New improved crackpot index
john baez
the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
Here it is:
THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially
revolutionary contributions to physics.
1) A -5 point starting credit.
2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
with defective keyboards).
8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
10) 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
11) 10 points by beginning the description of your theory by saying
how long you've been working on it.
12) 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know
personally, but asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for
fear that your ideas will be stolen.
13) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
14) 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
15) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if
they were fact.
16) 20 points for defending oneself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to ones past theories.
17) 30 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
18) 30 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender
of the orthodoxy".
20) 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved
in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman
was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading
between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
21) 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
22) 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an
extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
23) 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to
Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
24) 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its
well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
25) 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more
points for planning to hold show trials in which scientists who mocked
your theories will be forced to recant.)
26) 50 points for claiming your has a revolutionary theory but
giving no concrete testable predictions.
John Baez
copyright 1998
soon to be available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Bill Rowe
Borsche) wrote:
>-1) 22.5 points for padding yourself on the shoulder publically
^^^^^^^
>(... the *famous* CI ...)
>
>
>.. and another 2.5 points for bad grammar
In scoring things, does the part I underlined count as bad grammar or poor
spelling? :)
--
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
Lorenz Borsche
>I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
>the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
>Here it is:
>
[well known points trimmed]
-1) 22.5 points for padding yourself on the shoulder publically
(... the *famous* CI ...)
>26) 50 points for claiming your has a revolutionary theory but
>giving no concrete testable predictions.
.. and another 2.5 points for bad grammar
BTW: More qunatity is not the same as more quality - but whom do I
tell ;-)
Cheers
Lorenz Borsche http://members.aol.com/LBsys5
Want to eMail? Well, my provider definitely is OKAY!
-----------------------------------------------------
All professions are conspiracies against laymen (GBS)
ale2
ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
> 26) 50 points for claiming your has a revolutionary theory but
> giving no concrete testable predictions.
How many points for each typo?
%^)
Can one get negative crackpot points as well?
P. Suppes
> .. and another 2.5 points for bad grammar
>
...bad speling - perhaps 2 point? I agree that qunatity is not the same
as more quality, but it also differs from quantity :)
Phil
--------------
Got your own Fundamental Theory? Evaluate it with online therapeutic
tools:
CI: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
SRK: http://www2.netcom.com/~trifonov/stress_reduction_kit.html
P. Suppes
> ...bad speling - perhaps 2 point?
>
Nathan Urban
> I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
> the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
Hopefully you've been spending your summer doing other things too.. :)
> THE CRACKPOT INDEX
> A simple method for rating potentially
> revolutionary contributions to physics.
How many points for signing each message with a URL to your own personal
theory, or for offering prize money to anyone who helps you disprove
and/or vindicate your theory, or claiming that current views are "'only'
a theory, hence [somehow] suspect" or "a useful mathematical model,
but don't explain 'why' phenomena occur"? How many points for quoting
scientists out of context, or quoting old alternative theories (not
mentioning they've been disproven decades ago), in order to make it look
as if there is a huge controversy among scientists about the current
theories, thus making the correctness of your theory more plausible?
How many points for each "complete" statement of the theory which includes
no equations (I guess that might fall under the last 50-pointer)? Or for
each comparison of modern scientific theories to religion? And as an
accompaniment to "10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school,
as if this were evidence of sanity.", how about "10 points for pointing
out that you have _not_ gone to school, to demonstrate your 'untainted'
nature."? And for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
math, but my model is conceptually right, so I'd like some scientist
to come along and work out the corresponding field equations for me"
(presumably so other scientists will pay attention to it, even though
it's of course right even without the equations). How many points for
each new term you coin, or for each commonly-accepted term you redefine
(with bonus points if you redefine it _without telling anyone_)?
jmfb...@aol.com
>23) 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to
>Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
<snip>
Errmmm....What's a brownshirt?
/BAH
Sigh! - Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Owen M. Astley
>I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
>the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
[snip index scoring system]
Is anybody going to implement this in a kill-file friendly way?
Owen
Monk Jack
(c) Monk Jack 1998
In response to numerous requests I am posting this now, although
unfinished I think that this work must be presented before the millenium
closes and global communication becomes an impossibility. I will not
present my unfinished revolutionary ERM theory in this my first posting
as I feel that I could not and would not serve 7 years of work justice in
a few lines of text.
It is difficult when writing this to be able to express myself in a
manner intelligible to the vulgar. Few have mastered this technique;
Hawking, Feynman and Eddington, and although it is my intent to remain
concise and clear, it may be that YOU, my profane companions, will be
left behind in my attack on modern physics unless you are willing to
approach with open mind as I attempt to excise you of your
misconceptions.
Dirac (with his bra and ket notation) was laughing in the face of all
modern scientists. He was obsessed with mathematics and knew the POWER of
convincingly deriving an equation and then being able to interpret it by
'fitting' it to a measurable real phenomena. "Physical laws should have
mathematical beauty" - Dirac
This method is FLAWED and fundamentally wrong and yet we as scientists
ignore these facts. Science seems created by an act of wilful
abstraction; a determination to ignore most of these facts.
Dirac simply GUESSED at the form of an equation, the equation we now call
the Dirac equation, and interpreted it afterwards. Quantum mechanics is
based on this initial GUESS EQUATION which Dirac himself knew was
fundamentally wrong. No one was more surprised than he, when in 1983 CERN
produced a positron, echoing his false prediction ( but the energy
required was 100 000 times less).
Feynman, the most gullable of todays physicists, became Dirac's puppet
and with clear style and unmeasurable flare has done more than anyone
else in evolving Dirac's flawed RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM THEORY into a
general and powerful method of making physical predictions about the
interactions of particles and radiation.
The beautiful mathematics of the Dirac GUESS EQUATION require the
existence of wave functions corresponding to negative energies. This
physical error was GOT AROUND by Dirac, by GUESSING that all the
'negative energy' states were filled and thus 'would not be observable' -
magic!
The most definite presuppostion of my argument is that difficulties, like
the entities of Ockham, should not be multiplied beyond what is
necessary.
But that is precisely what has happened.
Somebody guessed. Something fitted the guess. (Nearly). The guess was
fudged a bit. And a bit more. Others based their work on work above the
guess, etc. THE FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN PHYSICS ARE ROTTEN.
My model, the EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS is based on
evidential fact, and fits the mathematics to the physical world. The ERM
has been shunned by former COLLEAGUES and scientists world wide - because
they feel that when the ERM is accepted - as it must - QM will be exposed
and the brownshirts who have conspired against all will be forced to
publicly disclose the secret falsehoods many have been hiding for years.
It will be shown that interstellar hyperdrives have been physcial reality
on this planet for over 40 years, a fact supported by Einstein in his
later work. It is likely that alien beings more advanced than ourselves
will have known about ERM since the implications are so universal that
any denial of hidebound reactionary mechanisms would be as misguided as
the laws of Newton.
I, like Einstein, am facing an unfriendly, ridiculing world. Minds have
become closed because so many peoples livelihoods depend on work that is
built on UNSOUND foundation.
But there are those of you with open minds. Bright, inquistive new
students of physics. As a self appointed defender of the orthodoxy I
appeal to you to think, by all means listen to the ramblings of your
lecturer, read the misguided evidence but think about the short comings
of what is being told to you. You are able to counteract the continual
decline of true learning, and help present the students of the future
with true insight and understanding of our physical world.
