Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Motl's attack on Hehl preliminary impressions

Expand Messages
  • Arkadiusz Jadczyk
    ... Your impressions seem to me to be correct FAPP. Perhaps Lubos lost his temper, acted in an unbalanced way, crossed the limits of what used to be freedom
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > **IF** these quick impressions are correct ... then Motl's attack
      > on Hehl would represent a very deep and fundamental aberration of
      > the scientific method today.

      Your impressions seem to me to be correct FAPP. Perhaps Lubos lost his temper,
      acted in an unbalanced way, crossed the limits of what used to be "freedom of
      speech", and now indeed he is looking for some kind of a salvation outside of
      the academia.

      His adding Hehl to his list is indeed incomprehensible for me. But I don't
      think that he got hit because of this fact. I rather conjecture that something
      else was acting behind the scenes.

      ark
    • Jack Sarfatti
      Yes indeed. It s clear that Lubos Motl is seriously emotionally unstable and has a persecution complex perhaps from growing up under Soviet rule? It s fine to
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Yes indeed. It's clear that Lubos Motl is seriously emotionally
        unstable and has a persecution complex perhaps from growing up under
        Soviet rule? It's fine to correct people's errors, real or imagined,
        but it's not fine to attack them personally. I am attacked personally
        all the time and so I counter-attack - that goes with celebrity e.g.
        http://stayaerusa.org and being involved with fringe topics like UFOs
        and the paranormal. Brian Josephson has been attacked for his interest
        in consciousness, paranormal, cold fusion, homeopathy & TM - not even a
        Nobel Prize can save him. Bohm and even Wheeler were personally
        attacked. There are prissy physicists, Colin Bennett's "Victorian
        Station Masters" like Motl and mathematicians pretending to be
        physicists like Baez who get off on puffing themselves up by attacking
        credentialled people with unpopular ideas as "crackpots" thereby
        cheapening the meaning of the word. However, in my disagreement say
        with Hal Puthoff on his PV challenge to GR and his origin of inertia as
        zero point friction (with Bernie Haisch, Rueda & Cole) I do not attack
        him personally, although, he has done so behind my back using Eric
        Davis as his shill with people in the USG Intelligence Community with
        whom I am involved on military/intelligence issues like UFOs and the
        paranormal. The idiot "skeptics" like Shermer, Randi, Frazier have no
        idea what is really going on in the "fringe" in relation to "psyops"
        and other matters. They are fools rushing in where angels fear to
        tread.

        On Aug 1, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:

        >
        >> **IF** these quick impressions are correct ... then Motl's attack
        >> on Hehl would represent a very deep and fundamental aberration of
        >> the scientific method today.
        >
        > Your impressions seem to me to be correct FAPP. Perhaps Lubos lost
        > his temper,
        > acted in an unbalanced way, crossed the limits of what used to be
        > "freedom of
        > speech", and now indeed he is looking for some kind of a salvation
        > outside of
        > the academia.
        >
        > His adding Hehl to his list is indeed incomprehensible for me. But I
        > don't
        > think that he got hit because of this fact. I rather conjecture that
        > something
        > else was acting behind the scenes.
        >
        > ark
        >
      • Jack Sarfatti
        Lubos is a transgender ILLEGAL ALIEN! http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/ LOL ;-)
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Lubos is a transgender ILLEGAL ALIEN!
          http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
          LOL ;-)
          On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

          > Yes indeed. It's clear that Lubos Motl is seriously emotionally
          > unstable and has a persecution complex perhaps from growing up under
          > Soviet rule? It's fine to correct people's errors, real or imagined,
          > but it's not fine to attack them personally. I am attacked personally
          > all the time and so I counter-attack - that goes with celebrity e.g.
          > http://stayaerusa.org and being involved with fringe topics like UFOs
          > and the paranormal. Brian Josephson has been attacked for his interest
          > in consciousness, paranormal, cold fusion, homeopathy & TM - not even
          > a Nobel Prize can save him. Bohm and even Wheeler were personally
          > attacked. There are prissy physicists, Colin Bennett's "Victorian
          > Station Masters" like Motl and mathematicians pretending to be
          > physicists like Baez who get off on puffing themselves up by attacking
          > credentialed people with unpopular ideas as "crackpots" thereby
          > cheapening the meaning of the word in an Orwellian way. However, in my
          > disagreement say with Hal Puthoff on his PV challenge to GR and his
          > origin of inertia as zero point friction (with Bernie Haisch, Rueda &
          > Cole) I do not attack him personally, although, he has done so behind
          > my back using Eric Davis as his shill with people in the USG
          > Intelligence Community with whom I am involved on
          > military/intelligence issues like UFOs and the paranormal. The idiot
          > "skeptics" like Shermer, Randi, Frazier have no idea what is really
          > going on in the "fringe" in relation to "psyops" and other matters.
          > They are fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
          >
          > On Aug 1, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
          >
          >>
          >>> **IF** these quick impressions are correct ... then Motl's attack
          >>> on Hehl would represent a very deep and fundamental aberration of
          >>> the scientific method today.
          >>
          >> Your impressions seem to me to be correct FAPP. Perhaps Lubos lost
          >> his temper,
          >> acted in an unbalanced way, crossed the limits of what used to be
          >> "freedom of
          >> speech", and now indeed he is looking for some kind of a salvation
          >> outside of
          >> the academia.
          >>
          >> His adding Hehl to his list is indeed incomprehensible for me. But I
          >> don't
          >> think that he got hit because of this fact. I rather conjecture that
          >> something
          >> else was acting behind the scenes.
          >>
          >> ark
          >>
          >
        • Jack Sarfatti
          is, perhaps, connected with him getting into the middle of this http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/rvtimeline/index.html
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            is, perhaps, connected with him getting into the middle of this
            http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/rvtimeline/index.html

            On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

            > Lubos is a transgendered ILLEGAL ALIEN!
            > http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
            > LOL ;-)
            > On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:27 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
            >
            >> Yes indeed. It's clear that Lubos Motl is seriously emotionally
            >> unstable and has a persecution complex perhaps from growing up under
            >> Soviet rule? It's fine to correct people's errors, real or imagined,
            >> but it's not fine to attack them personally. I am attacked personally
            >> all the time and so I counter-attack - that goes with celebrity e.g.
            >> http://stayaerusa.org and being involved with fringe topics like UFOs
            >> and the paranormal. Brian Josephson has been attacked for his
            >> interest in consciousness, paranormal, cold fusion, homeopathy & TM -
            >> not even a Nobel Prize can save him. Bohm and even Wheeler were
            >> personally attacked. There are prissy physicists, Colin Bennett's
            >> "Victorian Station Masters" like Motl and mathematicians pretending
            >> to be physicists like Baez who get off on puffing themselves up by
            >> attacking credentialed people with unpopular ideas as "crackpots"
            >> thereby cheapening the meaning of the word in an Orwellian way.
            >> However, in my disagreement say with Hal Puthoff on his PV challenge
            >> to GR and his origin of inertia as zero point friction (with Bernie
            >> Haisch, Rueda & Cole) I do not attack him personally, although, he
            >> has done so behind my back using Eric Davis as his shill with people
            >> in the USG Intelligence Community with whom I am involved on
            >> military/intelligence issues like UFOs and the paranormal. The idiot
            >> "skeptics" like Shermer, Randi, Frazier have no idea what is really
            >> going on in the "fringe" in relation to "psyops" and other matters.
            >> They are fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
            >>
            >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 5:54 AM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
            >>
            >>>
            >>>> **IF** these quick impressions are correct ... then Motl's attack
            >>>> on Hehl would represent a very deep and fundamental aberration of
            >>>> the scientific method today.
            >>>
            >>> Your impressions seem to me to be correct FAPP. Perhaps Lubos lost
            >>> his temper,
            >>> acted in an unbalanced way, crossed the limits of what used to be
            >>> "freedom of
            >>> speech", and now indeed he is looking for some kind of a salvation
            >>> outside of
            >>> the academia.
            >>>
            >>> His adding Hehl to his list is indeed incomprehensible for me. But I
            >>> don't
            >>> think that he got hit because of this fact. I rather conjecture that
            >>> something
            >>> else was acting behind the scenes.
            >>>
            >>> ark
            >>>
            >>
            >
          • Jack Sarfatti
            ... Agreed. ... My enemies in the Skeptical Inquisitors Community, in Wickedpedia et-al consistently make the mistake of under estimating my real purpose and
            Message 5 of 5 , Aug 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On Aug 1, 2007, at 4:37 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

              > After running many, many review panels -- I have learned not to take
              > ANYONE's
              > words totally at face value -- not Jack's, not anyone else's. Logic
              > says that should
              > include even myself, and I do what I can to respect that logic.

              Agreed.
              >
              > But... Jack does make some serious-sounding points...

              My enemies in the Skeptical Inquisitors Community, in Wickedpedia et-al
              consistently make the mistake of under estimating my real purpose and
              function in national politics, in things official and that go bump in
              the night, my intelligence, my competence, my sanity and my health and
              especially my sense of humor and my ability to use the English language
              and my influence in high places inside the USG Intelligence Community
              both past and present. Motl is another fool who did not do his homework
              rushing in where angels fear to tread challenging an old gunslinger to
              use the Western movie as a metaphor. At least he has the excuse of
              youth. Maybe Lubos is correct after all. Although I took no active
              measures at the Harvard Physics department to have him removed I do not
              know what some of the Old Boys may have done since anyone who attacks
              me personally in a vicious way is noticed inside the USG Intelligence
              Community and is no doubt checked out. Lubos coming from a former
              Soviet colony and even joking that he is an ET
              http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/ raises eyebrows in all sorts of
              dark places. This is all speculation of course.
              http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/rvtimeline/index.html

              >
              > He extracts an email:
              >
              >
              >>> On Jul 30, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Lubos Motl wrote:
              >>>
              >>>> Dear Crackpots Sarfatti, Smolin, Woit, Hehl, Smith, and all this
              >>>> human material of a similar quality,
              >>>>
              >>>> let me ask you to stop spreading these disgusting lies, otherwise I
              >>>> will have to deal with you through lawyers. I have indeed resigned
              >>>> because of a breathtakingly high influence of scum like you on the
              >>>> whole Academia but having left the Academia, I have somewhat better
              >>>> environment for fighting against such scum.
              >>>>
              >>>> Thanks for your understanding
              >>>> Lubos Motl
              >
              > Of course, when a kid hits another kid on the playground, it is very
              > hard to know
              > who hit first and why. Motl seems to suggesting that he HAD to resign
              > because of
              > personal attacks from five people ... or unfavorable evaluations?...
              >
              > As I look at this a second time... he doesn't really seem to be
              > commenting on Hehl's work
              > at all in THIS case; he is trying to make sense of his own personal
              > situation, where he believes
              > he was treated unfairly.

              Lubos has never commented at all on my physics. He has only made vague
              smears like citing Waldyr Rodrigues Jr of UNICAMP who admitted to Tony
              Smith (who is also a lawyer attacked by Lubos) that he Waldyr was
              pressured to attack me by powerful physicists who threatened to pull
              his funding of his grad students if he did not. Now it's true that I
              had some formal errors in v1 and later drafts of the paper in question,
              but none were fatal to the main physical ideas that Waldyr never
              addressed, all were peripheral dealing with tried and true information
              that I glossed over quickly trying to get to the main new ideas of
              physics. All were repairable. Had not Waldyr been pressured, as Lubos
              was, he would have made his error corrections of my work in private.
              Remember I am not in academia not in a physics department where these
              sorts of errors are normally corrected by intimate associates. Note
              also that I was a visiting full professor at Waldyr's institute in the
              mid-80's
              http://qedcorp.com/APS/UNICAMP.jpg
              proving that Waldyr really had his arm twisted by the physics mafia to
              come out publicly puffing minor lapses into a big Federal Case seized
              upon by the Wickedpedians.
              >
              > All things considered, humans do treat each other unfairly every day
              > of the week. They shouldn't
              > and we should try hard to prevent that kind of thing, but ... like
              > entropy, it isn't exactly
              > a rare phenomenon.
              >
              > However: when he puts Hehl and Smolin and Jack all together... let's
              > not go there.
              >
              > -----------------
              >
              > I have the impression that SOMEONE made another important point.
              > It sounds as if Motl did make an attack on Hehl before his
              > "have to resign" email.

