Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theyeti · 11-20-2002, 01:04 PM

The same genius has an article further down on the page showing just where Maxwell went wrong about electromagnetism.

Quote:

In the 1860s Maxwell published a series of papers that analyzed mathematically the theory of electromagnetic fields and, in absence of supporting evidence, treated light as electromagnetic radiation. Under Maxwell`s theory, electromagnetic radiation is a form of energy waves arising from the oscillation or acceleration of an electric charge in a magnetic field. Maxwell treated both electromagnetism and light as radiant energy and not as actives forces. Even if there is such a thing as electromagnetic radiation, if light is not electromagnetic in origin, light could be an active force while electromagnetism might be radiant energy. Under the Unified Theory light is not electromagnetic in nature and is an active force and not radiant energy. The Unified Theory also concludes that so-called electromagnetism is not radiant energy but is an active force similar to light.

Yikes.

theyeti

Principia · 11-20-2002, 01:11 PM

Heh, I just read the same guy's 'revisitation' of Maxwell's Equations. It's hilarious. An excerpt:

Quote:

It must be stressed that the electric field between capacitor plates does not represent energy and its alteration would not signify any fluctuations in energy level. Along with his prior presuppositions, Maxwell then falsely assumed that an electric current flowing through a wire connected to capacitor plates would continue to act between the capacitor plates as a "displacement current" or as a form of energy. Although under the Unified Theory an electric current is force and not energy, Maxwell necessarily assumed an electric current to be energy, and there would be no way that a displacement current or a form of energy could be manifested between the plates. An alteration of voltage may occur between the capacitor plates but this fluctuation of a field has nothing to do with energy.

OK, I think it is pretty safe to say that "the Unified Theory" is not anything that current physicist talk about or are working towards. Too bad, Dougie left. These two could have an interesting discussion about dimensional analysis.

Heh, x-posted with theyeti.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

KC · 11-20-2002, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz:


"Engorgement" is also a specific cytological term that refers to the flow of cytoplasm and assembly of cytoskeletal elements into a lamellopodium or filopodium. I'd say that ignorance of terms and concepts already in use in the field is another hallmark of pseudoscience.

Another is claiming to have discovered things but not being recognized. Ogg apparently discovered jumping genes by accident, after McClintock did, but before she was awarded the Nobel ( a gap of decades, btw):

Quote:

Jumping Genes

Jumping genes were discovered by Barbara McClintock, and for this discovery she won the Nobel Prize in the early 1980s. She proved that contrary to Mandel genes did not have fixed and rigid locations and could change their location relative to other genes. Thus, she called them jumping genes. By accident, I had discovered jumping genes before she won the Nobel Prize but many years after she proved that genes could jump. I wrote a poem in her honor, called Jumping Genes in my Planter Box. Her experiments affected Mandelian principles considerably and were experiments done on corn, and she proved variation in coloration among ears of corn with identical inheritances. It took many years for conventional scientists to understand the significance of the variation in color, a variation completely inconsistent with Mandel. In my accidental discovery, I notice that a bamboo plant in the same planter box as a fern took on in an irregular manner the coloration and serrated leaves of the fern, showing that fern genes that invaded the roots of the bamboo plant had no fixed locations

(emphasis mine)

Good grief...

Cheers,

KC

Grad Student Humanist · 11-20-2002, 05:50 PM

I thought this was going to be a different kind of thread, based on the title. I was looking forward to discussing superintelligence as an evolutionary trait.

Basically, I don't know if superintelligence is such a desireable trait. What I mean is this: while a high IQ is desireable, superintelligent children (children who graduate college at 9, let's say, and get a PhD by 12) seem to have an incredibly hard time adjusting in society. How many of the truly great minds in science, literature/the arts, or any other academic field were child geniuses? Most child geniuses burn out rather quickly. John Stuart Mill's father so pushed his young son intelectually that he ended up having a nervous breakdown (although Mill did have a fine adulthood and was a brilliant and supremely educated man).

The worst problem, I think, is that their intellects mature to adulthood by puberty, but they're emotionally still children. They can't relate to the children their own age because there is such a difference in intellectual levels (the average 10 year old is learning fractions while one of these super geniuses already knows calculus and trig.); but they also can't relate to their academic peers who are all full-grown adults with a world of experience that the young child has no way of sharing.

[ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Grad Student Humanist ]

beausoleil · 11-20-2002, 11:36 PM

I liked this one (from 'Default Defaults') - of nothing else discredits IQ tests that site should.

3. How about whether there is one true religion or there is not? The default would be that there is one true religion, because we cannot imagine how two could be simultaneously true

ps418 · 11-21-2002, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grad Student Humanist:
Basically, I don't know if superintelligence is such a desireable trait. What I mean is this: while a high IQ is desireable, superintelligent children (children who graduate college at 9, let's say, and get a PhD by 12) seem to have an incredibly hard time adjusting in society.

You may very well be right, especially when it comes to children who have spent relatively little time around other children their own age. But FWIW I do remember reading somewhere that adults with higher-than-average IQ are much more likely to describe their lives as being meaningful and fulfilled than those with average or below average IQ.

Grad Student Humanist · 11-21-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ps418:
But FWIW I do remember reading somewhere that adults with higher-than-average IQ are much more likely to describe their lives as being meaningful and fulfilled than those with average or below average IQ.

Well I do think that a high IQ is desireable, but even the most brilliant people I interact with day to day at the university weren't in college at age 9.

So I guess while a hig intelligence is a plus, too high of an intelligence is a minus as it leads to the person being alienated from other humans.

RBH · 11-22-2002, 06:20 PM

From Principia's quotation of the 'Maxwell' article:

Quote:

An alteration of voltage may occur between the capacitor plates but this fluctuation of a field has nothing to do with energy.

I wish that guy had been in my Navy electronics class a few hundred years ago. We used to take big fat capacitors, bend their leads until they were nearly touching, charge them up to 300 or 400 volts, and then jab the unsuspecting in the butt with the leads. It may not have been "energy" but it sure elicited some interesting reactions.

RBH

Principia · 11-22-2002, 07:15 PM

LOL! (Hey RBH, didn't notice you had joined IIDB. Welcome!)

Quote:

It may not have been "energy" but it sure elicited some interesting reactions.

Let's see. Archimedes had an Eureka moment, and Isaac Newton had his apple... Maybe after this guy gets a couple hundred volts, he'd have his own Theory of Everything to rival Langan's.

KC · 11-23-2002, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia:
LOL! (Hey RBH, didn't notice you had joined IIDB. Welcome!)

Let's see. Archimedes had an Eureka moment, and Isaac Newton had his apple... Maybe after this guy gets a couple hundred volts, he'd have his own Theory of Everything to rival Langan's.

After a bong or two, most people could come up with a Theory of Everything

Cheers,

KC.

11-20-2002, 05:50 PM	#14
Grad Student Humanist Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Melrose, MA Posts: 961	I thought this was going to be a different kind of thread, based on the title. I was looking forward to discussing superintelligence as an evolutionary trait. Basically, I don't know if superintelligence is such a desireable trait. What I mean is this: while a high IQ is desireable, superintelligent children (children who graduate college at 9, let's say, and get a PhD by 12) seem to have an incredibly hard time adjusting in society. How many of the truly great minds in science, literature/the arts, or any other academic field were child geniuses? Most child geniuses burn out rather quickly. John Stuart Mill's father so pushed his young son intelectually that he ended up having a nervous breakdown (although Mill did have a fine adulthood and was a brilliant and supremely educated man). The worst problem, I think, is that their intellects mature to adulthood by puberty, but they're emotionally still children. They can't relate to the children their own age because there is such a difference in intellectual levels (the average 10 year old is learning fractions while one of these super geniuses already knows calculus and trig.); but they also can't relate to their academic peers who are all full-grown adults with a world of experience that the young child has no way of sharing. [ November 20, 2002: Message edited by: Grad Student Humanist ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-20-2002, 11:36 PM	#15
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	I liked this one (from 'Default Defaults') - of nothing else discredits IQ tests that site should. 3. How about whether there is one true religion or there is not? The default would be that there is one true religion, because we cannot imagine how two could be simultaneously true

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.