Debunking Crackpot Theories on Special and General Relativity | calphysics.org

[blumfeld0]

hi. have you ever known that someone's ideas or theories were wrong but have a hard time figuring out exactly what was wrong with them? I've run across a lot of bad sites about special relativity and General relativity. it was usually pretty obvious when there were crackpots writing them.
well I've come across, http://www.calphysics.org
specifically, http://www.calphysics.org/articles/gravity_arxiv.pdf

i have absolutely no idea what they are talking about? are these people legit?
can someone just glance at this article and can make out what they are trying to do, but more importantly, does their idea work, mathematically, at least?

thank you

 

[Wallace]

I don't see anything to wrong about it. It is speculative research that goes beyond established canon, but that's the point of research. As far as I can see they seem 'legit' if you want to phrase it in such terms.

 

[Mentz114]

They aren't crackpots for sure, but some way off the beaten track. It will be interesting to see what the PF heavyweights think.

 

[pervect]

The good news: Haisch, Puthoff, and Rueda have actually been published in respected peer reviewed journals, including Phs. Rev. A.

The bad news: their theories don't have much (if anything) in the way of experimental support, nor are they particularly well received by the mainstream.

 

[Mentz114]

Thanks, Pervect. I should have recognised Puthoff, apparently he was involved in paranormal research, which is enough to put me off.

 

[Garth]

How does their quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis explain the geodetic and frame dragging precessions being measured by Gravity Probe B?

Garth

 

[christianjb]

Puthoff is a quack. Search his name on Randi.org. Anything connected to Puthoff is almost certainly quackery.

 

[Wallace]

Is everyone either a qauck/crank or legit? Is it a simple binary classification? I think this is a false dichotomy.

For example, without intending any offense, I'm sure there are folk over at http://www.cosmocoffee.info" that would assume on the basis on Garth's posts that he is a crank. This would be an unreasonable assumption, but one that may be made if we want to divide everyone into cranks or 'legit' researchers on the basis of a few opinions about mainstream models.

In this case under discussion, this research is clearly very speculative but if they are channeling it through journals rather than merely promoting it on the web then it must conform to a reasonable standard in the process, even if it turns out to be wrong.