Quantum teleportation, FTL, and causality; was Re: Cat 5 extended run?

Levi Pearson levipearson at gmail.com
Fri Mar 15 14:29:32 MDT 2013

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Nicholas Leippe <nick at leippe.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Dave Smith <dave at thesmithfam.org> wrote:
>> Science is getting less and less wrong all the time, and I like that trajectory.
> It would be great if this were completely true. But in some fields,
> some people would strongly disagree with this:
> http://milesmathis.com/string.html
> http://milesmathis.com/hup.pdf
> http://milesmathis.com/higgs.pdf
> http://milesmathis.com/higgs2.pdf
> http://milesmathis.com/higgs3.pdf

So, what reason do you have to believe this particular individual
about the wrongness of particular fields of science/applied math
versus the consensus of modern physicists and mathematicians working
in those fields?  My point earlier still stands; it's often hard for a
layperson to distinguish good research from the bad, as the published
scholarly accounts tend to require a great deal of specialized
knowledge and experience to fully understand. It's unfortunate, in a
way, but also a practical reality. The reason that highly technical
language exists for specialized fields is that they require a great
deal of precision to describe, and general language is far too
ambiguous for the task.

Anyway, If you see a lone guy on the internet with a web page
containing a bunch of articles claiming that contemporary science
and/or math have got something completely wrong, chances are you've
found a crackpot.  Science and math are highly competitive fields, and
if a convincing argument could be made against a current well-regarded
theory or conjecture, just about any practitioner in these fields
would LOVE to be the one to present it and crack open an entirely new
field of study.  Crackpots aren't marginalized and dismissed because
they attack the status quo.  They're marginalized because they're
wrong, or at least their arguments are flawed to the point of being
inadmissible to serious consideration.

I once spent weeks arguing with a guy who was convinced that Cantor's
diagonalization argument was flawed and therefore Turing's proof that
the halting problem was undecidable was invalid.  He was a prolific
programmer, wrote with apparent mathematical sophistication and argued
passionately about the wrongness of Computer Science today, but the
fact remains that he was wrong and a crackpot.  These people exist,
and will have a persecution complex no matter what, so it's best to
just ignore their 'heretical' rants.


More information about the PLUG mailing list