Who knows, maybe you will be present when I receive my Nobel prize.
It is now the destiny of quantum mechanics itself to become a treasured
curiosity in the museum of bygone ideas.
--
How did I do? ;)
Monk Jack
---------
mailto:Monk...@biosys.net
Nathan Urban
> THE DIRAC GUESS AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
> (c) Monk Jack 1998
> [...]
> How did I do? ;)
<shudder> That was remarkably realistic. :)
Matthew Nobes
>
[gospel truth snipped]
>
> How did I do? ;)
ROTFLMAO
That was beautiful :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Charm is a way of getting the answer yes without |Matthew Nobes
having asked a clear question." |c/o Theory Group
Albert Camus |TRIUMF
|4004 Wesbrook Mall
my really crappy website |Vancover, B.C.
www.geocities.com/CollegePark/campus/1098 |Canada, V6T 2A3
Tom Potter
>I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
>the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
>Here it is:
>
>
> A simple method for rating potentially
> revolutionary contributions to physics.
I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
One would think that a respected member of the
educational establishment would have better things to do
with their time.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
kva...@my-dejanews.com
> <snip>
>
> Errmmm....What's a brownshirt?
>
cheers,
kvah
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Max Caspar
let's evaluate the crackpot index of the Crackpot Index. No doubt
this has been done before, but it doesn't hurt to have an independent
check. I see 200 points here. Check me on this: Per Item 1 we begin
with -5 points, but right off the bat we find
> I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
> the famous "crackpot index"...
>
> 10 points by beginning the description of your theory by saying
> how long you've been working on it.
so we get +10 points, bringing the total to +5.
> THE CRACKPOT INDEX...
>
> 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
> with defective keyboards).
Since no exception was noted for titles, and assuming the author's
keyboard is not defective, those three capped words represent +15
points, bringing us to +20.
> soon to be available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
>
> 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this
> were evidence of sanity.
This one is debatable, because the Index doesn't specify what
constitutes "pointing out", nor is it clear whether the clause
"as if...sanity" is just an explanation or intended to specify a
particular kind of "pointing out". However, the comma seems to
rule out the latter interpretation, so as it stands I think we
must assume the former, and award the 10 points for directing our
attention to a web page at an .edu domain. This brings the total
to +30.
> 30 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
> 30 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender
> of the orthodoxy".
Gosh, I hate to do this, but in the absence of any qualifier on the
"use" to which these phrases are put (such as excluding the use within
quotation marks), my hands are tied. I have no choice but to award 60
points here, bringing the total to +90. Ouch.
> 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved
> in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman
> was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading
> between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
This is skating on very thin ice, self-referentially speaking. The
Index is clearly suggesting that a public figure (Feynman) disbelieved
something (anti-relativity) which he evidently can be deduced to have
publicly supported (by reading between the lines of his published
textbooks). Since we are provided with no alternative to subjective
definitions of "public support", the Index seems to be convicted out
of its own mouth, giving us no choice but to award 30 points, bringing
the total to +120.
> 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was
> groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
If it was up to me, I'd let this slide, but the clear suggestion
here is that Einstein was *not* groping towards the crackpot ideas
in question. Unfortunately, such lack of support is itself an idea
which the Index could be seen as attributing to Einstein in his
later years, thereby raising its CI to 150. (Admittedly this one
is debatable, since it might be argued that the item makes no
reference to the accuracy of the "suggestion" in question, but I
think that would be a bit disingenuous.)
> 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but
> giving no concrete testable predictions.
Hmmm... Since this is the final and most-heavily weighted item,
we have to give it careful consideration. Is the application
of this criterion limited to cases in which the specific words
"I hereby present a revolutionary theory" happen to be used (as
opposed to, say, "Behold a stupendous and monumental achievement"
or "I bestride the world of physics like a colossus"), or are we
allowed to apply this criterion of untestability more liberally
to any "theory" (or "index") that the author felt was important
enough to present to us? Assuming the latter, and noting that
the Crackpot Index makes no concrete testable predictions, it
thereby earns 50 more points, raising the grand total to +200.
Unfortunately we can't compare this with the maximum possible
score, because some of the items on the Index stipulate points
for each occurrence of some particular thing (such as capitalized
words), so there is no definite upper bound on the achievable
crackpot index (as proven daily in this newsgroup).
John Griffin
>I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
>the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
>Here it is:
>...
>11) 10 points by beginning the description of your theory by saying
>how long you've been working on it.
>...
Good one. Sometimes I love sublety.
Monk Jack
(c) Monk Jack 1998
It seems that todays scientists are keen to continue to ignore
EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS.
My theory of seven, YES SEVEN YEARS - started as an idea at University
when I, like all educated by the establishment, rejected the brain
washing of my tutors and actually THOUGHT about the HOGWASH i was being
spoon FED.
But I ask you, can QM with its self-mocking UP, DOWN, CHARM and
STRANGENESS unravel the mysteries of why one thing is a cabbage; another
a stone; why water is wet and quenches fire; why anything is what it is,
it is not for QM to decide.
Quantum Mechanics on its FIRM foundation of a MATHEMATICIANS GUESS
teaters now like the dying Kong on NYC phallus of the establishment.
With my revolutionary ERM (as revolutionary as those of Einstein), I as a
Self Appointed Defender of the Orthodoxy (SADO) will set loose those
bound by closed minds and PARROT THOUGHT.
The commonsensical ERM, is simplicity itself. Like a straight line it is
clear and straight, resembling, if not all roads, at least the roads of
the Romans.
The complexity of the falsehoods of Quantum Mechanins, schemes
classyfying the jumble of hadrons, supermultiplets, the aptly named Lie
groups and idiocy of fractional baryon numbers must all fall beneath the
blade of Ockham.
I have no DOUBT that James Joyce is smouldering at the conceited smile of
Murray Gell-Mann, not least because of the blatant mockery of the common
mispronunciation.
If only the Buddha knew how his words became employed.
"Now this, O monks, is the noble truth of the way that leads to the
cessation of pain; this is the noble EIGHTFOLD WAY: namely, right views,
right intention, right speech, right action, right living, right effort,
right mindfulness, right concentration." - Buddha
A far cry from the weight diagrams and hypercharge plots.
Suppose we take a stone and hurl this STONE skyward. None of us would
marvel as the projectile returns down its original path to its preferred
place of rest. And yet THIS REACTION is forgotten as we lose our
saturated MINDS in the NOVELTY OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES. We deny the
progression to the hidebound reactionary as though a lit candle were
inviting a virgin to the bosom of knowledge.
NATURE is not based upon the flipping of coins and cats in boxes, nor the
false laws of CONSERVATION.
Mathematics and physics may only gather many fragments of perceived
knowledge for the instruction and use of mankind. And when foolish
GUESSES appear to bring us close to the heart of the mystery, the
resemblance between science and nonsense becomes COMPLETE.
--
Just some bits I missed off the first post.
27) 40 points for replying to your own message ;)
28) 10 points for a response from Uncle Al.
29) 20 points for a response from Mati Meron.
30) 30 points for a response from Jim Carr.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>john baez wrote in message <6s22qv$in9$1...@pravda.ucr.edu>...
>>the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
>>Here it is:
>>
>>
>> A simple method for rating potentially
>> revolutionary contributions to physics.
>
>I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
>in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
>limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
>and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
humor in that post.
>
>One would think that a respected member of the
>educational establishment would have better things to do
>with their time.
Let the guy have some fun. It's required for great leaps
forward and all that.
jmfb...@aol.com
kva...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Errmmm....What's a brownshirt?
>>
>IIRC, one of Mussolini's WWII thugs...
I hadn't heard that. I finally figured out in one of my dream
states that it could be somebody who used their sleeve to
wipe their nose.
C. Hillman
On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > john baez wrote in message <6s22qv$in9$1...@pravda.ucr.edu>...
> >
> > > I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
> > > the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
> >
> > I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
> > in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
> > limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
> > and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
>
> Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
> humor in that post.
Now I'm wondering what Tom Potter's crackpot index would be ;-)
> > One would think that a respected member of the
> > educational establishment would have better things to do
> > with their time.
>
> Let the guy have some fun.
John Baez once wrote a spoof crackpot posting in which he deliberately
increased his own crackpot index by some huge amount :-)
Of course, the point is that intelligent, sane people can (rather easily)
mimic crackpots but not vice versa.
Chris Hillman
Please DO NOT email me at opti...@u.washington.edu. I post from this account
to fool the spambots; human correspondents should write to me at the email
address you can obtain by making the obvious deletions, transpositions,
and insertion (of @) in the url of my home page:
http://www.math.washington.edu/~hillman/personal.html
Thanks!
Peter Diehr
Monk Jack wrote in message <35E69D...@biosys.net>...
>A PRIMER TO EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS
> (c) Monk Jack 1998
>
<... essay snipped ...>
>Just some bits I missed off the first post.
>
>27) 40 points for replying to your own message ;)
>28) 10 points for a response from Uncle Al.
>29) 20 points for a response from Mati Meron.
>30) 30 points for a response from Jim Carr.
>
And you can get at least 50 points more for an eponymous news group! ;-)
Best Regards, Peter
Nathan Urban
> In article <6s4lbp$8h7$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
> >in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
> >limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
> >and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
> Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
> humor in that post.
Let me translate Tom's statement for you: "I got a really high score
on the crackpot index, and it's embarrassing to have my posting style
so transparently summarized."
Uncle Al
>
> A PRIMER TO EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS
> (c) Monk Jack 1998
>
> EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS.
> My theory of seven, YES SEVEN YEARS - started as an idea at University
> when I, like all educated by the establishment, rejected the brain
> washing of my tutors and actually THOUGHT about the HOGWASH i was being
> spoon FED.
[snip]
> With my revolutionary ERM (as revolutionary as those of Einstein), I as a
> Self Appointed Defender of the Orthodoxy (SADO) will set loose those
> bound by closed minds and PARROT THOUGHT.
[snip]
Post this in 2048 and it will be YES, FORTY SEVEN YEARS and you can
threaten not only Newton, Einstein, and quantum mechanics ... but also
Heinz.
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
Uncl...@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://uncleal.within.net/
http://pw2.netcom.com/~uncleal0/uncleal.htm
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
jmfb...@aol.com
Oh, I see. Thanks for the translation. I am also unable to make
any sense out of People magazine, too. But, then, I once asked
what a particular issue meant, and nobody would tell me.
/BAH - I've always wondered if these caps count on the crank index?
jmfb...@aol.com
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98082...@dante13.u.washington.edu>,
"C. Hillman" <opti...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>John Baez once wrote a spoof crackpot posting in which he deliberately
>increased his own crackpot index by some huge amount :-)
<snip>
Now that must have been a hoot.
/BAH
mah...@gte.net
nur...@vt.edu wrote:
> In article <6s22qv$in9$1...@pravda.ucr.edu>, ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (john baez)
wrote:
>
> > the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
>
>
> > A simple method for rating potentially
> > revolutionary contributions to physics.
>
> theory, or for offering prize money to anyone who helps you disprove
> and/or vindicate your theory, or claiming that current views are "'only'
> a theory, hence [somehow] suspect" or "a useful mathematical model,
> but don't explain 'why' phenomena occur"? How many points for quoting
> scientists out of context, or quoting old alternative theories (not
> mentioning they've been disproven decades ago), in order to make it look
> as if there is a huge controversy among scientists about the current
> theories, thus making the correctness of your theory more plausible?
> How many points for each "complete" statement of the theory which includes
> no equations (I guess that might fall under the last 50-pointer)? Or for
> each comparison of modern scientific theories to religion? And as an
> accompaniment to "10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school,
> as if this were evidence of sanity.", how about "10 points for pointing
> out that you have _not_ gone to school, to demonstrate your 'untainted'
> nature."? And for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at
> math, but my model is conceptually right, so I'd like some scientist
> to come along and work out the corresponding field equations for me"
> (presumably so other scientists will pay attention to it, even though
> it's of course right even without the equations). How many points for
> each new term you coin, or for each commonly-accepted term you redefine
> (with bonus points if you redefine it _without telling anyone_)?
This CPIndex is a strongly divergent measure. With no max upper supremum
bound.
There's also no ever going back -- one can't unearn antiCPIndex points.
There's no redemption for past actions. Once posted, forever identified.
One thing's cute though, you have to use Usenet to even qualify to be rated by
the CPI. Of course, nobody is or ought to be immune.
How about 42 points for professors/professionals who act as if they've never
heard of or read Usenet? How about 80 points for those who do or don't hold
the (in)ability to use email/Internet as a sign of (in)competency?
How about ... inf/2 points for not or _for_ taking the CPI seriously?
How about 3 points for insisting Usenet never accomplishes anything
productive other than giving Cranks freedom to post. Imagine the Cranks if
they could only rely on paper distributions, mail, and how far they could
walk to bug people by throwing their ideas upon them?
13 points for claiming "I am not above or below resorting to using the Usenet"
768 points for wondering if Search Engine Providers keep records of the
keywords you use when searching/surfing the Internet/Usenet/DejaNews.
Technology makes *stuff* possible -- don't deny yourself the knowledge.
100 points for belittling yourself in the presence of alleged (or otherwise)
greater minds that inhabit Usenet. BrownNosing stinks worse than CrackPottery.
Hi Dr. John Baez! I've missed *you* so...o much. Finally you've returned! :-)
Mahipal "Can't alter the Past -- in Practice, not Theory" Virdy
/ == \ / \/\/ The |meforce> Paradox
\/ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/
Tom Potter
>In article <6s6773$dlv$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <6s4lbp$8h7$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
>> >in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
>> >limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
>> >and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
>
>> Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
>> humor in that post.
>
>Let me translate Tom's statement for you: "I got a really high score
>on the crackpot index, and it's embarrassing to have my posting style
>so transparently summarized."
As I pointed out,
this odious index creates conflict and noise level
and provides immature people an excuse to
try to build up their egos by putting down other folks.
1. I challenge the poster to look over my posts
and grade me.
2. And I challenge the poster to maturely and intelligently
explain what the score that I ( Or anyone ) might get really means.
3. And I challenge the poster to mature and rationally
analyze what affect this odious index has on the news groups.
