Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Engineers = Anti Relativists ?

  1. #1 Engineers = Anti Relativists ? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    In another thread, a member said ..

    "Retiring and retired engineers" make the bulk of anti-relativity crackpots.

    I never knew this, but I'll take it as being accurate, and say that I think it's most intriguing.

    Can anyone suggest why this is the case ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    In another thread, a member said ..

    "Retiring and retired engineers" make the bulk of anti-relativity crackpots.

    I never knew this, but I'll take it as being accurate, and say that I think it's most intriguing.

    Can anyone suggest why this is the case ?
    Also, is there any feedback as to what types of engineers they are ? I mean, there's obviously a lot of differnence between these types ..

    Architectural Engineering involves the application of engineering principles to building construction and design. In some parts of the world, the words architect and architectural engineer are used interchangeably.

    Biomedical Engineering strives to apply engineering principles and technology to the field of medicine. Originally considered an interdisciplinary specialization, biomedical eng has grown to become a respected discipline of its own. Tissue engineering, while also considered a specialization within biotechnology, is one such example of biomedical engineering in action.

    Civil Engineering is a discipline that deals primarily with the design, construction and maintenance of bridges, roads, canals, and the like. As a point of interest, this engineering discipline was enshrined to distinguish itself from military engineering. It is considered the second-oldest discipline, after military.

    Computer Engineering is a combination of computer science and electronic engineering. Computer engineers design both computer software and computer hardware, in addition to developing solutions for the integration of the two.

    Electrical Engineering is the study and application of electromagnetism, electronics, and electricity. It's a broad-based discipline that encompasses the design and implementation of various electronic / electrical systems such as circuits, generators, motors, and transformers.

    Industrial Engineering is a discipline concerned with the development and ongoing improvement of integrated systems. In manufacturing systems, focus is placed on finding ways to eliminate waste (time, money, materials, energy, etc). Industrial engineering is not necessarily limited to manufacturing, however.

    Manufacturing Engineering, on the other hand, deals almost exclusively with the design and maintenance of different manufacturing processes, tools, equipment and machines. Lean manufacturing principles are one such example of scientific manufacturing in action.

    Materials Engineering is concerned with the properties of matter and it's application to science and technology. This generally refers to the study of the structure of materials at the molecular level, and includes elements of applied physics and chemistry. Nanotechnology is one such example of materials engineering in action.

    Mechanical Engineering is one of the oldest disciplines, and is primarily concerned with the design, production and use of tools and machines. It is primarily concerned with the generation and application of mechanical power.

    Nuclear Engineering is a discipline that is primarily concerned with finding practical applications of nuclear energy. This includes the development and maintenance of nuclear reactors, power plants, and weapons.


    Thanks. I would be very interested to get some factual feedback on this !


    Edit, format


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I don't know if it's true or not. It's a gross generalization to say engineers are anti-relativity. Engineers do have a level of proficiency in math and physics and some may get over confident in their abilities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know if it's true or not. It's a gross generalization to say engineers are anti-relativity. Engineers do have a level of proficiency in math and physics and some may get over confident in their abilities.
    Hi Harold - two points;

    - anyone with a high level of proficiency in math and physics can get over confident - not just engineers, I would think.

    - I believe the member who made the comment was referring to retired or retiring engineers - I think there's an issue, or at least some distinction, there too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Retired people have more time to indulge their hobbies, which may include working on their pet theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    An engineer's worst enemy is the mechanic.

    Apparently this applies to quantum mechanics as well.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know if it's true or not. It's a gross generalization to say engineers are anti-relativity. Engineers do have a level of proficiency in math and physics and some may get over confident in their abilities.
    The forum dedicated to unashamed, unabashed anti-mainstream (mostly anti-relativity but with some anti-QM) people can be found here. 99% are engineers or retired engineers. Why is this so, I do not know. But it is. Same here, here and here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know if it's true or not. It's a gross generalization to say engineers are anti-relativity. Engineers do have a level of proficiency in math and physics and some may get over confident in their abilities.
    The forum dedicated to unashamed, unabashed anti-mainstream (mostly anti-relativity but with some anti-QM) people can be found here. 99% are engineers or retired engineers. Why is this so, I do not know. But it is. Same here, here and here.
    My guess is that they deal with specific domains and disregard the physics of those domains that are non-critical to their efforts. They tend to be a fairly myopic bunch who like to sit at the back of lecture rooms and fly paper planes or throw spit balls onto the ceiling and only get involved when something is 'mission critical'........ *without making any sweeping generalizations of course*

