4
$\begingroup$

What is the proper format to ask debunking questions without being marked as off-topic, yet be able to step through the entire theory logically?

Specifically, I am looking at Wallace Kluck's claim on decuity.com that

Light is an inertial particle not a wave.

A rotating electron is treated as a charged ring with its radius as the radius of gyration.

Total kinetic energy is divided equally into linear kinetic energy or rotational kinetic energy.

The total kinetic energy, linear and rotational, of each particle increases to mc^2 while the charge of the electron decreases to zero.

The overall theory looks simple, I just need better minds than mine to help elucidate...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a way to offer a bounty or a reward or a consultation fee etc. for a complete analysis of the decuity.com site assertions? If the claims Wallace Kluck makes are legitimate, I would like to know a way to test them since he claims it gets rid of dark matter. $\endgroup$ – miniscule Aug 19 '14 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/131568/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Aug 19 '14 at 16:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why would you want to waste time on the "debunking"? In all likelihood it's the man's business model to make naive people believe in his "intellectual superiority" so he can sell them pamphlets and books. It's not in his economic interest to allow anybody to interfere with his little scam. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Aug 20 '14 at 4:27
7
$\begingroup$

There are (at least) a couple of reasons why working physicists feel little motivation for debunking articles like the one you link:

  1. the believers of such articles typically hold such beliefs for reasons unrelated to physics - e.g. they like to believe in conspiracy theories, or that they are being persecuted. That means arguing with them is futile.

  2. it's easy to come up with a farrago of plausible physical terms, but it's much harder and takes a lot of effort to detangle it and demonstrate why it's wrong.

I would guess the general view (it's certainly my view) is that if people want to learn about physics we're happy to go out of our way to help. But if all they want is to have their own views vindicated then, well, it's a free world but they're on their own.

So if you're thinking about asking a question, consider whether the answer would require us to go off and read the web site. If it would, then your question has no place here. On the other hand if you want to ask a question about physics that we can answer without having to go off and read some crackpot website then please go ahead.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Farrago! Of course! I've been searching for the best word to describe the mish-mash of physics terms that sometimes are thrown together in an effort to say "see, I know physics". Up till now I've been using mish-mash or pell mell. But yes, farrago is much better. Thanks John! Finally $\endgroup$ – Jim Aug 20 '14 at 12:59
5
$\begingroup$

We have entertained debunking questions before, but the community has become steadily more opposed to them over time. I don't think you're going to get a lot of support right now.

The basic problem is that there is no limit to how many there could be and none of them have a lot of value going into the future. They just don't add to the repository of quality answers to good questions that we are trying to build.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

I'm inclined to say that questions of this sort are off topic, period. Remember that this is an "expert-level" site, not in the sense of being limited to professional physicists or anything like that, but we expect that any question asked should display a certain level of, shall I say, not being total nonsense. Even if the total nonsense originates from someone else and you're merely trying to make sense of it, I still think that falls outside our scope. Distinguishing crackpot theories from real ones is not what we do here.

You can certainly ask on chat if anyone would perform such an analysis in return for a fee or an external reward - but of course such an arrangement would be entirely separate from this site.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your input, I am meeting with him in person. He is a 90 year old physicist who worked at Texas Instruments who dying of cancer. Basically he is making a change to the Coulomb's law formula, assuming balanced kinetic and angular momemtum components, and a change in the treatment of the charged particles. I think it might explain plasmon behavior more thoroughly. $\endgroup$ – miniscule Aug 20 '14 at 19:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .