There's a popup which goes with it too, when you hover the mouse over it, it says

I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered the fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work.

The people to whom this applies will generally not think it applies to them.

nor would they get the point

The people to whom this applies will generally not think it applies to them.

 

Yeah, it's a good example of an inside joke.

Yeah, it's a good example of an inside joke.

 

I don't think that's what swansont meant...

More along the lines that people who are quacks don't know that they are quacks.

I don't think that's what swansont meant...

More along the lines that people who are quacks don't know that they are quacks.

 

Yeah, I know what he meant. He just said it differently than I. All I basically said is that only those who aren't quacks will get it so it's an inside joke for the non-quack crowd.

I just love the idea that there's a "President of physics".

Anyway, might it be better to just refer those people to whom it applies to this thread?

You know, a nice helpful post saying "An idea like yours has been discussed here." and a link.

 

Now all I need to do is work out a suitable term, a bit like "Rickrolling", for it.

Sure, you've got your fancy lab coats and your real diploma. But I am a logical thinker who questions things and can think out of the box. Also, I scored 154 in an online IQ test.

Oh, they'll "get it," they just won't think it applies to them. "Haha, aren't those crackpots ridiculous? So distracting from MY new theory."

 

On that not-at-all-ironic note, I happen to have a philosophy degree. And with all due respect to Randy, I don't think we're the ones coming up with crackpottery, because we (are supposed to) know how ideas work, and know what we (don't) know. Just from SFN, it seems like most of them are either kids or non-scientist technical people. But I'm guessing he had a specific person in mind when he drew that.

people who are quacks don't know that they are quacks.

 

Well if the reflection in the mirror looks like a duck and quacks like a quack...

Don't be so hard on the crackpots. Many of them are just kids.

We've all gone through a stage during our education where we knew too little, and thought too much. Stages where we thought that the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics don't apply to our idea.

 

The real difference between kids and true crackpots is that kids learn, and crackpots try to teach us.

I just love the idea that there's a "President of physics".

 

Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell DBE FRS FInstP is the president of physics.

 

Well if the reflection in the mirror looks like a duck and quacks like a quack...

 

...then it probably is a duck. But ducks don't recognize their own reflections.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell is president of the IOP, but not of physics.

 

"...then it probably is a duck. But ducks don't recognize their own reflections."

Is that why people think that ducks's quacks don't echo?

Can I be President of Computer Science?

Can I be President of Computer Science?

I can see you handing out cookies from the campaign bus. Vote Democrash!

Jocelyn Bell Burnell is president of the IOP, but not of physics.

 

Yes, indeed. Sorry you missed the humour in my post.

Yes, indeed. Sorry you missed the humour in my post.

 

Another possibility is that you missed the humour in mine.

sure

People, when someone makes a meta-joke you only need to meta-laugh. Maybe ajb saw the humor in yours and though it would be funny to make yet another joke on top of that?

But, but, but, I am going to write a paper overturning the laws of physics any day now!

People, when someone makes a meta-joke you only need to meta-laugh. Maybe ajb saw the humor in yours and though it would be funny to make yet another joke on top of that?

 

and so the circle remains unbroken...

I actually have overturned physics:

 

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7083/84102087.jpg

I actually have overturned physics:

 

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7083/84102087.jpg

 

No, I believe you have rotated physics 180 degrees. Overturning would imply a reflection, IMO

No, I believe you have rotated physics 180 degrees. Overturning would imply a reflection, IMO

 

I disagree. Your objection is implicitly assuming an embedding in 3 dimensions. The physical representation in hermanntrude's work is 2-dimensional, with no assumption of embedding, so he/she has indeed overturned physics.