I might point out that although I would be embarrassed to
post and promote an index whose purpose is to inhibit
free discourse and give immature people an excuse to
insult others, and I would be embarrassed to use such
an index to insult others, that I am never embarrassed
when I ask stupid questions, or make assertions that
correlate less than 100% with global, objective reality.
I might also ask, who in these newsgroups,
or in the world, has a lock on global reality?
Should all people blindly follow the Pope, Billy Clinton,
the Wall Street Journal, the physics establishment, etc,
and never question the established order?
This might be good for religions, governments and Neanderthals,
but it does not provide for civil discourse and progress.
And to sum up,
I see no humor in trying to build up one's ego by
creating noise level and hostility in the newsgroups.
Far better forms of humor are available to
Intelligent, mature, moral folks.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
Tom Potter
>
>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > john baez wrote in message <6s22qv$in9$1...@pravda.ucr.edu>...
>> >
>> > > the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
>> >
>> > in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
>> > limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
>> > and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
>>
>> Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
>> humor in that post.
>
As I pointed out,
this odius index provides immature people
with an excuse to try to build up their egos
by putting down other folks.
>> > One would think that a respected member of the
>> > educational establishment would have better things to do
>> > with their time.
>>
>> Let the guy have some fun.
I think what the poster is trying to say
is let the KKK have some fun burning their crosses.
Of course, it's a matter of degree,
but there are better ways to have fun than
creating hostility, division and noise.
>John Baez once wrote a spoof crackpot posting in which he deliberately
>increased his own crackpot index by some huge amount :-)
Apparently what the poster is saying is that if one
takes small swipe at one's self, or apolgizes
like a Bill Clinton, that it is okay to do negative things.
>Of course, the point is that intelligent, sane people can (rather easily)
>mimic crackpots but not vice versa.
What the poster is trying to say is that establishments
have locks on global reality, and that the hierarchies
in religion, government, business, science, etc.
have no need for input for folks outside the hierarchy.
Also, he makes the point that unless a person
understands a whole subject, that any input
he can provide is useless.
The poster also makes the point
that if a person cannot communicate a point
in a language other than his own,
that the point has no validity outside his own culture.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
C. Hillman
john baez reported:
> >> > > I've been spending the summer developing a new, expanded version of
> >> > > the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available research.
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> complained:
> >> > I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
> >> > in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
> >> > limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
> >> > and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
jmfb...@aol.com protested:
> >> Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
> >> humor in that post.
I wondered:
> >Now I'm wondering what Tom Potter's crackpot index would be ;-)
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> replied:
> As I pointed out, this odius index provides immature people with an
> excuse to try to build up their egos by putting down other folks.
That's not it at all, I see the crackpot index as a humorous commentary on
the amazing disparity of intellectual competency and knowledge of physics
which is evident on this newsgroup. As I said in another thread on
sci.physics.relativity recently, there is a small number of people who
actually know a great deal of physics (Baez is a leading member of this
group), who have well-informed, intelligible and interesting insights to
share, and at the other extreme there are large number of people who have
nothing useful to contribute, but insist on mouthing off anyway. I
pointed out that the weird thing is that there is very little middle
ground, and speculated that most sane laypeople who happen across this
newsgroup conclude they have nothing much to contribute, so they go
elsewhere. The cranks stay because they are evidently compelled by some
strange psychopathogy to talk despite having absolutely nothing
intelligent to say.
> I think what the poster is trying to say is let the KKK have some fun
^^^^^^^^^^
Who? jmfbah?
> burning their crosses. Of course, it's a matter of degree, but there
> are better ways to have fun than creating hostility, division and noise.
I have to say that anyone who compares the crackpot index to cross burning
isn't demonstrating a high level of intellectual functioning or a very
accurate sense of social justice. Let's keep some perspective.
> >John Baez once wrote a spoof crackpot posting in which he deliberately
> >increased his own crackpot index by some huge amount :-)
>
> Apparently what the poster is saying is that if one
^^^^^^^^^^
Me?
> takes small swipe at one's self, or apolgizes like a Bill Clinton, that
> it is okay to do negative things.
The crackpot index is not a "negative thing", in my view. It helps us
sane people keep our tempers by laughing about the nature of Usenet.
Ideally, it would serve as a gentle hint to casual readers that it is best
to be sure of your facts/understanding before posting blanket assertions
(as opposed to questions) about physical issues. Last but not least, I
think this newsgroup can serve as a valuable teaching resource for high
school teachers interested in inculcating the self-protective habit of
sceptism in their students--- they can send their students to sort the
people who know whereof they speak from the cranks. The crackpot index
humorously codifies some of the common sense rules which sane people use
instinctively to screen the cranks from the knowledgeable posters.
> >Of course, the point is that intelligent, sane people can (rather easily)
> >mimic crackpots but not vice versa.
>
> What the poster is trying to say is that establishments
^^^^^^
I presume you mean me, since I wrote the quoted comment.
> have locks on global reality, and that the hierarchies in religion,
> government, business, science, etc. have no need for input for folks
> outside the hierarchy.
Can I speak for myself here? ;-)
As I have said elsewhere, if you make assertions about physics here which
are dead wrong, you can expect to be corrected, whatever your academic
credentials. If you have intelligent things to say, the sane people will
want to hear them, regardless of your formal education. But it's
difficult to imagine that you can have anything intelligent to say about
physics if you've never cracked a textbook, whether in self-study or in
formal coursework, so it's no surprise (at least not to me) that most of
the group of people who have intelligent things to say have a formal
education, often a fairly impressive one, in some technical area.
By the way, I have no formal education in physics, though I do have a
formal education in math. I am self-taught in relativity theory, and
usually restrict myself to posts about relativity theory, because I don't
think my knowledge extends very far beyond that theory into other areas of
physics. One distinguishing characteristic of cranks is that they do not
know what they don't know, or fail to follow the common sense principle of
only talking about subjects of which you have some knowledge, however you
acquired that knowledge.
> Also, he makes the point that unless a person understands a whole
> subject, that any input he can provide is useless.
Oh, please, I didn't say anything remotely close to that. As I just
pointed out (not for the first time) I certainly do not have the breadth
of knowledge in physics of someone like Baez.
> The poster also makes the point that if a person cannot communicate a
> point in a language other than his own, that the point has no validity
> outside his own culture.
Now I'm truly baffled. Who is this "poster"? What language are you
talking about? It seems that you started off refering to Bah by that
noun, then you seemed to referring to me, now you seem to referring to
someone else entirely.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>A PRIMER TO EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS
> (c) Monk Jack 1998
>
>It seems that todays scientists are keen to continue to ignore
>EVER-PERTAINING REACTIONARY MECHANICS.
>My theory of seven, YES SEVEN YEARS - started as an idea at University
>when I, like all educated by the establishment, rejected the brain
>washing of my tutors and actually THOUGHT about the HOGWASH i was being
>spoon FED.
>
>STRANGENESS unravel the mysteries of why one thing is a cabbage; another
>a stone; why water is wet and quenches fire; why anything is what it is,
>it is not for QM to decide.
>
>Quantum Mechanics on its FIRM foundation of a MATHEMATICIANS GUESS
>teaters now like the dying Kong on NYC phallus of the establishment.
>
>Self Appointed Defender of the Orthodoxy (SADO) will set loose those
>bound by closed minds and PARROT THOUGHT.
>
>
>27) 40 points for replying to your own message ;)
>28) 10 points for a response from Uncle Al.
