Talk:Reciprocal Theory

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon pseudoscience.svg

This Pseudoscience related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Satz's "response"[edit] --ZooGuard (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr as always. Scarlet A.pngmoral 22:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And again[edit]

Transpower has written a "step-by-step refutation".--ZooGuard (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

[“uncanny”? Ha!—if the Postulates are physically correct, then if correct reasoning is applied to them the deductions will be in accord with the facts of reality. Tens of thousands of deductions have been made from the Postulates and have been shown to in harmony with the facts. Of course, once in a while, a mistaken deduction is made, but when found, the mistake is corrected and the work continues.]

Wow, Ron Satz manages to say less than nothing in three sentences. Scarlet A.pngbominationModerator 10:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

He went on for quite a bit more than three sentences. Granted, he did manage to say a little more than nothing...he repeated his complete misunderstanding of the mainstream model of capacitors, for one. (Little hint, Satz: capacitors have two plates.) And called me a "failed experimenter" for getting results that were in excellent agreement with mainstream theory and pointing out the many flaws with his measurement approach. Cjameshuff (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A detailed summary of the "paradox" that has Satz all worked up:
Satz insists that the notion that dissipation of energy by the surge of current through the series resistance and the changing electromagnetic fields is somehow absurd (he's never actually said why), and that the capacitors will end up at a higher voltage, with all of the original stored energy...never mind the fact that you can do work from (take energy from) the discharge process without changing the final equilibrium voltage. Real world measurements (and the successful functioning of most modern electronic equipment) clearly show RST is wrong, and as seen in the BAUT/Cosmoquest discussion, Satz completely failed to address the issues raised with his measurement procedure. He simply refused to make (or at least, to report the results from) more accurate ones, despite having all the required equipment at hand...all he had to do was connect one channel of the oscilloscope to each capacitor and capture both discharge waveforms. (That is, use the oscilloscope for what it was actually designed to do.)
As for the capacitor charge thing, it's been clearly described to him again and again: capacitors store a charge difference. Charged capacitors are neutral overall simply because one plate has a charge equal and opposite to that of the other. Electrolytic capacitors behave no differently, they just use an electrochemically formed dielectric. So much for "Conventional theory has no answer to this."...the reality is that Satz simply outright refuses to learn what "conventional theory" actually is. Cjameshuff (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Pigeon chess. Scarlet A.pngpatheticModerator 18:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
EXPN? - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Amusingly, we don't have a page on pigeon chess, even though it's related to creationism.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, got it - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit odd but the only reference to pigeon chess in main space is in our Leaving and never coming back article. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 21:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Writing a short article now. I was actually thinking of the cartoon King me!, which is almost the same joke - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
We have that in our Fun:Andrew_Schlafly article. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 09:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
It's a new term to me, but pigeon chess sounds accurate. He made another similar post a few days after that, in which he again claims I didn't measure the voltages, that he tried all combinations (why not show the results, then?), etc, simply ignoring the problems in his measurement methods pointed out in the CosmoQuest thread: Refutation of Talk Page Nonsense about Dewey B. Larson

[CJamesHuff is a failed experimenter. For the two capacitor problem, he didn't set his oscilloscope to find Vmax and peak voltage at the second capacitor. Keep in mind that once the two capacitors are connected in paralle, they have the same voltage, but the voltage quickly drops because the electrons leak out. It is the peak voltage which must be found!]

My plots (now on my user page if someone wants to use them) clearly show the voltage of both capacitors from initial conditions to equilibrium...the voltages he claims I didn't measure are are right there. Maybe this would be a good example for the Confirmation bias page...his desire for RST to be correct has apparently rendered him completely incapable of reading a voltage plot if it doesn't show what he wants. Leakage was only a problem for Satz's screwed-up measurement procedure, with him trying to switch instruments around mid-experiment and using the oscilloscope as a glorified multimeter instead of for what it was designed for...leakage is minimal over the 600 microseconds covered by these plots. And he then repeats this bizarre claim...

[The conventional theorists like CJamesHuff wave their hands and say the energy is "radiated away." What nonsense--no one have ever measured any of this.]

