> real truth.
>>
>> That they make unsupported claims instead of seeking truth is what earns
>> them crackpot points.
>>>
>>> But obviously most scientists fail in their endeavour to find the
>>> lasts truth in the universe.
>>>
>>> So, most scientists are in an objective way wrong in what they believe.
>>
>> Science is finding the best model to demonstrate and predict what nature
>> is doing. Scientists know there is no "final" "last" truth. There will
>> be better models one day.
> 
> Predictions are not a valid goal of science, because you may possibly 
> know the mechanisms of natur, but cannot use this knowledge yourself, 
> because you are not nature.

Nope. Science is about finding the best model, and one of the 
definitions of "best" is being able to make accurate predictions.
> 
> Predictions would require a one to one correspondence between modell and 
> the real world, which only the real world can provide. >
> We can eventually find usuable modell in some cases, which predict 
> things to a sufficant degree, but can never ever get better than that, 
> because we cannot immitate nature precisely enough.

Predictions of models are good within a certain defined error range. A 
new model with
> 
> IOW: only the universe itself can predict the future of the universe 
> correctly.

Predict exactly, yes, but physics knows that is impossible so comes up 
with models which predict as best as possible.
> 
>>>
>>> This wrongness is not really 'crackpottery', but in most cases a
>>> necessary step in a long lasting project in search of true knowledge.
>>
>> What does all this have to do with crackpots rejecting science as a cult
>> or something?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> I meant something else:
> even wrong theories are not 'crackpottery', because errors are a 
> necessary part in any research.

Sticking to already disproven, wrong theories, or to "theories" with no 
basis on science, is crackpottery.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586732

Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> On 12/25/2022 5:17 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 24.12.2022 um 21:32 schrieb Volney:
>>> On 12/24/2022 3:57 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> The claim is more or less, that cults took over science and turned it
>>>> away from the scientific method.
>>>
>>> Then what is produced would not follow the scientific method, yet it
>>> still does. Plus the "cult followers" bit is never supported with
>>> evidence that such a "takeover" happened.
>>
>>
>> I personally think, that such a 'takeover' actually happened.
>
> Without evidence of that, nobody cares what you think.
>>
>> For instance I have studies Einstein's 'On the electrodynamics of
>> moving bodies' for a very long time in detail. But I found a very
>> large number of errors in it (well over 400).
>
> No, you haven't. As has been repeatedly explained to you.
>>
>> These errors could not been overlooked by Planck, who was a
>> world-class physicist.
>
> Since there were no such errors, there was nothing for Planck to overlook.


I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was 
always the same:

the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered by a crank (me) 
and the case is closed.

But I can provide something new for you to defend:

it is actually a very simple error and belongs to a class called 'non 
sequitur'. (This means 'it does not follow'.)

It is on page 8 in § 3 about 'Theory of the Transformation of 
Co-ordinates ...'

There are two equations in the upper part of page 8, which both describe 
a certain point (x,y,z) in K coordinates, which was '...just attained by 
this wave,...'.

Now the first equation describes the length of the path of a wave from 
the origin to that point by kind of '3d-pythagoras':

x² +y² +z² = c²*t²

That is certainly true and not particularily interesting.

The second equation is this
ξ² +η² +ζ² = c²* τ²

This is the same point in coordinates from k.

This is also not very spectacular, even if the coordinate system k is 
moving and the equation does not make any attempt to compensate that 
movement. (Actually only Latin variable names are exchanged for small 
Greek letters.)

But for a single point it is not real necessary, if the coordinate 
systems K and k coincide for that instant in time.

But from this 'calculation' Einstein had drawn this conclusion:

"The wave under consideration is therefore no less a spherical  wave 
with velocity of propagation c when viewed in the moving system.  "

And this does not follow and is also wrong, because a spherical wave in 
motion gets red- or blueshifted, hence would not qualify as 'spherical' 
any more.

But more imprtant is, that the conclusion is not justified by the 
'result' of his 'calculation', because the same point (x,y,z) was meant 
and no wave whatsoever.


...


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586743

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
>> S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶ P̶l̶a̶n̶c̶k̶ t̶o̶
>> o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶o̶k̶.
> 
> I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was
> always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered
> by a crank (me) and the case is closed.

so true indeed. This bad khazar mazafaka is saying *_you_are_an_wanker_* 
and cannot revolt, since *_you_can't_organize_*, in *_communist_* parties, 
unions etc. So they can do anything with your life an family, legal or 
not, lying, killing you etc. Revolts, according to this capitalist, is 
something from the 19th and 20th century.

Yuval Noah Harari： What to do with useless people 
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QqTLsjclymdx

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥
🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

when are you going to learn, that without a communist party, they are 
killing you and don't give a shit. Can you see they organize, with the 
money taken from you, can you see it??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588043

Look this
↓


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀

⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ ⠀ 🛩
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀🌧️🌧️⠀⠀⠀🌧️🌧️🌧️⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🕊️ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀🌴⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀🍄 ⠀⠀⠀⠀ 🌼⠀⠀⠀⠀ 🌻
🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫🟫

How do You rate this on 1....10 scale ?




On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 3:57:45 PM UTC+2, Thurman De palma wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote: 
> 
> > Am 26.12.2022 um 20:10 schrieb Volney:
> >> S̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶e̶r̶e̶ n̶o̶ s̶u̶c̶h̶ e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶s̶, t̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ w̶a̶s̶ n̶o̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ f̶o̶r̶ P̶l̶a̶n̶c̶k̶ t̶o̶ 
> >> o̶v̶e̶r̶l̶o̶o̶k̶.
> > 
> > I have discussed now lots of errors (in my view) and the result was 
> > always the same: the errors are simply denied, the critique was uttered 
> > by a crank (me) and the case is closed.
> so true indeed. This bad khazar mazafaka is saying *_you_are_an_wanker_* 
> and cannot revolt, since *_you_can't_organize_*, in *_communist_* parties, 
> unions etc. So they can do anything with your life an family, legal or 
> not, lying, killing you etc. Revolts, according to this capitalist, is 
> something from the 19th and 20th century. 
> 
> Yuval Noah Harari： What to do with useless people 
> https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/QqTLsjclymdx 
> 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥🟨🟨🟨🟥🟥🟨🟨🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥 
> 
> when are you going to learn, that without a communist party, they are 
> killing you and don't give a shit. Can you see they organize, with the 
> money taken from you, can you see it??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#586864

Volney wrote:

> W̶h̶a̶t̶ m̶o̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶? F̶r̶o̶m̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶, f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ k̶ i̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (t̶a̶u̶t̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶) b̶u̶t̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶. D̶o̶ r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ "m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ s̶y̶s̶t̶e̶m̶" i̶s̶ e̶s̶s̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ a̶ N̶A̶M̶E̶ s̶i̶n̶c̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ f̶r̶a̶m̶e̶ K̶ i̶s̶ d̶e̶s̶c̶r̶i̶b̶e̶d̶ a̶s̶ s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ (r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ a̶n̶ u̶n̶s̶p̶e̶c̶i̶f̶i̶e̶d̶
> o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶), s̶o̶ k̶ i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶r̶t̶ t̶h̶i̶s̶ o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶a̶l̶ o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶r̶ b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ i̶t̶
> i̶s̶ m̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ r̶e̶l̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶ t̶o̶ K̶.

Estonia does not want “a new community” in the country “that doesn’t speak Estonian,” PM Kaja Kallas says 
https://%72%74.com/%72%75%73%73%69%61/569122-estonia-ukrainians-language-policy/

The PM’s comments on Estonian courses for Ukrainian refugees did not escape Moscow’s attention. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova took to Telegram to respond: “Kaja, Adolf [Hitler] would be proud of you. Without you it would be much more difficult to prove the dehumanization of the collective West. Estonia for Estonians, right? Say it already, and stop palping the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with your sweaty palms.”

the nazis of uKraine admits severe */_war_crimes_/*.

Ukrainian Soldiers Execute Prisoners Of War – Admits U.S. Mercenary 12-28-22 The Jimmy Dore Show
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/Q7NyWiFpgGvN

you are sold as *slave* already. You are fucking *patented*.

Listen closely to every single word. Israel is last for a reason. Khazarian Mafia.
https://%62%69%74%63%68%75%74%65.com/%76%69%64%65%6f/TLUG36poJytT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#588040

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> Anyway, this perfect science pictured by Popper
>> could never work. But science as it really is - can.
> 
> Popper was a philosopher.
> These people are usually not concerned with ugly reality.

here more proof the khazars are nazis.

The ADL issues statement declaring Ukraine’s Azov Battalion no longer ‘far-right’
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2023/01/08/the-adl-issues-statement-declaring-ukraines-azov-battalion-no-longer-far-right/
In the November interview, Boneface admitted to taking photographs of Ukrainian fighters “posing with the corpses of a lynched pregnant woman and a man they said was her husband” for a video entitled “Kikes get the rope.” He also claimed to have appeared in a video depicting a botched crucifixion. 

unbelievable, they kill everybody, including some of them self.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web