Re: Cranks

From: matt grime (mattgrime_at_o2.co.uk)
Date: 06/21/04 

Date: 21 Jun 2004 14:24:49 -0700

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<wWKxc.150357$BV1.7609394@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Matthew Willson" <matthew.willson@hertford.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message news:ca7r4f$j9s$1@news.ox.ac.uk...
> > After browsing this newsgroup briefly I've been greatly amused by the
> > number of cranks. It's kinda disturbing though, like taking a peek into
> > the minds of some pretty fucked up people... I guess at least maths
> > inspires passion eh?
> >
> > What it feels like is people perpetually caught in that (for me) early
> > teenage phase where you have all sorts of weird and wonderful theories
> > of maths and physics in your head, based on quite deep thought but
> > fatally incomplete understanding... it all starts to fit together once
> > you're taught it properly and well, but I guess for some by the time
> > they reach that point they've invested too much emotional energy in the
> > crank theories to give them up.
>
> If you want to see *real* cranks, visit sci.physics and
> sci.physics.relativity.
> For every crank you find here, there's 50 over there.
> An appetizer:
> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> Bring a supply of diapers.
>
> Dirk Vdm

I don't think I'd "recommend" it as such but www.physicsforums.com
then general phyisics then thoery development is crank central. Any
thread that is crankish gets shoved there. It can be quite depressing
reading, but if you've a spare afternoon and a copy of John Baez's
crackpot index you can try and find the highest score. Anything under
200 is amateurish in its amateurism.

Quantcast