How to be a Crackpot: a 12-Step System

excellent. thank you q

"The meaning of a negative group velocity is illustrated in figure 2. Within the cell, the peak of the pulse travels backwards relative to the direction it is moving in outside the cell. Long before the incident light pulse reaches the cell, two peaks appear at the far end: one travelling away from the cell at c, the other travelling back towards the entrance. This second pulse travels 300 times more slowly and is timed to meet up with the incident peak. The transmitted pulse travelling at c appears to leave the cell some 60 ns before the incident pulse arrives, enough time for it to travel an additional 20 metres.

What is shocking is that such an effect has been observed for the first time without a great deal of attenuation, amplification or distortion of the pulse. It appears as though energy has, in fact, travelled faster than light."

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/13/9/3


*the article then goes on to say how this did not really happen.
(i obviously was not paying attention when i read it)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

q
one more question

why do you think bohm found it necessary to postulate a new theory of the universe. what did he find lacking in the current model

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

spookz

Bohm was attempting to explain the findings of Alain Aspects experiment on nonlocality; EPR (Einstein-Podolosky-Rosen). His radical explanations (Holographic Model) became an anathema of scientific thought hence he was ostracized by the physics community.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

coolness

unfortunately i am gonna embrace bohms crackpot ideas and become a bonafide crackpot myself!

Quantum theory is open to different interpretations, and this paper reviews some of the points of contention. The standard interpretation of quantum physics assumes that the quantum world is characterized by absolute indeterminism and that quantum systems exist objectively only when they are being measured or observed. David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum theory rejects both these assumptions. Bohm's theory that quantum events are party determined by subtler forces operating at deeper levels of reality ties in with John Eccles' theory that our minds exist outside the material world and interact with our brains at the quantum level. Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study."

Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

thanks again pal

 

spookz

Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study.

That is a perfect example of my point. Bohm wishes to use science in order to study further the merits of non-scientific ideas such as paranormal phenomena. He would have made a great "Ghostbuster."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i gotta confess i was a bit stunned when i saw all the new age terminology

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is not a question of annihilating science, but of controlling it. Science is totally dependent upon philosophical opinions for all of its goals and methods, though it easily forgets this.
—Friedrich Nietzsche


*a letter


Dear John:

I too have been frustrated, in a variety of contexts, with how difficult it is to get people to see the importance of the "discovery business." Your thought that it would help if everyone came to understand that creativity is a deep, common, essential, and shared attribute is very much along the lines of my own thinking, but I had not previously been thinking so concretely in those terms. So let me take a crack here at saying what we both think we know, and if the letter turns into something you can use in your Discovery Scrapbook, so much the better.

People in our culture, by and large, tend to presume that someone, somewhere knows what is "right," and that each individual's task is either to be that particular someone or to work as hard as they can to learn from that someone what "right" is. Why this is so is an interesting question, one we may need and want to understand better, but let's just settle for some relevant pieces here. I knoe the mindset long predates science as a social activity, but that science certainly encourages it, and so it is appropriate that science should contribute to correcting it. In fact, looking across the sciences during the last ten or fifteen years and into the near future, I think such a correction is exactly the message that is emerging (significantly, not only in the sciences, but in the humanities and social sciences as well). In an enormous variety of distinct fields of inquiry the same general pattern is becoming clear: there is no such thing as "right," the very concept needs to be replaced with "progressively less wrong." The difference is far from semantic. "Right" is measured by proximity to some fixed idea, "progressively less wrong" by how far people have gotten from where they started. It is the aspiration to be "right" that leads to rigid hierarchical social organizations of all kinds, including educational systems. Wanting to be "progressively less wrong" takes one (and societies) in quite different directions entirely: it encourages life-long inquiry by every individual, a respect for past wisdwom and enthusiasm for contributing to future understanding, and an appreciation of the enormous value of interactions between unique individuals each of whom has unique perspectives to contribute.

Wanting to be "progressively less wrong" rather than "right" is, however, by itself a tough pill for many people to swallow. This is not only because of the words (we could, perhaps should, come up with something that sounds less negative), but because the underlying ideas themselves are alien and disturbing to many people, who have the feeling they know how to be "right" but have no idea at all how to be "less wrong," and for whom the whole thing sounds defeatist, to be settling for second best. This is the place where I think science has a very special role to play, one to which the work in my own laboratory can contribute. Not only science, but life itself, stands as testimonial to the reality that there is nothing at all either defeatist or second best about becoming "progressively less wrong." That is precisely what science is about, and is the very core of all social and technological "progress." More importantly, being "progressively less wrong" is the very essence of the biological concept of evolution, whose capacity to generate enormously complex and effective organizations has yet to show a limit, and still far exceeds anything of which humans are capable alone.

The trick, of course, is to translate this reality into terms which not only scientists but businessmen, politicians, indeed all individuals, can feel and understand, and to do so in a way which makes it clear that everyone is an active and responsible participant in the overall process, that every individual becoming "progressively less wrong" is an invaluable part of the global doing so. "Becoming progressively less wrong" is, as we both know, not an arcane or difficult skill: it requires only a capability and willingness to try out new things, coupled with an ability to critically evaluate and learn from one's experiments. The importance of critical evaluation is something our culture is aware of; the key importance of creativity, however, we seem somehow to have lost confidence in, become suspicious of, or forgotten entirely. Clearly, if leeches and frogs have the capability and willingness to try new things out (as our experiments indicate they do), then all individual humans certainly have it (as is evident, as you point out, from watching babies). More importantly, creativity and play are not, as sometimes thought, a luxury, to be indulged in only when real work is done, or a vaguely disreputable hazard, to be avoided when things get serious, or something that babies can be indulged to do but one should give up as one gets older. They are instead capabilities which are at the very center of the successes of all living systems, from individual organisms to complex societies.

I share your feeling that there are two ideas that need to be better understood, and that they are indeed closely related. One is the essential importance of the creativity of individuals, and the other is the nature of interactions among individuals, the social structure within which individuals function. As your intuitions have always suggested, the key to the latter is a better understanding of the dynamics of complex systems, which is indeed emerging as part of a broader scientific and intellectual revolution. The key here is the increasing realization that highly sophisticated and effective organizations can, and do in fact, emerge from the interactions of large numbers of independent but closely communicating creative elements. They don't depend on people knowing in advance what is "right," but rather on people having confidence in the creative potential inherent in groups of people sharing different perspectives and ideas, in exactly the same sense that they have (or should have) confidence in the creative potential inherent in all individuals, themselves included. Your tidepool, and our piece of it, is, it seems to me, very much a particular realization of this idea. It is designed not to cause particular things to happen in particular ways, but rather to provide the kind of permissive and supportive environment in which unknown desirable things will happen, simply because of the creativity and interconnectedness of individuals. Needless to say, from my perspective, the tidepool is not only an experiment in how things might work better, but a demonstration that in fact they do.



Best.

Paul Grobstein


how to cope with scientism

Strategies for Dissenting Scientists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

how to rate a crackpot

 

most crackpots are crackpots...sometimes they are right (1out of zillion).

when I was still doing some history of science I was reading through the personal correspondence of this scientist. He was calling another guy a crackpot because his theory was so ridiculous. Most people were in agreement with him that this guy was a crackpot. After 5 years however the crackpot turned to be right and most people agreed with him.

this is however extremely rare. And 'genuine' crackpots (the ones that turn out to be not a crackpot) usually don't post their stuff on forums trying to impress the uninformed laymen.

 

well this kind of genuine crackpot, would score -4 on this scale, probably, whereas most crackpots on this board would score in the 100s.

having an idea that is widely agreed to be false only gets you one point on this crackpot scale.

 

Chroot

I was sat watching something the other day, and I suddenly was hit by this astounding fact. Crackpots are necessary!

The arguement was simple, If it wasn't for a Crackpot deciding to try and create a machine to fly, we wouldn't be able to go on vacations using Aircraft.

Quite simple I think, but it does prove that Crackpots have an ability that most scientists are scared to use....

(Thats LEAP before consider Looking)

 

Welcome to Step 10.

And exactly who was this "crackpot" who invented flight? We watch birds fly around all the time -- so flight is demonstrably possible. All that was needed was someone to figure out exactly how birds generated lift. The Wright brothers did so. How were they crackpots?

- Warren

 

Chroot

I wasn't saying "from my opinion they are crackpots" I was suggesting that "from other peoples opinions" they were.

Just look at how many failed attempts at flying devices were created during that period, and when you have a look at what they flew in, would you feel 100% safe knowing that a tear in the fabric or a gust of wind could knock the craft out the sky.

They either had serious "balls" or were just enough of a crackpot to attempt it.

Another one I would mention is Nuclear Fission, although be military's of the world manage to push people into doing crackpot things for national security.

 

I would generally define a crackpot as a person who does not follow the scientific method, yet still tries to create new science. I don't think the Wright brothers or Hahn and Meitner were regarded as crackpots by anyone, either living then or now. I think you'll have to stand alone with your opinion.

- Warren

 

chroot

I don't think the Wright brothers or Hahn and Meitner were regarded as crackpots by anyone, either living then or now.

They were regarded as crackpots by government bureaucrats and individuals alike, and were turned down time and again tying to sell flying machines - mostly because everyone thought that if two bicycle mechanics could build a plane, so could they.

All that was needed was someone to figure out exactly how birds generated lift. The Wright brothers did so.

Fixed-wing aircraft were being experimented with decades before the Wright Brothers - it was that Wilbur and Orville were the first to develop the simple idea of controlling the craft while in the air; ie. roll, pitch and yaw.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

LOL CHROOT!!! Your my HERO!

 

My Crackpot Theory
Here's a crackpot theory I posted a while ago. At least I knew it was a crackpot theory though, lol.

 

Nicely put chroot - I have the same recurrent difficulty in getting across to some of my non-scientific drinking buddies the difference between a technological limitation ('we can't fly but birds obviously can') and a scientific limitation ('we can't fly FTL and nothing else seems to be able to'). The usual response is that I might be wrong. Of course I might, but it never seems to occur to my buddies that so might they.

Cheers,

Ron.