5 ms·
Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that th
by fsloth 7y ago
Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that there are a lot of crackpots out there with appealing ideas but zero capability of explaining them in a credible fashion.
For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism.
With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it.
These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it.
If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum":
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129
Grab a pencil and paper and start watching :) !
- m4r35n357 7y agoI can highly recommend Susskind's free continuing education lectures at Stanford https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x... I've done the classical mechanics, special & general relativity series, can't comment on the quantum stuff, but I hear he has some sort of track record in it.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoI’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed? I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
- m4r35n357 7y agoHe is saying that the only people who preach about the "electric universe" are non-scientists. It really isn't unclear.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoThat is a much clearer thesis statement, I think it would’ve been nice to see it in the original comment.
- bananabreakfast 7y agoMore specifically, non-critical thinkers.
- fsloth 7y agoYes, I tried to look for materials. I have an MSc in physics. I know what science is supposed to look like and what crackpot stuff looks like. Electric Universe is solidly in the crackpot section. I can expand on this if you like but the "qualitative explanation for humans" would be quite long and not really fit for a short post on this medium.
- erikpukinskis 7y agoWell you seem like an authority so I will trust you on that.
- m4r35n357 7y agoOK you don't sound convinced; let's try another way of putting it. If it were any use, scientists would be using it. They are very practical like that.
- theaino 7y ago> They are very practical like that. Or not. "Science advances one funeral at a time." Related HN discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225