http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11...eature=related
Originally Posted by Infinitenight2093
Established Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11...eature=related
Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-23 at 12:58 AM. Reason: Added quote, edited thread title
Order of Kilopi
Could you give us some idea who "this guy" is and why we should think he's crazy? I'm not fond of clicking on blind links.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
That guy is crazy.
Established Member
sorry I posted in haste. His name is Bill Gaede: Argentinean engineer and philosopher of science. He is probably most widely known for his critique of mathematical physics which was "centred upon the semantic issues of the popular presentations of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede
His critique, completed in book form, is dubbed "Rope hypothesis" which is partly contained in the youtube video I posted.
Established Member
It appears to be one in a series of videos in which a man challenges the standard models of the atom and wave-particle duality and replaces it with his own model
I don't know enough about the topic to be able to argue either way, but it might be useful to go through the whole series rather than jump in part way through.
Order of Kilopi
He is most widely known for stealing industrial secrets. I wouldn't believe him if he said water was wet.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
To extrapolate the guy is wrong about what the main stream science says on so many level it doesn't even make sense to try to go into the issues 1 by 1. His criticisms of mainstream science is based off his gross misunderstanding of what the main stream theories say combined with stretching analogies way beyond the point they are trying to make. So in essence he doesn't understand the actual science, which is clear by his description of what he thinks the main stream theories say, and does some hand waving to try to make you think his idea must be right with nothing more then some pictures of what he thinks is happening to support it.
Established Member
LOl ^^ there's that too!
Administrator
For a very limited sense of the word crazy... He is obviously self-sufficient and functioning well in day to day life. I would say he's an ATM-type, and deserves being treated with human dignity, if not respect for his science. If he were a member of this forum supporting these ideas, we'd be handing out infractions for rudeness. As it is, I'm just asking you all to avoid misplacing the term crazy (and any of its synonyms).
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
When a book ostensibly dealing with theories of matemathical physics is titled Why God Doesn't Exist, my ATM-meter already goes up to orange, hovering on red. Admittedly it would go straight to solid red if it said "does" instead of "doesn't".
Is Gaede's "theory" available anywhere else than on the U-t00b? Is WGDE even a real book in any meaningful sense of the word?
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
Banned
I like that....but,
In these forums I have been the recipient of infraction's for crossing the line.. and I except that was just.
This guy may not be Mad, or Crazy., and it's wrong to say so.. we, must be better than this.
So I suggest striding in and arguing the point to show.. to prove his assertions wrong.
I see 'WayneFrancis' has commented that its pointless and even silly to argue point by point
It is just rubbish.. maybe we should just smile and ignore...I agree with Wayne...
like we do with the Vandaniken* theories..
*(that might not be how his name should be written.. but ya get my drift...)
Order of Kilopi
Well, I found an anti-Einstein website that is apparently associated with him, but I didn't get very far before giving up and I'm not posting the link (relativity and quantum physics, It's all religion, you see, and "believers" are stupid, etc.). It seems full of childish insults, and I see no reason to look at more.
Going by the Wikipedia article (and from what I can see, it's correct):
In other words, the very common pseudoscientist trick of arguing with the semantics of worded descriptions and analogies instead of the math. People have no doubt pointed out to him that arguing issues with analogies is utterly pointless, it's the math that matters, so naturally he came up with an argument to dismiss the math:"In 1997 Gaede developed a critique of mathematical physics which was centred upon the semantic issues of the popular presentations of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory."
Well, if it is religion, this one is unusual in that it can be tested and be used to make accurate predictions. Something to think about when you get on a plane (you want accurate predictions of its path) and we want spacecraft to go where they're supposed to go too and get there with the right amount of fuel. Just watch, there will be people using their amazing religious mathematical physics to decide what we should do. I suppose we could stop them, if we wanted most planes to crash, most spacecraft to crash, fail, or go somewhere you don't want them to go.This book remained unpublished until 2008, under the title Why God Doesn't Exist, with his major contention being that mathematical physics constitutes a religion and also a possible premise for arguments relating to the existence of God.
Anyway, this looks like a classic case of an Einstein hater (he isn't just arguing against theory, he seems to just flat-out hate Einstein) that can't or won't do the math, and arguing against analogies that already have known errors.
I don't see much point in looking into this much further.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
As Leon Lederman always says, "Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."...his major contention being that mathematical physics constitutes a religion...
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
95% discussion that physics is wrong.
5% This is what it looks like.
0% Why.
Next time through, I might try to count the occurances of "alledged".
But then, I tend to follow the "Orthodoxy" of science.
