5 ms·

Sorry gatekeeper, move along. You're wanted at the next terminal.

google234123 5y ago
Sorry, but physics is more than just words and “intuition.” There is a common belief amount crackpots that scientists and mathematicians beucase thye just want to obscure things.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  Sorry but semantics is just semantics. Intuition almost always predates the theories that sprout from it.
  - google234123 5y ago
    Intuition has also proceed every wrong theory. You are the same as the people who think (and have proof!) that pi=4
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      Nice ad hominem, I'm actually a mathematician/physicist. Pi has many different constructions and Archimedes' method of creating an n-gon provided the intuition for Newton's later infinite series identities. Keep on gatekeeping but remember, all our robes are borrowed, even mine and yours.
      - google234123 5y ago
        I’m 98% sure you are a crank. Without gatekeepers (peer review, editors…) what would science/math be? Definitely not legitimate or correct.
        goldenkey 5y ago
        What would HN be without our holy gatekeeper (crank) /u/google234123? Blessed be the negator of all those who dare step on the ivory tower of what is canon! Make sure you repeat "crank" 10 more times. I heard it's like a Hail Mary in these parts.
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    Useful for amateur physicists/mathematicians: "A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics" https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      John Baez is actually quite level headed, one of my idols, and I see nothing wrong with that list. However OP wasn't even asserting anything of a discovery or a revolution. He actually ended his post by asking a question: "Then, I suppose, the question further resolves to: which assumption makes our equations easier to work with?" Any decent man would have explained to OP about how the best fitting generalizations/abstractions in mathematics and physics also fit the most specific cases. Instead we had a gatekeeper put OP down like a wild fox in a hen house. It's shit like that, that makes humanity stink of arrogance and petulance. It's people like that, that discourage positivity while dispersing platitudes. Their subscription to authority has no basis in merit, it is exactly like John Baez says: "Crackpot Index #9) List your credentials"
      - thewakalix 5y ago
        This is what epistemic status tries to make explicit. There’s a difference between serious conjecture and playful speculation. The former, I think, involves claiming an amount of status for oneself. People view the latter as the former and attack speculators for having insufficient status. It’s a shame, because speculation can be a useful learning activity/opportunity.
      - cybernautique 5y ago
        > the best fitting generalizations/abstractions in mathematics and physics also fit the most specific cases Out of curiosity, how does this differ from the criteria of choosing the assumption which makes the equations easier to work with? I feel as if they are the same, though perhaps lacking a careful qualification on my part: "which assumption makes our equations easier to work with (without introducing incorrect solutions)?" Given the choice of abstractions, assuming each abstraction is apt as the next and none of them is "more wrong" than any other, wouldn't the choice of abstraction come down to ease? (or aesthetics, possibly) I'd love your take, and doubly so if I seem to be coming at this backwards.

Sorry, but physics is more than just words and “intuition.” There is a common belief amount crackpots that scientists and mathematicians beucase thye just want to obscure things.

goldenkey 5y ago
Sorry but semantics is just semantics. Intuition almost always predates the theories that sprout from it.
- google234123 5y ago
  Intuition has also proceed every wrong theory. You are the same as the people who think (and have proof!) that pi=4
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    Nice ad hominem, I'm actually a mathematician/physicist. Pi has many different constructions and Archimedes' method of creating an n-gon provided the intuition for Newton's later infinite series identities. Keep on gatekeeping but remember, all our robes are borrowed, even mine and yours.
    - google234123 5y ago
      I’m 98% sure you are a crank. Without gatekeepers (peer review, editors…) what would science/math be? Definitely not legitimate or correct.
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        What would HN be without our holy gatekeeper (crank) /u/google234123? Blessed be the negator of all those who dare step on the ivory tower of what is canon! Make sure you repeat "crank" 10 more times. I heard it's like a Hail Mary in these parts.
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  Useful for amateur physicists/mathematicians: "A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics" https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    John Baez is actually quite level headed, one of my idols, and I see nothing wrong with that list. However OP wasn't even asserting anything of a discovery or a revolution. He actually ended his post by asking a question: "Then, I suppose, the question further resolves to: which assumption makes our equations easier to work with?" Any decent man would have explained to OP about how the best fitting generalizations/abstractions in mathematics and physics also fit the most specific cases. Instead we had a gatekeeper put OP down like a wild fox in a hen house. It's shit like that, that makes humanity stink of arrogance and petulance. It's people like that, that discourage positivity while dispersing platitudes. Their subscription to authority has no basis in merit, it is exactly like John Baez says: "Crackpot Index #9) List your credentials"
    - thewakalix 5y ago
      This is what epistemic status tries to make explicit. There’s a difference between serious conjecture and playful speculation. The former, I think, involves claiming an amount of status for oneself. People view the latter as the former and attack speculators for having insufficient status. It’s a shame, because speculation can be a useful learning activity/opportunity.
    - cybernautique 5y ago
      > the best fitting generalizations/abstractions in mathematics and physics also fit the most specific cases Out of curiosity, how does this differ from the criteria of choosing the assumption which makes the equations easier to work with? I feel as if they are the same, though perhaps lacking a careful qualification on my part: "which assumption makes our equations easier to work with (without introducing incorrect solutions)?" Given the choice of abstractions, assuming each abstraction is apt as the next and none of them is "more wrong" than any other, wouldn't the choice of abstraction come down to ease? (or aesthetics, possibly) I'd love your take, and doubly so if I seem to be coming at this backwards.