So in the world of Satz, resistive heating and electromagnetic radiation apparently don't exist... --Cjameshuff (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the obvious time and effort (not all efficient time and effort, mind) he's put into this, it would be a considerable loss of face to accept any errors like this. I'm not surprised this has been called Wrong Theory. Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet more lunacy from Satz[edit]

I'm not sure how much of this is Larson's, Satz may merit his own article at this point. Highlights:

  • Stars are supposedly powered by fission of heavy elements formed by neutrino capture, not fusion.
  • "entropy overall in the universe does not increase or decrease–the universe is cyclic and there is no heat death"
  • "Life forms from a combination of material and cosmic (inverse) atoms, with the cosmic atoms in control. Conventional biology does not explain the demarcation between life and non-life; the Reciprocal System does."
  • "we are supposed to follow the Golden Rule, whereas animals cannot and do not"

Cjameshuff (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Move this to "Reciprocal system" and outline each of Larson and Satz' contributions to this marvellous theory? - David Gerard (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. There's apparently a fair bit of crankery out there about Reciprocal Theory beyond Larson and Satz, Larson and Satz are only notable for their support for it, and Larson's long dead. Cjameshuff (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I only really started this on Larson because someone pointed me in the direction of Case Against the Nuclear Atom and it was just so epically terrible I had to. I've learned a considerable amount more about the Satz angle since. Though my affections for these guys have waned since reading Archimedes Plutonium. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 01:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Archie is...something else. I used to read some Usenet groups he frequented. Alright, lets shuffle things around a bit... Cjameshuff (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Still a sore loser[edit]

Heh: The Simplistic, Irrational Nature of “”

Just in case someone hasn't noticed: RationalWiki is not an encyclopaedia, nor it claims to be one. Indeed, it explicitly points out that it isn't. If something is not roughly covered by the Mission, we are not interested in it, though a number of popular-science-level, background knowledge articles do exist, such as star, radiation, etc.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is far more real science at Dr. Satz's blog, Please carefully study his papers there, including "The Case Against Modern Physics."— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 16:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC). The formulas in his mathematical papers are beautifully formatted and 100% computational.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, though any physicist would consider this work to be fairly ugly. But hey, what would I know? - Grant (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a shame we don't have articles on electric current, thermal current and capacitors. Satz could use a 9th-grade-level introduction to how those all actually work. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 07:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
+1 - Grant (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You'd need to start at a lower level than that. In the BAUT (now Cosmoquest) thread, he tried to use a hydraulic analogy with vats of liquid to support his claim that the potential energy was proportional to the voltage/level of liquid...and failed repeatedly to comprehend the very basic algebra showing that it is actually proportional to the square. Specifically, he got fixated on the equation U = m*g*h and what it does when you doubled h, without considering that doubling the amount of liquid in a vat would double the mass along with the height, or thinking about what you'd get if you divided the same mass of liquid between two identical vats.Cjameshuff (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The conventional capacitance unit is cm (in cgs) or farad (in SI); there is a conversion factor to go from farad to m or cm. However, the correct dimensions of capacitance are, in the Reciprocal System, s^3/t. This is necessary so that the time constant comes out correctly in capacitor circuits. Dr. Satz fixed this issue for the Reciprocal System; conventional theory still has not.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 13:37, 15 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Last I checked (and it wasn't that long ago), the time constant has the appropriate dimensions and works out just fine in conventional theory. Pray tell what exactly needs fixing? - Grant (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)'s claim that the Reciprocal System is "pseudoscience" is, of course, defamation. It would not be surprising, if this organization gets sued in the future. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Rational story, bro - David Gerard (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Funny thing: as it turns out, calling pseudoscience pseudoscience isn't defamation. So no need for worry there. Cjameshuff (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Satz having a mental breakdown?[edit]

Is this normal behavior for him? Is this a troll? Is Satz becoming a menace to others? "The Reciprocal System is the true theory of the universe, you retarded little humanities major. I have, on the market The Reciprocal System: Microcosmos Database, which applies the Reciprocal System to hundreds of thousands of situations. Obviously, it's way beyond your pathetic IQ level to grasp." --Mephite (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The humanities major, EP, refuses to disclose his real name. Similarly, the writer of this article on Dewey Larson is anonymous. One has to wonder: what are his qualifications to judge a scientific theory??? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

A bit hypocritical coming from a nameless IP address. How about addressing the demonstrated failures of the theory? Cjameshuff (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)