Comments on: A Brief Field Guide to Scientific Crackpots http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/ The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:44:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Body&soul http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-2513 Tue, 04 Nov 2008 03:15:09 +0000 http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-2513 I am presenting the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d. Do you think Einstein was a smart crackpot?

FORMULA >>STATEMENT
W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation
F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation
W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2
W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units
W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents
W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B
W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining
W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying
W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V
W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass
E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

So for the genuine thinkers: Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)?

]]> By: Cranks: A Brief Field Guide (Part 2) -- a Nadder! http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-1454 Fri, 23 May 2008 02:38:13 +0000 http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-1454 [...] cranks. What do they have in common? Is there some kind of essense de crankdom? There are great lists and whole blogs, I think things can be distilled into 2 areas covering virtually all [...]

]]> By: skullsinthestars http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-520 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:36:28 +0000 http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-520 PD: And that argument is still going on, I believe…

]]> By: Personal Demon http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-515 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 18:04:12 +0000 http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-515 Skulls in the Stars wrote: “I’ve been privy to at least three big arguments amongst colleagues that arose, it turns out, because they were using the same words and phrases to talk about subtly different things.”

Yes, indeed you have. Who would have thought that a word like “polarization” could be so… er… polarizing in the scientific community. :-D

]]> By: skullsinthestars http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-509 Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:56:26 +0000 http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-509 Blake: You’re absolutely right; that’s one I’ll have to add to the list. “Crackpottery” seems to have, as a symptom or a cause, an incredible ego associated with it. There’s typically a complete disdain for the credentials of others, combined with a hyping of any they might have.

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-496 Sun, 06 Jan 2008 15:57:30 +0000 http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/01/04/a-brief-field-guide-to-scientific-crackpots/#comment-496 Related to #3 and #4:

I’ve noticed that crackpots often have an obsession with credentials. I think it comes from being “rejected by the Establishment” and therefore hating the whole scientific community, while at the same time coveting the mojo you get from being accepted by that community. Cranks will go a long way to find the identity of an anonymous debunker, for example.

]]>