    For an engineer that has spent a great part of his life making a dam and ensuring that the walls of the dam are impenetrable, he/she is not going to be too impressed when you suggest he has fogotten to consider quantum tunnelling :-))
    Last edited by Implicate Order; September 4th, 2014 at 10:59 PM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know if it's true or not. It's a gross generalization to say engineers are anti-relativity. Engineers do have a level of proficiency in math and physics and some may get over confident in their abilities.
    The forum dedicated to unashamed, unabashed anti-mainstream (mostly anti-relativity but with some anti-QM) people can be found here. 99% are engineers or retired engineers. Why is this so, I do not know. But it is. Same here, here and here.
    My guess is that they deal with specific domains and disregard the physics of those domains that are non-critical to their efforts. They tend to be a fairly myopic bunch who like to sit at the back of lecture rooms and fly paper planes or throw spit balls onto the ceiling and only get involved when something is 'mission critical'........ *without making any sweeping generalizations of course*
    From my direct experience with them, it is something different.
    Fist off, a very small percentage of engineers (retired or otherwise are cranks).
    What I said is that a large percentage of anti-relativists are (retired) engineers. This is DIFFERENT from the above.
    I have a suspicion that :

    a) the above have a rudiment of math/physics enabling them to formalize their ideas
    b) they have a desire of "dethroning" Einstein. If not Einstein, then Dirac/Pauli/Planck suffices :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679 S, 153.0278 E
    Posts
    610
    Yep you make a valid point and are probably right, but I take issue with ALL of them. They are frame dependent. Those that are being nice to me are also shagging my girlfriend, those that are being mean to me are being honest. No matter how I look at them, they all just fundamentally 'Engineers' which we all know are a curious species subset that can be used to make things work, but whatever happens don't give them voting power........or drop water on them..../tic
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't know if it's true or not. It's a gross generalization to say engineers are anti-relativity. Engineers do have a level of proficiency in math and physics and some may get over confident in their abilities.
    The forum dedicated to unashamed, unabashed anti-mainstream (mostly anti-relativity but with some anti-QM) people can be found here. 99% are engineers or retired engineers. Why is this so, I do not know. But it is. Same here, here and here.
    My guess is that they deal with specific domains and disregard the physics of those domains that are non-critical to their efforts. They tend to be a fairly myopic bunch who like to sit at the back of lecture rooms and fly paper planes or throw spit balls onto the ceiling and only get involved when something is 'mission critical'........ *without making any sweeping generalizations of course*
    From my direct experience with them, it is something different.
    Fist off, a very small percentage of engineers (retired or otherwise are cranks).
    What I said is that a large percentage of anti-relativists are (retired) engineers. This is DIFFERENT from the above.
    I have a suspicion that :

    a) the above have a rudiment of math/physics enabling them to formalize their ideas
    b) they have a desire of "dethroning" Einstein. If not Einstein, then Dirac/Pauli/Planck suffices :-)
    I think a fair proportion of creationists may also be engineers - or mathematicians.

    Again, as you point out, this is emphatically not to disparage the engineering profession, most of whom are perfectly scientifically literate. But I do suspect followers of the applied sciences may have less of an intuitive sense of the implicit philosophy of science, that is, what makes a theory scientific. (Same goes for mathematicians of course) Engineers too may pride themselves on their commonsense practicality, which may make them pooh-pooh concepts they do not find applicable in their work - a sort of overzealous application of Ockham's Razor.

    (I had one physics teacher at school who professed to be agnostic about the existence of molecules! He had read Engineering at Cambridge. He was a good teacher, actually.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    We used to have a retired engineer by the name of Coberst who became a philosophy crank. He would cut and paste other people's writings and spam them across many different forums, never bothering to discuss any of it. He imagined he was doing a great service for mankind, possibly even saving the world. I had a feeling that late in his life he was disappointed with his engineering career and felt a need to accomplish something more significant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    As I point out to Strange whenever the opportunity arises, large numbers of those engineers tend to be electrical engineers.
    Possibly because they get taught "more" science than do, say, mechanical engineers.
    Which doesn't mean that mech engs are any less culpable when it comes to lunacy 1.

