Just noticed a press release on EurekAlert from these guys. Obviously they're a bit more sophisticated than the Time Cube folks, but is there anything to it, or is this just another iteration of cold fusion?
"My theory is based entirely upon the empirical data that modern theories are based upon. What is different is that I interpret the data differently. Instead of being blinded by the denial of the existence of Aether, I have allowed the data to lead me to the truth."
Any web page that uses cursive lettering is automatically bunk (note that comic sans is just a special case of this general rule). posted by b1tr0t at 11:48 AM on June 5, 2006
Maybe you should buy the book and find out for yourself!
Looking at their whitepaper, it seems that they're just fiddling around with units. There isn't even any calculus in there. It's just a bunch of hand-waving.
It's also cute how they use Newtonian gravity, saying "Information is widely available concerning the nature of the gravitational law, therefore it is not further elaborated here." Yeah, General Relativity is hard, so it's probably best to just ignore it. posted by mr_roboto at 11:51 AM on June 5, 2006
"As self-educated amateurs interested in quantum physics, David Thomson and I have independently arrived at the same three conclusions" - conclusions which happen to contradict decades of research by professional physicists. While it's not impossible, it's certainly unlikely. Where are the peer-reviewed articles? We're still waiting for a response to one of their few calls for comment:
"On July 5 ... the abstract of this hypothesis was sent to 5 selected sun-like stars.... It will be interesting to receive feedback from extraterrestrial intelligence in our Galactic Community!" posted by aberrant at 11:59 AM on June 5, 2006
Someone spent an awful lot of time putting this together, but yeah, it's bunk. posted by bshort at 12:00 PM on June 5, 2006
They claim that the charge of a particle is different under electrostatic and electromagnetic forces, they claim that the neutron is subject to Van Der Waals forces, and their theory doesn't include any of the dozens of particles discovered in the past 70 years. Any one of these should be a clue as to whether or not to take them seriously.
"[They] keep using words like "Pasghetti" and "Momatoes" [They] make numerous threatening references to the UN and at the end [they] repeat the words "Screw Flanders" over and over again..."
An independent "organization" website with no links to the outside world? I don't think that there has been any scientific advance that has come about in that way, from outside of academia in a long time.
On the other hand it may be that they're just trying to re-state everything in their own terms, which would make their statements pointless, but technically accurate. posted by delmoi at 1:56 PM on June 5, 2006
Figured as much, but I'm so used to seeing actual science on Eurekalert that I thought perhaps I'd missed something. Thanks, folks. posted by greatgefilte at 2:21 PM on June 5, 2006
« Older
I prefer no background, and my...
| What version of Poe's "He...
Newer »
Subscribe
from Immortal Fumble
posted by vacapinta at 11:19 AM on June 5, 2006