For some context, here is a posting by bschott elsewhere on the site:
Time dilation is a human perceptual artifact, not a physical reality. Assume the entire universe is your reference frame and you can watch anything happening in it at any time. The amount of "time" a series of events requires to occur, if they are the exact same events, will be the same no matter what your location or velocity is in the universe. Dilation only occurs between separate IRF's when comparing events in one to events in another. The effect disappears if you view everything simultaneously as opposed to each group in each RF measuring the ticking of a stopwatch and comparing it only to the other group.
Now, admittedly, there are far crazier things on the site, but it is certainly a demonstration of this poster's failure to understand fundamental concepts of Special Relativity. In particular, saying "the entire universe is your reference frame" is meaningless. A reference frame is a coordinate system. The universe is not a coordinate system.
I mean, what does he mean? Does he mean the center of gravity of the entire universe? Well, we don't know that one exists, because we don't know how much universe there is. Does he mean there is some preferred frame of reference in which everything "plays out"? In that case, he's begging the question. He would have to demonstrate that such a preferred frame exists in the first place, but we have no evidence of this.
Another problem is his assumption that even if you could find this frame of reference, causality implies that time ticks the same way everywhere in the universe, but this is just not correct. First, in terms of SR, not every event is causally related. Events outside the light cone are not causally related. That means, depending on how you are moving such events can happen in different order. Furthermore, even for causally related events, time necessarily does not tick in the same way. The whole point of General Relativity is it does away with the notion that there can be a universal rate of time in the presence of gravity. Indeed, there are only very specific instances where this can be true: static space-time. But I digress. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and yet, saw fit to say the following:
Funny, I became a poster at this site due to the amount of crackpottery that is entrenched in mainstream theoretical physics and how militant it's supporters are here.
Concerning Non-Mainstream Theories
Now, there are three main kinds of non-mainstream physics, which are not mutually exclusive:- a rigorously sound theory, at least based off of acceptable first principles, which can be falsified, or at least seems likely to be falsifiable in a few years
- a rigorously sound theory, which has been ruled out by conclusively by experiments
- a poorly defined theory that is not even wrong. Either there is little or no evidence for it, it is based off of a faulty misunderstanding of establish physics principles, or it is simply too vague to be falsified.
An example of 1) would be Brans-Dicke theory
An example of 2) would be aether theory
An example of 3) would be intelligent design, and most personal hypotheses peddled by people on phys.org.
You will never find me vehemently denying a theory of type 1). You might find me clarifying that it hasn't yet been demonstrated conclusively, but, if someone wants to provide a cogent, well research treatise on why they think Brans-Dicke theory explains a particular effect, go right ahead.
When it comes to 2 and 3, however, all bets are off. At least 2, though, has the benefit of being formally defined, but we know better, and that means you need to get with the program. It has nothing to do with militarism, and everything to do with not beating a stinking equestrian corpse splayed out on the ground with its tongue hanging out of its mouth.
...and if your theory is 3, well, what can I say? I work on personal hypotheses all the time, and contrary to what posters of phys.org think, I certainly indulge in bucking the trend. Indeed, I have even indulged in 2, when I have found pedagogical explanations unsatisfactory. The difference is that, most of these hypotheses don't ever see the light of day because formalizing them usually reveals a fatal flaw in my thinking. Even then, I would be very careful with revealing my hypothesis until I can find evidence for it that can't be attributed to something else, and this is something crackpots don't do.
Concerning Crackpot Posters
There are generally four types of posters I engage with on phys.org.
- is a poster who demonstrates general knowledge of science and peer review, and who tend to toe the line of mainstream science. This poster typically provides well researched arguments whose pedigree can be easily traced to their original peer-reviewed source. Posters like Thermodynamics, and Stumpy fall into these category.
- is a poster who demonstrates knowledge of science and peer review, but who does not toe the line of mainstream science. In general, his/her arguments are also well researched. I consider Noumenon to be an example of such a poster.
- is a poster who doesn't know much, but asks questions, and might submit personal hypotheses, but acknowledges that his/her hypotheses are possibly wrong. This poster learns from mistakes, and sometimes can even offer insightful comments.
- is a poster who doesn't know much, and does not demonstrate competent understanding of any particular field, but regardless of that, insists that his personal hypothesis should magically trump all of science, evidence, and cogent arguments be damned. They are resistant to learning, and react to any criticism with hostility.
These categories are not mutually exclusive either.
I have always been very respectful of any poster who falls into categories 1 to 3. While they might not actually accept mainstream science, they all have one thing in common: they can be reasoned with.