Established Member
Complete LOLZfest here (sorry, but yeah I just went there...) I am engaged in quite an intelligent discussion with youtube member, "Skelephile". It was this poster who began his extremely intelligent argument by saying "the existence of black holes at the center of galaxies is like saying there are black holes inside hurricanes..." Seriously, my rational side says I shouldn't even keep replying to this poster but my argumentative side MUST CONTINUE!! skelephile is a avid supporter of Bill Gaede (why I made this thread in the first place) and his ideas, as well as another "theory" called "the electric universe" which cannot be found on wikipedia; only on the main webpage of the actual theory.
here is the latest post by skelephile: "oh sweet, yes i would love to see some opposing view points on it (electric universe "theory"), considering that the current theories about stars are so bad. do people really believe something is millions of degrees? and that there are random cool layers between super hot layers and that the sun gets its energy from fusion of hydrogen? cuz those are all lols to me
and on a less related topic i find it especially funny that people think that commets are made of ice when they are clearly normal asteroids that are interacting with the sun electrically when they enter the system. last time i checked melting water didn't illuminate the night sky!"
so I would just like it if somebody could provide me with some evidence to counter (electric universe theory) what this poster has just stated. Aside from the glaring errors in his argument, that is.
Established Member
also, I have accepted the fact that this poster could be intentionally trolling me, hard.But I'd rather end on a note that would be hard to contradict.
Established Member
Take a look at this monster thread., and also the sticky post "Read this first, re posting "Electric Universe" ideas here" in the Against The Mainstream forum.
Established Member
Electric universe "theory" may be a laughing matter to those of us who genuflect at the Church of Orthodox Physics but it does not seem to be ready to go gentle into that good night. It recently surfaced in Finland for example when a prominent local woomonger... erm, parapshychology expert published a book strongly relying on it for ice age denial and a number of other alt claims concerning the basics of modern geology, biology, astronomy and indeed almost all sciences. Not sure how seriously he himself takes all this stuff, he has half admitted that he's mostly in it for the filthy lucre so probably not as seriously as Gaede seems to take his own "theory". But I'm sure some of his demographic will lap it up...
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
Order of Kilopi
Just walk away. This doesn't sound like someone who is interested in learning. If you tell them that labs regularly have plasmas at millions of kelvin, they'll probably just "lol," they've probably already decided that fusion bombs are a conspiracy, and they clearly don't understand that heat is different from temperature. The EU folks don't seem to understand the standard solar model or care to. You might be interested in this article:
What The Electric Universe 'Theorists' Won't Tell You...
but don't bother trying to argue with the EU proponent. EU arguments on BAUT looked a lot like the Monty Python argument clinic - basically going over the same things over and over.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Newbie
This gentleman, Mr. Bill Gaede is not crazy. He knows very well what he is doing and he is quite smart. What he does is he pushes pseudo science and attacks science in all its aspects, claiming current science is unscientific. He pushes creationism and end of the world views.
What he claims is wrong in science today:
1)relativity theory
2)quantum mechanics
3)claims mathematics does not belong among the sciences
4)claims all species die of old age, never due to a new, more able competitor or due to a climate change, asteroid impact etc. No it is just that the specific plant or animal ceases to reproduce.
5)particle theory. He postulates his own theory, totally devoid of evidence or calculations of any sort
6)virtually all of physics is wrong according to him. He calls it a mathematical intrusion in the field of physics which he rejects because according to him mathematics is not a science and physics is all qualitative.
7)he claims all definitions in science are wrong and he proposes his own definitions. Most of them are self contradicting or don`t make much sense.
8)he claims evidence and experiment (that is besides math) play no role in science and rejects all observations as being biased. He proposes instead we scrap all science in the past 400 years and return to the methods of Aristotle , of pure speculation, ignoring evidence and observations. (yes, you guessed where this is leading, he wants to put a biblical wedge here and overturn all modern science)
9)claims science only needs definitions and an explanation, without verification.
10) claims darwin was wrong in his "survival of the fittest". Instead he says species do not compete with each other, but go extinct of old age, when their population pyramid overturns.
11) claims big bang and black holes are wrong and he proposes instead an eternal univers
I could add a few more, but you get the point.
This pseudo scientist tries to use contrarianism and slighlty scientific sounding lingo to demolish all of science and proposes we go to Aristotelian claims without evidence, testing, verification so he can make creationism the default choice.
He is definitely not crazy. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Established Member
If he has a wedge agenda then why did he call his book (if a book it is) Why God Doesn't Exist? Is it a "weasel title"?
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
Established Member
I may just be playing the devil's advocate here, and I know that the spirit of this argument is not likely shared by Gaede, but shouldn't we make it clear that all physical theories are ultimately wrong? Can anyone offer a physical theory that is completely consistent with observation?
In my opinion, absolute dedication to established physical theories is indeed analogous to religion. We do well to remember that these are the ideas born of limited human language (be it a symbolic one) in an attempt to understand something that is not linguistically understandable in any complete and completely consistent way. The way theories are developed, guessing what lies past the horizon based on what's in front of it, means that eventually you should expect to follow predictions to a dead end or an inconsistency, which is what we have encountered in every case.
It's been shown that no formal system (ie, physical theory) can be both complete and completely consistent. I tend to think that any attempt to describe nature (including mathematics) consistently is ultimately futile, because I decisively reject that nature itself is consistent.
My position is that science is and will always be "pure speculation", but this is the intended use of science, no? To observe and then to speculate?
Last edited by Andrew D; 2012-May-23 at 02:25 AM.
Established Member
Also, I think I've said it before, and I mean this in the most scientific and rule-abiding way, but the observation that the existence of God is not required for the existence of the universe as we observe it is in my opinion presumptuous, and a dismissal of the existence of God on these grounds is in my opinion quite unscientific, as would be the outright dismissal of any hypothesis which is neither supported nor contradicted by observation. Therefore, the most scientific position in my opinion is suspension of both belief and disbelief. Like string theory, presently.
Established Member
I'm of an opinion that nobody who understands even the basics about science is using it to disprove the existence of the divine. Contrariwise, science itself as method of information gathering and prediction doesn't assume the divine nor yet any other "strange attractors" and is hence profoundly atheistic.
Is there in your opinion any human pursuit that is not analogous to religion?
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
Established Member
I'm in agreement.
Yes, of course. Science, namely, when honest. The scientist must be always open to change and ready to abandon his convictions, even paradigms. He must always be skeptical, even of his own results. Philosophy also, for the same reasons and that the philosopher must evaluate even himself as an object of his reasoning. Unpressed I may be able to name a few more.Is there in your opinion any human pursuit that is not analogous to religion?
Religiosity enters the picture when one (in general the layman but sometimes the cognescenti) is dismissive of new theories or predictions, especially experimental results, primarily on the grounds that they do not agree with contemporary mainstream theories. This is something that I see very often in science writing and discussions. The true irony of this viewpoint is revealed when we acknowledge that the contemporary mainstream theories rarely agree amongst themselves!
Now with all that said, Gaede is an embarrassment to his own cause and I find very little of that which he says anything but self-contradictory silliness. He abandons rigor and experiment and chooses language as his tool for science, but his mastery of language is perhaps even poorer than his understanding of science; he is completely caught in semantic arguments and his primary argument of common sense is generally undermined by a lack of any sense whatsoever in his rants. His videos border on satire.
I do agree with him on one thing. We must not allow ourselves, as scientists, to be devoted to the mainstream theories or paradigms, but we must keep them where they belong: under our feet, serving as our pathways to future discovery.
Last edited by Andrew D; 2012-May-23 at 05:58 AM.
Order of Kilopi
How do you define "wrong"? To me, this suggests black and white thinking, which I don't think is appropriate in this context.
Who has "absolute dedication to established physical theories"?In my opinion, absolute dedication to established physical theories is indeed analogous to religion.
How do you define "pure speculation"? And no, I think there is a lot more to science than just observation and speculation, such as testing and prediction.My position is that science is and will always be "pure speculation", but this is the intended use of science, no? To observe and then to speculate?
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
I define wrong in this context to be "containing at least one postulate which does not coincide perfectly with nature." I mean it to be pretty black and white, for the sake of this discussion.
I will not name names, but I do refer namely to some long-time members of BAUTforum. I think that their contributions to the collective knowledge and atmosphere of discussion far outweigh any injury, and my argument is purely for the sake of a discussion of the philosophy of science, not to point fingers or endorse any change.Who has "absolute dedication to established physical theories"?
I feel it would be safe to assume that some amount of the scholarly establishment is too dedicated to one theory or another, but my experience with scholars is far to narrow to make such a general accusation. Also, in discussion of science, particularly physics, I find that laymen who understand nature through established theories taught in school or popular media hold very strongly to the conviction that the established theories are so widely accepted because they are "true."
I should not say "pure speculation", but "speculative at best". I mean "deduced from assumptions or postulates which can not be verified with absolute certainty." My stance is that any amount of uncertainty completely undermines the validity of a theory, and since no measurement can be taken with no uncertainty, and no test can be error-proof, any result or prediction of science must be accompanied by some amount of uncertainty, and thus all theories are ultimately invalid.How do you define "pure speculation"? And no, I think there is a lot more to science than just observation and speculation, such as testing and prediction.
Last edited by Andrew D; 2012-May-24 at 08:08 AM.
Order of Kilopi
My own problem with using the word "wrong" is that there is no "right". In science there's "best" and "not as inclusive".
Now; I do agree with the fact that any theory has room for new ideas and expansion. What I don't agree with is your choice of black and white terminology.
Established Member
somebody please tell me this guy is [wrong] too!
Besides this quote below, I have also spotted several wrongs in the rest of his theory.
“To conclude this branch of the subject: -I am fully warranted in announcing that the Law which we call Gravity exists on account of Matter's having been radiated, at its origin, atomically, into a limited sphere of Space, from one, individual, unconditional, irrelative, and absolute Particle Proper, by the sole process in which it was possible to satisfy, at the same time, the two conditions, radiation and equable distribution throughout the sphere -that is to say, by a force varying in direct proportion with the squares of the distances between the radiated atoms, respectively, and the Particular centre of Radiation.” http://www.bo.astro.it/~cappi/poequot.html
You can tell he's a British by his language and spelling.
Order of Kilopi
And who determines whether or not a postulate does and exactly how it coincides perfectly with nature?
Why not say physical theories are correct , within their domain of applicability?
And that is your philosophy. My stance is that statement is flat out wrong. Which is why discussions of the philosophy of science are worth about nothing.
Can you demonstrate this?
Can you demonstrate this?
Can you demonstrate this.
Does this include those that are specifically stated to be effective theories?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote