Crackpot Index

[Fernanda]

Source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of \"Einstien\", \"Hawkins\" or \"Feynmann\".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don\'t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of \"I\'m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations\".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is \"only a theory\", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn\'t explain \"why\" they occur, or fails to provide a \"mechanism\".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a \"paradigm shift\".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it \"suppresses original thinkers\" or saying that I misspelled \"Einstein\" in item 8.

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"hidebound reactionary\".

20 points for each use of the phrase \"self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy\".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the \"scientific establishment\" is engaged in a \"conspiracy\" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

[Lt.Callaway]

aint that the truth. There\'s this smart alec at school that should read this. (he\'s the biggest kiss @$$ in the world. He always assumes he\'s right and once proven wrong he goes ( i was just testing you to make shure you know) crap. cheers to finding it :beer: :beer: :eureka:

[keebler_giant]

Haha sounds like me (except for the kiss @$$ part, and the part about saying that he was just testing people...I just continue to argue):spin:

[editor]

If I get to 900 points do I get a prize ?

[Lt.Callaway]

Originally posted by keebler_giant
Haha sounds like me (except for the kiss @$$ part, and the part about saying that he was just testing people...I just continue to argue):spin:

most scientist deny it but its true. If your a scientist your a smart alec. You cant deny it. We are a breed that has the uncontrollable need to prove other people wrong and that our ideas our vastly superior to other people. But there is a limit. When you go out of your way every freakin second to show that you have a little more inteligence than the next man your kind of pushin it. He needs to learn that there is always someone bigger and badder out there (i.e Me):fresh:

lol
(also i think no scientist acknowledges this but 90% of us our procrostinators. I know i am.:cool:
:type:

[Fernanda]

procrastinate? MEEEE?

darn, how did you know ;)

[polyb]

Hey editor, I broke a 1000 just on the first reading and this because, after being realeased, my peers ridiculed me because I know my theories will revolutinize the physics that EINSTIEN, FEYNMAN, GALILEO, AND NEWTON secretely knew were only theories that they publicly supported in order to maintain their positions. Now who is going to help me out with the math? :fresh:

I want my Nobel, Clay, and whatever other prize you can think of because I am the greatest ever!:grin:

[Edited on 2-20-2005 by polyb]

[Fernanda]

narcicism: another crackpot trait ;)

[polyb]

Originally posted by Fernanda
narcicism: another crackpot trait ;)

Well, obviously your not worthy of helping me with MY GREAT THEORY OF ALL!:fresh:

Sheeze whiz, you try to give some people an opportunity......:P

----------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, although narcicism was implied, I think it should be explicated and given at least a 30 point bonus, depending on the degree displayed. Points for form should apply!:D

[Fernanda]

just had fun reading this again...lol

[Sir_Zerp]

Whatever the byte number the index is keyed to; my goal is for my score to roll it over. :}

A signed 32 bit int you say? come on 0xfffffffe

[watchayakan]

(also i think no scientist acknowledges this but 90% of us our procrostinators. I know i am.:cool:
:type:
Here I was worried I wouldn't make it because of that quality!

[Retsia]

Oh my...oh my...



*leaving the room*

[readkandinsky2]

What? I only get 3 points? doeerse speling count I love sheez whiz especially on ritz crackers.

Moderator note: Please only quote a short, relevant portion of the post to which you're responding.

[Fernanda]

yes, it's easy to do this...just highlight the part you want to quote before hitting the "QUOTE" button

[readkandinsky2]

yes, it's easy to do this...just highlight the part you want to quote before hitting the "QUOTE" button
IT does not work for previous pages or multiple quotes with my machine .I assumed that everyone had read the previous posts ( score ) and Knew what cheese whiz is.

[phisix]

Actually, there should be a 100 point starting credit,
and another 100 points for claiming black holes are
actually hollow stars filled with a vacuum whose
physical properties match those of cheese whiz.

[Retsia]

How about giving everyone 37 points because we are all lunatics......eh?

[readkandinsky2]

How about giving everyone 37 points because we are all lunatics......eh?
Actually we should only only get 37 pt.s because a can of cheeze whiz only contains 37% matter. The rest is marketing.

[obi-2-kenobi]

actually, i thought that there was a lawsuit and they changed it to 39% matter.(lol)

[pinestone]

Source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

etc...In that case, I vote myself in at -5 points. 500 points for all the wrong stuff and
-500 points for an experiment that proves the right stuff.

[Sir_Zerp]

In that case, I vote myself in at -5 points. 500 points for all the wrong stuff and -500 points for an experiment that proves the right stuff.

Dude, 500-500 equals zero. what kind of crackpot would get 500-500=-5?

Anyway, this is my turf, ask anyone on the board. I got a 31 page paper about nothing, if you want to read it. Ample proof of my highscore.

P.S. I'll be sending you that check tomorrow :rotfl:

[pinestone]

Dude, 500-500 equals zero. what kind of crackpot would get 500-500=-5?

Anyway, this is my turf, ask anyone on the board. I got a 31 page paper about nothing, if you want to read it. Ample proof of my highscore.

P.S. I'll be sending you that check tomorrow :rotfl:Dude, I started out with -5 (starting credit). I ordered the glass yesterday.

[Sir_Zerp]

I stand corrected. Who builds a scale at starts with -5 ???

My student aid check is coming in, your invention is a school expense this year. :msn_nerd:

Speaking of odd offsets, the ten second count down has eleven counts.

Try it on your fingers, 10 to 0; is 11 numbers.

Weird world we live in.

[pinestone]

I stand corrected. Who builds a scale at starts with -5 ???

My student aid check is coming in, your invention is a school expense this year. :msn_nerd:You realize that was not my intention when I first posted a link to my site here. If I could get a grant, I would build them and give them to the schools and universities as an aid to understanding nano technology and opto-magnetic phenomenon.

[Sir_Zerp]

Dude, don't worry about it.

People like new toys.

If it works, everyone in the physics dept is going to want one just to keep up with the zerp.

[pinestone]

...Weird world we live in.

...or the north point of a compass needle is a "south" pole.

[Sir_Zerp]

Aid to understanding nano technology and opto-magnetic phenomenon.

It works. :div20:

I got it out of the box and for the first few minutes I didn't notice the affect in the room light.

Then I rearranged things and tried the led, and darn it, I was looking right at the field.

Very very neat. I have an optics class this semester which we have to make a 10 minute presentation.

I’m going to hook up a microfocus webcam with same side lighting.

Since there’s no need to see completely thru the second layer of glass, I'm going to try a white piece of paper between the second layer and the magnets.

Then focus the webcam on the near side of the lens.

Betting it is going to be a good class presentation.

We have projectors in our rooms, guessing it is going to be a good real time picture projected for the whole class.

[Quantum Jack]

wheres that link?

[GeV]

most scientist deny it but its true. If your a scientist your a smart alec. You cant deny it. We are a breed that has the uncontrollable need to prove other people wrong and that our ideas our vastly superior to other people.

These lines kind of reminds me of Gell-Mann's tendency to dominate other people using his intelligence.

[marlon]

ok that seems nice

[GeV]

OMG. This made me laugh in the library. I hope I did not catch any unwanted attention. But this crackpot index must be one of the best around.

[Fernanda]

get back to work you... :P hehe

[deaste]

Spam model

If virtual photons are spam, spacetime is spam with (spam and spam)(spam minus spam)

so a photon is spam, with egg and spam :msn_coffe

[deaste]

This is a bit of a survey; the question is: has anyone else here ever posted anything in "Physics Help and Math Help" forums, and if so, have you ever encountered a mod called ZapperZ? I don't know who this dude thinks he is, but he wins my award for "best example of a Science Nazi 2008-2009".

I could go into the 'dicussion' I tried to have with this.. person, but in the end he refused to answer any questions, and I got permabanned by the Obersturmfuhrer. Which is even funnier.

Anyone else encountered the Zapster? This guy is really a piece of work, first he disses your post, then when you query what he's on about, and get even slightly miffed at his opinion, he bans you. (I guess it's just his way.)

I honestly think the dude deserves a bit of reputation-bashing; he appears to think you can do experiments so the electron's spin gets "left behind" somewhere - you can ignore it. Sure you can, if you do the right kind of experiment and just plug h into the equation, so it's in the background. Otherwise, spin happens, there isn't anything much you can do about fermionic spin, it's a fact of quantum life.
What the hell was he talking about? I'm not really sure

/rant

[deaste]

And another trophy - Ben The Man, one redneck who needs a bit of a commeuppance.

This dude makes totally arbitrary decisions about what a poster means; he decides if a subject is relevant.This is ironic considering he often seems to have no idea what the topic is.

Not that I don't think science needs moderating, and someone knowledgeable should do it; I personally would not be keen to attend to a site and what gets posted, who gets a say and in what manner, who gets banned.

Because, eventually you would have to become increasingly strident and harrassed, more and more diligent, more fascistic and pedantic. You would have to make up arbitrary rules and decide, as you go, how to apply them (fairly or otherwise). I mean, science is not a democracy.

What he and the other strident personality types appear to be stepping straight past, is that they can't decide unless they compare an idea or their interpretation of it, with ideas they have already. So depending on a moderator's opinion, your post is binned, refused discussion, or you use the Zappo the clown technique and simply ignore the possibility that you might not know what you're talking about; you have to be right all the time, which is demonstrably impossible.

Why don't I just believe that everything I've learned is 100% correct? Because it's probably the biggest error I can make, duh..

[rrrADAM]

Yea... BTM's ego and emotion get in the way, and he cannot see when and where he is wrong. He all too often reduces to calling those who disagree with him "idiots". Confident that he just cannot be wrong. He thinks a lot of himself and got all upset here when he was judged by his peers to need to go back to the basics a bit. Over on his site, he quickly bans anyone who, with well articulated and relevant replies, disagrees with him. It's easy to be right when you effectively silence the voices of you detractors.

I'd love to be there just to point and laugh if/when String Theory finally goes the way of the luminiferous aether. He'll have a PhD less useful than a PhD in Theology... He'll likely still believe confidently that the evidence is just plain wrong.

[deaste]

Well, although I've indulged a little (you should see what some of these science-fundies have to say about me, in my incarnations as "the annoying one"), I don't really enjoy trashing people.

I want to understand this stuff too, like them; I've never really taken anyone who tells me I don't or can't understand something seriously. I just take things apart, 'cause that's what I do, then I try to put them back together.

I get a little weary of the likes of BTM, AN etc, whose mission looks to me like "let's trash all the morons at this site, and fill page after page with indignant ranting at the simple-minded and the confused".

At times, both have accused me of "telling them, the PhD students, how to do science", this is bs, that they seem to need to invent to prop up their egos.

/rant ends

[rrrADAM]

He's self-indulgent:
http://www.sciforums.com/banlist.php

[deaste]

Masked stranger speak with forked tongue, Kemosabe?

I really just wanted to finish something; like I've intimated, I don't usually pay attention to being told "you can't do that".
The first thing I ask myself is: "why not?"
If the answer is: "no reason I can see, I won't die or be arrested", then there is no reason I can't, so, I can and do.

It's actually demonstrable, if you're into demonstrations, that sciforums is ruled by string theorists who decide who is saying what, and by a motley bunch of philosophers who don't seem to know what a proposition is, ho hum.

I could illustrate that the contention: "physicsforums is divided, there are physicists, there are cosmologists, and a handful of people who have a grasp of QM" - has a determination.

You want?
(for instance, it has a 'Physics' section; Cosmology is in the Astronomy section, and never the twain shall meet. It has a moderator who looks like a scientist, but doesn't appear to understand what Planck's constant is)

I'm into deconstruction - I even deconstruct my intentions when sock-puppying a site; my indulgence knows no bounds in this regard.

I remember my first time on campus; I saw all these students who had obviously been there, done that - they looked like they knew where lecture theatre A9 was, for instance.

Later, like the next year, I understood why they seemed to all be walking around with a "don't you dare interrupt me, I'm busy thinking" look; I started to do it too.

Except, back then there weren't isolated individuals sitting all by themselves, and staring into the distance like you see now, with somewhat expectant but puzzled expressions (the ones who think they understand QM).

[deaste]

Well, I hope none interprets this next lot as some kind of diatribe which attempts to demean or trash someone else. I wanted to explore a certain dynamic, one which is quite evident at some forums.
Sciforums is definitely a more liberal site, however there are parts of the 'actual science' section, Phyics & Math esp. that are ruled by an iron-willed personality type. It struck me at first that the forum looked like a kind of 'fixed' centre where the educated, and the PhD types huddled and managed to proscribe and sanction any f-wits who introduced "pseudo-science", which they would "spot immediately".
I noticed that the remainder, the motley crew, tended to huddle in the outer reaches and discuss "philosophy" or something.


I tried more than a few times to discuss certain topics and ran into the nay-sayers, who would wave PhDs, and pronounce my subject as fit for the bin. Challenging these types, one especially who I would characterise as the camp's assistant kommandant, one Alph the Numerix (I even got this dude to post his real name and email at Cambridge), was always, um, challenging.

The last exchange (hopefully for ever and ever) I had with this member of the strident and harrased brigade was about inertia, the thread itself started with an innocent enough question and ended up in the relativistic domain. Which is where the experts arrived to diss all argument that they deemed inappropriate to the accepted wisdom: "we are PhD students, we know what's what".

So I got this Alph dude all tied up, managed to get him to make a few glaring errors and got him to stop responding eventually, leaving my last post unchallenged. Not that this implies what I posted "must be correct" - I"m not really that presumptuous; however I think this guy is one jumped-up ego who needs to admit he should think a little harder sometimes.
Especially about what you are trying to say, even if you don't include a lot of math formulas that demonstrate your familiarity with QFT/QCD, and all thet.

So it went:

Deconstruction of deconstructive arguments:

"The Planck mass has nothing to do with N_A, you need absolutely zero knowledge of N_A to work with the Planck mass."

Having zero knowledge of Avogadro's measure would mean however, that you would need to use extremenly small amounts of matter to determine h.
Since humans are made out of matter at N_A scales, this is something of a problem.

"When someone says 'h gauges m' in the same sentence as the word quantum, I immediately think 'How does h provide a gauge transformation to m, neither of them are fields'".

Well, h doesn't 'provide a gauge transformation'; m is most certainly measured (that is: 'gauged') by h, however. Try a quantum/classical kind of experiment sometime, when you have, see if you still think "h gauges m" means QFT transforms.

How to get to G, without really trying:

"Use any equation which involves G but no N_A, which is pretty much all of them; if you know all the other quantities in the equation, you can find G."

How do you get to "know all the other quantities? Is N_A not involved?

"There's no bound on the masses or energies when you're using things like the Einstein Field Equations other than staying above the Planck length, in terms of energy, which is easy because its all we're capable of."

Right...(?)

"In general we use large quantities of matter to do that but that's because G is small so you need a lot of matter to get an effect."

Ah, so N_A appears because we "need to see an effect"? Wonder what the "effect" is? (wonders..., wonders a bit more)


" We don't need to know how many moles of substance are in the Earth to know its mass."

...because we know a mole has this number attached to it, which is suppsedly how many discrete particles there are?

"And once we know its mass we can get G by simply weighing objects."

...with N_A objects called 'weighing balances', that reproduce the 'N_A effect'...

"G requires us to know masses, not quantities."

I'd say rather that: "G is implied by N_A, we need N_A to see quantities". (but thinks... maybe it's just me, after all this dude is a PhD student, and I've never even seen one... /sarcastic_irony)

"Who said h was the smallest anything?"

It was a Max Plonker chappy, I believe.

The practised misdirect:

GR uses proper time too, it assumes space and time are relative (I mean, why wouldn't you?).

"*scoff* I mean, like duh! Newton was sooooo stupid for not realising space and time are interlinked into a geometry which wasn't even known to be possible for another 250 years after his death. What a thicky! If only you'd been alive in 1660 so you could point out the obvious fact that space-time is Lorentzian."

Ah, you mean: Newton did actually know about that space and time relativity thingy, like most people who have a sense of time and space? Aside from your personal problem with reading I mean?

Are you an expert on LQG too or is your divine knowledge limited?

"I doubt it, so stop trying to make claims about an area you don't work in and clearly don't understand."

Yep, that about sums all this up, PhD dude...

"STFU"

[at low velocities and large times] if you exchange the space (switch it) for the time, there's this invariant left.

"No, special relativity is the result of assuming light has the same velocity in all inertial frames."

That would include, I imagine, the frames at the visible edge of inertial motion?
And why have you deflected a direct question about classical relativity, its connection to GR which you claimed had nothing to do with Planck's BB, which is from massive bodies, so N_A is in there again?

Seriously, keep talkin', PhD dude... Dude?

Hang on, I think I'm getting this: because Newtonian space and time are relative (3+1), we get G with inertial mass (Avogadro's domain - call it A).
In Minkowski, or M, you got (2,0) -> (3,1) relative spacetime or E. But you got this logic L called Lorentz, you have to encode G(h), and then ct is the alphabet. The messages, are then the frequency/wavelength modulation through the spacetime, or vacuum?

Let me put that in information-speak: The Lorenz is a codec for the ct signals, it transforms distance and time as {G(h),c};
Frequency-shift is discarded by the L-codec, the alphabet is strictly[I] hf. Fidelity is then determined by background zero-shift in frequency scaling (relative velocity of sender-receiver).
Black-body signals (in A) have a broadband frequency spread (thermal scaling); masses with infinitely scaled G, attenuate relative signals strongly, sending them to an infinite {G(m),ct} horizon in effective zero t.

[deaste]

Round 2:
Alphanumeric a.k.a George Weatherill studying a PhD at Cambridge should read this.
Your Obersturmfuhrer attitude on the internet at sciforums in particular, where you parade an anal desire to belittle others and contend you have a much larger brain, is pathetic.

Ben TM is a complete asshole who pulls his head out to consider the fact he is still breathing; say something unimportant and shove something back in there. You guys should move in together somewhere; (wait...)

/ahem
I once knew a bloke who wanted
To poke me in the bum
"Sorry," I said "I'm analytic, and I don't got one"

[Sir_Zerp]

Hi Y'all,

I did a two page essay the other night when I couldn't sleep. :type:

I was wondering if there might be a consensus on the crackpot score it deserves?

Thinking a least a few hundred points. :saint:

Michael


Source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of \"Einstien\", \"Hawkins\" or \"Feynmann\".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don\'t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of \"I\'m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations\".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is \"only a theory\", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn\'t explain \"why\" they occur, or fails to provide a \"mechanism\".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a \"paradigm shift\".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it \"suppresses original thinkers\" or saying that I misspelled \"Einstein\" in item 8.

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"hidebound reactionary\".

20 points for each use of the phrase \"self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy\".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the \"scientific establishment\" is engaged in a \"conspiracy\" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

[Farsight]

Go on then, I'll rate myself:

A -5 point starting credit.
OK, I'm on -5.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
I don't make false statements. Sometimes people say "that's wrong", but they can't back it up.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
Not me.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
Definitely not me. My logic bites like a crocodile and it doesn't let go.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
Nope. I have made mistakes, and am willing to take it on the chin.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
Nope, I'm very keen on real experiments and empirical evidence and observation.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
OK, I'll take 5 points for RELATIVITY+, so now I'm on zero.

5 points for each mention of \"Einstien\", \"Hawkins\" or \"Feynmann\".
No chance.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
Quantum mechanics isn't misguided. The maths works. Some of the interpretations are however total pseudoscience.

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
Nope.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
Nay lad.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don\'t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
Uh oh. I'm fairly public, but I have done this. Now I'm on 10 points.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
No way. I know that nothing is ever perfect.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
I am careful to avoid this sort of thing. I've come across it and thought "yeuw!"

10 points for each statement along the lines of \"I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations\".
Go on then, I've tried to interest mathematicians because I don't have time myself to do everything myself, and besides, I don't want to do them out of a job. Can't have them flipping burgers for a living! Now I'm on 20 points.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is \"only a theory\", as if this were somehow a point against it.
Since I've said string theory isn't even a theory, let's have another ten points. I'll wear that badge with pride. Running total: 30 points.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn\'t explain \"why\" they occur, or fails to provide a \"mechanism\".
Oh definitely. Oh yes oh yes oh yes. 40 points.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
Cough, much to my shame I have to give myself ten points for comparison. 50 points in total.

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a \"paradigm shift\".
Oh yeah, baby. 60 points. This is fun.

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it \"suppresses original thinkers\" or saying that I misspelled \"Einstein\" in item 8.
I have half a mind to do this. The guy is an airhead pseud who knows nothing. Hey John, you can't quantize gravity. Ask Smolin why not. "Higher categories", LOL!

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
In an unwise moment I did allow myself to be goaded and say the wrong thing here. Or so my Swedish friends tell me!

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
You know he spent his latter years working on light? Smart guy, Newton. Even greater than people realise. But I've never compared myself to the guy.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
Geddoutofit. Time travel is science fiction. So are parallel worlds. Unseen dimensions are a myth, so are branes.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
Don't think so.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"hidebound reactionary\".
Nope.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy\".
Naw.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
Not me.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
Definitely. The concept of field is no longer appropriate. 110 points.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
Aw FFS, that's ridiculous.

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
Now that is just a little bit nasty.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
Tsk. WTF is this guy on?

40 points for claiming that the \"scientific establishment\" is engaged in a \"conspiracy\" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
I'll take the 40 points. Running total 150 points. This happens all the time. Physics is far more of a competitive antheap than people think, and of course "science advances one death at a time". Take a look at page 53 of Graham Farmelo's book "The Strangest Man" and you can see how the guys at DAMTP were still sneering at Einstein in 1923: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/0571222781/ref=sib_vae_pg_53?ie=UTF8&keywords=53&p=S01T&twc=41&checkSum=Y5FjkHSNlIwEsSqwUybItoSS5GJeixcIhFTVPnJNM 6k%3D#reader-page

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case..
Nope. But I have mentioned Bruno. Does that count?

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
This is my nightmare scenario. You don't know how bad it's going to be. I'll take the 40 points. That's a running total of 190 points.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Not me.

OK, 190 points, where does that leave me? Leading edge? Thinking outside the box? Maverick? Or so far off the scale I'm coming back the other way?

Uh, there's no readout. So I don't know. Duh.

And that makes the whole thing a typical piece of sneering intellectual arrogance, and a total waste of time. Which is pretty much all we ever get from this dilettante mathematician pretending to be a physicist and just getting in the way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Baez. His recent PhysicsWorld article was a waste of space too: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/39959. As ever, it wasn't physics. What a lightweight.

[D.julty]

i love crackpot conspiracy theories. i am the person that creates the crackpot conspiracies, just to see if anyone can theorize about them, then i just tell them theyre crazy for thinking im really doing it.like making this website for the cia to monitor activists and possible domestic terrorists. it worked on you.

[icarus2]

{E_ -} = T + U = - \frac{1}{2}m\dot x^2 - \frac{1}{2}kx^2 \\
= - \frac{1}{2}m\omega _0^2 A^2 \\