Monday, July 6, 2009

Physics Crackpots


There is a dirty little secret that scientists in the physics community field know all too well. It seems that physics conferences, seminars and symposiums tend to attract a small, but quite visible contingent of physics crackpots. These are individuals, many times with modest academic credentials and no real research experience, who show up at the various events in order to spread their half-baked theories that at best stretch scientific fact, and at worst are pure fantasy.

I had my introduction to these neer do wells of the physics academic scene when I attended the Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting (PCGM) at Caltech in March 2007. There were several crackpots in the audience who were also on the schedule of attendees making 15 minute presentations to the group. Actually, anyone could make a presentation without qualification.

One particular crackpot stood out. Aside from being a charlatan, he had the distinction of affronting me personally while standing in the coffee line during a break earlier in the morning (he became known to me as “button man” for unsavory reasons that will be left unsaid). His name was Alexander Mayer, and he claimed to have singlehandedly developed a new cosmological model and corresponding modification to Einstein’s relativity. Now that’s chutzpah! At the conclusion of his presentation, evidently the physics community is very tolerant of crackpots because they politely applauded regardless of their academic opinion of his theories. Here is Mayer’s website which offers his book describing these theories as a free download - www.jaypritzker.org. You’ll notice that he claims affiliation with the Pritzker Family foundation for funding his research. Some time ago I took it upon myself to contact Dr. Leon Lederman, Nobel Laureate in Physics and who is the Pritzker Professor of Science and he never heard of Mayer. He claims to have graduated with a bachelor’s degree from MIT and does have an MIT Alumni e-mail address, but it remains to be seen whether he actually has a degree.

Another gentleman at the Gravity Meeting stood out as more of a wacky, mad-scientist type. I had a bird’s eye view because I was sitting in the row right behind him. He was rotund, disheveled, hair tousled, and complete with a prominent plumber’s crack I wish I hadn’t witnessed. He covered his seat and surrounding area with papers and old-fashioned overhead slides (all other presenters used Powerpoint). When his name was called to make his presentation, he lumbered down the steps to the podium and proceeded to make a numbingly senseless and rambling talk. His slides were nothing original, just re-prints of other people’s papers in a font nobody could read. It was excruciating to watch.

Since the Gravity Meeting, I’ve been on the lookout for other crackpots. One in particular who seems to have some deep pockets by the size of the color, full-page ads he continues to run in major science publications like Science News is Terrance Witt. He’s a retired entrepreneur who has funded a million dollar ad campaign. Witt’s vision of grandeur includes his Null Physics theory that he claims to be a grand unifying theory, something the global physics community (including Einstein) has been trying to come up with for nearly a century. Witt holds a BSEE degree from Oregon State University. Witt’s website is found at - www.nullphysics.org.

Fortunately, the bonafide scientific community on occasion writes in-depth reviews of the crackpot’s pseudo mathematics and theories. Here is an excellent rebuttal to Witt’s theories by UCSB particle physics professor Benjamin Monreal: Null Physics Review . Reading this rebuttal is like watching those “Gottch-ya!” consumer reports on TV where the reporter catches fraudulent auto repair shops.

I spotted another physics crackpot running a small display ad in The Tech, MIT’s student newspaper. The ad is for a book “Uncommon Knowledge,” and proclaims a “new science of gravity, light, the origin of life, and the mind of man.” Whew! Imagine all that from one book, move over Bible and Koran. The ad goes on to tout new subatomic “spheritons” that conduct gravity and light. The author, whose name is never mentioned on this website, proclaims that the Theory of Relativity is invalid. Check out the site at: www.spheritons.com. The author claims to have a Ph.D. but in business economics. The next time I talk to my banker, I’ll ask him about his own theory of quantum gravity!

A few other physics crackpots were identified to me by a scientist who took it upon himself to expose the crackpots. Here is a short list he provided me: www.foundationphysics.com, www.jeromedrexler.org, and www.frankhatchiii.com. If anyone knows of other crackpots, please post a comment here. Physics, ya got to love it!

54 comments:

  1. Waldemar MrozinskiAugust 29, 2009 at 3:31 AM

    ROFL! You have an enviable skill in humorous expression.

    Al McDowell's book about spheritons was being advertised in the right (don't-ever-look-at-it) column on my Facebook page. The title tickled my curiosity enough for me to follow the links to filedby.com where there are five-star reviews of his new book Uncommon Knowledge: New Science of Gravity, Light, the Origin of Life and the Mind of Man. Thankfully, the one-star reviews on Amazon seem more accurate, with the comment that it is "a waste of trees and ink".

