Refute This

Condemnation of Personal Attacks on Stephen Crothers

July 7, 2015

As a British Civil List Pensioner I have condemned these ad hominem or personal attacks many times. I think that they should be logged and used in evidence of harassment and verbal common assault. Stephen Crothers is a former detective and well used to giving evidence in court. Personal attacks are an admission of defeat by people who have been out argued and who are abject philosophical failures. Trolls are sordid common criminals. “False Philosophers Fall” (Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry”, New Generation, London, 2015, above my coat of arms on the home page ofwww.aias.us, first Miltonian sonnet sequence).”

What is wrong with ad hominem attacks? The concept relates to pure logic and has nothing to do with the sort of street-level methods used by the likes of Sam Spade, by other well-known pseudoscientists … and by private detectives. If he wants to prove his point, he should submit his work to a reputable journal (that is, not Progress in Physics or other loony-friendly rags). Crackpots always claim that real journals are against them. But that is rather like someone claiming to be a chess prodigy without ever confronting the best players; preferring instead to impress mere ‘patzers’ and to insist that the official rules are incorrect. Not being a physicist, Sam Spade will not have heard of the correspondence principle. It states that, when a major paradigm-shift occurs, the new theory must not invalidate the results predicted by the old theory under those conditions for which the old theory was formulated. For instance, Newton’s third law is affected somewhat by relativity and quantum mechanics, but those theories must still subsume the classical law. This means that, in order to invalidate the general relativistic prediction of black holes, Sam Spade must also invalidate the Newtonian prediction of black holes. Unfortunately, Newton made no such prediction … but John Michell did, over 230 years ago:

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/74/35

see p42 et seq.  So, come on Ron and Spade, where is the error in Michell’s calculations? Even if they are off by the famous ‘factor-of-two’, they are still in the right ball-park. In fact, Sam Spade admits that the GR result subsumes the Newtonian result on his own website!

“Rearranging the equation for the so-called ‘Schwarzschild radius’ gives,

<i>c</i> = (2<i>Gm/r<sub>s</sub></i>)<sup>½</sup>This is immediately recognised as the Newtonian expression for escape speed.”

General advice to pseudoscientific scum: if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: