-11 Removals
+43 Additions
{{Article for deletion|This article is Encyclopedia Dramatica quality. Write something sober and considered or this needs killing. The talk page is a disgrace.}}
{{pseudosciencenav}} {{pseudosciencenav}}
'''John Duffield''' is a British IT graduate and well known internet [[crank]] on physics blogs. He is a champion of an old, discredited, theory of [[Luminiferous aether| aether]] renamed ''Physics+'' and usually posts by the handle Farsight.<ref>[http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18497 The Physics Forum - Relativity+ description]</ref><ref>[http://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5591-mass-can-converted-energy.html The Physics Forum - Where Farsight displays his idiotcy]</ref><ref>[http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/37646-magnetic-electric-moment-hamiltonian.html The Science Forum]</ref> He will interject this theory into any thread until he is finally blocked. When questioned John cannot answer even the most basic questions on his theories,<ref>[http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18497&st=1155 Physics Forums as John flails at basic cosmology]</ref> and has started saying that he is much too busy to answer any question on them. He does seem to have the time to write a 222 page book, bombard scientists with emails/calls/letters, and post endlessly on any blog he can find. '''John Duffield''' is a champion of an alternate system of physics called "''Physics+''", which claims that tying space into knots creates particles, or something. Duffield is a well known [[List of internet kooks|internet]] [[crank]], where he often goes by "Farsight".<ref>[http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18497 The Physics Forum - Relativity+ description]</ref><ref>[http://www.thephysicsforum.com/special-general-relativity/5591-mass-can-converted-energy.html The Physics Forum - Mass Can be Converted to Energy]</ref><ref>[http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/37646-magnetic-electric-moment-hamiltonian.html The Science Forum]</ref> Duffield has a degree in computer science, but merely "an interest" in physics.<ref name="Sci2">http://www.science20.com/profile/john_duffield</ref>
Duffield has written a paper, "''Relativity+''", which attempts to explain his ideas.<ref>http://vixra.org/pdf/0710.0002v1.pdf</ref> Duffield has also self-published a book, ''Relativity+'', which does the same.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804 Relativity+ on Amazon]</ref> Duffield has additionally published in renowned physics journal Bogpaper (a Wordpress site),<ref>[http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=26985 The thread contains a list of many of Duffield's Bogpaper posts.]</ref> possibly because the peer review process is too stringent.
==Ideas==
Duffield has given an interview on "The Richplanet Starship":<ref name=Rich>[http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=7&part=1 Rich Planet Interview]</ref><ref group=note>Which, in addition to spouting [[New World Order]] conspiracies, apparently is keen on furthering understanding of physics.</ref>
Duffield believes that all particles are made of energy.<ref name=Rich /> This isn't ridiculous; E=mc<sup>2</sup> (energy equals mass times the speed of light squared) for a reason. Duffield, however, has a different interpretation than your standard physicist.
Duffield rejects the belief that energy is "the capacity of a physical system to perform work", which is the conventional definition.<ref>http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm</ref> Instead, Duffield believes that energy is "a volume of stressed space", that even a vacuum of space has energy (which he calls the "ether"), and "ether" is elastic by nature, and waves propagate by, kind of, bending through space.<ref name=Rich /> ([[Luminiferous aether|Sound familiar?]])
''Relativity+'' is also the title of his [[Vanity publishing| self-published book]] on Amazon<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804 Relativity+ on Amazon]</ref> where the best review states it is a waste of time. It has got to be bad when your book spouts quantum nonsense and [[Deepak Chopra]]'s publisher won't touch it. His arguments amount to [[Dunning-Kruger effect| misunderstanding Einstein]], [[Argument from authority| appeals to authority]], [[Internet tough guy| threatening to beat up anyone who disagrees]], and (if none of that works) babbling incoherently like a madman about the universe being a hallucination.<ref>[http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9437611 International Skeptics - Relativity+ / Farsight ]</ref> It seems John has taken The Matrix a little too close to heart. Duffield states that electromagnetic waves are the result of "twists and turns" of space, which means that photons are not waves, but "lemon-like distortion[s] going through space". (Why "lemon-like"? Duffield probably saw the "top" and "bottom" of a sine wave<ref>http://www.ccaesar.com/images/eng_structure_of_the_electron/Fig1abFieldspace_pdf.jpg</ref> and thought, "Hey, that looks like a lemon!") A particle of light manifests itself as matter by "bend[ing] into itself" (remember, energy is apparently "stressed space", and so the space is bent into a circle) until it "goes round and round" forever in two {{wpl|Unknot|"trivial knots"}}, also known as "circles". One circle is perpendicular to the other circle, which somehow makes "trap[s]" the photon.<ref name=Rich /> (We're not sure why. Duffield's always been more heavy on asserting than justifying.)
Since blogs are not getting John the attention he needs he has started emailing and calling people in physics departments around Europe, the LHC, and CERN.<ref>[http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21710 Physics Forum as people vent their complaints of real world harrassment]</ref> His targets have posted his rants online to show the quality of someone who wishes everyone would take him seriously as an academic. Which has become more worryingly unhinged as of late with even more vague threats and terrible spelling, with additions seen in 12 year old texts (ending one with "kthx"), in his proposals. When explicitly asked for evidence, Duffield cites Williamson and van der Mark "Is the electron a photon? A toroidal topology, 1997",<ref name=Rich /><ref>http://www.cybsoc.org/electron.pdf</ref> who, unlike Duffield, actually provides math and models for their theory.
Unfortunately, Duffield often fails to provide mathematical models of his theory that can be tested. Instead, as Farsight himself states:<ref>http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/17435-relativity-the-theory-of-everything/?p=253407</ref>
<blockquote>There's no maths because it's analysing the underlying ontology.</blockquote>
His [[bullshit]] is also well liked on the [[Coast to Coast AM | bottom of the conspiracy theorists barrel]] spouting militia nonsense and NWO conspiracies.<ref>[http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=7&part=1 Rich Planet Interview]</ref> Publishing in such well renowned physics journals as Bogpaper at Wordpress, an [[Alex Jones]] rip off, and Facebook since the scientific peer review process is much too stringent.<ref>[https://bogpaper.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/science-sundays-with-john-duffield-black-holes/ Science Sundays at the Bogpaper]</ref> ==Argument style==
===Appeals to authority===
In [[physics]], the primary weapon of discourse is [[mathematics]]. Duffield instead prefers to quote <s>actual</s> physicists, in an [[argument from authority|attempt to lend their authority to his own ideas]]. Duffield then implies that rejecting his interpretations of those quotes is rejecting said luminaries. For example, Duffield posted the following:<ref name=EinWriBae>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst#comments</ref>
<blockquote>Einstein said a concentration of energy in the guise of the matter of a star "conditions" the surrounding space making it inhomogeneous, and that "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position".<br />See Ned Wright’s Deflection and Delay of Light and note this: "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light".<br />See this Baez article where you can read this: "Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."</blockquote>
Duffield here seeks to use Wright's credibility and Einstein's credibility for his own idea on the speed of light, which is that it is not constant, without actually raising solid arguments. Consider that the Baez article to which Duffield links, just for the Einstein quote, very clearly explains that the speed of light ''is'' constant -- if (using Special Relativity) one measures light in any inertial reference frame or (using General Relativity) if one measures light in any freely falling reference frame.<ref>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html</ref> Furthermore, Einstein's full quote actually discredits Duffield's interpretation. Einstein goes on to explain that the effects of gravity must be excluded to get an accurate measurement:<ref>http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/5001/pg5001.html</ref><ref>http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html</ref> (Duffield's selected text is bolded.)
<blockquote>In the second place our result shows that, '''according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity''' and to which we have already frequently referred, '''cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.''' Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).</blockquote>
Similarly, on [[Talk:John Duffield]], Duffield posted:<ref>http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Duffield&oldid=1400824</ref>
<blockquote>It's not my theory, it's Einstein's theory, and he referred to space as the aether of general relativity. See the links above, and see Aether theories on Wiki and note the quote "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether". Also note the quote by Nobel prizewinner Robert B. Laughlin who said "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed". It's all there in black and white.</blockquote>
Again, Duffield attempts to use Einstein's credibility and Laughlin's credibility for his own ideas on the ether. In fact, in this quote, Einstein is attempting to use the term "aether" to refer to the gravitational field within general relativity, rather than any physical "aether", suggesting that this quote was [[Quote mining|quote mined]].<ref name="WPAT">{{see-wp|Aether_theories#General_relativity|Aether theories}}</ref> Similarly, the Laughlin quote is actually explaining exactly what Einstein really meant in the previous quote and that the term "ether" may help explain how quantum mechanics views the vacuum of space, again rather than what Duffield believes.<ref name="WPAT" /> Later in the thread, Duffield argues that {{wpl|Shapiro delay}} is evidence of his view that the speed of light is not constant, while, again, failing to present his own arguments, and failing to recognize that the delay is solved by current physics by the curvature of spacetime, rather than the changing speed of light.
===Legal threats===
Duffield sometimes [[Internet tough guy|(vaguely) threatens those who oppose his work]] with (vague) legal threats. For example, on [[Talk:John Duffield]], Duffield posted:<ref>http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Duffield&diff=1400833&oldid=1400824</ref>
<blockquote>Doxxing? Geddoutofit. My ideas? They're Einstein's ideas, and who the hell are you? I've stated my position on the talk page associated with EmeraldCityWanderer's defamatory page of lies, now moved here. RationalWiki can either remove EmeraldCityWanderer's malicious dishonest crap along with the entry in the kooks page, or give me EmeraldCityWanderer's details. Or my beef is with RationalWiki and Trent Toulouse providing a platform for libel. It's that simple.</blockquote>
==External links==
*http://www.physicsdiscussionforum.org/index.php On which Duffield "administers"
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==Footnotes== ==Footnotes==
{{reflist}} {{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Duffield, John}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Duffield, John}}
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Internet kooks]] [[Category:Internet kooks]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]] [[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:Pissed at us]][[Category:Pissed at us]]
Editor
Original Text
Changed Text