    I shall not be wasting my money on it: Al would have done better to choose the word balls instead of spheritons, because that is what the book appears to be a load of......

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually sent an email to Al McDowell. He mistakenly uses the michelson-morley experients at his own advantage by saying that the speed of light is affected by the speed of the earth moving in «ether». I'm actually looking forward to disproove him with the simple fact that moving the interferometre around does not changes the interference patterns...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow ! !

    Is EinsteinGravity dot com really true ? ?

    Wow ! !

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for ur information...... I was just going to order the book... thanks .. I cud save my hard earned money.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi all,

    I just encountered "yet another" crackpot physics person who runs the following site:

    www.thenewphysics.com

    Check it out! There's a never ending supply.

    The Physics Groupie

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Folks,

    Here is yet-another-crackpot defining his own "new" physics, check out his manifesto:

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8424853/Trans-Dimensional-Unified-Field-Theory-82009

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Sun is red-hot boiling liquid magma! The Earth and other planets are drops from the Sun! We can see the Sun now better then ever before, look at the pictures given by NASA, SOHO and others! All the best! www.thenewphysics.com

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear SLBers - there is never a shortage of crackpots spreading their words of truth. Introducing Dutchman Dan Visser, independent cosmologist and painter who single-handedly discovered the "dark field energy" that led him to the new and true "Two-Tori Cosmological model" to replace the Big Bang. Its amazing what a couple of doughnuts will do.

    Visser is merging cosmology, physics and spirituality. Gee, I have a kitchen sink that needs unclogging, can I use a Two-Tori to fix my plumbing?

    Check him out: www.darkfieldnavigator.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here is another crackpot theory.
    http://cosmicdarkmatter.com/Newtonian_Dynamics.html

    This pot is tough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The book "Uncommon Knowledge" is by the author Al McDowell. He is advertising on Facebook. http://www.filedby.com/author/al_mcdowell/3474805/works/7189550/Uncommon_Knowledge_New_Science_of_Gravity_Light_the_Origin_of_Life_and_the_Mind_of_Man/

    ReplyDelete
  11. There have been crackpots kicking around for centuries , but every so often one hits a nail on the head ... What about Mr. Nostradamus ( hope the spelling is right ) ..he keeps attracting a lot of people .probably some of them belong to the flat earth society.... But on the other hand you get a man like E. Velikovsky ....a lot of people thought he was nuts too . strangely enough , a certain guy called Albert Einstein found some of his theories acceptable ....

    ReplyDelete
  12. I nominate Nassim Haramein, author of the Schwarzchild Proton "paper" which has "passed peer review" and been published in the AIP conference proceedings.

    www.theresonanceproject.org is the group website

    The basic gist is that he replaces the strong force with gravity, by positing the existence of the schwarzchild proton.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mayer is nutjob. If I had my way all these loser crackpots would be rounded up and dropped off on the moon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Crackpots rule all science subjects in the poor countries. I know a crackpot physicist Dr. Khalid who did his PhD. in Physics from United Kingdom. I asked him which way is north and his thumb was raised towards south.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And yet another cracked-pot, who refutes Einstein's theories among many other things. You should read some of his hair-brained "chapters." I hear he is also an artist - better stick to water colors.

    www.milesmathis.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hmm, are these 'crackpots' spreading propaganda without any truth? Are there no empiric experiments made like in the LHC? I heard about another collider in US, but forgot it's name. :D

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey all SLBers,

    I recently came across yet-another-cracked-pot:

    http://www.electron-particlephysics.org/

    This one is brought to you by F. Howard of "Howard Particle Physics Group," you know sort of like Floyd's Barber Shop in Mayberry. He wants to redefine quantume mechanics! I find it curious that his Equations page says "Page under construction, more coming soon." And of course, Mssr. Howard fails to provide his illustrious CV to prove he qualified. But he did spend some $ place a small ad in MIT's The Tech newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I've also noticed that many crackpots sooner or later begin talking about religion...another tool for our bullshit detectors!

    ReplyDelete
  19. This reads more like a petulant schoolgirl who has had a bad hair day. It is breathtakingly bereft of anything remotely scientific. It is captious, gossipy, small, and craven.

