I just discovered a new crackpot preprint that pretends to
derive Maxwell's equations from something very similar
to strings:

http://www.motionmountain.net/research/research.html

Why do such idiots put so much work into this?

John

wrote in message
...
I just discovered a new crackpot preprint that pretends to
derive Maxwell's equations from something very similar
to strings:

http://www.motionmountain.net/research/research.html

Why do such idiots put so much work into this?

John

Hi John,

Christoph Schiller is hardly a crackpot nor an idiot. The web page is
clearly labelled "A Speculation". His free physics text book is quite
good. Quite frankly, I personally enjoy his speculations as they are
usually more understandable than the speculations of other physicists.
His maximum force speculation is also quite good if you haven't read it.
But thanks for posting the link; I'm off to read it now.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

On Mar 30, 2:27 pm, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

Christoph Schiller is hardly a crackpot nor an idiot. The web page is
clearly labelled "A Speculation". His free physics text book is quite
good. Quite frankly, I personally enjoy his speculations as they are
usually more understandable than the speculations of other physicists.
His maximum force speculation is also quite good if you haven't read it.
But thanks for posting the link; I'm off to read it now.


I especially like his "unitary" theory that comes out of "featureless
extended entities" ...Whatever that is. Is is just me or does this
sound like something out of nothing? His "spring-like" helical
photons that split apart to go through both slits of a double slit is
interesting but doesn't address the fact that a detector placed over
the slits will detect the whole photon going through only ONE slit at
a time. Seems like he put a lot of thought into this but it needs
more work... But still I think there is a lot of value in off-the-
wall suggestions that force you to think deeper about things.

On 31 Mrz., 09:20, Benj wrote:

I especially like his "unitary" theory that comes out of "featureless
[cut --- ]

On Mar 30, 2:27 pm, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

Christoph Schiller is hardly a crackpot nor an idiot. The web page is
[cut --- ]

I wrote:
I just discovered a new crackpot preprint
http://www.motionmountain.net/research/research.html

Lubos Motl has clearly defined what makes a crackpot:
somebody who likes discrete models, who believes
in the generalized uncertainty principle, who believes that
space-time is not continuous, and who dislikes string theory.
The author qualifies on all points.

When I reloaded his page to go through Motls list, I found
out that Schiller even qualifies as an Einstein crackpot;
he has added a second preprint, even more crazy than
the first. He is a crackpot.

John

wrote in message
...
On 31 Mrz., 09:20, Benj wrote:

I especially like his "unitary" theory that comes out of "featureless
[cut --- ]

On Mar 30, 2:27 pm, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

Christoph Schiller is hardly a crackpot nor an idiot. The web page
is
[cut --- ]

I wrote:
I just discovered a new crackpot preprint
http://www.motionmountain.net/research/research.html

Lubos Motl has clearly defined what makes a crackpot:
somebody who likes discrete models, who believes
in the generalized uncertainty principle, who believes that
space-time is not continuous, and who dislikes string theory.
The author qualifies on all points.

When I reloaded his page to go through Motls list, I found
out that Schiller even qualifies as an Einstein crackpot;
he has added a second preprint, even more crazy than
the first. He is a crackpot.

How nice of you to snip out "A Speculation".

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

wrote in message
...
On 31 Mrz., 09:20, Benj wrote:

I especially like his "unitary" theory that comes out of "featureless
[cut --- ]

On Mar 30, 2:27 pm, "FrediFizzx" wrote:

Christoph Schiller is hardly a crackpot nor an idiot. The web page is
[cut --- ]

I wrote:
I just discovered a new crackpot preprint
http://www.motionmountain.net/research/research.html

Lubos Motl has clearly defined what makes a crackpot:
somebody who likes discrete models, who believes
in the generalized uncertainty principle, who believes that
space-time is not continuous, and who dislikes string theory.
The author qualifies on all points.

When I reloaded his page to go through Motls list, I found
out that Schiller even qualifies as an Einstein crackpot;
he has added a second preprint, even more crazy than
the first. He is a crackpot.

John


Some seem to think a Crack Pot is anyone that disagrees with their
concepts of reality..

On Apr 14, 4:05 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:

Some seem to think a Crack Pot is anyone that disagrees with their
concepts of reality..

I believe that this is the VERY definition of crackpot! And usually
such name calling is also accompanied by a questioning of the
crackpot's intelligence and/or education and typically includes a
suggestion that they read a "good freshman textbook" on the subject!
While I could give enumerable examples taken right from the posts of
the authoritative "regulars" in this newsgroup, instead I will offer a
somewhat more famous example.

This example relates to the late Professor C. Louis Kervran (French)
and his book "Biological Transmutations" (1966 in French; English
translation 1980 by Crosby Lockwood):

" The types of reactions which you are proposing are quite impossible
in ordinary chemistry... I would strongly suggest that you read an
elementary textbook in nuclear physics."

Carl Sagan
UC Berkley Astronomical Dept., 1962.

It is a human rights violation to label people you don't know.

Those who like these troll games are generally abusing human rights
and are relentless addicts of supremacy and Bush KKK. Human rights
does not allow as these things are like jews and nazis. No educated
person would approach another with labels and discrimination and hate
crime, but this world is sick with cold rogue people and politics and
those with desire to be terrorists. I don't think human rights mean
much to you nazis.

It is a human rights violation to label people you don't know.

Those who like these troll games are generally abusing human rights
and are relentless addicts of supremacy and Bush KKK. Human rights
does not allow as these things are like jews and nazis. No educated
person would approach another with labels and discrimination and hate
crime, but this world is sick with cold rogue people and politics and
those with desire to be terrorists. I don't think human rights mean
much to you nazis.

Fascists must categorically label, torture and win using big brother
means
of State vs. man and intelligence. Much power, no mother, just the
motherland.
**** you and your Google, rogue nazi, alien.

On Apr 14, 3:35*pm, gb wrote:
It is a human rights violation to label people you don't know.

Those who like these troll games are generally abusing human rights
and are relentless addicts of supremacy and Bush KKK. Human rights
does not allow as these things are like jews and nazis. No educated
person would approach another with labels and discrimination and hate
crime, but this world is sick with cold rogue people and politics and
those with desire to be terrorists. I don't think human rights mean
much to you nazis.

Fascists must categorically label, torture and win using big brother
means
of State vs. man and intelligence. Much power, no mother, just the
motherland.
**** you and your Google, rogue nazi, alien.

Very educated people with South in the face of intelligence. As agent
smith
would say: Those things smell around here. Those things are not
American.
Those things are people wearing long coats and dark glasses.

**** off.