Thoughts On The Closure Of ALL EXPERTS

All Experts was the free question and answer service that for 19 years provided users with answers to their questions in a vast variety of subject areas from biology, medicine, geology, religion, politics, and psychology to astrophysics and physics.  Since late 2004 I participated in the Astronomy forum - this before there was All Experts (it was known then as 'Experts Central') then three years later joined the astrophysics expert forum, as well as the atheist -agnostic forum.

As per a notification sent out a week ago, the site shut down from April 24th. Anyone trying to access it via Google or the url will simply be shown a terse message noting the 19-year run and that "more than two million" questions were answered.

Why the closure, we can't say. Experts were simply sent the brief notice with no further explanation. One reason is that perhaps there wasn't the money available to support the financial maintenance and even a putatively "free site" needs money to operate - if only to continue to support nearly 500 different forums, responses and further exchanges. Not to mention tracking vacation dates and experts' statistics in their profiles.

But let's be clear the site wasn't always smooth sailing and for experts often a source of frustration. After eight years answering astronomy questions, for example, I had to go to the option of  "no ratings allowed"  - ratings being given in the several areas of: politeness, knowledge, clarity of response, and timely response.    What constantly irritated me was that so few questioners knew how to give an appropriate rating, especially to knowledge and clarity of response.  For example, they'd deliver a '10' in knowledge but then a  '6' for clarity of response. But how would one be cognizant that the knowledge aspect was as high as 10 when they believed the clarity was only at a 6? It was preposterous.  

I tried to attach the proviso that if the answer still appeared to be abstruse, or too difficult, the questioner could reframe the question or make it more specific. (That was another gripe - often the questions were so poorly worded one couldn't make any sense of them and had to ask the person to please rewrite it, try to be more specific or to clarify a term used).   Often there was no further question, so the expert is left with just the crummy rating - and bear in mind we aren't getting paid a damned cent so the ratings comprise our only "earnings".

I retained the ratings for the astrophysics largely because I'd become a lot more rigid in what categories of question I accepted. If it seemed that bare balderdash or ignorance was the theme I delivered a polite rejection response.  Or, if there was the slightest divergence from what astrophysics included. For example, questions to do with meteorology, say the formation of "Moon dogs" or "halos"  forming around the Moon.   While perhaps making it as an astronomy question - ice crystals forming in the atmosphere - it doesn't make the cut for astrophysics. 

As I made clear in subsequent rejection letters the topics for astrophysics included: star formation and evolution, the HR diagram, stellar models, stellar spectra, star cluster dynamics, galactic cluster properties, Hubble diagram, expansion of the universe, solar flares, sunspot properties and coronal mass ejections as well as prominences, plasma waves and instabilities. 

Apart from the poorly worded or misdirected questions there were the many from crackpots. These were most often poorly or semi-educated people who were perhaps above average in intelligence, had a bit of a "brain storm" and fancied themselves a new Einstein for having found some seemingly novel relationship. One of these was a guy in his fifties or sixties, admittedly having "little education" who came up with the notion of "Earth flares", i.e. analogs to solar flares but occurring on Earth.

After several fruitless exchanges where I emphasized there was no observational basis for his entity, namely any magnetic signature for rapid release, he finally agreed to go to another expert. He just couldn't admit his own "thesis" was cockeyed and - in essence - pseudo science.

Another pair of crackpots (from the Middle East) insisted they had overturned Kepler's 2nd law of planetary motion, the "equal area" law.  One of them actually wrote:

"Kepler's area law says r*Vp=Ct.  Newton's universal attraction force says this force is radial F=Fr and a perpendicular force (Fp)  to the radial, also a side force component does not exist.  So: m*dVp/dt=Fp=0.  Then dVp/dt=0 and with integration we get Vp=Ct.     f Vp=Ct is correct, elliptical orbits theory has to be modified to a new theory, new math. And the motion equation should be r=-4*t^2+4*t*T-4*T^2/6 .This equation does not indicate an ellipse but a parabolic vortex spiral."

For his benefit I made several points:

1) He never expressed the 2nd law in proper form and indeed it makes no sense at all as portrayed.

2) He never defined 'C', and whether it is the same as h .  He doesn't say so one can't just assume it.

3) His equation r*dVp = Ct = 0 is incorrect. The Areal law in most concise form should read:

dA/dt = h z^ / 2

In addition,  he failed to distinguish between a real force and a non-existent force, i.e. perpendicular to the orbit (since the gravitational force of interaction acts through the mass centers) so mg = 0 i.e. weightlessness applies.

In effect, his integration result, e.g. Vp=Ct  is spurious .

After much back and forth in the rejection regime he rendered a final assertion he believed would force me to go to his side.  This was after I pointed out that the very fact spacecraft had landed successfully on Mars, the Moon, Venus etc. showed the Kepler law in its given form had to be correct. However, unwilling to accept this he wrote:

"Anyhow,  sending celestial probes to the Moon,or Mars or to any body will still be successful even if the orbits are triangular. It does not depend on  the form of the planet's trajectory . It is controlled from the earth."

In other words, he's saying you just need to fire the rocket into space, and the human controllers on Earth (like at Johnson Space Center) will do the rest,  to "steer" it to the destination.    I had to summon all my will power to avoid calling him a total nutcase, but again we must allow common courtesy even for kooks.

Then there was the Canadian "Bree"  (and several others with different identities or names) who sought to browbeat me into accepting a novel presentation of units which "proved" one or more of her crackpot ideas. She wrote, as "mathematical proof":


1)     Speed of Light  =  orbit Velocity^2  /  Pi       (Enormously Important Equation)

2)     Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of Gravity  x  orbit Time

3)     Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of Gravity  x  (earth Volume  /  orbit Circumference x Tau2)

4)     Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of planet earth in orbit  x  Diameter of orbit

5)     Speed of Light  =  Density of earth  x  orbit Velocity x 21  

None of which made any sense in terms of actual physical units and dimensions as I tried to show her, to no avail.  Her baloney was a perfect example of similar piffle cited by Charles Seife in his superb book:  'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled by the Numbers.'   Seife decried the tactic of using numbers not just to lie but to baffle the susceptible and gullible with bullshit.  He referred to a common failing of most people unversed in math to be hoodwinked merely because some form of math or numbers are interjected into arguments.  Not just using numbers to bolster one's argument. In his words, to use fake numbers to prove falsehoods and to seek to prove something is true - even when it's not- is one of the most egregious forms of  intellectual  fraud. But "Bree" believed herself to be an incomparable genius of the first order.