    Given your view of crackpots Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Schrodinger, et al were all crackpots. Any scientist of any note presenting a new theory will be met with initial criticism. Criticisms are fine and the mark of a scientist. Empty cries of crackpottery is the mark of the hack, the intellectually spoonfed. Thank goodness there are still some in the scientific community who base their opinions on the adherence to the laws and principles of science and not on school yard gossip.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Anonymous (wondering why you chose to be unnamed),

    OK, apparently you don't appreciate my sense of humor, but no problem, can't please 'em all. But I'd like to pose a question back to you ... so you don't think there are any physics crackpots in the world who propose half-baked theories that contradict decades of experimental confirmation? Ooops, maybe you're one of the cracked-pots I've exposed and don't like your name up in lights?!? But seriously, I wouldn't include Newton and Einstein and the others in your supposed heretics group because they all had the credentials to make their claims and then coughed up the mathematical foundation or experimental evidence to back-up their theories. In the numerous crackpot cases, these people have neither the academic background to be fiddling with physics nor do they have any experiments to prove their fantasies. This is what science is all about right, the Scientific Method?

    Daniel (petulant schoolgirl!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am an artist and I certainly am not about to defend people with alternative views about how our universe came into existance. However, there seems to be some serious flaws to the theory of the Big Bang for example that the mainstream astronomers refuse to accept. It seems that when the theory bangs up against a problem, rather than saying ....Yikes, maybe we are wrong, the mainstream simply props another crutch under the beast and plods on.
      I can't hold a lot of respect for someone who attacks someone who holds another view, by building a picture of the scale of the man's crack showing. I would much rather that science was used to explain why the other guy is wrong.(one example would do)
      I have no idea who is right. But something tells me that the Big Bang theory is wrong on a huge scale. I believe that it will one day be talked about in the same way we talk about people believing that the earth was flat.
      There are just too many problems. Too many "new" props required on an ongoing basis.
      Example: The requirement for dark matter or dark energy. On another note.... I don;t believe that anyone really understands the idea of space expanding. (Into what?)

      Delete
  21. Of course there are people proposing all types of half-baked crazy theories. Always has been always will be, but their claims can easily be debunked and dismissed. Mr. Crackpot is obviously wrong because here he states A, which clearly violates the law-principle-theorem- of John Doe.
    The term crackpot is a new buzz word, a pejorative used by those who are either intellectually lazy, ignorant of the discipline, or socially weak to discuss the alleged shortcomings of the "crackpot" on a scientific basis. Not how many degrees a person has, or what school they went to, or the color of their shoes, or whether or not they were nice to you while standing in line. And of course you wouldn't call Newton, Einstein, et al, crackpots because you have the benefit of perfect 20/20 hindsight even though some came from the ranks of alchemist and patent clerk.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just because somebody lacks qualifications, it does not mean they cannot come up with revolutionary ideas. Newton was not a fully qualified minter, but when he took charge of the Royal Mint, he added markings around the rim of coins to foil the coin clippers.

    Also I am pretty sure that Galileo was called the 17th century equivalent of a crackpot many times, and Galileo himself said that Kepler’s theory that the moon causes the tides was occult and childishness.

    I would like to nominate a couple of fantasists called Hawking and Kaku, for their work on time travel and string theory, as well as Gell-Mann for the theory of quarks. However it may be that a mainstream physicist is ineligible for the title of crackpot, no matter how ridiculous the nonsense they come up with. Conversely you would probably brand somebody a crackpot, who came up with a theory that contradicts modern physics, even if that theory was correct; in which case I would like to nominate myself.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The problem with most crackpots is that they are intent on overturning theories that they do not fully understand. The rest of the crackpot cohort, while often fully credentialed, cherry pick ideas that taken out of context seem to support the personal agenda they are pushing ("God exists", "I'm smarter than the entire scientific community",...) rather than taking the entire scientific body of knowledge in new directions (I'm looking at you Frank Tipler).

    What distinguishes all crackpots is the lack of precision that invariably manifests at the point where their work deviates from the scientific orthodoxy. This always reminds me of the Sydney J. Harris cartoon with two scientists / mathematicians standing at a chalk board looking at a complex sequence of symbols with one of them pointing to the words "then a miracle occurs" and saying to the other "I think you should be more explicit here in step 2".

    ReplyDelete
  24. I love internet! I just saw this link of "uncommon knowledge" book that said that Einstein's relativity theory is wrong, and while I'm a layman to physics, I had a sudden laugh. Then in just under a minute I googled for its authenticity and dropped on this page reading exactly what I was expecting. Thanks, and its a good thing that you and others point out these people, only sad thing is that their ads appear sometimes on websites that you don't expect wrong information from. This literally is a *physics scam* and should be boycotted.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I stumbled across Al McDowall's web-site on sciencedaily.com, a site I visit regularly for regular updates on scientific progress. He was promoting a book that was probably self financed and not peer-reviewed. Surely, they should be more descriminating.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The String Theory, which is just a Mathematical curiosity or a Math Theorem, has effectively wasted 30 yrs of mental and financial resources, is perhaps the biggest "Pot of wasted Crack" for all who enjoy calling anyone outside of the Physics Flock, a crackpot... Granted someone of these aka Crackpots referred to in this blog may indeed be as smart as your cat however from this "froth" new physics will appear.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey, loved your post.
    I have another science crackpot to introduce. He definitely makes the wildest claims - his invention will, supposedly, cure the world of disease, war, and death. other than that it will also provide free energy. how awesome is that?
    He claims to have invented something called the "Rodin Coil" based on "Vortex Math". Nice.
    His name is Marko Rodin. Look him up.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Of course, I agree that there is a never ending source of (as you name them) "physics crackpots". And you are right to make fun of them in general. Just take into account that Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and many others were also considered "crackpots" at some point in time. There is a saying, something like: an intelligent man can learn even from a fool, while a fool couldn't learn from a thousand geniuses.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Captain Rational: "The problem with most crackpots is that they are intent on overturning theories that they do not fully understand"...
    Please, humor me and name some accepted (non-crackpot) scientist who fully understands the nature of the wave particle duality... From certain points of view, any modern physicist is a crackpot, as long as nobody can fully explain the "WHY"s and the "HOW"s of our universe and as long as many accepted theories are just mathematical constructions made to fit some experiment results.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Interesting blog you have here.

    I came here searching for spheritrons. This "Al McDowell" claims that relativity is wrong and I am interested what he actually tells, likely it is he who is wrong - but not going to waste money on his book.

    ReplyDelete
  31. When told of new "crackpots" who have presented theories alternate to the mainstream, it invariably arises that they were not peer reviewed.

    Small question: Who was available to peer review the Wright Brothers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL Point taken. We cannot determine what we do not yet know by using the past that is known - or currently thought to be known.

      Delete
    2. LOL. Point taken. Those who would "peer review" are peers in holding the previous (and current!) theories as valid - and they are - given what we now know, or better to say what we think or agree to hold as "known".

      Delete
  32. Yet another crackpot has surfaced in a tiny ad appearing in The Tech newspaper at MIT no less. Michelson, Morley beware, this guy wants to resurrect the ether! In his new, self-published book, author Blake Taylor makes bold assertions that stand to delight physics crackpot aficionados. Check out "me-flow: The History of Ether and its Resurrection" at www.yowahbooks.com

    Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm... You seem to forget that not everything is satisfactory in the theories of special relativity and general relativity.

      We have to be reminded that it was the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment that prompted Einstein to propose the two postulates of special relativity. That is, there was no initial theory showing and explaining why the speed of light was the same in any inertial frame of reference. And Einstein's postulates don't really give an explanation either as they are more descriptive than explanatory, that is, Einstein just advanced these postulates based on the failure of an experiment not because he was following a particular theory. So, it is not surprising that some people are not satisfied because they would like to have an explanation rather than just a "that's the way it is folks".

      Also, it is not yet decided if a photon has a mass or not. If it does, things would have to be changed in the theories. For example, general relativity says that the path of light should be bent by a gravitational field not because of a force of attraction but because the gravitational field causes a deformation of space. If photons really don't have mass then it would be a real validation of the general relativity theory because there would be no other explanation for the change of the light path. But if photons do have mass then we are back to square one.

      Another subject of research is about gravitational waves where there is nothing really conclusive.

      Etc, etc, etc.

      So, with all these questions and "mysteries" there is room for a lot of people even for those that you call crackpots... We never know... maybe something interesting can come out from inexpected places :-)

      Delete
  33. Within almost every science, social conventions cement walls towards areas that are "not to be known" or "exist solely of non-real phenomena" or "is the realm of other scienses", etc..

    One should distinguish between intelligent investigators who simply surmount those walls, going against social conventions, and those who simply did not understand that there was a wall in the first place.

    Some of the posts in this trunk show that this distinction is not allways made, since (for example) the simple fact that someone tries to resurrect the ether does not discredit his endeavor in any way. It only shows that the ether is flagged, by social convention, as a no-go area.

    ReplyDelete
  34. New crackpot candidate alert! It seems that many of those out there who want to turn the world of physics upside down with half-baked theories post "paid ads" in The Tech newspaper at MIT. Another such ad appears in the June 13, 2012 issue, page 8 - "Changing Your Mind about Modern Physics and Energy" by Marc E. King. The book is self-published (what a surprise) and available on Amazon. Shockingly there are no reviews written (sarcasm?). Check out: www.ChangingYourMindBook.com for more info. As is par for the course with New Age Physics Gurus, Mssr. King does not appear to have any science credentials. Have fun with this one!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Fellow crackpottery enthusiasts -

    Another fascinating self-professed genius and self-hallowed HyperEyeQ Gift from the Beyond to All of Humanity is Nassim Haramein, revealed to me by an AC installer as we chatted about condensation leakage, duct tape and grand unified theories. The logical progression of topic is self-evident. Feel silly for even noting this; be also aware that I am breathing as I type.

    Looked for Nassim on Wikipedia for a lead to Total Enlightenment, and noticed his page had been deleted. This may be the highest honor a crackpot can hope to achieve? The revered and exotic anti-PhD.

    Are any of the Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting talks on the web? When is the next one? Could organize a Geek Special Olympics around these guys, charge admission... (or is this the whole point, real physicists watching the show via hidden camera around a cooler of beer in another building: PhDs encountering antiPhDs produce a death spiral to mutual annihilation and an EM pulse that knocks out telecommunications worldwide...)

    kevinbootes at hot mail

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops! replying to my own post: just found Nassim made the list on Jan 9 2011. Searched 'Nassim' and nothing came up, so thought I had new info and rushed to the bottom. Shoulda read first!

      Delete
  36. Thanks for being on the look out for physics crackpots. This is the place to find 'em. The 2013 Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting is being held at U.C. Davis, March 29-30. Alas, the brief 15 minute talks are not recorded.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Imagine if Einstein's paradigm shift of physics is proved baseless then all the main-stream physicists are actual crackpots. That is exactly what is done through scientific articles published in peer-reviewed journals wherein Einstein's Theories of Relativity have been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally shown as fundamentally incorrect. Proof follows.
    An open letter to NASA, ESA & CERN.

    The paradigm of physics adopted by NASA, ESA & CERN has been shown to be fundamentally incorrect & baseless through published scientific article "Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' (www.indjst.org; March2012) available at http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/article/view/30369/26297 and consequently openly challenged & the open challenge is available at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and also at http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018.
    Are not you under moral obligation to accept the challenge before proceeding any further with wastage of public money on the name of research?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I recently was contacted by a self-avowed crack pot, Gary Simpson, to see what I thought of his tweak on Einstein's theory of special relativity. He found me through this "crack pot" thread that has gotten quite popular. Here's what he said:

    "I believe in the aether and I believe that a small revision is needed to Special Relativity. I do not claim that Einstein was wronq but rather that SR needs a third frame of reference to eliminate the paradoxes. You seem to enjoy debunking crackpottery, therefore you might enjoy reading the following:"

    http://vixra.org/abs/1302.0054

    Mr. Simpson admits he is not a physicist, but he claims to have a BS and MS in chemical engineering from Texas A&M. OK, reasonable credentials, and more than most physics crack pots. My problem with his paper is it contains very little math and to challenge SR you really need a mathematical foundation. The other issue I have is his paper is posted on vixra.org and NOT arXiv.org. The latter has stringent requirements for posts, but his choice has none.

    What do you all think of his paper and his ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Most of these crackpots are too lazy even to find out the number of experimental tests done and still going on to validate or invalidate the quantum nature of micro-cosmos, SR and GR theories. Just to take General Relativity,there are other theories which do give the same results but they are ugly,complicated and actually predicts nothing new, whereas GR is simple,as for gravitational waves they are indirectly verified from orbiting of binary pulsars. Even string theorist admits that the way they have formulated the theory is far from satisfactory and the unification of the many variants of string theories by Ed.Witten and others gave some confidence level and dignity. One easy way to check out crackpot theories even when supported with pages of equation, is if it says it explains everything. Long back I read a book by F.Tipler who is a scientist of repute, linking computation -quantum-cosmology and Christianity! I did write a thrashing letter for wasting my time reading 100 pages (about 1/5 of that idiotic volume) of it and i was lucky enough to get it from library. Books like that from a person I respect (as a scientist I still do) are harmful,more than all the self published books by crackpots -at least they they are source of humor.
    For people who give examples of original thinkers taken as crackpots by contemporaries please go through the life work of such people, how many people even care to know what Einstein did in other branches of physics before and after his SR and GR. True original correct themselves -crackpots are just unable to so.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I think it is rather naive to say that people are crackpots because they don't accept Einstein. Relativity is correct insomuch that it agrees with observational data only insomuch as we have that data. The belief in the existance of a graviton is by no means the pervue of the mad. I have a question: Were the graviton to exist, if you took a mass and rotated it for who knows what length of time, and an identical mass, and enclosed it within a sphere containing in it's shell numerous rotating sphere/cylinders; what would happen to the masses?