    I dunno, maybe it stems from engineering being hands-on and "human-scaled" empiricism for the most part.
    A case of "Well in all my years I've never encountered time dilation so they must be making it up" sort of thing...


    1 And I'm still waiting for my particular form of loony to kick in, I'm fascinated as to what form it will take.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    As I point out to Strange whenever the opportunity arises, large numbers of those engineers tend to be electrical engineers.
    Possibly because they get taught "more" science than do, say, mechanical engineers.
    Which doesn't mean that mech engs are any less culpable when it comes to lunacy 1.

    I dunno, maybe it stems from engineering being hands-on and "human-scaled" empiricism for the most part.
    A case of "Well in all my years I've never encountered time dilation so they must be making it up" sort of thing...


    1 And I'm still waiting for my particular form of loony to kick in, I'm fascinated as to what form it will take.
    You mean…..you DON'T KNOW??……….

    Rabid misanthropy, of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Rabid misanthropy, of course.
    So I'm an anti relatives nutcase.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    I think that it has to do a lot with :

    1. having too much time on their hands
    2. having enough education to make them dangerous
    3. having an obsession with disproving Einstein

    I have to mention that the most rabid anti-relativists are actually physicists. Some of them are even professors of physics at universities. I have had encounters with Stephen S. Gift, Reginald Cahill, V.P. Dimitriev, Santosh Devasia, C.S. Unnikrishnan, Hartwig Thim and many others. All are professors, all are anti-relativistic, full blown cranks.
    Last edited by Howard Roark; September 5th, 2014 at 05:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    1 And I'm still waiting for my particular form of loony to kick in, I'm fascinated as to what form it will take.
    Well...you already think you're a duck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Rabid misanthropy, of course.
    So I'm an anti relatives nutcase.
    Well played, good sir!
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Rabid misanthropy, of course.
    So I'm an anti relatives nutcase.
    Arf arf.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    This mechanical/civil engineer is one of my "favorites".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior AndresKiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    247
    Its true from my experience that most engineers (I have a lot of engineer friends) have less interest in many of the scientific communities' principles of thinking. In the science community, you seemed to have a strict set of principles that are accepted by nearly every respected member of that academic hierarchy. For example, all scientists or nearly all, agree on the fundamental basis of how the universe works and has come to be.

    Engineers don't really care.. they think much differently thank most scientists. As we all know a scientists is more interested in how the natural world works and how to describe the natural world, and engineers are more interested in solving demands and needs that come across societies' path.

    I know plenty more engineers that believe in God, than I know scientists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior AndresKiani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    247
    Lol I'm not sure about "retired" engineers, most the ones I know are in their 20s and early 30s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    a) the above have a rudiment of math/physics enabling them to formalize their ideas
    Formalising their ideas is a good thing, as it is for anyone.

    b) they have a desire of "dethroning" Einstein. If not Einstein, then Dirac/Pauli/Planck suffices :-)
    A noble desire - at least more noble than 'enthroning' him or anyone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    I think that it has to do a lot with :

    1. having too much time on their hands
    Einstein had much time on his hands, as did many other famous scientists and thinkers.

    2. having enough education to make them dangerous
    .. said the Church circa 500 years ago.

    3. having an obsession with disproving Einstein
    Better than an obsession to prove - no progress in continuing to prove the same thing. May as well close science down.

    I have to mention that the most rabid anti-relativists are actually physicists. Some of them are even professors of physics at universities. I have had encounters with Stephen S. Gift, Reginald Cahill, V.P. Dimitriev, Santosh Devasia, C.S. Unnikrishnan, Hartwig Thim and many others. All are professors, all are anti-relativistic, full blown cranks.
    .. physicists .. university professors .. go figure.

    PS, Howard, from your content and syntax, I am getting the distinct impression that you are 'xyzt'.

    Is this so ? And if so, why have you changed, and was this change clearly articulated somewhere in fairness to other memebrs ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    A while ago i remarked, concerning the nature of gravity, that at the end of the day something must be moving matter around, some thing that is.
    So even a relativist should account for howspacetime get that job done.
    The relativist answers 'the metric', and for him that is the end of the line.

    Except the metric is an abstractconcept, a reflection of phenomenons in nature. But the relativist tends to be very happy with mathematical solutions,whereas the engineer prefers 'action at no distance'.

    Most of those called a crank are just trying to findthe underlying fysical dynamic of the mathematical formulas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by marcbo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post

    a) the above have a rudiment of math/physics enabling them to formalize their ideas
    Formalising their ideas is a good thing, as it is for anyone.
    What they do is far from a valid formalism, since it is riddled with laughable mistakes.

    b) they have a desire of "dethroning" Einstein. If not Einstein, then Dirac/Pauli/Planck suffices :-)
    A noble desire - at least more noble than 'enthroning' him or anyone else.

    Nothing "noble" about outright crackpoterry. The mainstream physicists don't "enthrone" anybody. Unlike the cranks, they mount valid attacks on the existent theories. This requires proper education in physics, something that the cranks sorely lack.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post

    Most of those called a crank are just trying to findthe underlying fysical dynamic of the mathematical formulas.
    No, they are not, they lack the basic education for doing any of the above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Noa Drake View Post
    A while ago i remarked, concerning the nature of gravity, that at the end of the day something must be moving matter around, some thing that is.
    So even a relativist should account for howspacetime get that job done.
    The relativist answers 'the metric', and for him that is the end of the line.

    Except the metric is an abstractconcept, a reflection of phenomenons in nature. But the relativist tends to be very happy with mathematical solutions,whereas the engineer prefers 'action at no distance'.
    The engineers I know are perfectly happy with the idea of using equations that work, even if it involves something like induced voltage in a circuit from another circuit which it does not physically touch.
    Most of those called a crank are just trying to findthe underlying fysical dynamic of the mathematical formulas.
    Watch yourself. There's only so much crankery we will put up with from one person. Admittedly, that's a lot of crankery but there are limits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    475
    Most of those called a crank are just trying to findthe underlying fysical dynamic of the mathematical formulas.


    Watch yourself. There's only so much crankery we will put up with from one person. Admittedly, that's a lot of crankery but there are limits.


    >> I didn't say they are good at it sofar,),) , but i do make the point that the search for the fysical dynamic behind the formulas is valid and usefull. I mean also physicists know that these rigorous formulas must reflect - somehow - the very fundamental characteristics of nature, and that search cannot end at 'the metric', 'the 4 dimensional manifold' etc, since that is a geometrical and abstract concept, not fysical reality itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The engineers I know are perfectly happy with the idea of using equations that work, even if it involves something like induced voltage in a circuit from another circuit which it does not physically touch.
    I have heard it stated as, "Just shut up and calculate!"
    It is a very pragmatic approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    Ok you got me, retired mechanical engineer. Many of the things discussed here fit me like a glove. Do I know why I am like I am (fitting most descriptions). I always fancied myself able to self diagnose. Think some of it falls under math overload, I learned enough crap. Surely, second is. the math I need to use all works in a provable, operational and observable model.
    Many of the theories in relativity deal with things that exist, can't be seen, and do little to effect the human condition. The main reason most engineers believe in God is likely because we are hoping after we crook, there will be an entity that will finally show us some level of appreciation. hahahaha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    The main reason most engineers believe in God is likely because we are hoping after we crook, there will be an entity that will finally show us some level of appreciation. hahahaha
    Then, obviously, you're not a real engineer.
    Who gives a toss if we get appreciation or not from non-engineers?
    They don't know enough to pass judgement.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    2720'06.53"N 8232'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    kinda sucks when they say it can't be done, you do it, and they say why did it take so long
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Anti-Einstein = Anti-Semitic?
    By GiantEvil in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2010, 11:37 PM
  2. Some Engineers, are just cheap
    By coco9001 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: May 20th, 2010, 02:55 PM
  3. please help, Chemical Engineers only?
    By coco9001 in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 20th, 2010, 11:04 AM
  4. Crafty engineers
    By DigitalM in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2010, 10:39 AM
  5. Engineers Salary
    By Deepaman in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 9th, 2009, 12:47 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •