Moontanman Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I think this forum is incredibly tolerant of "crackpot" ideas - and virtually every off the wall idea will be answered by one of the experts, these are practising scientists who have earned the respect of their peers, that's a damn fine service for free! It is when the crackpot turns to abuse and ad hom arguments ("you are too dogmatic and bound by convention to understand my idea") that a bit of anonymous ridicule in response is not going too far. This forum is most certainly tolerant of crackpot ideas, they put up with mine regularly, crackpot ideas bubble up out of me several times a day, lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMcC Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 This forum is most certainly tolerant of crackpot ideas, they put up with mine regularly, crackpot ideas bubble up out of me several times a day, lol... That reminds me - I haven't been banging on about Fermat's Last Theorem for some time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringer Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 I would assume most members here would not just quote something on here that they disagree with or just wrong, because that's not crackpottery. I would think anything posted on here is the result of a sickening refusal to see anything wrong with the ideas you are presenting, believing that just because people want to see your reasoning they are trying to steal your ideas, or consistently making claims that just plain don't make sense and blaming everyone else. I would think anything that is posted on here has been, for lack of a better word, ridiculed to the point the poster is either gone or can see the error and would be accepting in someone learning from their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 The real numbers have cardinality C. The cardinality of the power set of the reals' date=' is 2^C>C.[/quote'] Both from the OP Who was informed (by more than one respondent) that: The cardinality of the reals is 2^aleph-naught Noting that all of the above statements are true we then see from the OP' date=' after a bit of gibberish and argument:[/font'] And yes' date=' we don't know what a number which has 2^C symbols to represent it looks like, but [b']we also don't know what a set with 2^(Aleph-naught) elements look like,[/b] so I don't see why this is relevant. Bold added It can be difficult to distinguish among crackpots, trolls, and fools who do not listen. One suspects that many apparent crackpots and fools are really just trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elas Posted October 29, 2011 Share Posted October 29, 2011 (edited) A science crackpot makes foolish claims with nothing to back them up but their own certainty. Not so; also labelled crackpots were; he who discovered planetary orbits and he who discovered continental drift (bitterly lampooned and forced out of science altogether by his fellow scientist). Many years ago a Cambridge professor was isolated for his demonstrations of gravitational anomalies and his papers were banned but, experiments continue (possibly including some experiments by the military). A major advance in genetics by a student was dismissed by a leading academic with the comment that "it would be alright if it worked" twenty years later the student was a professor and, at last; able to prove that it worked. The man who proposed tarmac road surfaces was ridiculed by both politicians and scientists and the jet engine was only saved from dismissal by the swift interruption of a military aide. Mathematical perfection (in both science and engineering) does not necessarily save those whose ideas do not confirm with the current accepted norms. There are many other cases whose details do not immediately come to mind, sufficient to say that it is a question of who decides who is a crackpot; and on that score scientist (mathematical accuracy aside) are just as likely to be wrong as any non-scientist. Edited October 29, 2011 by elas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 The moderators, who are speaking for science, seem very frightened of the Reverse Theory. On the science forum.com, they, like you, pushed my thread out of sight, away from Earth Science to Pseudoscience, and when I started another thread on the religion forum I was instantly banned, not for a matter of a few days but forever. This forum,science forum.net, is doing the same; you have pushed my theory out of sight, again from Earth Science to Speculations, and when I started a new thread on the religion forum, ie, nothing to do with science, it was instantly closed down. I can only presume therefore that the moderators are sweeping my theory under the table because they are frightened of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I always quite like the climate change deniers who think that we know what we know only as a result of Al Gore. Refute Gore, and climate science falls apart! I think the natural processes out weight the man made processes. Should i say why? or will i violate Al Gore global warming model with hard facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Reading a thread on another forum the other day, I found a comment that sums up an opinion often taken to extremes by our crackpot friends: Despite evidence indicating viruses and bacteria play an essential role in maintaining life's balance on the planet - and that "disease" is a necessary part of evolutionary transitions - Big Pharma wants to eradicate yet another lifeform: the lowly rabies virus. For profit, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superball Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 (edited) I always quite like the climate change deniers who think that we know what we know only as a result of Al Gore. Refute Gore, and climate science falls apart! I think the natural processes out weight the man made processes. Should i say why? or will i violate Al Gore global warming model with hard facts? lol that is very funny .... drinks are on me cheers. my response"How did they do that? with smoke and mirrors, flashy cards, and lots, and lots of assertion." Cheers, its time for tea.. Edited November 21, 2011 by superball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 "Just because you can't apply the implied meanings, doesn't mean my words are meaningless" What?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 All of you listen. Atheists, and people that are not Christians will go to hell. It is a plain fact, and I really don't want that to happen. Please, I need reputation, so please, if I was good press the + please! Perhaps the single most oblivious signature I've seen in quite a while. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now