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm wondering why your OP crackpots need to be derided for their physical appearance and presentation media choices. Surely they can be judged on their scientific merits, and lack thereof.

    I wonder for example, is a journalistic crackpot a better dresser? If so, is it because their audience correlates substance with surface (in the same way that all worthy physicists have admirable physiques) or is it because, the message being the medium, substance is optional?

    I appreciated the information and share your enjoyment of goofy theories, but I question your adulthood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth!

      Delete
  43. Views and counter-views, splendid blog.

    First thing to do. "Find out who disagrees with it and why." (Harriet Hall, http://www.csicop.org/si/show/down_the_garden_path_faulty_thinking_and_self-delusion).

    So I saw the book and wanted to order it, but then I applied this little advice, WHEW! I read all posts here and made up my mind about the spheritons book.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What about the Tesla's free energy books by Commander X, and other ETs related phenomena?

    ReplyDelete
  45. The Hyper Fields Theory

    http:://pbahchevanov.com

    Just prepare for my new book at the point of spacetime. Time is an abstract notion arranged for our life needs; indeed what really exists is motion but no time. An physical explanation is impossible being based on abstract notion, every phenomenon has its rational explanation based on physical laws, regardless we know about or not, like or not.
    The Morley & Michelson experiment's result is "Ether does not exist" because we are unable to detect it using any material facility, in past, today and forever.
    Notion physical field is inexplicable without ether, including gravitation.
    End so on.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The Hyper Fields Theory and my site

    http://pbahchevanov.com

    Phenomena have their physical (rational) explanation and nothing could be explained using abstract notions.

    Ether is undetectable by any material facility and this is the reason of the result from the Morley & Michelson experiments.

    Ether is basic substance; without it what is a physical field is inexplicable; photon is a bullet without a mass, gravitation is due abstract spacetime etc.

    ReplyDelete
  47. An interesting paper highlighting a new paradox in special relativity.
    http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0011

    ReplyDelete
  48. Crackpots occasionally advance physics, like Newton for example. Einstein was an upstart and unknown as well, risking being labeled a quack had he not been proven right to an acceptable degree. Einstein argued with himself about aether theory and missed the most important variable of all: void.
    Void distinguishes identity as a relative proportion that includes absent values which results in unique qualities. Void also makes possible interactions and the distribution of quantized forces like light. The evidence is contained in the little-understood concepts of permittivity and permeability traditionally applied to magnetism. They apply to all forces requiring a spacetime quantum value for anything to have range beyond the matter it is otherwise intrinsic to. Phase Theory of Everything explains and proves all of this and much more.
    The reason quacks are so important is that those in the profession are compelled to have marketable results and follow in the norms. The profession is quite useful, but the quacks can look outside the narrow line of view of a specialist. Quacks to be ignored, like McDowell, fail to provide substantial evidence or research beyond a narrow and erroneous viewpoint. In his case and the above comment, as in the case of many accepted systems, there is too much focus on classical mechanical conceptions of how things work. Mechanical conceptions have difficulty with intrinsic fields and no understanding of extrinsic or otherwise quantized fields.
    Phase Theory works because it was developed out of mathematics and algorithms to find relationships between known working systems without expectation of outcomes. It had one basic requirement: it could not disagree with any actual observation. After three decades of work, it eventually bore fruit. That would not be possible had I a different academic position. My proof is not just limited to mathematical logic giving a theoretical string theory. It is a solution that gives accurate results. Honestly speaking, any serious scientist is to some degree a quack until they are recognized as being right. Nature's rules are not convenient to us. We need quacks to test the boundaries.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for choosing to leave a comment for the Physics Groupie. Much appreciated!