Omake!
Here's some miscellaneous stuff that was posted on the thread that I don't really count as entries.
Here's a video that Ponicalica linked on the 2nd post. It seems to have been made by a disciple of Gene Ray. I think it's both relevant and goddamn hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKIWKRwFYrc
And here's a video I linked on that same page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2UCqL5qyo
After these entries, I went through the Crackpot Index that Count Dorku linked. Results are below.
Sounds like a good idea...
- A -5 point starting credit.
- 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. (Umm... That's going to take some back-tracking. Maybe later.)
- 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. (Ditto.)
- 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. (See above.)
- 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. (This could be quite a lot.)
- 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. (I'm not sure if anything he says lines up close enough to reality for this to be applicable.)
- 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). (
)
- 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". (We might be able to rule this out, actually. Too soon to tell, though.)
- 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). (He probably would do this if he ever got on the subject. He does it for other areas, at least.)
- 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. (I don't think he's done this. I doubt he would, seeing as he thinks we're all academic evil.)
- 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.) (Hmm... I don't remember him doing the first thing, but I think he's done the second.)
- 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. (I kind of doubt he has or would do this.)
- 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. (Ding ding ding!)
- 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. (Oh god, where would I start.)
- 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations". (He thinks the math we have is flawed, so I'm not sure where that puts us. He also blames language for his inability to communicate properly, so he comes close.)
- 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. (I don't think this is his "style".)
- 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". (Haven't seen this. I think he would say that such a theory doesn't predict phenomena correctly even if it did.)
- 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). (I think claims that he is wiser than any man past or present would count as a favorable comparison to Einstein. I wouldn't be surprised if he spoke out against general relativity, either.)
- 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". (I don't think so... He did claim to invent the 4 corner day, though.)
- 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) (I would have no clue. I don't think he would do this.)
- 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. (I don't know if he cares, but he probably thinks he deserves recognition on such a level.)
- 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). (Same as what I said for Einstein.)
- 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact. (I think the bible myths count. The ones he thinks aren't lies, anyway.)
- 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories. (I don't remember specifically, but I think he's done this.)
- 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
- 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. (The latter fits, but the former description might not. He seems more interested in attaching variations of "four" to things.)
- 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary". (I haven't seen this. Doesn't seem like words he would use.)
- 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy". (See above.)
- 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) (I'm not sure if evil, lying educators count.)
- 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. (I don't think he cares much for Einstein.)
- 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). (I haven't seen him bring up aliens, but it would be pretty interesting if he did.)
- 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. (I don't think he's been in the loony-bin. Yet.)
- 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts. (I think he's pretty sympathetic to the holocaust, actually.)
- 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. (Score!)
- 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on. (I don't think he's compared himself to Galileo, but the rest fits more or less.)
- 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) (I don't think I've seen him state this outright.)
- 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. (Yes!)
This would be way too much work to do in addition to the live blog, but he'd probably score pretty high.
Anyway, sorry I haven't been keeping up on this, but I've had school and I'm feeling kind of sick.
