Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Tubbythin · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
You're probably right that I'm resorting to melodramatic language and shock value commentary to get your attention.

Yes. A most excellent sign of a failed to construct an argument. It bares a striking analogy to when creationists invoke Godwin because they can't construct a scientific argument against evolution

I do however think it's important that you understand the real reason people reject standard theory and what beliefs bind the EU/PC community. Thus far you still seem pretty clueless.

Well, if I'm clueless then it is purely because the proponents have completely failed to present a compelling case.

You seem to think it's somehow related to one's math skills, when in fact Alfven was the one that started PC theory (formally at least) and he rejected all types of what he called "prophetic' forms of cosmology.

Not specifically maths skills. But certainly amongst the group on JREF it would seem that their is a complete inability to understand, let alone produce, quantitative evidence. Whatever Alfven did or did not know about maths, it would appear he was pretty out of his depth when it came to GR (at least the bits that are pertinent to the Big Bang Cosmology).

It really doesn't matter if you ever take me seriously. It only matters that you take Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Dungey and many others "seriously'. Their work deserves "serious' consideration, not some handwave that amounts to pure denial.

I don't much care for name dropping. Scientific theories stand or fall on the evidence that supports them not the names of the theories proponents. It's kind of ironic given all your claims of Gods in the Big Bang cosmology that you seem to view the work of a small subsect of scientists as almost infallible.
I'm not going to comment on Bruce or Dungey for the time being.
As for the rest:
Birkeland: Did some great work and made some nice predictions. Some of his speculative hypotheses turned out to be wrong. That's not a slight on him, just a fact of life and the fact the we have better data to work with now than what he did 100 years ago.
Alfven: Did some great work on plasmas. Got a Nobel prize. Seems to have been completely out of his depth when it came to cosmology.
Peratt: I believe he has done some good work. But his plasma filament model of galaxies is not one of them.
Lerner: Makes claims about the Big Bang model that he has 0 justification for. See my previous posts on the lithium problem. This certainly not amount to either a handwave or pure denial. He seems, imho, to have an agenda and it isn't a particularly scientific one.

PC theory works in the lab

No, nothing of the sort is true. Plasma physics works in a lab.

and works in nature.

Plasma physics works in nature. Plasma cosmology is a collection of contradictory hypotheses which can't really explain any cosmology data at all.

Your stuff *NEVER* works in lab *WITHOUT* electricity, and most of it doesn't work at all in the lab.

My stuff? What are you talking about.

Michael Mozina · Dec 13, 2010

R.A.F. said:
Well, observationally we can look at the Sun and see that it isn't coated by an iron shell.

I assume the photosphere is a plasma just like you do. FYI, it was Sir William Herschell that first claimed that he could see a crust underneath of the photosphere through sunspots.

So what? I'm certainly not going to rely on any information provided by someone who has a questionable, observational "skill set".

Actually, I'm doing pretty good with those SDO images in terms of the effect of coronal loops on the surface of the photosphere. It's pretty darn clear that they come up and through that surface and they light it up like a Christmas tree in the process. I think LMSAL's claim about a "transition region" is about to bite the dust. Those 1700A and 1600A images are quite revealing.

Tubbythin · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Then clearly your impotent sky entity is more impotent on Earth than your average religious entity.

Or, as he says, he doesn't have such a sky entity and your attempt to suggest that he does just illustrates your failure to make a scientific argument.

Michael Mozina · Dec 13, 2010

Tubbythin said:
Or, as he says, he doesn't have such a sky entity and your attempt to suggest that he does just illustrates your failure to make a scientific argument.

The claim the "dark energy did it" isn't a 'scientific' (empirical) argument either. You can't get "dark energy" to even show up in a lab. You can't tell me where it comes from. You can't tell me anything much about it other than it exists "somewhere out there' where I can never go, I can never hope to measure it in controlled conditions, and I can never hope to "see" it directly. How freaking inconvenient!

Tubbythin · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Nope.

Yep.

