Quote:
Originally Posted by mill
I give you an example freespace.
1 Introduction: What is Relativity?
Until the end of the 19th century it was believed that Newton’s three Laws of Motion
and the associated ideas about the properties of space and time provided a basis on
which the motion of matter could be completely understood. However, the formulation
by Maxwell of a unified theory of electromagnetism disrupted this comfortable state of
affairs – the theory was extraordinarily successful, yet at a fundamental level it seemed to
be inconsistent with certain aspects of the Newtonian ideas of space and time. Ultimately,
a radical modification of these latter concepts, and consequently of Newton’s equations
themselves, was found to be necessary. It was Albert Einstein who, by combining the
experimental results and physical arguments of others with his own unique insights, first
formulated the new principles in terms of which space, time, matter and energy were to
be understood. These principles, and their consequences constitute the Special Theory
of Relativity. Later, Einstein was able to further develop this theory, leading to what
is known as the General Theory of Relativity. Amongst other things, this latter theory
is essentially a theory of gravitation. The General Theory will not be dealt with in this
course.
This means that you would call Einstein and Maxwell crackpots because they want to let us believe their "theories"
I gave my own "theory" that nobody had ever written.
Read carefully what theory i have suggested.
Nobody as i know has ever suggested a theory like this.
Btw: this is from
J D Cresser
Department of Physics
Macquarie University
|
They weren't saying they were being surpressed by academia. Newton and Einstein didn't say "Oh I have this great idea, but academia is surpressing me!!! Oh noes!!!"
Academia didn't reject their theories. Academia tested their ideas, and verified them.
If you feel you need to quote some one else, then throw their credentials at me to back up your point of view, I would argue you are arguing from a weak position.
For what its worth, I am from the department of physics, university of sydney, and school of IT, university of sydney. I was on the australian team for informatics, and a former CSIRO scholar.
That is not to say I am right - I would never say I am right simply because of my credentials: arguing from position of authority is not a good strategy. But I do know a few things, I know a crackpot theory when I see one, and I call it as it is.
Please understand, I did not call you a crackpot, or your theory a crackpot theory. I meant to say those who say their theories are surpressed by academia, while promoting their theories are generally crackpots, and their theories crackpot theories. I said nothing about you or your theory.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudos..._pseudoscience for the hallmarks of pseudoscience, some of which are exhibited in this thread.
Cheers,
Steve