              I believe that is true.
              >
              > It sounds as if he argued -- general relativity fits everything we
              > know for sure
              > about gravity; we HAVE a mathematically consistent model (superstring
              > theory, approximating GR); therefore it is unscientific and
              > intolerable that
              > anyone should be talking about alternative models which we have no
              > empirical
              > evidence for yet.

              I have not read Lubos's rants in enough detail to know. I think that's
              Steven Weinberg's position? Note that Gennady Shipov has been violently
              attacked as well by people who use phony names inside Russia for his
              torsion work, though not yet by Lubos Motl.
              >
              > Jack's response is that we have dark matter as our evidence.

              Please, this is over-simplified. You have neglected to mention dark
              energy, which is, not on the surface, the same as dark matter. I cite
              BOTH! There is about 3x as much dark energy as dark matter. Dark energy
              antigravitates. Dark matter gravitates and together they are about 96%
              of the stuff of the universe (that we see in our past light cone).

              > But in the few papers of Hehl's that I scanned at arxiv.org the other
              > day,
              > Hehl was NOT fighting for people to believe that THEORY X is the truth.
              > Rather, he was saying... here are several interesting alternative
              > theories,
              > all consistent with the limited empirical evidence we have today. Here
              > are ways we can do experiments (or are actually beginning to do
              > experiments)
              > that will help us find out which is true. Unlike Jack, he did NOT say
              > that there is an empirical basis yet for choosing.

              It sounds as though attempting to connect theory with observation as I
              do is considered politically incorrect by the Mandarin string theorists
              and the loop theorists since they do it so rarely - if ever! Indeed,
              Lubos considers such an attempt "crackpot." LOL ;-)
              >
              > **IF** these quick impressions are correct ... then Motl's attack
              > on Hehl would represent a very deep and fundamental aberration of
              > the scientific method today. It concerns me, because I have seen the
              > same sort of
              > antiscientific theological thinking masquerading as science in other
              > important
              > sectors of physics as well. The College of Cardinals approach to
              > managing science,
              > a bit like faith-based management of CO2 research without public
              > feedback,
              > could really lock us up forever, and that is very very dangerous.
              >
              > The essence of the scientific method is that we need to work hard to
              > learn how to listen to NATURE, to let empirical data decide what
              > theories we ENTERTAIN and CONSIDER. (BELIEF should
              > not be what we seek.) Defining alternative possibilities to TEST,
              > and highlighting the degrees of freedom in modeling that we
              > have NOT yet nailed down empirically... is at the core
              > of real science today.
              >
              > There is a kind of complex line of descent from Francis Bacon,
              > in formulating the scientific method and empiricism, all the way...
              > to decision theory and wildcat drilling. Have we reached the point
              > where physicists need to relearn the scientific method
              > from the oil industry?
              >
              > (Or the semiconductor industry, for that matter...
              > not that they or anyone else is infallible.)
              >
              > Best of luck to us all,
              >
              > Paul
              >
              > P.S. Again, this does NOT represent the views of any of the
              > organizations I work for.
              >
              > Still, I remember a review panel on a field other than physics, where
              > a world-famous
              > creative scientist said: "We really can't fund X, because it is too
              > high risk. Depending
              > on how his experiment turns out, it risks proving my theory wrong."
              > What's weird is how people accepted that, how that way of thinking has
              > aberrated so
              > many people, and how almost all have gotten away with such things.
              >
              > At times lately, I wonder:
              >
              > "Chimpanzees, though creative and once a "growth industry" (eons ago),
              > reached the limited of forwards cultural and technological progress
              > that their
              > brains are capable of. Could it be that humans have now done the same?
              > In physics, in particular, does forwards progress (in areas other than
              > gravity)
              > require great facility in the mathematics of field operators, while
              > requiring that
              > people not be overwhelmed or ossified or ritualized by the difficulty
              > of truly understanding them?
              > And so have the limits of humans been reached?"
              >
              > But I comfort myself with the thought that the sophists of ancient
              > Greece were equally silly
              > about even simpler things, and that China is proving "decadent
              > civilizations" can be reborn. Maybe.
              > but I am not sure where the hope really is here. Hehl's work does
              > sound like
              > an island of forwards motion, but only an island, perhaps an embattled
              > one...
              >
              > Best of luck to us all...
              >
              >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.