 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2007List of the Top Crackpot Scientists: Hawking, Thorne, Wheeler, Feynman, Kaku, ...
Top crackpot scientists: Stephen Hawking Kip Thorne John A. Wheeler Richard Feynman Michio Kaku John Gribbin Carl Sagan John Kramer J. Richard Gott III Hans Moravec David Deutsch Igor Novikov John Baez Ronald Mallett Jack Sarfatti Kurt Gödel Paul Davies Albert Einstein Read here more about these scientists and why they are crackpots: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm roger says... >Top crackpot scientists: > Stephen Hawking [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Paul Davies > Albert Einstein By "crackot scientists" I assume you mean what non-crackpots would call "scientists". -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY > roger says... > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > By "crackot scientists" I assume you mean what non-crackpots > would call "scientists". That is what non-crackpots call the above scientist. Real scientists are of course no crackpots, only the above ones and their adherents are crackpots. Read the web site and you will know why. > roger says... > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > By "crackot scientists" I assume you mean what non-crackpots > would call "scientists". Sarfatti? Sarfatti is a balloon without the skin. Sarfatti can't reduce to practice anything he has so voluminously spewed. Reality is empirical reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Mallett An idiot's true mark is sustained inability to differentiate self from others. Absence of refereed literature citations, paranoiac delusions of persecution, denial of empirical reality... and Head Start math skills.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 On Jul 30, 10:35 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > roger says... > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY I recall my geometry professor making an off-handed remark in class one day about Kurt Gödel always being "in and out of the institute" which I assumed meant an insane asylum. But that doesn't mean that Kurt Gödel wasn't a great mathematical genius in the more lucid moments of his life. He most certainly was a great genius. Richard Feynman was an exceptional physicist but certainly demonstrated being a goofball at times when he said that he hated mathematicians. How can any sane person hate the most intellectually superior beings on the planet? http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/eb5ffd21cfa1ba1a http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf Shubee > I recall my geometry professor making an off-handed remark in class > one day about Kurt Gödel always being "in and out of the institute" > which I assumed meant an insane asylum. Or the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. You aught to check instead of assume, Eugene. > > I recall my geometry professor making an off-handed remark in class > > one day about Kurt Gödel always being "in and out of the institute" > > which I assumed meant an insane asylum. > > Or the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. You aught to check > instead of assume, Eugene. Yes, the ambiguity was part of Frankel's joke but the overall context was very clear. And it's easy to find reliable sources to confirm that Gödel suffered from some sort of mental illness at the end of his life. Gödel spent much time in sanatoria, recovering from depression. Davis writes, "The boundary between Gödel's unorthodox view and outright clinical paranoia was not always clearcut. Morgenstern records his surprise that Gödel took ghosts quite seriously. More important, Gödel was convinced that the refrigerator and radiators in his various apartments in Princeton were giving off noxious gases." Sadly, "In a paranoid state over the safety of food available to him...he literally starved himself to death" in 1978. http://www.alicebot.org/articles/wallace/mathematicians.html Gödel had a tendency to paranoia. "When his wife was hospitalized, Gödel literally starved himself to death, unwilling to eat anything not prepared by her." Was Gödel afraid of being poisoned? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7038/full/435019a.html Gödel was shy, withdrawn and eccentric. He would wear warm, winter clothing in the middle of summer. In the middle of winter, he would leave all of the windows open in his home because he believed that conspirators were trying to assassinate him with poison gas. He was a somewhat sickly man and was prescribed specific diets and medical regimens by doctors, but Gödel often ignored their advice or even would do the opposite of what his prescription indicated. This caused him to suffer further illness. In the 1940s he suffered from a bleeding ulcer, but his distrust of doctors led him to delay treatment; he risked death and was saved only by emergency blood transfusion. Amongst his delusions was the belief that unknown villains were trying to kill him by poisoning his food. For this reason, Gödel would eat only his wife's cooking, refusing even to eat his own cooking for fear of being poisoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del >>> I recall my geometry professor making an off-handed remark in class >>> one day about Kurt Gödel always being "in and out of the institute" [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > of being poisoned. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del Do you think any of the above affects the validity of Gödel's work? Why are we talking about Gödel, Boltzmann or anybody else with health problems? > > > I recall my geometry professor making an off-handed remark in class > > > one day about Kurt Gödel always being "in and out of the institute" [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > only his wife's cooking, refusing even to eat his own cooking for fear > of being poisoned.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del Ted Kaczynski was apparently a mathematical genius also. What's your point? > Ted Kaczynski was apparently a mathematical genius also. What's your > point? Ted Kaczynski was a revolutionary but not as revolutionary as Kurt Gödel. Yes, he was brilliant. Yes, he was and is schizophrenic, and yes, he is a cold blooded murderer. What more is there to say? If you want comments on his publications, then I will say this. They are all the same! They all originate from what was obviously an exceptionally good Ph.D. thesis, but there is nothing more than that. All his papers extend it, embellish it, but do not go in new directions. They are narrow and technical. So you should not overestimate his mathematical accomplishments. You should not call him a genius. Many graduate students in math write a good Ph.D. thesis and, like Ted, embellish it with a few papers that extend the same ideas in obvious directions, and then do nothing else creative during the rest of their careers. Most of these people disappear from mathematics research and go on to make themselves useful in other ways. Unfortunately, your friend Ted didn't, and as his psychosis developed, he chose to take out his anger in bizarre and terrible ways. There is nothing in his published work for any mathematician to get excited about. Very ordinary stuff, actually. He's just a smart guy who had a promising beginning, and then went nuts and took out his rage on the rest of the world. Don't make his story something it isn't. A better point to make might be something about the vulnerability of all to lose our moral and spiritual compass and then end up as a tragic and horrible waste of a human life like all my critics and detractors have proven themselves to be. Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf >Ted Kaczynski was a revolutionary but not as revolutionary as Kurt >Gödel. ahahaha... That's funny. Show me one technological advance that is based on anything Godel has ever done. Godel was a lunatic and a time travel crackpot and his best friend Einstein believed in his time travel crap. This is history that cannot be denied. ahahaha... Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > >Ted Kaczynski was a revolutionary but not as revolutionary as Kurt > >Gödel. > > ahahaha... That's funny. Show me one technological advance that is > based on anything Godel has ever done. That's very easy to answer if a valid insight into spacetime physics is technological. See http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/eb5ffd21cfa1ba1a Shubee >> Ted Kaczynski was a revolutionary but not as revolutionary as Kurt >> Gödel. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm Hey Savain--Gödel's work has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking which, in turn, has had substantial impact on society and even some technological advances. You surfacing with a different ID resulted in me reading your posting, but just this one... Plonk. On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:10:54 GMT, a.s kisser Samantha Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote: [crap] Eat sh.t, Samantha. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha Nasty Little Truth About Space: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space Louis Savain > Nasty Little Truth About Space: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space > > Louis Savain I guess, someone told you allready, that you made some falts in your interpretation of GR. "... that every motion and position in the universe is relative. " This doesnt make sense. Relative positions require TWO observers. In terms of spacetime you have observer independent intervalls. If you choose big bang as starting point, the events have a somehow absolute position. The space- and time-coordinates depend on the motion of that observer. Since you need an other observer to define motion, space and timecoordinates of one macroscopic object (= observer) as viewed from the other, depend on their relativ motion. That s what relativity is about, and you didnt falsify that at all. Thomas Heger > > > I recall my geometry professor making an off-handed remark in class > > > one day about Kurt Gödel always being "in and out of the institute" [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > only his wife's cooking, refusing even to eat his own cooking for fear > of being poisoned.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del how come you call others paranoids, how could you possibly know what they should not be afraid of? > On Jul 30, 10:35 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Guys: Mathematicians are superior only if they have someone with a common sense knowledge of how the universe actually functions to hold their hands and get them out of their curved time and space. Would anyone seriously recommend that we turn our world over to accountants, as some businesses have done to their ultimate detriment? Then, don't turn the discerning of the truth over to people with just a 'ten number vocabulary'. - NoEinstein [snip idiocy] What's the matter Louis, trolling physics articles on slashdot doesn't entertain you anymore? Meds wearing off? Lonely? > Top crackpot scientists: > Stephen Hawking [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Read here more about these scientists and why they are crackpots: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas /Reliability.htm Please remove Einstein from that the crackpottery list. Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Besides the Cosmological constant which introduces a negative mass in the very emptiness of vacuum, there is nothing Einstein had suggested that is of any originality. Einstein started his life as nobody. During the course of his life, he thought he was somebody. At the end of his life, he finally realized he was nobody. The media painted him as somebody. In reality and truth, he was nobody. <shrug> > > Top crackpot scientists: > > Stephen Hawking [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Please remove Einstein from that the crackpottery list. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-bio.html [...] > Top crackpot scientists: > Read here more about these scientists and why they are crackpots: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm Basically, you are proclaiming the "Block Universe" model to be correct and saying that anyone who finds closed-timelike-curves in the math of GR to be a crackpot. Having spacetime be not simply connected does not contradict the block universe theory. You could have a cycle of cause and effect, the literary "time loop", with no change in the 4-D whole. Do any of the above people say anything for or against the Chronology Protection Conjecture? If "for", they should be removed from your list. >> Top crackpot scientists: >> Read here more about these scientists and why they are crackpots: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >correct and saying that anyone who finds closed-timelike-curves in the >math of GR to be a crackpot. Not at all. GR uses a block universe model, which is spacetime. Anybody who uses GR to claim that time travel is possible (e.g. all the people on the crackpot list) is either a crackpot or a con artist or both. ahahaha... And anybody who comes to their defence is an a.s kisser, as simple as that. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Nasty Little Truth About Space: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space Louis Savain PS. Thank you, Roger, for starting this thread. It's hilarious. > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:10:27 -0700, "John M. Dlugosz" > <11lrhap02@sneakemail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > PS. Thank you, Roger, for starting this thread. It's hilarious. You are welcome :-) The Empire strikes back! :-) roger schrieb: > Top crackpot scientists: > Stephen Hawking [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Read here more about these scientists and why they are crackpots: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm What kinda sh.t is this supposed to be? Rainer > Top crackpot scientists: > Stephen Hawking [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Read here more about these scientists and why they are crackpots: > http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm Louis, is that YOU? You still stuck on whether a worldline moves or not? PD >PD f.ck you, PD. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Louis Savain Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It: http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm > >PD > > f.ck you, PD. How about that? ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... > > Louis Savain Near where I am, there's an old guy that lives in a seedy neighborhood downtown who sits in a lawn chair all day wearing ratty shorts and a sleeveless undershirt and gives the finger to every car that passes. He laughs when he does it, too, just like you, Louis. Sounds like you two have much to discuss. PD : > >PD : > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : : PD Hey Phuckwit Duck! Is his name Paul Draper and does he talk to himself? > > Top crackpot scientists: > > Stephen Hawking [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - PD: A world line would have to move, unless of course you are talking about an American and a Chinaman on opposite sides of the Earth. Does 12 hours difference in time zones reverse the forces of gravity 180 degrees? Does anyone in Einstein's universe even know which way is up? - NoEinstein |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.