Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I'm With Yanniru

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on November 6, 2002 13:58:44 UTC

However like many who get the crackpot label, he may not know when to stop. As I see that type, they find an element of important truth, but then try to claim that all or most of physics is wrong.

That is why I remarked about some geniuses of the past being initially labeled crackpots. For instance, if you stop and think about it, Einstein's ideas must have sound like crackpottery when he first introduced them. The difference between Einstein and those crackpots out there, I suspect, is that Einstein did know where to stop.

I strongly believe you don't have to be an Einstein to have great, original insights, in fact I think we all have them from time to time. The real challenge is what to do with them, and most people don't see to be very good at that. That is what takes an Einstein.

We have seen that kind of personality on this forum, where the claims were so outlandish that for about a year I did not see the real importance of his discovery. He apparently still does not see it himself.

Amen! I still think Stafford must have made an important discovery in the field of physics. It's too bad he is what he is.

As far as my understanding of his paper goes, the thing that really drew my attention was the fact that he found a method for deriving Schrodinger's equation which doesn't seem to be the same one Schrodinger himself used. Everything else in his paper is baloney but this bit is extremely interesting for me. It may turn out that he cheated, which is not only possible but, in my opinion, more likely than not, but so far no physicist on this forum has been able to find the point where he inserts the rabbit in the hat.

It's ironic in fact that Harv is so busy trying to convince him that his premises are faulty, which I think they are. What Harv doesn't realize is that if Stafford's premises are in fact faulty, how is it possible that he extracts part of quantum mechanics from it? If he's performing a trick, where is it? I'm still curious.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins