Of course, I'm always questioning whether in fact we may indeed be quacks. After all, why would a physics theory claiming to have the Unified Force Theory and the precise geometry of quantum structure be so slow in gaining wide-spread acceptance? Surely the top physicists of today would be able to spot a good theory when they saw one, right?
I recently had a discussion with a top-notch PhD physicist professor, Warren Siegler. He teaches physics at CNY Institute for Theoretical Physics at SUNY. What started the discussion was a web page he had posted that describes the qualities of quacks. I simply wanted to know whether a quantified theory based upon empirical data would be considered a quack theory. This ended up giving me the unexpected opportunity to actually defend the theory. To my surprise, his only response was to find ways to ignore the theory.
With his permission, I have posted the complete discussion between us online at:
One would think it would be easy to simply find errors in the theory being presented, but instead, Prof. Siegel was intent to respond to my theory by touting other theories. It was like trying to tell a Baptist about Buddhism. Every comment about Buddhism would be followed by a quote from the Bible that both judges the error of Buddhism and praises the wonders of Christianity.
Check it out. See why it is so difficult to present a new physics theory to people who think they already have the answers.