The first thing any first year Physics student learns - or should - is to check a formula or claimed relationship for consistency of the physical units used. If their combination doesn't yield any recognized physical quantity - defined as part of the standards and constants published yearly by the American Institute of Physics - then the results are balderdash, pure and simple. Let's take her example (4) where:

Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of planet earth in orbit  x  Diameter of orbit

What are the units here? The speed of light c is in meters per second, or m/s. The acceleration a is given in terms of  m/ s ²  and the diameter of any orbit (any orbit) is a length -  so given in meters (m). Then multiplying them together one gets:

(m/s)  =  ?  (m/ s ²) (m)  =  m² / s ²

Which is emphatically not the same as the units for velocity of light! Let's also check her "enormously important equation" (1): Speed of Light  =  orbit Velocity^2  /  Pi      

Again, we examine the product of the units to see if there's a physically meaningful quantity that results or if this girl is just seeing things, or seeing what she wants to see.  We have the speed of light on one side (units m/s ) and on the other the orbit velocity squared:

(m/s)²    =  m² / s ²


Note that the presence of pi is neither here nor there as it's dimensionless.       "Bree" leaves herself open on so many fronts it's essentially laughable, and in ordinary discourse she'd be put down as a dummy or dupe, but as experts  we had to strive for politeness. This irrespective of what mutation of knowledge we were confronted with. (Including one Saudi character nicknamed "Amtry" who tried to argue atheists were less than moral because they objected to have prostitutes flogged, or those women seeking abortions. 

The thing that really bothered me in all this kerfuffle with the Canuck lass(-es) was, not so much the snarkiness and bogus certitude of these young women, but their failure to recognize that the combination of units yields zilch. A squared velocity is simply NOT the same as a velocity. Both girls - if indeed there are two - would merit an F in any physics class of mine.  Worse, if I could I'd deliver an F-minus because of the lack of critical thinking.

Sadly, if this girl or girls are infected by this stupidity many others might be too. Who knows how many physics students have gone on to the website referenced and then belabored their profs with this bullshit, wasting all kinds of time?  But one thing I've learned is you can't argue with ignorant students or ignorant people who are already committed to believe what they want. In this case, because the "maths' seems to work out (at least in their heads) they believe it like a sacred book.

One would have thought they'd back off but that's not the nature of crackpots.  This was even after I had written in one rejection:.  Btw, anyone can concoct and hurl together dissimilar units to make them appear valid, but garbage in = garbage out. The sure sign of pseudo-scientific claptrap and bunkum is when one reads:

"The earth in orbit is electrical, the Tesla is present due to the earth moving through the aether.  When you multiply earth Acceleration by the Diameter as well as the hidden Tesla you get the Velocity of light and its CORRECT UNITS."

Any physics student of mine that would scrawl such drivel would get an F - for the semester! An orbit being electrical? Moving through the "ether"? The ether doesn't even exist - the Michelon -Morley experiment showed the concept of ether is redundant.  The rest is pure poppycock. The waste of a mind is a terrible ting and this nonsense is an enormous waste of a mind - as well as the minds led to buy into it."

 At least 5 months passed before the following bit of bafflegab gibberish (under the header 'Sound math')  arrived in my inbox, doubtless compliments of the selfsame Canadian twit, now using the name "Brianna":

Our SOLARMath equations work with "Kilograms" ( http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/INDEX3.htm )

But because Avogadro's number is atoms per mole which leads to atoms per "gram", prior to commencing the equation below, we need to convert the initial Mass of the earth to grams.

The Equation is;

The Mass of the earth divided by Gravity^4  x  Acceleration of earth in orbit  =  Avogadro's number.

5537831004648121688015772977.2114697 grams  /  (9.8)^4  =  600392689687827221617859.5082045622325038

600392689687827221617859.5082045622325038  x  .001003207246557  =  602318297074676474879.204

I replied with a customized rejection and was as polite as possible, emphasizing that the astrophysics forum (at least for my domain of questions) had to meet at least one of a set  of content criteria for consideration as a legit astrophysics query. She then fired back "Are you drunk? Of course it's not astrophysics, it's math!"    But any serious inquirer in astrophysics - or math- would know the multi-digit explication as shown would instantly identify  a hardcore crank -  not to mention the units being all wrong.

Then there was Steve Torchinsky  (an "engineer turned radio astronomer") who "torched" me  ("so-called astronomy expert") for advising an Indian engineering student  who wanted to transfer into astrophysics that it might be "too hard" a path to successfully negotiate. Especially going from engineering to highly abstract (relatively!) astrophysics courses like stellar modeling, evolution and plasma theory.  Torchinsky blabbered on about the hundreds who "made it" (say in radio astronomy) but never referenced my presumption that one had to get through a very difficult undergrad and graduate series of courses first. A battery that many engineers - including my mechanical engineering brother in law- have said would have been their undoing. Could he have made it? Maybe. Would he have? I don't know and neither does Torchinsky.

Apart from these issues there've always been the niggling critiques (in ratings sites)  of All Experts, i.e. they "don't know enough about my specific problem" or "they take too much time off etc. WTF do you expect for a FREE service? All of which shows me that the widespread trope that "people devalue and dismiss anything given for free" is probably true. So, as they say - let the naysayers and complainers carry  on now that All Experts is gone. I am sure Google will be able to answer all their specific questions - if they just take enough time and get through the first gazillion irrelevant pages!

Do Scientific Cranks Even Know They Are Cranks?

One indispensable character trait needed by any serious research scientist, especially in physics, is immense patience. Why? Because as one's name and background get circulated, including at public sites like All Experts, one is certain to be bombarded with new "theories" or hypotheses - often on how the universe actually works, or what really constitutes stellar matter or how solar flares get their energy.

How many cockeyed theories have I had to dismiss over some thirty years? Probably more than I can count. It seems very manjack  - at least who fancies himself an iconoclast  and has some minimal level of education- thinks he has a new theory or physical  insight. But when you get down to it, even after wasting time (hours) plowing through their nonsense it ends up being just the codswallop you thought it was at first glance.

What is it about certain sciences (like astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology) that draws the nuts and cranks out of the woodwork? In the past  4 years, no fewer than five individuals who've no astronomy background, not even taking a single college course, have proffered five different theories for my reaction, consideration and assessment. In no case did any of these meet even basic requirements, including articulating a testable hypothesis, and making predictions based on it.

Often when you wade through their questions (often posed as a challenge) the one significant attribute all of them lack is tests for falsification.   I don't give a damn if you've had your I.Q. tested and it comes out at the Poetic Genius or Triple Nine Society level, if your precious "theory" lacks tests for its own falsification it isn't worth an ounce of doggie lickspittle.  Which brings up the question of why these cranks can't even see that this is the cornerstone criterion of what passes for a genuine scientific hypothesis as opposed to gibberish.

For example, Ronald Satz, in a veritable waste of 19 -pages in an article in the Nov./Dec. 2015 issue of Intertel's  Integra - under the fulsome header: 'The Case Against Modern Physics' , never once produced a single test of falsification for his "reciprocal theory" bollocks. He invests plenty of time trying to tear down  assorted aspects of modern physics (which I have responded to in the latest - February- issue of Integra) but never delivers the goods to show his theory has any worth.