I haven't even heard a single one of you deal with Lerners note about the CMB and it's relationship to the local superclusters.

I'm pretty dure it has been dealt with though not by me. Personally, I take any of his claims with a pinch of salt after his claims about the lithium problem.

You can 'measure" something like "acceleration". You can only "verify' that acceleration is 'caused by' something in the lab. Your stuff is an epic fail in the lab.

No it isn't. If dark energy showed up in the lab then it would be an epic fail. Because from quantitative analysis we know it shouldn't show up in the lab. Because, funnily enough, the Universe wasn't designed to show up in human labs.

That epic fail in the lab is what your theory and many religions share in common.

It certainly isn't an epic fail in the lab. DE is predicted not to show up on lab scales and it does not show up. On the other hand, plasmas show up in the lab and from them we have a good understanding of their properties. From that we know that they cannot possibly be responsible for the observed cosmological phenomena.

GeeMack · Dec 13, 2010

Tubbythin said:
Or, as he says, he doesn't have such a sky entity and your attempt to suggest that he does just illustrates your failure to make a scientific argument.

... as well as what appears to be a demonstration of typical crackpot dishonesty in lieu of legitimate science. Interestingly it does provide a substantive example for this exploration of the crackpot mindset.

Michael Mozina · Dec 13, 2010

Tubbythin said:
Not specifically maths skills. But certainly amongst the group on JREF it would seem that their is a complete inability to understand, let alone produce, quantitative evidence.

This is pure denial. I've produce Lerner's work. You simply handwaved at it because he has some "agenda". Who doesn't? What you mean is I won't personally bark math for you or anyone else on command in these forums and that bugs you for some reason.

Whatever Alfven did or did not know about maths, it would appear he was pretty out of his depth when it came to GR (at least the bits that are pertinent to the Big Bang Cosmology).

I appears to YOU perhaps, but not to me. Now what? How about Peratt? He wrote plasma physics software for a living. Is he out of his element too? It seems to me that the guys that know how plasma works in the lab are the ones that are likely to understand how it works out in space too.

Birkeland: Did some great work and made some nice predictions. Some of his speculative hypotheses turned out to be wrong. That's not a slight on him, just a fact of life and the fact the we have better data to work with now than what he did 100 years ago.

The fact we have 'better data" doesn't negate his work, in fact it supports a LARGER PORTION of that work now than before.

Alfven: Did some great work on plasmas. Got a Nobel prize. Seems to have been completely out of his depth when it came to cosmology.

Why do you say that? It "seems" to me that this is merely a handwave and a proclamation. Since he understood plasma physics, and the universe is mostly plasma, why do you believe he's out of his element?

Peratt: I believe he has done some good work. But his plasma filament model of galaxies is not one of them.

Ok, so you don't like some PART of his work. So what?

Lerner: Makes claims about the Big Bang model that he has 0 justification for.

Sort of like the claim 'dark energy did it' in relationship to acceleration?

See my previous posts on the lithium problem. This certainly not amount to either a handwave or pure denial. He seems, imho, to have an agenda and it isn't a particularly scientific one.

I'm sorry but I don't think I've ever met anyone without some agenda, and often times it's not all that scientific. Even still their "maths" can be 100 percent correct. I fail to see why you get to reject maths when the agenda doesn't jive with your own beliefs. How do you justify that?

Plasma physics works in nature. Plasma cosmology is a collection of contradictory hypotheses which can't really explain any cosmology data at all.

Again, this is only an "opinion' and one based on very 'subjective' opinions.

Michael Mozina · Dec 13, 2010

GeeMack said:
... as well as what appears to be a demonstration of typical crackpot dishonesty in lieu of legitimate science. Interestingly it does provide a substantive example for this exploration of the crackpot mindset.

The fact of the matter is that your mythical "dark energy" is a complete no show in the lab. The same is true of inflation. The only place they show up is in CREATION MYTHOLOGIES, not the lab.

Tubbythin · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
The claim the "dark energy did it" isn't a 'scientific' (empirical) argument either.