OTOH, people who belong to 4 are impossible to reason with, inconsistent in their arguments, and never, EVER, willing to acknowledge that another argument has even been made, let alone how correct it is. I liken arguing with them to catching fish with your bare hands. You can never pin them down. Their method of reasoning is so slippery and incoherent, it is impossible to get anywhere with them. Show them evidence, and it is never evidence. Provide them with a theoretical argument, and it's "just math." Every argument you make with them always brings you back to square 1. Ironically, these same people are also extremely predictable. They invariably accuse mainstream science of rampant dogmatism, but are too incompetent to even recognize that the only reason for their own beliefs is dogmatism.
This brings us to people like bschott and Benni. You are of type 4. Hence, you believe that people who correct you only do so because they are militant, just as you are. It doesn't matter that you can't tell me what Ricci curvature is, or what it means for gravity to be locally equivalent to acceleration. It doesn't matter how many experiments confirm gravitational time dilation. It doesn't matter, because you already decided, a-priori, that your vague understanding of SR and GR is incompatible with your world view.
You are the dangerous ones, because you act like authorities on subjects you don't understand, and your pseudoscientific prattling is just more evidence to sane people who fall into category 3) that scientists have their heads in the clouds. So, if we seem militant to you, remember, it isn't because we are dogmatic. It is because you are.
More Garbage
In response to my quote,if it were up to me, I'd get rid of the entire voting system, but then again, if it were up to me, I would implement a system closer to Stack Exchange's, where you aren't allowed to post freely until you've demonstrated some kind of competence.bschott said
LMAO...holy shit on a stick! Someone who is trained in mainstream physics is therefore competent...and is also(this is the best part) part of a group of people who math has convinced that 4/5 of the matter in the universe exists outside the EM spectrum.
Now, I hate the term straw-man, mostly because it gets bandied about by people who don't understand what the term means (hint: it doesn't mean paraphrasing what you actually said or believe), but this is a bonafide straw-man. We are not convinced by math. We are convinced by demonstrated theory and evidence. That means we model our conclusions on two things:
- Is there empirical evidence that a claim is true or false?
- In lieu of evidence, is there theoretical justification that a claim is true or false grounded in firmly established principles?
So, math has not convinced us. Evidence, and theoretical arguments grounded in evidence have convinced us.
One thing I love, in particular, is when crackpots make assumptions about my dogmatism. For example, they assume that I hold String Theory to same level of esteem that I do, say General Relativity. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. String theory, at this point, is not even wrong in a variety of ways. To me, it does not qualify for 1 or 2 because it is not grounded in firmly established principles, and certainly is not supported by empirical evidence.
What crackpots like bschott don't understand is that unlike String Theory, General Relativity is grounded in firmly established principles. It's just that it is all too often popularly presented as if Einstein simply cut the notion that gravity is indistinguishable from curvature in space-time from whole cloth. This is simply not true. On the contrary, Einstein's insight was developed over several years, and it wasn't really until he started thinking about how we would measure the value of $\pi$ in rotating reference frames, that he came to this conclusion. He didn't start with this hypothesis. He reached it by doing lots and lots of work, and finding a pattern. And even then, he still needed the expertise of people like Levi-Civita to help him formalize his ideas.
bschott also asked me,
Define competent please, because in the real world it means you didn't fuck up this badly.It depends on the context. In the case of Stack Exchange, competence is determined by the value of the questions you initially post. If your questions don't have value, then you aren't likely to give valuable answers.
In the case of phys.org, ideally, I would want at least general familiarity with the concepts of peer review and the evidence available for hot-button topics. Understandably, this would be difficult to enforce, so I would at least require an example of the candidate's prose in response to a popular hot-button issue to determine if they really understand what an acceptable comment should be.
A comment should really be about the article itself. It should be specific, and well researched. In writing your initial salvo, you should ask if it actually pertains to the content of the article, rather than a general ideological stance.
Therefore, if the article is about the effects of global warming on a certain species of Coral, your comment should actually refer to the effect, and not to whether global warming is a hoax and how much Al Gore is being paid.
If you cannot even write a well-researched response to such an issue, there's no reason to expect you to offer comments of any value in a forum that is historically unmoderated.
I might also require a candidate to provide a sample response to a deliberately inflammatory comment, and check to see if the response is measured and offers anything but more flaming. Ironically, I might actually not allow myself to comment because I have occasionally offered only comments with the intent to wound rather than to contribute meaningfully to the conversation. In fairness, however, sometimes this has been in response to people who can't otherwise take a hint that they are being pricks.
Well, that's all for now.
