VERY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS - ABIAN's Comments
Alexander Abian
Some people's answer to the question
" WHY IT DOES " is " BECAUSE IT DOES "
Some people's answer to the question
" HOW IT DOES " is " THE WAY IT DOES "
and some people REASON and EXPLAIN !
TIME HAS INERTIA
E = mcc (Einstein) E = m(0) exp (-At) (Abian)
THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ... (Darwin) THE FUTURE OF SPECIES ... (Abian)
Alexander ABIAN
Jason D Corley
>
>
> " WHY IT DOES " is " BECAUSE IT DOES "
>
>
>
> E = mcc (Einstein) E = m(0) exp (-At) (Abian)
> THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ... (Darwin) THE FUTURE OF SPECIES ... (Abian)
> Alexander ABIAN
But Mr. ABIAN, sir, um, I think, just from reading the
objections to your, um, your theory, that the question people
are asking is not "WHY IT DOES", which, well, isn't really a
question anyway, I think you meant "WHY DOES IT", which isn't
much better or clearer, well, um, where was I, oh yeah, the
question people are asking is not "WHY DOES IT?", but
"Why doesn't it?"
For instance, "If your theory is true, Why Doesn't It explain
the different sizes of reactions with similar, or even identical
substances?", or, "If your theory is true, Why Doesn't It have
any substantative mathematics or falsifiable/"truth"ifiable statements
to test?", or generally dozens of other, "If your theory is true,
Why Doesn't It, [fill in blank here]?"
Just wanted to point that out. Sir.
(A crackpot index question: if you're quoting someone else's
all-caps words, does it count towards your score?)
Jason
Ono-Sendai R&D
Alan A. Farmer
the very least I'm impressed with his consistent calmness in the face of
repeated rejection.
On the subject of The Principle of Maintaining the Status Quo (unless
something happens that changes the status quo), well, isn't it about the
same thing to say "causes have effects"? That's a mostly true statement,
at least in the world of day-to-day nonrelativistic macroscopic life.
My problem is with the way Dr. Abian applies the principle, with talk
of inanimate objects becoming annoyed with each other. As others have
pointed out, you might as well say that the piece of fur derives pleasure
from being rubbed and produces heat to reward the finger. I'd like to
see a prediction about some physical situation in which the outcome
is unknown to us Orthodox Physicists, rather than just applying human-
like motives to objects in a known situation.
As for the proposal that we change the axial tilt of the earth in
order to reduce disease and earthquakes and such, I'm just wondering
by how many degrees we should change it...
John C. Baez
>(A crackpot index question: if you're quoting someone else's
>all-caps words, does it count towards your score?)
> Jason
> Ono-Sendai R&D
John C. Baez
(excluding the joke posts). -5 starting credit, two statements
widely agreed on to be false (the law of nonconservation of energy and
claim that time is heavy) for 2 points, 35 capitalized words (including
subject line and keywords - I'm getting less forgiving) for 175 points,
10 points for self-comparison with Einstein and 10 more for Darwin. I
guess this makes 192 points. By the way, I am using my current indexing
scheme, slightly improved from previous versions, I believe (see below).
The computerized system seems far too crude at present. I am not saying
this just because Hannu beat me, either. One simply needs semantic
criteria to establish who is a crackpot reliably.
0) A -5 point starting credit.
1) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
3) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
4) 40 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
gives no concrete testable predictions.
5) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
6) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
7) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Darwin,
or claim that the notion of evolution of species is
fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
8) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
8) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
9) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
11) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
with defective keyboards).
12) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
were fact.
13) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved
fame, or suchlike.
14) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
was evidence of sanity.
15) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
16) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to ones past theories.
Bronis Vidugiris
)0) A -5 point starting credit.
)1) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
)2) 2 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
)3) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
)correction.
)4) 40 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
)gives no concrete testable predictions.
)5) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
)claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
)(without good evidence).
)6) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
)misguided (without good evidence).
)7) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Darwin,
)or claim that the notion of evolution of species is
)fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
)8) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton
)claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
)evidence).
)8) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
)claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
)9) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
)11) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
)with defective keyboards).
)12) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they
)were fact.
)13) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
)engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its well-deserved
)fame, or suchlike.
)14) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
)was evidence of sanity.
)15) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
)of a widely accepted real experiment.
)16) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
)ridicule accorded to ones past theories.
I HAVE COME ACROSS A REVOLUTIONARY PROOF OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
IF 2+2=5, I AM ALBERT EINSTEIN
PROOF:
2+2=5. BUT 2+2=4. THERFORE, 4=5. THERFORE 1=2.
NOW ME AND EINSTEIN ARE TWO. BUT 2=1. THERFORE ME AND EINSTEIN ARE ONE.
THERFORE I AM ALBERT EINSTEIN
QED. (THE MATHEMATICAL QED, NOT THE SILLY QM ONE!!!!)
I'M SURE I'LL BE PERSECUTED FOR THIS RADICAL PROOF, JUST LIKE GALILEO WAS.
I HAVE A FEAR THAT PERHAPS DR. BAEZ WILL REALIZE THAT THIS PROOF IS
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT MATHEMATICALLY, HOWEVER.
BTW - EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A BS DEGREE, I MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE INSPIRATION
OF LEWIS CARROLL (NOT HIS REAL NAME) FOR THE BASIS OF THIS PROOF. I'M SURE
LEWIS CARROL DIDN'T PUBLISH THIS UNDER HIS REAL NAME BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT
TO FACE THE SCIENTIFIC INQUISITION!
SO, HOW MANY POINTS DO I GET FOR THIS?
Jarle Brinchmann
In article <1992Oct20.0...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
|>Newsgroups: sci.physics
|>From: b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
|>Subject: CRACKPOT INDEX<Greatest achievment of modern science deleted :-)>
|>PROOF:
|>
|>2+2=5. BUT 2+2=4. THERFORE, 4=5. THERFORE 1=2.
|>
|>NOW ME AND EINSTEIN ARE TWO. BUT 2=1. THERFORE ME AND EINSTEIN ARE ONE.
|>
|>THERFORE I AM ALBERT EINSTEIN
|>
|>QED. (THE MATHEMATICAL QED, NOT THE SILLY QM ONE!!!!)
|>
|>I'M SURE I'LL BE PERSECUTED FOR THIS RADICAL PROOF, JUST LIKE GALILEO WAS.
|>I HAVE A FEAR THAT PERHAPS DR. BAEZ WILL REALIZE THAT THIS PROOF IS
|>ABSOLUTELY CORRECT MATHEMATICALLY, HOWEVER.
|>
|>BTW - EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A BS DEGREE, I MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE INSPIRATION
|>OF LEWIS CARROLL (NOT HIS REAL NAME) FOR THE BASIS OF THIS PROOF. I'M SURE
|>LEWIS CARROL DIDN'T PUBLISH THIS UNDER HIS REAL NAME BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT
|>TO FACE THE SCIENTIFIC INQUISITION!
|>
|>SO, HOW MANY POINTS DO I GET FOR THIS?
|>
|>
I believe he deservers -500 for making fun of the crackpot index. And
another -500 for theft. This argument is usually said to be a story about
the good old Bertrand Russel (sp?).
By the way(i don't dare using short cuts in fear of the Index) QED is _not_
Quantum Electrodynamics, It's not quad erat demonstrandum (sp?) It's
plain and simply
QED=Quite Easily Done (which is also stolen or borrowed.)
Anyway, I stopped reading rec.humor because of the lack of humor, now
sci.physics is much more entertaining, I hope it doesn't last. Who said
science was funny ?
Jarle.
--
---------------------------------------
Internet: jar...@medusa.uio.no
or Jarle.Br...@astro.uio.no
---------------------------------------
John C. Baez
>I HAVE COME ACROSS A REVOLUTIONARY PROOF OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT
>IF 2+2=5, I AM ALBERT EINSTEIN
>
>
>PROOF:
>
>2+2=5. BUT 2+2=4. THERFORE, 4=5. THERFORE 1=2.
>
>NOW ME AND EINSTEIN ARE TWO. BUT 2=1. THERFORE ME AND EINSTEIN ARE ONE.
>
>THERFORE I AM ALBERT EINSTEIN
>
>QED. (THE MATHEMATICAL QED, NOT THE SILLY QM ONE!!!!)
>
>I'M SURE I'LL BE PERSECUTED FOR THIS RADICAL PROOF, JUST LIKE GALILEO WAS.
>I HAVE A FEAR THAT PERHAPS DR. BAEZ WILL REALIZE THAT THIS PROOF IS
>ABSOLUTELY CORRECT MATHEMATICALLY, HOWEVER.
>
>BTW - EVEN THOUGH I HAVE A BS DEGREE, I MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE INSPIRATION
>OF LEWIS CARROLL (NOT HIS REAL NAME) FOR THE BASIS OF THIS PROOF. I'M SURE
>LEWIS CARROL DIDN'T PUBLISH THIS UNDER HIS REAL NAME BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT
>TO FACE THE SCIENTIFIC INQUISITION!
>
>SO, HOW MANY POINTS DO I GET FOR THIS?
None. First of all, 2+2 = 4, and you're no Einstein. :-) Second, a real
crackpot wouldn't have needed to refer to the chart. Third, I believe
your proof is stolen from Bertrand Russell, not Lewis Carroll. (I would
like to be corrected on that if you can find a reference in Carroll, but
as far as I know go Bertrand Russell was challenged to show something
like "if 2+2 = 5, I am the pope" without explicitly invoking the
principle that a contradiction implies everything.)