This reminded me of my 1980s debates with an Einstein iconoclast named Dr. Stephan Gift who expended dozens of pages in the Journal of the Trinidad And Tobago Astronomical Society trying to disprove Einstein's special theory of relativity. Despite my showing that his use of inertial reference frames wasn't faithful to Einstein's usage, he kept on keeping on and even - when I asked why his theory wasn't published in a peer-reviewed physics journal - insisted their reviewers "lacked the I.Q. to be able to parse my claims".  Well, I did and found them wanting and exposed their prime deficiency in: a) not being able to account for the energy difference in fission reactions (while Einstein did with the mass-energy equation, E  = m c² ) and b) omitting any test for their own falsification.

Again, we see two hallmarks of the classical crank: 1) My theory is so profound, so rarefied and abstract that few men of even Mensa level (or Intertel level) I.Q. will be able to judge its merits.  (I.e. one actual reciprocal theory respondent in a recent comment (which shall remain unpublished until he meets the specifications set out in this post), claimed "I have the same I.Q. as Einstein so I don't have to take any crap" i.e. from these reviewers of pedestrian intellect). 

And (2) I don't have to provide any tests for falsification because I KNOW it's true! Nah, nah, nah! (Or "My genius is of such stratospheric heights that falsification tests are manifestly redundant in my wondrously sublime intellectual cosmos!")

Alas, this doesn't work. You can come up with all the clever databases you want to try to dispose of modern physics or modern astronomy but lacking tests for your own model's falsification they aren't worth diddly squat.

Which brings us to a third attribute for crank theories and models: their own "proofiness", or the use of data and numbers  to blind people to actual principles or physical laws. Charles Seife referenced this in his book, Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled by the Numbers.  Seife decries the tactic of using numbers not just to lie but to baffle the susceptible with bullshit.  He refers to a common failing of most people unversed in math to be hoodwinked merely because some form of math or numbers are interjected into arguments.  Not just using numbers to bolster one's argument. In Seife's words, to use fake numbers to prove falsehoods and to seek to prove something is true - even when it's not- is one of the most egregious forms of  intellectual  fraud.

http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/FAQ.htm

A much more subtle example (and would be readers at the outset are warned they need to be "degreed", sic) is this site containing supposed "databases" to support Satz' Reciprocal theory.

http://reciprocalsystem.guru/

But on scanning the ones posed (especially for astronomy), I found nothing to convince me. Just a bunch of numbers entered in barely legible-readable tables but devoid of coherence and internal logic. In other words, nothing to 'take to the bank'. Nor having any organization of thoughts and compelling arguments to tie this supposed data to end point conclusions or hypotheses. In other words, not too dissimilar from the numbers thrown together to try to overturn Einstein from the previous cited link.  If the author(s) want to convince me their  model has heft let them show me a reciprocal model substitute to account for quantum tunneling - which is essential to the working of our modern electronic devices from HDTVs, to smart phones to computers.  Or, let them present an alternative to the gravitational deflection of star light documented in respect of Einstein's theory of general relativity. Or ....let them account for the recent discovery of gravitational waves from two black holes.

Above, all - let them present me with a major test of falsification for their own model! Because until they do that, all their elaborate baloney to try to show alternatives to modern physics ends up as dumpster drivel.

Given they haven't been able to produce falsification tests (or even firm predictions from their models), it's no wonder that no genuine Physics journal of any repute would accept their papers and they can only get them published on their own Wordpress-based blogs.

Lastly, I issue this challenge: let one of these geniuses (since that's close to what they imagine themselves to be) provide me with one paper  (not just a bunch of meaningless tables) that  coherently meets ALL the criteria noted above and I will publish it on this blog with their name in neon lights.

I especially want to see their tests for falsification. Failing that, don't waste my time! I don't intend to publish any more comments, replies or other drivel until the Satz-Larson acolytes  can show me at least TWO tests for falsification of the reciprocal theory. I don't give a damn if your I.Q. is 200!

See also this takedown of Gift:

http://www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh/religion/sober/2004/gift.html

And we see from this exchange - from several years ago- Stephan Gift is still sticking to his "relativity is wrong" malarkey:

----

1. Stephan Gift | November 30, 2011 at 6:58 PM | Reply

   
   

   I wish to point out that while Galilean Relativity applies to mechanical systems, Einstein’s principle of relativity applies to all of physics including light, and not just mechanical systems. This is a major difference. While the former principle has been confirmed, the latter remains unconfirmed. A situation where the latter principle appears to fail is the following: Consider a light source stationary on the surface of the Earth and a stationary detector at some distance away from the source. If the detector moves toward the stationary source, a Doppler shift is immediately observed. If instead the source moves toward the stationary detector (at the same speed), a Doppler shift is only observed after a time delay which can be made arbitrarily large by increasing the initial distance between the source and the detector. However by Einstein’s principle of relativity the two situations are equivalent since only relative motion is important and therefore there should be no difference between them as is observed.
•     Matt Strassler | April 5, 2012 at 12:00 AM | Reply

  
  

  Stephan: this is incorrect. You are confusing the source of the photons with the photons themselves. It is a classic mistake.
• If you move the source, the photons you are affecting are the ones being emitted by the source *now*. The ones that were emitted long ago are not affected by this motion. The detector will not see the effect until the photons reach the detector, which takes a light-travel time.
• 
  If you move the detector, you are changing the detector relative to the photons that it is detecting — which were emitted by the source long ago.
• 
  This is a nice example of one of the many classic mistakes people make in misunderstanding relativity. You have to pay very close attention to what Einstein’s equations do and do not say — otherwise you will get yourself profoundly confused.
  What Einstein’s equations say is that if you have a source moving toward the detector FOREVER it is the same as a detector moving toward the source FOREVER. If the source and detector are initially stationary and you CHANGE the situation, then you have to calculate much more carefully what the effect is.
• 
  Incidentally particular mistake this has nothing to do with Einstein’s relativity. You can make the same mistake with Galilean relativity using sound waves.
• --------------------------------------
• 
  
• Clearly, you can take a crank to the scientific facts but you can't make him accept them. 

Sanders Iowa Result: A Technical Draw That Translates Into A Huge Moral Victory

"With more than 99% of the precinct results in, Clinton led 49.9% to 49.6% over Sanders after seeing an apparently comfortable lead slip. The Associated Press and multiple outlets said the race was simply too close to call, though the Clinton camp claimed a narrow victory." - UK Guardian, 'Clinton Pushed to the Limit'

"It doesn't matter what the final numbers are, if you exceed expectations in American politics then you've won." - Nicole Wallace, 'Morning Joe', this a.m.

"There is no absolute win for any candidate. Every candidate gets some piece of pie. The delegates will be divided in proportion to their percentage of votes received. The media should so report to people and not confuse the common man." - Commenter on NY Times website.

