Skip navigation

To put the “moral” at the beginning, let’s summarize. If you want to raise my blood pressure, one good way to do it is to write a completely wrong, back-to-front absurd tirade against all of twentieth-century physics. Anyone can slip a few errors into an essay, or even a few “fundamental” errors, but if you want the brass ring, you need at the very least to misrepresent the special theory of relativity, the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, the use of mathematics in physics and the scientific method. Bonus points if you confuse general relativity with quantum physics; a woop-woop-woop special prize for taking a non-true assertion and calling it a “fundamental premise” of quantum mechanics; and an extra cherry on top if you take three famous observations which support general relativity, lie about two of them and forget the third.

The story so far:

I might write an actual, non-linkfesty post about this. . . but then again, other corners of the Network are calling to me and reminding me of overdue obligations, so I might leave it to my colleagues.

UPDATE (6 December): gg now has Part 2 out on the blogonets.

UPDATE (16:47 o’clock): Tyler DiPietro dons the asbestos and joins the fun, followed quickly by Mark Chu-Carroll.

UPDATE (9 December): Flavin of the St. Louis Skeptical Society offers an essay.

5 Comments

  1. It’s not as substantial or elaborate as gg’s post, but my own contribution here scolds his defintion of “mathematical”, “physical” and “metaphysical” models. Short version: they’re crap.

  2. Darrell Williams didn’t know what he had coming, that’s for sure.

  3. I didn’t have time to write a short post about this guy, so I wrote a very long one. I quoted your comment from Mark Chu-Carroll’s article.

  4. Thanks for providing the link; I’ve updated the post above.

  5. Thanks! I appreciate it.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. [...] not the only analysis of this relativity crackpot: Blake Stacey at Science After Sunclipse has been compiling a list of some of the other responses, each of which has something a little different to say.   Everyone [...]