The claim isn't "dark energy" did it. The claim is more along the lines of, we can include a dark energy term in general relativity and still have a model that is (quantitatively!) consistent with all observational evidence describing GR and the cosmological observations. That most certainly is a scientific argument.

You can't get "dark energy" to even show up in a lab.

I wouldn't expect it to show up in the lab. The lab is a construct of human convenience. Much like the toilet. I don't hear you rejecting the existence of top quarks because you can't detect them in your cistern.

You can't tell me where it comes from.

I can't tell you where you come from. It doesn't mean you don't exist.

You can't tell me anything much about it other than it exists "somewhere out there' where I can never go, I can never hope to measure it in controlled conditions, and I can never hope to "see" it directly.

We know some properties it must have. We can certainly hope to do more measurements in controlled conditions. There are many things you can never hope to see directly. Anything that doesn't emit light the visible range in fact.

How freaking inconvenient!

Why should it be convenient? Unless you think the Universe was designed specifically for our benefit, why would you possibly imagine that all its many facets should be convenient for human study by the year many refer to as 2010?

Michael Mozina · Dec 13, 2010

Tubbythin said:
The claim isn't "dark energy" did it. The claim is more along the lines of, we can include a dark energy term in general relativity and still have a model that is (quantitatively!) consistent with all observational evidence describing GR and the cosmological observations. That most certainly is a scientific argument.

If that is your only criteria, then "magic did it' or "God did it" is just as certainly a "scientific" argument.

I wouldn't expect it to show up in the lab. The lab is a construct of human convenience. Much like the toilet. I don't hear you rejecting the existence of top quarks because you can't detect them in your cistern.

I can detect them in the lab in controlled experimentation. You can't do that with "dark energy". It's an "act of faith" on the part of the 'believer', just like all other impotent on earth sky entities.

I can't tell you where you come from. It doesn't mean you don't exist.

Someone can tell me where I come from, if only me. NOBODY seems to be able to say where dark energy comes from. That doesn't smell like a religion to you?

We know some properties it must have.

Correction: You know some of the properties it must have *TO PROP UP YOUR OTHERWISE FALSIFIED THEORY*.

We can certainly hope to do more measurements in controlled conditions. There are many things you can never hope to see directly. Anything that doesn't emit light the visible range in fact.

That "claim" that it emits no light is an "act of faith" on your part since you can't PRODUCE it or SEE in any controlled scenario.

Why should it be convenient? Unless you think the Universe was designed specifically for our benefit, why would you possibly imagine that all its many facets should be convenient for human study by the year many refer to as 2010?

It seems more than a tad "convenient" that you're simply "making up" the various "properties" of new forms of energy and matter only to save your creation theory from final falsification. Why? Why not admit your theory is falsified and "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer?

Michael Mozina · Dec 13, 2010

GeeMack said:
This checks to about a 3rd grade reading level...

Oh look, another personal attack. Who would have thought.....

Tubbythin · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
This is pure denial. I've produce Lerner's work. You simply handwaved at it because he has some "agenda".

No, I analysed his claims and found them to be lacking. Specifically, (and you can read this in which ever thread I wrote this in) he claimed that the lithium problem ruled out the big bang cosmology with some extraordinary precision but failed to take any account whatsoever of the possibility that the nuclear or astronomical input data. This is obviously not a handwave. If someone makes a claim that some model is ruled out to some extraordinary precision but does not even bother to consider the validity or precision of the input data then his claims has no merit. Not in science anyway.

Who doesn't? What you mean is I won't personally bark math for you or anyone else on command in these forums and that bugs you for some reason.

No. You appear to lack the ability to provide quantitative support. Physics is a quantitative subject. Therefore if he aint quantitative it aint physics. Moreover, you also seem to lack the ability to understand the quantitative responses you receive.

I appears to YOU perhaps, but not to me. Now what?

Yes, but I can provided quantiative support for my arguments... and you can't or won't.