In terms of the Iowa caucus for Democrats last night, Sanders's'  achievement of a statistical tie with the presumed front runner will no doubt be spun different ways by the pundits. But considering where he was merely six months ago, in single digits compared to Hillary, one has to reckon in Nicole Wallace's take quoted above.  One can also reckon in E.J. Dionne's take on MSNBC after 100% of the precincts were in this morning- reporting Clinton with 701 delegate votes and Sanders with 697. E.J. noted:

"Not since Eugene Debs ran on the Socialist ticket in 1912 has this set of ideas really gotten this kind of prominence and I think this speaks to a discontent in the Democratic Party and on the Left and in some ways this goes back to 'Occupy Wall Street'"  - noting Sanders's' admonition that one had to take the activist sentiment into the voting booth.

More astounding, as Chuck Todd pointed out this morning, Bernie Sanders got all his support money from 770,000 supporters nationwide, contributing an average of $27 each. Hillary, meanwhile, according to the WSJ report yesterday (p. A6), "has collected a total of $3 million (along with husband Bill) from Goldman Sachs for speaking fees since 2005." (Recall Goldman came out about the only winners in the 2007-08 financial crisis by making credit default swaps bets that banks would fail.)

Another take (which I lean to)  is that of mathematical journalist Charles Seife, in his book 'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled By the Numbers, in which the art of "proofiness" is revealed. This is the art of using bogus arguments to advance a claim via spurious appeals to numbers or counting. In particular, one of the surest signs of proofiness is the failure to provide attached uncertainties to the measurements - any measurements!  That includes vote counts.

In respect to statistical ties in elections, Seife is adamant that it makes no sense to declare a winner, especially if the difference in percentage is within the statistical errors. The difference between Sanders's' delegate count and Hillary's was just that: 701 to 697. Reinforced by the fact that in one precinct  (as reported by Steve Kornacki on MSNBC's coverage last night) no accommodation could be reached between the two groups of caucus goers - after hours - so the precinct leader simply resorted to a freaking coin toss.  Hillary won the random coin toss which put 3 added delegate votes in her column. Subtract those from her total and add them to Bernie's and what do you get?

Well, 701 - 3 = 698 for Hillary and 697 + 3 = 700 for Bernie

Voila! All of a sudden Bernie now emerges the winner and the Clinton camp is in a state of apoplexy and dyspepsia. (Let us recall again, the Dem caucus process is not like the Repubs' where you just write a name on a ballot and count them one by one. In the Dems' case actual numbered votes aren't counted because the win in each precinct is decided by person to person "horse trading" leading to percentages of the total, with the delegate votes then allotted, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-caucuses-are-so-difficult-for.html

This renders the Clinton camp's statement this morning totally laughable, i.e.:

"After thorough reporting and analysis. there is no uncertainty and Secretary Clinton clearly won".

Uh no, she just thinks she did, Given there were problems with the delegate counts and allocations thereof  in other precincts beyond the stupid coin flip  for 3 delegate votes (in one). Seife in his book, pp. 162-63, points to disestimation as the number one source of proofiness in close elections, and the primary factor making it meaningless to declare winners in such elections. (He uses the examples of the 2000 Presidential election and the 2008 Senate election between Norm Coleman and Al Franken).

According to Seife (p. 162):

"As long as there are close elections, disestimation will continue to exact a toll year after year obscuring the truth" I.e. that there is no clear winner.

He admonishes political parties, candidates and the media to be aware of all of the following:

- Admit elections are fallible. Even with the most rigorous counting - under ideal conditions and with well designed ballots (or caucus procedures) - there will always be errors of a "few hundredths of a percent"

- Be aware of people entering vote count data incorrectly

- Be aware of ballots misplaced or double counted (more peculiar to the Republican caucuses)

He concludes that the most accurate statement one can make about such close elections amounts to qualifying approximations, i.e. for the case of the Iowa D caucus results:

Hillary Clinton won approximately 701 delegate votes

And:

Bernie Sanders won approximately 697 delegate votes.

Especially, as I pointed out, counting and assessing delegate counts was anything but trivial in something like 90 Iowa precincts - including one that needed a coin toss to allot its votes!

Bernie Sanders should be proud of his showing in Iowa and for further perspective let's note:

- He pulled in almost as large a percentage vote (49.5%) as the two main anti-establishment Repubs  (Cruz and Trump) combined (52%)

- He will take away at least 21 to 22 delegates from the Iowa  Dem caucuses vs. 6 for Ted Cruz, the declared R-winner.

The number one knock from pundits, e.g. Chuck Todd on NBC this morning,  was "If he couldn't get a clear win in Iowa how can he do it in any other states?"

But they miss the point! Unlike the Republican primaries - which are 'winner take all'' - most of the Dem primaries allot delegates based on percentage proportions. Thus, Sanders can still come away with a significant set of delegate votes headed toward the Democratic convention in July. If he has enough, and I believe he will, he can make all kinds of deals to advance his policies into the D-platform,

We will have to see. But again, Bernie's accomplishment in Iowa must not be underestimated.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/02/the_democratic_primary_miracle_why_sanders_vs_clinton_is_just_the_beginning/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/65797/want-endless-war-love-the-u-s-empire-well-hillary-clinton-s-your-choice

"Super High" IQ Scores - Why They Are Impractical & Meaningless

Parade  magazine contributor Marilyn vos Savant was once claimed by The Guinness Book of Records to have the highest IQ ever recorded. By one measure- a test first taken by her in 1956 - it was claimed to be 228 or a mental age of 22 years and 10 months at the age of 10.  A recent article ('The 21 Smartest People In The World')  at salon.com also claimed to have a list of the "world's highest IQs" with a number even higher than vos Savant's and many with IQs higher that Albert Einstein's (160). But is this really possible? Do such high IQ scores even have any credible meaning?

 In the case of vos Savant, according to Wikipedia:

" Alan S. Kaufman ,a psychology professor and author of IQ tests, writes in IQ Testing 101 that "Miss Savant was given an old version of the Stanford-Binet (Terman & Merrill 1937), which did, indeed, use the antiquated formula of MA/CA × 100. But in the test manual's norms, the Binet does not permit IQs to rise above 170 at any age, child or adult. And the authors of the old Binet stated: 'Beyond fifteen the mental ages are entirely artificial and are to be thought of as simply numerical scores.' (Terman & Merrill 1937). ...the psychologist who came up with an IQ of 228 committed an extrapolation of a misconception, thereby violating almost every rule imaginable concerning the meaning of IQs."

 The list of the "world's smartest people" featuring over a dozen with higher IQs than 160 (for Einstein) is also daft and a classic example of what author Charles Seife would call "proofiness", discussed in his excellent book, : 'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled By the Numbers'.  In page after page Seife decries the use of numbers not merely to lie but to baffle with bullshit. No better example of such proofy twaddle can be seen than in the website below:

http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/INDEX3.htm

But alas, super high IQ scores are also rife with proofiness. Further understanding of what I am about can be grasped by reference to the standard (normal) Gaussian distribution or "Bell curve"  on which the distribution of IQ scores is based, e.g.



Note the percentages of the population decreasing at both the high and the low ends, corresponding to the number of standard deviations  (stds) from the zero point or mean.

We see, for example, that by a 2.2 std dispersion we are effectively at a population fraction of 2 percent - which is the cutoff threshold for qualifying in Mensa. Generally, this is taken as an IQ of 133-35. (Depending on the test used). Note also, how the corresponding population applicable is decreasing as the number of stds gets larger from the central point. At about 2.6 std we are near the threshold (or just slightly beyond it) for the top one percent or Intertel members. At 3 std (about 145 IQ) one qualifies for the Poetic Genius Society.

Using a base of 300 million as the U.S. population, the Bell curve proportions would translate into 6 million who'd qualify for Mensa entrance, and 3 million who'd qualify for Intertel.  By about 3.3 stds we reach the 0.1 percent cutoff and the threshold for the Triple Nine Society. The population qualifying is one-tenth that for Intertel or 3 million/ 10 = 300,000. Divide 300,000 by 300,000,000 and you get 1,000 - hence the Triple Nines are also known as the "One in one thousand society".  

Note how already we are near the effective upper limit of the Bell curve in terms of being able to discriminate between the IQ groups. At near 4.5 stds, however, there is the Mega Society which will have a threshold at the 0.0001 % level. Or doing the same math as I showed in the previous paragraph, only 1 in a million qualifying. This would imply 300 in the U.S. population of 300 million - and with an IQ of 171. But what does that even mean, and is it useful?

As the relevant article in Wikipedia points out:

"No professionally designed and validated IQ test claims to distinguish test-takers at a one-in-a-million level of rarity of score. The standard score range of the Stanford-Binet IQ test is 40 to 160.The standard scores on most other currently normed IQ tests fall in the same range. A score of 160 corresponds to a rarity of about 1 person in 30,000 (leaving aside the issue of error of measurement common to all IQ tests), which falls short of the Mega Society's 1 in a million requirement."

In other words, there aren't even any IQ tests that currently exist which achieve the level of discrimination to identify a would-be Mega Society member! The highest score achievable (and hence measurable) within the constellation of intelligence allows no higher than 160 - which was Einstein's IQ.

Consider the mean or 0 mark which sets the "average IQ" at 100. This means half score above this level and half below. At about 4.5 std, the threshold for the Mega Society we are already in uncharted territory. This is why it is likely impossible to design a test adequate to ferret out those 300 potential members in the U.S. The Mega Society insists it has "unsupervised IQ tests that the test author claims have been normalized using standard statistical methods" but this is very doubtful.  Most psychometricians concur that by 3 std (145) to 4 std (160 IQ) one is already at the limit of the measurable validity for testing IQ in any useful way. Beyond 4 std (again, Einstein's level) the difference between such scores blurs.

Again, in considering such stratospheric IQs one ought to look not only at the std dispersion from the mean but the area under the curve. At 4.7 std the area is essentially nil. What about claims of a 300 IQ? This is even more preposterous. We are now talking about 13.33 std from the mean. As one contributor put it on an IQ- statistics site:

"An IQ of 300 has no useful meaning because there aren't enough people in the world (or intelligent beings in the history of the cosmos) to make it useful".

Or, again, no test that could possibly discriminate that single potential member from 6 billion people. (Other estimates put the proportion in even more rarefied terms, i.e. 1 in 50 billion - or nearly 1 out of every other person who's ever walked the Earth).  In effect, it means that any article bragging on one or more people with supposed IQ scores exceeding Einstein's is preposterous. Even the Mega Society entry threshold is likely a Macguffin, given that in reality there is no living human with an IQ that high that can be satisfactorily verified at the necessary level of statistical confidence.

Even if such a "Mega" person really existed (irrespective of how many claim to be Mega Society members) would one really see a qualitative difference, say from an "Einstein-level" IQ person? I doubt it. I can't see a Mega Society member being able to do any more than Einstein did, including developing the tensor calculus to use in his General Theory of Relativity.

Thus as one of the web psychometricians put it, even a 150 IQ person (near the top of most IQ test standards) would not see a significant difference between himself and a 160 or 170 IQ person. Where the real differences would be seen is where the areas registered for standard deviations are the most.  For example, between a normal IQ person and a Mensa (upper 2 percent) IQ person. Their interests, and even vocabulary would likely be so different as to approach the analogy of an alien trying to communicate with a typical earthling.

But this is precisely why Mensa as an organization was created in the first place, to establish a communal civic space where gifted individuals could meet and converse without being put down by pejoratives (Dweebs, or "geeks") from "normals".  Intertel was launched for similar reasons, though it is interesting to note that many Intertel members also belong to Mensa - simply because it is vastly larger and there are more opportunities for social exchanges.

As an interesting side note, at Monsignor Edward Pace High in N. Miami one of the first  segregations transpired after we all took an IQ test (Stanford -Binet) in 10th grade. In the immediate aftermath I noticed a loss in the diversity of the student body with many of those perceived "slower" (but often more interesting, joking and friendly) leaving Pace for good. I was also encouraged to leave, but for a different reason:  to attend Nova High where I could advance at my own pace and not be held back by a less challenging curriculum. I decided not to take the advice because it would mean 100 extra miles a day total transporting by my dad.

The takeaway from this blog post? Don't trust any claims of people with IQs over 160!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample questions from the "Sigma Test" similar to the one to qualify for the Mega Society

1) Several faucets were used to fill up six tanks. For one hour, all the faucets discharged water in a reservoir, which distributed it between four of these tanks: A, B, C and D. After that, for one hour, the faucets discharged water in a double funnel which directed half of the water to tanks E and F and the other half to the reservoir which, in turn, continued to distribute its water between tanks A, B, C and D. With this, tanks A, B, C and D were full. To fill tanks E and F up, it was necessary to use one faucet, which, for two hours, distributed its water between tanks E and F. After this all the six tanks were full. What was the number of faucets initially used? (Note: all the faucets had the same water flow rate and all the tanks had the same volume).
           

2)  Several rectangles are drawn on a plane surface in such a way that their intersecting lines form 18,769 areas not further subdivided. What is the minimum number of rectangles that must be drawn to form the described pattern?

           

3)  Several straight line segments are drawn on a plane surface in such a way that their intersecting lines form 1,597 areas that are not further subdivided. What is the minimum number of line segments that must be drawn to form the described pattern?

           

4)  1 + 10^1,234,567,890 triangles are drawn on a plane surface. What is the maximum number of areas, not further subdivided, that can be formed as these triangles intersect each other? (Contributed by Rodrigo de Almeida Rodrigues)

           

5)  According to Fermat’s Last Theorem, a^n + b^n = c^n has no solutions for n > 2 (a, b, c and n must be positive integers). In 1992, I proved this in a simple, yet incorrect manner. This was my reasoning: Fermat’s Theorem is a generalization of Pythagoras’ Theorem, which asserts that the sum of areas of the squares drawn on the legs (short sides) of a right triangle equals the area of a square drawn on the hypotenuse of the same right triangle (a^2 + b^2 = c^2). If we try to generalize that theorem, going from 2 to 3 dimensions (a^3 + b^3 = c^3), we have a triangular prism formed by displacement of a right triangle along an axis perpendicular to its face, as illustrated by the figure below. 

