- #36
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,439
- 750
And don't forget [itex]1^2 + 4^2 + 8^2 = 9^2[/itex]
No it's completely with reality, because even the Big Bang needed energy to create the universe and that came from outside the universe itself-in nothingness/nowhere, whatever you want to call it.
So that nothing has energy which somehow transformed into work.
Just because can't measure it doesn't mean it's there, it is always there, but you can't detect it, you can't measure it, calculate it.
And just because you can't do all that it doesn't mean physical, if it exists, it is 100% physical, the key difference is you can't measure it, you can't detect it, you can't calculate it with math.
No, it's not against a science, if it is, than science has to change some of its paradigms.
Darkness is physical 8maybe it's not a an object but it exists, and everything what exists it has energy (it doesn't matter if it's in the form of work or in the form of something else) otherwise it would not exist in the first place and it would not be able to create anything, darkness does have energy, but that energy is not in the form of work, that's all.
Darkness still has size-which means it is spatial-which means it is not absolute nothingness, it something after all.
jackmell said:I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.
Enigman said:"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle
jackmell said:I wish to voice my disapproval of making light of crackpots. I know you're all trying to be funny but nevertheless I am disappointed. I am immediately reminded of one of my favorite stories in medicine, that of Ignaz Semmelweis. He too I believe was initially thought a crackpot. I will leave the details of his story to the interested reader for the enjoyment of discovery.
Ludwig Boltzmann, who spent much of his life studying statistical
mechanics, died in 1906, by his own hand. Paul Ehrenfest, carrying on the
work, died similarly in 1933. Now it is our turn to study statistical
mechanics. Perhaps it will be wise to approach the subject cautiously...
ZapperZ said:And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature?
Wow, just wow...talk about overreactions...a small relevant quote on the topic of the previous poster...ZapperZ said:And since when is the word of a man such as Doyle became the law of nature? Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer? Hello? I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks! And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!
These kinds of statements should be challenged and not taken as if it is a word of "god". It certainly shouldn't be perpetuated as if it was.
Zz.
Nope, but if I edited the line I would be guilty of spreading misinformation. Other than that I have no defense for it.Do you actually BELIEVE that a charlatan is ALWAYS a pioneer?
I could show you more. Much more...(hundreds not dozens.)I can show you dozens more charlatans who are quacks
Nope, he wasn't but at that time he did his work he was called a charlatan.Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!
jtbell said:Note that Doyle believed (among other things) in the existence of fairies, and was taken in by faked photographs of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
Evo said:What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.
Evo said:What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.
Evo said:What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.
“Hey boss, did you ever seen a more splendiferous crash? "alexis zorba
Enigman said:"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle
ZapperZ said:And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!
Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).Nugatory said:Historical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on Earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.
I've never found education through ridicule to be a very attractive prospective, and have always thought that it to be derogatory to the subject itself; but this of course just my opinion.Arthur I. Miller said:Chandra's discovery might well have transformed and accelerated developments in both physics and astrophysics in the 1930s. Instead, Eddington's heavy-handed intervention lent weighty support to the conservative community astrophysicists, who steadfastly refused even to consider the idea that stars might collapse to nothing. As a result, Chandra's work was almost forgotten.
Enigman said:"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.Doyle
Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.Enigman said:Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).
Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:Nugatory said:It has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.
Enigman said:Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).
Evo said:Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.
It ended with 13 posts? Doyle's signalling you from the grave, mischief's afoot...zoobyshoes said:Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=565178
Nugatory said:I agree that we shouldn't ridicule cranks. When I see someone dedicating years of their life trying to prove that relativity is wrong, for example, I think it's a sad waste, and mockery is not the answer.
Enigman said:I am well aware of that Milady, but my concern lies in their ridicule which to me defiles the beauty of the process of education. That is the sole thing I am against.
Drakkith said:...Once you reach the point of ridicule, the possibility of education has usually been thrown out the window, so I see no relationship between the two.
Enigman said:And its usually by ridicule that it is thrown as such.
Drakkith said:Well that's just wrong. A crackpot has removed themselves from the possibility of being educated well before they are ever ridiculed. The fact that they are ridiculed is a direct result of their inability to accept that they could be wrong and may not know what they are talking about.
We've been there, done that, and we learned that it's hopeless. We had "Theory Development" and "Independent Research" forums. What a waste of time and energy. There are forums that allow crackpots to post, you can certainly try to help them on those forums.Enigman said:Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it.