How about Peratt? He wrote plasma physics software for a living. Is he out of his element too? It seems to me that the guys that know how plasma works in the lab are the ones that are likely to understand how it works out in space too.

That's nice. It doesn't mean he knows anything about how gravity works. Unlike cosmologists and astronomers who will generally have rather substantial training in both.

The fact we have 'better data" doesn't negate his work, in fact it supports a LARGER PORTION of that work now than before.

Like I said. IT supports some of his work. It negates other bits. Unless you can provide quantitative justification for your claim that "it supports a LARGER PORTION of that work now than before" then I suggest you accept this and move on.

Why do you say that? It "seems" to me that this is merely a handwave and a proclamation. Since he understood plasma physics, and the universe is mostly plasma, why do you believe he's out of his element?

It isn't mostly plasma though. And Alfven probably didn't have all that much to do with general relativity. Which is pretty critical.

Ok, so you don't like some PART of his work. So what?

I dunno. From a scientific point of view I don't understand why anyone would bring up a list of names of scientists rather than list of quantitative data in support of their hypothesis as a means of supporting their hypothesis. So indeed the question my response could just have been "Anthony Perratt, so what?"

Sort of like the claim 'dark energy did it' in relationship to acceleration?

See my previous post.

I'm sorry but I don't think I've ever met anyone without some agenda, and often times it's not all that scientific. Even still their "maths" can be 100 percent correct. I fail to see why you get to reject maths when the agenda doesn't jive with your own beliefs. How do you justify that?

I don't reject the maths per se. It may or may not be right (though he doesn't have a clean slate on that front either). What I reject is the claim he make from his maths. It has no justification without proper consideration of the input parameters of the model. He must know that without knowing these to at least a similar degree to that at which he rules the big bang cosmology out, he cannot rule the big bang model out to that degree. But he give these no consideration whatsoever.

Again, this is only an "opinion' and one based on very 'subjective' opinions.

Its not really a subjective opinion when its backed up by evidence but anyway, there is a rather long thread discussing that. I suggest if you want to discuss it further you go back to that thread and stop derailing this one.

Tubbythin · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
If that is your only criteria, then "magic did it' or "God did it" is just as certainly a "scientific" argument.

Do you have quantitative evidence that magic or God did it is consistent with GR? If so, please provide it, if not please retract the above statement. Thanks.

I can detect them in the lab in controlled experimentation. You can't do that with "dark energy".

Like I said, the lab is a construct of human convenience, much like the toilet. Some physical phenomena can be manifest in some constructs of human convenience, others cannot.

It's an "act of faith" on the part of the 'believer',

No it isn't. It's an act of understanding the quantitative evidence presented in the published literature by the scientist.

just like all other impotent on earth sky entities.

Well if you have quantitative evidence for all other impotent on earth sky entities you'd be right. And if you don't you'd be wrong. I'm guessing the latter. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Someone can tell me where I come from, if only me. NOBODY seems to be able to say where dark energy comes from.

People have ideas. The point still stands anyway. And the fact that we don't know everything does not mean we don't know anything.

That doesn't smell like a religion to you?

Not in the slightest. Science is all about finding theories and models to quantitatively describe the phenomena we observe. This is exactly what LCDM does.

Correction: You know some of the properties it must have *TO PROP UP YOUR OTHERWISE FALSIFIED THEORY*.

I know some of the properties quantum mechanics must have to prop up classical mechanics. Ditto with special relativity. I know some of the properties GR must have to prop up the otherwise failed model of Newtonian mechanics etc and so on.
And the capitalisation doesn't do you any favours.

That "claim" that it emits no light is an "act of faith" on your part since you can't PRODUCE it or SEE in any controlled scenario.

I have know idea what you are talking about. Please read what I wrote again.

It seems more than a tad "convenient" that you're simply "making up" the various "properties" of new forms of energy and matter only to save your creation theory from final falsification.

It is no more a creation theory than QED. Your attempts to relate it to creationism once again show your complete inability to provide any scientific objections. And its certainly no more made up than the neutrino hypothesis or the top quark hypothesis. So I really don't understand the objection there either.