We can construct a cube on one of the three quadrangular faces of that prism. Two of those faces correspond to the legs of the right triangle (ADFB, BFEC) while the larger face corresponds to the hypotenuse (ADEC). It is possible to construct a cube on one of the faces, implying that the 4 sides of that face have the same length. This affects the whole prism, causing the cube constructed on the other face to have the same size than that constructed on the first, for if AB=BF and BF=BC, then AB=BC. In that way, no cube can be constructed on the third face, for if AC represents the hypotenuse, then AC cannot be equal to to AB. Therefore, a^n + b^n = c^n has no solution for n=3. Following the same line of reasoning, we can show that it has no solution for any number of dimensions larger than 2. What is the error in this proof?

6) A certain gear system consists of 5 concentric, superposed discs: A, B, C, D and E, which are mounted on a solid platform, taken as a stationary reference. The discs have different sizes and spin at different speeds. All the discs spin at constant rates, some clockwise, some anticlockwise. Each disc has a red dot on its surface, and initially all these red dots are not lined up. At a given moment, all the discs start to spin simultaneously, each at its own speed, without any contact between them. It takes 7 minutes for disc A, 13 minutes for disc B, 17 minutes for disc C, 19 minutes for disc D and 23 minutes for disc E to complete a full 360-degree spin. After a certain time, all the red dots were aligned, disc A being in the same position that it was 2 minutes after the discs started to spin, disc B being in the same position that it was 3 minutes after the discs started to spin, disc C being in the same position that it was 4 minutes after the discs started to spin, disc D being in the same position that it was 7 minutes after the discs started to spin, and disc E being the same position that it was 9 minutes after the discs started to spin. How much time elapsed from the moment the discs started to spin until the discs reached that configuration for the first time?

7) In 1993, in an essay about Science and Religion, I described a project regarding the possibility to build an “invisibility machine”. On describing the details, I realized that some problems were insolvable, not only because of technological limitations but also for physical reasons imposing theoretical and possibly insurmountable limits. The project starts from the central idea that in order to make an object invisible, it is necessary for an external observer looking in its direction to visually stop noticing its presence. This can be done in the following way: A sphere is constructed, and its whole external surface is covered with minute, high-resolution TV cameras and monitors. Millions or even billions of cameras and monitors are to cover the whole sphere in such a way that each monitor transmits the image captured by a camera located in the point diametrically opposite to that monitor. The result will be as shown in the figure below. 

The image of the object (blue square) is captured by a camera located in point A, which transmits the image to a monitor in point M. As a result, an observer in point O will see the blue square as if there were nothing in front of him. In that way, everything inside the sphere will be invisible to the external observer. But this scheme presents two problems. One of them can be solved in theory while the other one is insoluble. Indicate those two problems and explain why one of them can be solved but the other one cannot..

8) The porous and gray “lead” inside a pencil consists of a mixture of graphite and clay. The ratio of graphite to clay is not known. On writing on a sheet of paper, a fine layer of “lead” remains on the surface of the sheet. Describe a method for calculating the mass of “lead” in the dot of the letter “i”. You may use only US$10 to buy the material needed for the experiment..

9)  We have a cylinder with a radius of 50 cm and a tape measure 0.01 cm thick. The height of the cylinder equals the width of the tape measure. The thickness of the tape measure is invariable and one of its wider sides is inextensible. What is the minimum length of tape necessary to wind it around the cylinder 9 times, all rounds overlapping, as in a roll of scotch tape. The top and base of the cylinder may not be covered with tape. The solution must be given with 14 significant digits and it is not allowed to cut the tape or cut or deform de cylinder.

10)  Describe a practical and fast method that can be used with good precision to determine the number of words in a person’s vocabulary..     

How Spurious Science - Math Websites Can Convert People Into Morons

It's actually incredibly easy. We were first warned about it in Charles Seife's excellent book, 'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled By the Numbers, in which the author cites a number of examples of how merely tossing numbers at people can fuck up their brains. In page after page Seife decries the use of numbers not merely to lie but to baffle with bullshit. No better example of such a website is the one for the link below, which reeks of horse manure:

http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/INDEX3.htm

And indeed, this single site has already been responsible for at least four nincompoop questions sent to me in the astrophysics forum of All Experts. The person who sent it - who has variously gone by "Diana", "Jeanine" and most recently "Brianna" - obviously has zero clue of: a) what constitutes an astrophysics question and b) how to spot physically incongruous units at a glance. (Which can be verified merely by scrolling through the inane combinations of units served up for the unwary reader's consumption in the link above.)

In her first foray,  in October of last year, and referencing an additional bozo site, she wrote (after I refused to address her question as a serious inquiry):

"EinsteinElectricity.com plainly declares that 1 / Velocity is equal to the Tesla. Wikipedia then declares that the magnetic field of the earth is equal to .000032 Teslas. 1 / earth orbit Velocity is equal to .000032 Teslas ! (the true orbital math) And you think that that is just a coincidence ? Hello ? Jeanine"


Forcing myself to stoke up on patience, as one might with a small pup that refuses to be toilet-trained, I then referred this Canadian dolt to the fact the unit combination isn't even physically consistent, adding:

"Check them yourself! vel v = m/s so 1/v = s/m .  BUT 1 T = 1 Wb/m^2 (SI system) The first principle of any test of hypothesis or formula is to ensure the physical units are consistent!"

I also added:

"Btw, anyone can concoct and hurl together dissimilar units to make them appear valid, but garbage in = garbage out. The sure sign of pseudo-scientific claptrap and bunkum is when one reads:

"The earth in orbit is electrical, the Tesla is present due to the earth moving through the aether.  When you multiply earth Acceleration by the Diameter as well as the hidden Tesla you get the Velocity of light and its CORRECT UNITS."

Any physics student of mine that would scrawl such drivel would get an F - for the semester! An orbit being electrical? Moving through the "ether"? The ether doesn't even exist - the Michelon -Morley experiment showed the concept of ether is redundant.  The rest is pure poppycock. The waste of a mind is a terrible ting and this nonsense is an enormous waste of a mind - as well as the minds led to buy into it."

So, at least 5 months passed before the following bit of bafflegab gibberish (under the header 'Sound math')  arrived in my inbox, doubtless compliments of the selfsame Canadian twit, now using the name "Brianna":

Our SOLARMath equations work with "Kilograms" ( http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/INDEX3.htm )

But because Avogadro's number is atoms per mole which leads to atoms per "gram", prior to commencing the equation below, we need to convert the initial Mass of the earth to grams.

The Equation is;

The Mass of the earth divided by Gravity^4  x  Acceleration of earth in orbit  =  Avogadro's number.

5537831004648121688015772977.2114697 grams  /  (9.8)^4  =  600392689687827221617859.5082045622325038

600392689687827221617859.5082045622325038  x  .001003207246557  =  602318297074676474879.204

Now our question is;

Should this (above) "final value" be multiplied by 1,000 ?  Does the whole equation need a second x 1,000 in order to compensate for the very first conversion of kilograms to grams ?  It seems counter intuitive.  We figured the equation would need a "divided by 1,000" to compensated for the initial ( x 1,000 ) that was used to go from Kilograms to Grams.

When that final x 1,000 is done, the result gives us Avogadro's complete number = 602 318 297 074 676 474 879 204.

So that final x 1,000 gives us a correct value.

But ?  Is that final x 1,000 proper mathematics ?


I replied with a customized rejection and was as polite as possible, emphasizing that the astrophysics forum (at least for my domain of questions) had to meet at least one of the following content criteria for consideration as a legit astrophysics query. (Being painfully aware of how other subject-discipline areas were diluted by being deluged with irrelevant questions in relation to the actual category):

i)The energy processes in stars, including:  energy transfer (radiation, convection, conduction), nuclear fusion reactions (carbon cycle, proton-proton cycle, triple alpha process, etc.)

ii)the physical properties of stars: density, temperature ranges for radii, opacity, chemical composition determined by spectral class (absorption lines, emission lines, equivalent widths of spectral lines) Hydrostatic equilibrium (pressure-gravity balance in stars)

iii)Solar properties – irradiance, helicity, the alpha-omega dynamo process, sunspot emergence and associated magnetic features. Effects on Earth and also global warming.

iv)Solar flares: prediction, cause and associated physical factors – plasma instabilities and general plasma processes on the Sun that highlight the flare process. Connection to the solar corona - coronal mass ejections.

v)General plasma properties including plasma frequencies, radius of gyration, adiabatic invariants, gyro-magnetic radio emission. Also: magnetic tubes and mirrors on the Sun, relation to plasma “mirrors”, the loss-cone effect, Fermi acceleration in magnetic mirrors. The aurora and particle dynamics associated with the magnetosphere.

vi)Nebular composition and processes, detection. Emission vs. absorption nebulae. Gas dynamics and plasma properties.

vii)Plasma wave propagation in stars and nebulae, including Alfven waves, electrostatic waves, magnetosonic waves etc.

viii)General gravimetric properties of massive stellar objects, general relativity and applications to expansion of cosmos, as well as black holes (structure, angular momentum, Kerr type, rotating vds. Non-rotating), singularities, and Hawking radiation.

ix) Detection and analysis of photometry for extra-solar planets near type F, G-stars.

x)Stellar evolution and H-R diagrams. Formation of black holes neutron stars - pulsars, etc.

I had hoped she herself, whoever she was, would in the meantime take the time to see the question and its units were totally inconsistent, and then work from correct units to see the Avogadro number itself could not possibly be derived from the mass of Earth divided by the gravitational acceleration to the fourth power and multiplied by the orbital acceleration. Because all one is doing is hurling units together haphazardly to get a number  - but which has no relation to the physical dimensions or quantities!

Alas, the impudent little imp - bereft of any social graces or manners - merely responded with a rude follow-up,

"are you drunk ? this is not really an astrophysics question? If you "can't" answer the question just fess up. Mass of earth / Gravity^4 x orbit Acceleration = Na That's as "astrophysics" as you can get. Earth, Gravity, Orbit, hello ? And the math is as basic as grade 7"


It is interesting the imp writes this dreck, but her reply also shows she's as bereft of any rudimentary math education as she is manners. Maybe she lives in the backwoods of Canada and hasn't been taught any manners, or maybe her education was limited to a one-room school house where they didn't teach students how to master units and dimensions. Mayhap addition and subtraction was the extent of it. Who knows? But her idiocy is clearly at least on a par with those numskulls who peddle the "BMI" as an actual indicator of weight and obesity - which nonsense I skewered earlier, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-bmi-body-mass-index-as-ridiculous.html


Am I being overly harsh with "Bri"? You decide! The first rule of approaching any units or dimensions problem is to make sure all the units are consistent. Hence, if one is using g = 9.8 m/s ² then all the other units must be S.I. or metric to work. Thus, the mass of the Earth must be: M =
5.97 x  10 ²⁴ kg.  (All her dozen or so extra digits for that value is yet another illustration of "proofiness", as the measurement uncertainty precludes so many significant figures.) The orbital acceleration is then: 0.0059 m/s ²   So we are now in position to "do the math":


?  =  ( 5.97 x  10 ²⁴ kg) /   (9.8 m/s ²  )⁴   x [ 0.0059 m/s ²] 

Which yields on multiplication:

3.85  x 10 ¹⁸ kg -m ³  / s ⁶


Letting 1 N = 1 kg m/s ²  we can rewrite:

3.85  x 10 ¹⁸ N -m ²  / s ⁴

Which discloses that not only is the number more than five orders of magnitude less than Avogadro's constant ( 6.02 x 10²³  ) but that the units are not remotely alike! The Avogadro number is actually the number of atoms in a mole of a substance. The combination of units shown above bears  NO relation to such a number!

Sadly, the young woman - if that's indeed what she was - could have obtained this all on her own without all the huff and puff had she even possessed a basic education in math, not to mention some common sense.

Alas, she lacked both, as well as what Bajans call "broughtupsy".

How To Ask An Ignorant Astrophysics Question

Being a volunteer on All Experts affords one the opportunity to extend his or her teaching, even if now retired from formal university teaching. Also, it offers the ability to interact with many young and curious minds, all seeking to better understand the universe in which we live.  The problem is when one encounters minds led astray by pseudo-scientific bafflegab and pseudo-mathematical twaddle  (warned about by Charles Seife in his book, Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled by the Numbers. )

Anyway, my encounter with this sort of bollocks started yesterday with an apparently innocent hypothetical question, by a Canadian student named "Diana":

QUESTION: If a bullet traveling beside the ISS was to gradually increase in mass (while continuing at the exact same velocity) it would slowly descend towards the earth as it orbits.

Now it is 30 m above the earth traveling at the same velocity as the ISS.  If its mass now remained constant and its velocity begins to increase, it will slowly rise upwards towards space while continuing to orbit.

 Can we say that it moves upward not only do to its centripetal force, but also due to an increased density of the space surrounding it ?

 

Note this is the extent of the question, and there is no elaboration specifically of the last portion referencing the density of the space "surrounding it".

 

My reply was as follows:

 

A typical bullet has a standard mass of 100 g (0.1 kg). This is roughly the same as about 45% of meteoritic debris. Hence, at the velocity you are proposing (same as ISS) it would behave like meteoritic debris and be burned up in the Earth's atmosphere on entering -  before it could ever get as low as 30 m, even if its mass increased (refer to the Chelyabinsk object which burned up in February last year over Russia).

 Hence, there is no chance of it's "moving upward".

 

 This elicited the further reply, if you can believe it:

 

QUESTION: Hypothetically if there was no atmosphere around the earth.

 

Note here the positing of an absurd hypothetical - an airless Earth. Of course, then it ceases to be Earth. As I further noted in my response (clearly invoking way too much common sense):

How could an airless world have occupants that launched an ISS? Also your hypothetical is contradicted by  referring to "increased density of the space surrounding it".  Which, unless I've missed your meaning, has to refer to atmosphere. I mean, from where else would this increased density come?

In any case, even with the extremely implausible conditions you suggest, it is impossible that the bullet would "rise up" because - after increasing its mass (again, as you suggest) the increased gravitational pull of Earth (F ~ GMm/r²)  would have ensured an ultimately decayed orbit and impact. Not "rising up".

 

 Addendum: At a height of 30 m from 'Earth' the velocity of the bullet would have had to increase to 3.66 x 10 ⁶ m/s to sustain any orbit - far less move up- which is preposterous, given the ISS velocity is only 7.71 x 10³ m/s.   It is all very well to propose "hypotheticals" but we must expect some touchstone in reality, physical laws. (I.e. where will the energy come from to countermand the force of Earth's gravitational attraction?)

 

 This finally exposed her real shtick with the elaboration of a nonsense source of "density" to allow the bullet to have a magical trajectory:

 

You're hilarious !

> How could an airless world have occupants that launched an ISS?

That's exactly why we use the word hypothetical.

> would have ensured an ultimately decayed orbit and impact.

No the velocity was kept constant and only enough mass was added to bring it close to the earth.

Because space is not empty but made of quantum particles of mass we believe the increased velocity would indeed cause a higher density thus pushing the bullet upwards. See:

www.WowGoHere.com   and:

 

http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/FAQ.htm

Where do these ridiculous websites emanate from that enable young minds to be hooked by bollocks? Quantum particles of mass - sufficient to affect a bullet?  As I wrote back to her, also clarifying the applicability of the term "hypothetical":

 

This is why I reject most hypothetical questions unless they at least assume a relative basis in reality (i.e. if you are writing or talking about a problem relative to *Earth*, then we assume Earth parameters ab initio.  Thus, in my frame of reference, "hypothetical" has limits. If you choose the Earth as the planet you're examining in a given problem context, then it has the density, mass, temperature profile etc. and YES ...atmosphere of Earth. If not,  you choose a planet example that fits the conditions you require or imagine a completely hypothetical example planet - not Earth!

 Re: Space not being empty, sure ok, but "quantum particles of mass" would not have had any effect on macroscopic mass, e.g. a bullet.  See, for example, David Bohm's treatment in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order.  Bohm notes 1 cc of empty space has a mass-energy that surpasses that of the known matter universe, but it can't be used to move or affect a macroscopic material particle.

 

 The latter point is critical. Also emphasized in the paper 'Does Physics Legislate Cosmogony?' by John Wheeler and C.M. Patton. In the paper they calculate (or estimate, more accurately) the effective mass-density of quantum vacuum fluctuations by using:

 r  = [ ( h c/ L²) c ] / L ³

where L is the Planck length, or  10 ^-33  cm. This result becomes 10 ⁹⁴  g/ cm³. But again, the problem is that the immense density isn't available to do anything to macroscopic objects, like bullets.  In order to affect bullets, they'd have to be the same scale as the Planck length, but they are not.

And this elicited the barrage of bunkum and proofiness - now delivered by "Jeanine" - supposedly the alter persona of "Diana". (Hmm... never realized multiple personality disorder was so prevalent there).  She wrote:

How on earth can you possibly call this crap?
Earth's orbit Velocity and Circumference must be calculated via "pure mathematics" in accordance with the Speed of Light. 

When this is done, the true reality of our galaxy is easily understood.

Hence (according to the SOLARMath® TABLE below) when the correct orbit velocity of earth (30,689.1802376259 m/s) is calculated according to Einstein's "c", the  following  list  of  extraordinary  mathematics  unfolds.  And please do not jump to immature refutes by stating that the UNITS do not work.  ALL units work perfectly - Link

1)     Speed of Light  =  orbit Velocity^2  /  Pi       (Enormously Important Equation)

2)     Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of Gravity  x  orbit Time

3)     Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of Gravity  x  (earth Volume  /  orbit Circumference x Tau2)

4)     Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of planet earth in orbit  x  Diameter of orbit

5)     Speed of Light  =  Density of earth  x  orbit Velocity x 2

(And a string of 5 more proofy math relations that make no sense)

Here is where the baloney alarm went into overdrive and I knew this girl (or girls) had been sucker-punched by nonsense.


In full display we behold the “proofiness” that Charles Seife referenced in his book, Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled by the Numbers.  Seife decried the tactic of using numbers not just to lie but to baffle the susceptible and gullible with bullshit.  He refers to a common failing of most people unversed in math to be hoodwinked merely because some form of math or numbers are interjected into arguments.  Not just using numbers to bolster one's argument. In his words, to use fake numbers to prove falsehoods and to seek to prove something is true - even when it's not- is one of the most egregious forms of  intellectual  fraud.  The first thing any first year Physics student learns - or should - is to check for consistency of the physical units used. If their combination doesn't yield any recognized physical quantity - defined as part of the standards and constants published yearly by the American Institute of Physics - then the results are balderdash, pure and simple. Let's take her example (4) where:

Speed of Light  =  Acceleration of planet earth in orbit  x  Diameter of orbit

What are the units here? The speed of light c is in meters per second, or m/s. The acceleration a is given in terms of  m/ s ²  and the diameter of any orbit (any orbit) is a length so in meters (m). Then multiplying them together one gets:

(m/s)  =  ?  (m/ s ²) (m)  =  m² / s ²

Which is emphatically not the same as the units for velocity of light! Let's also check her "enormously important equation" (1): Speed of Light  =  orbit Velocity^2  /  Pi      

Again, we examine the product of the units to see if there's a quantity that results that makes any sense or if this girl is just seeing things, or seeing what she wants to see.  We have the speed of light on one side (units m/s ) and on the other the orbit velocity squared:

(m/s)²    =  m² / s ²

 
Note that the presence of pi is neither here nor there as it's a dimensionless mathematical constant.

The thing that really bothered me in all this, not so much the snarkiness and bogus certitude of these young women, was their failure to recognize that the combination of units yields zilch. A squared velocity is simply NOT the same as a velocity. Both girls - if indeed there are two - would merit an F in any physics class of mine.  Worse, if I could I'd deliver an F-minus because of the lack of critical thinking.

Sadly, if this girl or girls are infected by this stupidity many others might be too. Who knows how many physics students have gone on to the website referenced and then belabored their profs with this bullshit, wasting all kinds of time?  But one thing I've learned is you can't argue with ignorant students or ignorant people who are already committed to believe what they want. In this case, because the "maths' seems to work out (at least in their heads) they believe it like a sacred book.

One more confirmation of  Charles Seife's thesis in his book, Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled by the Numbers, that too many of us are too often mesmerized by fake quantities and made to look like ignorant fools because of it.