>29) 20 points for a response from Mati Meron.
>30) 30 points for a response from Jim Carr.
>
them. Thing of beauty. I saved it for posterity.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Bill Rowe
<Pine.A41.3.96a.98082...@dante07.u.washington.edu>,
opti...@u.washington.edu says...
>I
>pointed out that the weird thing is that there is very little middle
>ground, and speculated that most sane laypeople who happen across this
>newsgroup conclude they have nothing much to contribute, so they go
>elsewhere.
I suspect there is more to why there is little middle ground than just your
hypothesis above. If I use myself as an example, I tend to contribute when I
have time, when I feel I can make a positive contribution and I have done my
homework. I tend to avoid posting when I am less certain and haven't had time
to do my homework. Also, there is little reason for someone to post a repeat of
a complete answer provided by some of the more knowledgeable contributors such
as Baez, Meron and others.
The net effect is I post less frequently than others. But this doesn't mean I
have gone elsewhere.
Of course, it is also possible I don't fit you definition of "sane laypeople"
since I do have a formal education in physics.
C. Hillman
On 28 Aug 1998, Bill Rowe wrote:
> I suspect there is more to why there is little middle ground than just
> your hypothesis above. If I use myself as an example, I tend to
> contribute when I have time, when I feel I can make a positive
> contribution and I have done my homework. I tend to avoid posting when I
> am less certain and haven't had time to do my homework. Also, there is
> little reason for someone to post a repeat of a complete answer provided
> by some of the more knowledgeable contributors such as Baez, Meron and
> others.
If only everyone had the good sense to follow suit ;-)
Anyway, my expository powers seem to be at a low ebb... what I actually
said in the other thread (as opposed to the way I rephrased it in this
one) is close to what you are describing--- there are plenty of sane
people who read this group often and contribute when they know they have
something worth hearing. When I said "no middle ground" I meant among the
most frequent posters.
Incidently, although I would like to include myself among the frequent but
sane and knowledgeable posters, it more or less goes without saying that
there is a huge remaining discrepancy between the extent of my self-taught
knowledge of one area of physics and the knowledge of published
experts/authors like jb ;-) Probably there are similar wide variations
with the crank group too, ranging from one person I can think of who
earned a PhD before being overcome by some sort of dementia or psychosis,
and another person I can think of who is apparently unable to even produce
a grammatical sentence. (I'm not laughing at either of these individuals,
incidently, since it is evident they are suffering from some sort of
incapacitating and probably progressive dementia--- a horrid fate.)
Jim Carr
<... snipped ...>
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>As I pointed out,
>this odious index creates conflict and noise level
>and provides immature people an excuse to
>try to build up their egos by putting down other folks.
Oh, come on, Tom. It was created because the noise level was there.
It was always there. Certainly it was plenty noisy when I first
looked in maybe a decade ago. Probably like when the first two
cars in Kansas got in an accident: physics and math attract lots
of amateur scientists and some come off, ah, badly when their
reality quotient is evaluated.
Baez codified the obvious, and did so in an amusing way.
>I might point out that although I would be embarrassed to
>post and promote an index whose purpose is to inhibit
>free discourse ...
Monomania in support of the provably false, where no argument or
data will affect that person's views, does not lead to discourse.
> ... and give immature people an excuse to insult others, ...
You have a point there.
> ... I am never embarrassed
>when I ask stupid questions, or make assertions that
>correlate less than 100% with global, objective reality.
Note that the real crackpots are the ones that don't much care
whether their assertions correlate with reality and they seldom
ask questions. I have noted that you do not fall in either of
those categories.
>I might also ask, who in these newsgroups,
>or in the world, has a lock on global reality?
Kibo.
>Should all people blindly follow the Pope, Billy Clinton,
>the Wall Street Journal, the physics establishment, etc,
>and never question the established order?
Certainly. Now, while all the people who want to blindly follow
some icon, while boldly splitting infinitives where no infinitive
has been split before, are off busily following that command,
maybe some of us can question the part of the established order
that is on the margins rather than the parts that are more
solidly based.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>C. Hillman wrote in message ...
>>
>>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > john baez wrote in message <6s22qv$in9$1...@pravda.ucr.edu>...
>>> >
>>> > > the famous "crackpot index", based on the latest available
research.
>>> >
>>> > in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
>>> > limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
>>> > and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
>>>
>>> humor in that post.
>>
>
>this odius index provides immature people
>by putting down other folks.
>
>>> > educational establishment would have better things to do
>>> > with their time.
>>>
>>> Let the guy have some fun.
>
>Of course, it's a matter of degree,
>but there are better ways to have fun than
>creating hostility, division and noise.
I'll answer this one since I wrote the previous line (it was unclear
to me what you meant by "the poster".
You did not understand what I was trying to say. Your original post
complaining about this index irritated me just a tad. There exists
a type of person who is perfectly happy letting people like us do
all the ground work. However, when we "appear" to be goofing off
(and this goofing off is an integral part of our creativity), that
kind of person bitches his/er head off that we're not doing our
part. Meanwhile, that type of person, while sitting of his hindend
feeding off our productivity, thinks he has the right to tell us
what to do, when to do, and how to do. Fuck'em.
Eugene Lim
And I thought having a laugh is a good thing.
Let me go add a few points to my own crackpot index.
Eugene <- keeping his mouth shut most of the time.
Tom Potter <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<6s6he6$ati$1...@oak.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
> Apparently what the poster is saying is that if one
C. Hillman
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Dan Evens wrote:
> Brownshirts were a fascist youth movement during WWII. I think
> they were in Italy. Another group were the Blackshirts. I think
> they were in Germany. Or maybe I've got the countries backwards.
Not that it really matters, but the Italian Blackshirts were the Squadre
d'Azione or "action squad", basically organized thugs and bullies who beat
up communists (and worse), who were organized by Mussolini in 1919. In
1923 they were transformed into a national militia under the facist
regime.
The SA (Sturmabeiltung or "assault division") was founded in 1921 by
Hitler in Munich, drawing on the earlier Freikorps. In 1925 the SA was
reorganized by Rohm and began to commit various street murders, assaults,
and general bullying. These semiorganized gangs of thugs came to be known
as Brownshirts from the color of their "uniforms". As the SA grew into a
huge private army (twenty times the size of the regular national army), it
began to pose a clear threat to Hitler's political power, which led him to
expand his personal bodyguard, the SS (Shutzstaffel or "protective
echelon") into a rival private army (commanded by Himmler). The SS, like
the Italian SA, were called Blackshirts from the color of their uniform.
In 1934 the SS purged the Brownshirts and its leadership (Rohm and many
others were simply murdered in the night). Basically, the SS prevailed
because they were even more vicious and ruthless murderers than the
Brownshirts.
So the Italian SA were the Italian Blackshirts, the German SA were the
Brownshirts, and the SS were the German Blackshirts. All thoroughly nasty
people.
Chris Hillman (if anyone wants to follow up, please take this thread to
alt.facism or someplace like that, OK?)
rwo...@bcit.bc.ca
> kva...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >> Errmmm....What's a brownshirt?
> >IIRC, one of Mussolini's WWII thugs...
> I hadn't heard that. I finally figured out in one of my dream
> states that it could be somebody who used their sleeve to
> wipe their nose.
No. Those were the greenshirts.
The brownshirts were Hitler's buddies; Sturmabteilung (SA, or storm
troopers) the military arm of the Nazi Party.
Mussolini's thugs were the blackshirts (1919 onwards).
rwoods
rwo...@bcit.bc.ca
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
> > >in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
> > >limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
> > >and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
>
> > Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
> > humor in that post.
>
> on the crackpot index, and it's embarrassing to have my posting style
> so transparently summarized."
Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
To see oursel's as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.
- Burns "To a Louse"
Tom Potter
>nur...@vt.edu wrote:
>> jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >I suggest that this odious index creates division and hostility
>> > >in the physics newsgroups, inhibits the free expression of ideas,
>> > >limits the range of "scientifically correct" discussion,
>> > >and dampens the enthusiasm of people.
>>
>> > Don't you have a sense of humor? There are at least 3 levels of
>> > humor in that post.
>>
>> Let me translate Tom's statement for you: "I got a really high score
>> on the crackpot index, and it's embarrassing to have my posting style
>> so transparently summarized."
>
>Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
>To see oursel's as others see us!
>It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
>And foolish notion.
> - Burns "To a Louse"
The poster makes a good point!
If the mature, moral, rational folks in the
newsgroups provide insights to the people who
put down people in the newsgroups
in order to build up their weak egos,
perhaps this will help them see themselves
as mature, moral, rational folks see them, and
will motivate them to build up their egos with good
works, rather than by putting down their fellow man,
and immature ego tripping.
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
DGoncz
existing theories, it is not bound by their predictions, making it valid, and
throwing the theory into question rather than the experimental method.
And 10 points for assigning remarkeable properties or performance to substances
or devices yet to be built. I am personally familiar with this one.
I built an air mixing device out of a soda can and a bit of steel tubing. I
figured if I could fill it with fuel the heat of combustion would heat and boil
the fuel, adding more fuel and more heat which would build to the point where
the jet thrust would make it fly up into the air.... you get the idea.
I thought I had a jet engine. Turned out I had a remarkeably(sp?) symmetric
self-warming alcohol STOVE!
But I'm sure it would fly if that steel tubing were replaced with a thin layer
of silver... are you getting the idea?
And from the history of the word crack and the word pot I figure this one:
10 points for continuing to use a device that is not working right or is
inappropriate for the task. (Pissing in a cracked pot, measuring ridiculous
power factors with a DMM, cranking the engine of your car when the ignition is
wet and you know it isn't going to dry out from the high voltage sparks alone,
setting the timer on the coffee pot twenty minutes earlier becuase it takes so
long to brew becuase it hasn't been cleaned, giving you coffee on time but
little flavor, running the vacuum cleaner over a piece of tape on the rug in
different directions hoping the v.c. will pick it up so you won't have to.)
Yours,
Please include "DGoncz" in your post so I can find it with Deja News.
Please don't quote the whole damn thread!
Unsolicited email will be shredded and burned as fuel,
thereby absorbing the deletion entropy of ~10^-6 J/b.
john baez
>/BAH - I've always wondered if these caps count on the crank index?
I'm not sure, but the 5 points would just cancel your -5 point starting
credit. I'd actually be suspicious of anyone with *too* low a score.
john baez
Hey, these are pretty good. I'll have to add them to the crackpot
index sometime.
Real scientists do coin terms, so I'm reluctant to award points for that -
I think what deserves points is coining terms without ever clearly
explaining what they mean.
>One thing's cute though, you have to use Usenet to even qualify to be rated
>by the CPI.
No, the crackpot index can also be used to rate letters. I get lots of
letters from people with crackpot theories - the latest one was a mass
mailing that began "Dear Mathematician" and proceeded to complain about
one of Euclid's axioms, or something like that. Books, too! I used to
have a nice one entitled "The Universe is God", full of meaningless
equations and diagrams. I'd quote it, but it looks like I threw it out.
(A quick websearch on Altavista for the phrase "the universe is god"
turns up 200 hits. Ugh, I'll never find what I'm looking for in all
that! Just for the heck of it, let me try "god is the universe".
Hmm, that only gets 84. I guess more people are interested in proving
that god exists by defining it to be the universe, than proving the
universe exists by defining it to be god. Or something like that.)
>How about 42 points for professors/professionals who act as if they've never
>heard of or read Usenet? How about 80 points for those who do or don't hold
>the (in)ability to use email/Internet as a sign of (in)competency?
These are signs of stupidity or irascibility, not crackpottery.
>How about ... inf/2 points for not or _for_ taking the CPI seriously?
Indeed, taking it seriously or failing to do so both miss the point.
I considered adding a few points for *complaining* about the crackpot
index, since it seems that mainly crackpots do this. However, if I
did that, it might prompt more *reasonable* people to complain (since,
after all, it *would be* rather a rather devilish item to include).
This would reduce the effectiveness of the index in the long run, so
I've decided against it.
>How about 3 points for insisting Usenet never accomplishes anything
>productive other than giving Cranks freedom to post.
Again, this is not a sign of crackpottery; it's a sign of stodginess
or something like that. You seem to be conflating all sorts of minor
mental maladies. It would be nice to have a Stodginess Index and
a Stupidity Index and an Irascibility Index and so on, but all I have
time for now is the Crackpot Index. (At some point I want to make
a companion Hidebound Reactionary Index to rate people who are suffer
from the opposite disease - too much conservatism as opposed to too
little.)
>768 points for wondering if Search Engine Providers keep records of the
>keywords you use when searching/surfing the Internet/Usenet/DejaNews.
Do they? (Whoops!)
>100 points for belittling yourself in the presence of alleged (or otherwise)
>greater minds that inhabit Usenet. BrownNosing stinks worse than
>CrackPottery.
Particularly to the person doing the brownnosing, I suppose.
Jim Carr
} >> Errmmm....What's a brownshirt?
rwo...@bcit.bc.ca writes:
>
>The brownshirts were Hitler's buddies; Sturmabteilung (SA, or storm
>troopers) the military arm of the Nazi Party.
>Mussolini's thugs were the blackshirts (1919 onwards).
A footnote in the "Hitler's Uranium Club" (Farm Hall transcripts)
says teh SA (Brown Shirts) were Hitler's private army until the
unit was purged in the R\"ohm Putsch of 1934, while the SS continued
as Hitler's personal body guard.
The books "The German Dictatorship" (1970) and "Behemoth" (1983) are
cited as references for this info.
jmfb...@aol.com
BTW, when does school start?
M.C.Harrison
>
> >> each new term you coin, or for each commonly-accepted term you redefine
> >> (with bonus points if you redefine it _without telling anyone_)?
>
> Hey, these are pretty good. I'll have to add them to the crackpot
> index sometime.
off-the-wall crackpot theory, which although bogus, scores zero on the
index. ;)
I'd best not though, it would only waste bandwidth...
Matthew P Wiener
>john baez wrote:
>> Hey, these are pretty good. I'll have to add them to the crackpot
>> index sometime.
>I'm tempted to study the CI carefully, and then post a completely
>off-the-wall crackpot theory, which although bogus, scores zero on the
>index. ;)
OK, somebody rate the following theory of mine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: TOOCVITBOTBMTOC
Message-ID: <162...@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 93 20:36:09 GMT
Reply-To: wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 104
What follows is The Origin Of Cosmic Voids In The Breakdown Of The
Bicarbonate Mind Theory Of Creation, or TOOCVITBOTBMTOC for short.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-The Contest: A prize will be awarded to the first person to post a
-Scientific Theory of Creation that is at least as yummy as the current
-Theory of Evolution. Entries must be posted to talk.origins. Entries
-will be judged on their practical and scientic value. Entries must
-also be presented in the form of a scientific theory. Contestants are
-free to base their theory on existing mythology or to make up their
-own. However, a theory based on the traditional Christian model is
-greatly preferred. Such an entry is much more likely to receive ser-
-ious attention. Entries that rely heavily upon ad hoc assertions or
-that smack of Last Tuesdayism will likely be ignored. Remember: the
-burden lies upon the contestant. In any case, the theory must rely on a
-supernatural being (/beings) as a necessary element of the creation of
-life on this planet. As a theory, each entry is subject to review
-by your peers on talk.origins. The membership of t.o will decide whether
-an entry meets the requirements of winning. All decisions are final.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I claim the following is an actual scientific theory of creation, and is
in accordance with at least one kabbalistic explanation of Genesis (see
Aryeh Kaplan IMMORTALITY, RESURRECTION, AND THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE: A
KABBALISTIC VIEW (Ktav, 1993) ISBN 0-88125-345-6, chapter 1.) In brief,
the two creations described in Genesis are spiritual and physical, with
Genesis 1 being more an abstract blueprint of God's thoughts 15 billion
years ago and Genesis 2 being the more mundane side of history 6 millennia
ago. Also, I explain the well-known Talmudic dictum that the nature of
the world changed with the destruction of the first Temple two and a half
millennia ago. Specifically, the then widespread desire for idol worship
disappeared, and was replaced with the now widespread desire for gossip
and slander. Note that Lurianic kabbalah states that the world was once
in a state of perfection, and cracked apart (spiritually) at the Fall of
Man, and that God withdrew further and further from our universe. This
too will be explained.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scientific side of the theory begins with quantum cosmology, which
asserts that the first moments after the Big Bang are properly described
by means of a quantum superposition of possible post-bang scenarios. We
take John Archibald Wheeler's "lookback universe" (see, eg, Wheeler and
Zurek (eds) QUANTUM THEORY AND MEASUREMENT), which postulates that the
collapse of such a quantum superposition is a modern day event, and that
we, today, have thus created our specific past out of an infinite quantum
superposition of possible pasts. (Current theory fails by assuming that
galaxies and voids evolve in a classical world.)
Until a conscious observer evolved (in any given quantum state of the
multi-universe) and looked, everywhere had a probability associated with
that spot supporting a star, a planet, a vacuum, and so on. But after the
first observation, the local wave function of the universe collapsed, and
one particular classical reality was established. This collapse is the
(second) Biblical genesis. (The quantum Big Bang was of course the first
Biblical genesis.)
What was the nature of this collapse? We follow Julian Jaynes THE ORIGIN
OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND. He argues that
at one time several thousands of years ago we were all schizophrenic, of
sorts. We of course heard voices, and could best fixate them by the act
of concentrating on idols. Adam/Eve was the first to have a bicameral
mental breakdown, and thus he/she became conscious and two. They thus
became the first quantum observer. Fifteen billion years of our cosmic
quantum history became frozen at once in our proteins, genes, rocks, and
astrophysics. In particular, all of standard evolutionary theory is part
of TOOCVITBOTBMTOC.
Bicameral mental breakdowns are just a random quantum effect, but since
it involves God talking less to the individual in question, this is just
the Lurianic notion of God's withdrawal in explicit psychological form.
It became rather complete after the destruction of the first Temple,
after which prophecy was closed. This form of divine intervention is
what Wheeler calls the Allah of the quantum jumps. Since bicameral
mental breakdown was now more or less complete at this moment, the
desire to worship idols disappeared. Since everyone could now observe
everyone else, the desire to gossip and slander was born.
Note that this also explains why all species across the universe are more
or less humanoid, from more or less earth-like planets. We're really just
somewhat different quantum collapses off the same history, from the same
planet, on somewhat different quantum pathlines. This is why we all have
the same origin myths, more or less. (Ask Ted for the details.)
Another key feature is those who looked first saw nothing by the the time
they could use telescopes to look deep. These folks are today centered
deep in the cosmic voids. Younger civilizations are all crowded in the
superclusters. This is really just the EPR effect on a cosmic scale
(another of Wheeler's pet ideas): observers separated by a distance will
independently collapse their quantum universe, but the results will also
be mutually consistent. In this case, the result looks like a simple
minded universe of galaxies and clusters and voids and the like. The
theory reveals itself in the impossibility cosmologists have of providing
a direct explanation of the voids--things are much bumpier than the models
all indicate. Cosmologists are going crazy over this, but not literally
crazy, and so they miss out on the obvious.
(Wait, somebody just told me that STAR TREK is _science fiction_ in this
universe. Well, heck, how was I supposed to know that? OK, consider all
these last couple of features to actually be _predictions_, yeah, major
_predictions_ of TOOCVITBOTBMTOC.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Disclaimer: This contest is not sanctioned by IBM, USENET, the system
-administrator, or any person or organization other than the contest
-administrator, Alex Cook. Void where prohibited. [...]
^^^^
Hahahahahaha. I just know I've got the winner now.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
mah...@gte.net
ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> In article <6s6lhh$msr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mah...@gte.net> wrote:
[...]
> >One thing's cute though, you have to use Usenet to even qualify to be rated
> >by the CPI.
>
> No, the crackpot index can also be used to rate letters. I get lots of
> letters from people with crackpot theories - the latest one was a mass
> mailing that began "Dear Mathematician" and proceeded to complain about
> one of Euclid's axioms, or something like that. Books, too! I used to
> have a nice one entitled "The Universe is God", full of meaningless
> equations and diagrams. I'd quote it, but it looks like I threw it out.
Not being a professor (yet, I hope), I can only imagine the added stream of
theories coming in via the modern day Pony Express. Btw, it is really nice
that you share such specific curiosities of your work related experience.
> (A quick websearch on Altavista for the phrase "the universe is god"
> turns up 200 hits. Ugh, I'll never find what I'm looking for in all
> that! Just for the heck of it, let me try "god is the universe".
> Hmm, that only gets 84. I guess more people are interested in proving
> that god exists by defining it to be the universe, than proving the
> universe exists by defining it to be god. Or something like that.)
In my not so valuable opinion, the God is YaddiYaddaYaddha something. Ergo,
let's not try talk about it. QED.
What is a tragedy is that too many Fools don't realize that Religion is not a
proper substitute for Science -- Math, Physics, or Otherwise.
> >How about 42 points for professors/professionals who act as if they've never
> >heard of or read Usenet? How about 80 points for those who do or don't hold
> >the (in)ability to use email/Internet as a sign of (in)competency?
>
> These are signs of stupidity or irascibility, not crackpottery.
Sorry, wrong Category. Alas, my list was not deeply thought over.
> >How about ... inf/2 points for not or _for_ taking the CPI seriously?
>
> Indeed, taking it seriously or failing to do so both miss the point.
>
> I considered adding a few points for *complaining* about the crackpot
> index, since it seems that mainly crackpots do this. However, if I
> did that, it might prompt more *reasonable* people to complain (since,
> after all, it *would be* rather a rather devilish item to include).
> This would reduce the effectiveness of the index in the long run, so
> I've decided against it.
Hey, Me complain? Nah. Making it onto EMF's cranks page, though not one of my
life's original long term aspirations, has been a rather eye opening
experience for Me. For one thing, the idea for which I earned the honor has
apparently never crossed EMF's experience. That's a form of feedback that is
quite precious. EMF doesn't actually call Me a "Crank", he writes that I am
"Weird". Sort of like that very nice Hansen song. Out of the mouths of
teenagers: Isn't it _weird_?
> >How about 3 points for insisting Usenet never accomplishes anything
> >productive other than giving Cranks freedom to post.
>
> Again, this is not a sign of crackpottery; it's a sign of stodginess
> or something like that. You seem to be conflating all sorts of minor
> mental maladies. It would be nice to have a Stodginess Index and
> a Stupidity Index and an Irascibility Index and so on, but all I have
> time for now is the Crackpot Index. (At some point I want to make
> a companion Hidebound Reactionary Index to rate people who are suffer
> from the opposite disease - too much conservatism as opposed to too
> little.)
Indeed, so many things to categorize and such a finite amount of individual
lifespan in which to accomplish them. 'tis a pity that.
> >768 points for wondering if Search Engine Providers keep records of the
> >keywords you use when searching/surfing the Internet/Usenet/DejaNews.
>
> Do they? (Whoops!)
When I wrote that item it had Me doing a double take myself! Of course, They
-- of the infamous *They* fame -- have recently introduced SW for Employers
to monitor each and every keystroke their Employees make. Thank *you*
Technology very f*cking much?! I really don't know whether to be angry or
elated that such Tools are under development and for sale. How annoying that
some idiot Employers are going to spend the $250+ per keyboard just to save
the sequence of every person's typing. Ironically, here I am dying to get
somebody to pay attention to what I type -- not necessarily physics related
-- still dying just the same. Take it for *FREE*. HERE! Take, take, TAKE!
Free, free, FREE! But no... they have to be overt about reading what is
freely and gladly offered them in the first place. Is life like the best joke
ever written/lived/experienced?
> >100 points for belittling yourself in the presence of alleged (or otherwise)
> >greater minds that inhabit Usenet. BrownNosing stinks worse than
> >CrackPottery.
>
> Particularly to the person doing the brownnosing, I suppose.
See, 'stinks' was a appropriate choice of word. Not deliberate, just a lucky
choice.
/ == \ / \/\/ The |meforce> Paradox
\/ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/GateWay2DREAMScomeTrue.html
Joe Fischer
: john baez wrote:
: > >> each new term you coin, or for each commonly-accepted term you redefine
: > >> (with bonus points if you redefine it _without telling anyone_)?
: > Hey, these are pretty good. I'll have to add them to the crackpot
: > index sometime.
:
: I'm tempted to study the CI carefully, and then post a completely
: off-the-wall crackpot theory, which although bogus, scores zero on the
: index. ;)
: I'd best not though, it would only waste bandwidth...
Right, and it is also off topic in sci.physics,
perhaps you could do it in sci.physics.research. :-)
Joe Fischer
b.h.j...@hw.ac.uk
On 1998-09-03 someone said:
`Ah, good. I get over the hump in one swell foop.
I think there is a different newsgroup for quoting from the Scottish
play.
============ ===== ===== BILL J. ===== ===== ============
GM8APX, qthr Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Liber sum! (in voce falsetto)
Net-Tamer V 1.12 Beta - Registered
Dan Evens
> In article <6sk72f$40r$1...@pravda.ucr.edu>,
> ba...@galaxy.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
> > In article <6s6lhh$msr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <mah...@gte.net>
> wrote:
> [...]
> > >One thing's cute though, you have to use Usenet to even qualify to
> be rated
> > >by the CPI.
> >
> > No, the crackpot index can also be used to rate letters. I get lots
> of
> > letters from people with crackpot theories - the latest one was a
> mass
> > mailing that began "Dear Mathematician" and proceeded to complain
> about
> > one of Euclid's axioms, or something like that. Books, too! I used
> to
> > have a nice one entitled "The Universe is God", full of meaningless
> > equations and diagrams. I'd quote it, but it looks like I threw it
> out.
John, did you get your copy of _Symmetric Energy Structures_ by
the Alpha Omega Research Society? They went out in the late 80's
to many hundreds of physicists. It was glossy paper, well bound
text book style, with many really well done pictures. Had to be
atleast $100,000 behind this. And it was complete, utter, without
reservation, crap. But it was *collectable* crap. :)
Dan Evens
jmfb...@aol.com
>
>On 1998-09-03 someone said:
> `Ah, good. I get over the hump in one swell foop.
>
>I think there is a different newsgroup for quoting from the Scottish
>play.
What play?
Richard Herring
> In article <6sp7br$230$2...@glencoe.hw.ac.uk>, b.h.j...@hw.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> >On 1998-09-03 someone said:
> > `Ah, good. I get over the hump in one swell foop.
> >
> >I think there is a different newsgroup for quoting from the Scottish
> >play.
> What play?
The one by the Swan of Avon. Full of Thanes and things.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>
M.C.Harrison
>
> In article <6sp7br$230$2...@glencoe.hw.ac.uk>, b.h.j...@hw.ac.uk wrote:
> >On 1998-09-03 someone said:
> > `Ah, good. I get over the hump in one swell foop.
> >I think there is a different newsgroup for quoting from the Scottish
> >play.
>
> What play?
The one it is bad luck to name.
But I did it for O level, so I know that saying "Macbeth" doesn't do
anything bad to me. ;)
jmfb...@aol.com
"M.C.Harrison" <nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite.etc> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <6sp7br$230$2...@glencoe.hw.ac.uk>, b.h.j...@hw.ac.uk wrote:
>> >On 1998-09-03 someone said:
>> > `Ah, good. I get over the hump in one swell foop.
>> >I think there is a different newsgroup for quoting from the Scottish
>> >play.
>>
>> What play?
>
>The one it is bad luck to name.
It is? Why?
>
>But I did it for O level, so I know that saying "Macbeth" doesn't do
>anything bad to me. ;)
Thank you for answering my question :-). I thought the phrase was
"one fell swoop".
Peter R Newman
>
> >> >I think there is a different newsgroup for quoting from the
> >> >Scottish play.
> >>
> >> What play?
> >
> >The one it is bad luck to name.
>
> It is? Why?
It is thought to be bad luck only for *actors* to name Macbeth, which
they routinely (at least in films) refer to as "that Scottish play."
Not sure why, but probably goes with that other good-luck phrase of
actors, "Break a leg!"
<<accidentally bangs head on computer>>
mah...@gte.net
Dan Evens <dane...@interlog.com> wrote:
[...]
> And it was complete, utter, without
> reservation, crap. But it was *collectable* crap. :)
> Dan Evens
;-)
Collectable Crap? Comes in both Metric and NonMetric Varieties?
The Metric System, measured in Yardsticks. Get your MS...
What you|I need is an good honest metric foot kick in the butt!
Gauranteed Not To Work: Metric System Fights Crackpottery.
Mahipal "Laughing through Usenet assisted associations" Virdy