Why? Why not admit your theory is falsified and "I don't know" is a valid scientific answer?

Do you think that rather than adopt general relativity as an alternative to Newtonian gravity we should have thrown away all our understanding of gravity and started again? Same thing with SR and QM? If your answer to any of these is no then you have your answer.

Reality Check · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Nope. I haven't even heard a single one of you deal with Lerners note about the CMB and it's relationship to the local superclusters.

Do you mean the integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect and the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect that show that the CMB photons have passed through distant parts of the universe?

ETA
But it sounds as if you really mean the alignment of the quadruple and octupole components with the Virgo supercluster as in this 2004 new article: Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?

ETA2
From what I can see the most likely explanation is that the residuals from the Galactic foreground are not completely accounted for.

Bishadi · Dec 13, 2010

GeeMack said:
Okay, I checked this for readability...

Now if you want to preach about various inane conjectures, take them to the appropriate threads. The crackpot strategy of attempting to derail every thread into a discussion about their pet nutty notions is more than worn out. Oh, and it's against the rules of the JREF forums, too. This thread is to explore the possible reasons crackpots are drawn to subjects, particularly physics, when it seems to be radically outside most of their qualifications, understanding, or intellectual capabilities.

the capabilities are equally among mankind to readon. Reason and objectively analyzing data are where the cracks stand out as the complacent dont admit to evidence like an honest seekers does.

The reversal of this concept "why is there so much craskpot physics?" is that the crackpots are oooosually the idiots who dont know how to address evidence except by using the conforming model that is cracked in the first place.

The botton line, energy is not bound to speed except to crackpots. And of that statement, combining evidence is how to prove this fact and the complacent dont actually look for it, they simply return to old material and ranting to discount the objective approach.

It came out to about a 12th grade reading level, yet obviously it is too difficult for some people to understand. Let's try it another way. This checks out to about a 3rd grade reading level...

And i can put into plain english that anyone can comprehend; the current paradigm is off, because of the adherance to plancks constant which is based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If you dont comprehend that my argument is found in physics, which is simply the math to describe what was observed a long time ago but today,the evidence is far exceeding the old physics and why so many branches have to add their patches to even comply (dark matter, enthalpy, 'resonant energy transfer'..... the list is huge, even to the extreme of creating new dimensions to address the unknown causality affecting the system.

What i find disgusting is that the educated few are just as arrogant as charles manson and wasting their lives on fighting a losing battle against the 'evolution of knowledge'.

Your comments above are off topic. Take it where it belongs.

the majority of this thread is 'off topic'.

at least, i can render WHY and WHere and WHAT the problems are;

the complacent

the complacent

the complacent

(a bunch of preaching conformist, with a team of moderation that is too stubborn to hold people to evidence over beliefs)

Most of my threads offer evidence and not alfvren evidence but evidence in lab experiments that currently exist.

i could care less what dark matters the idiots like to rant on, it has nothing to do with what is real on this earth.

For the thread, the complacent are the crackpots and the best method of comprehending that, is that unless someone tells them, "it" is approved, peer reviewed and accepted, the works of the objective often go unnoticed or even observed.

The best example is the alvarez Asteroid Theory of the KT extinction. Gerta Keller offered evidence the theory is wrong but for some reason the majority just dont accept EVIDENCE over the ACCEPTED belief systems.

The other one is the LHC.......... perhaps the single greatest waste of scientific resources on the earth and yet to this day, not a damn thing but isolating isotopes and jobs to build the dam things, has ever come of it, (or any accelerator) I remember when adding up the speeds was a breakthrough in how they would reach the 'speed of light', (each particle coming from opposite directions) but even with that acheivement, they still have not found 'the god particle' and why almost 3 generations of spinners (after that old prediction) are wasting the resources of mankind.

The cranks dont have the integrity to be honest about science when evidence unfolds that ruins the beliefs of the cranks.

Sideroxylon · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Well, GR is in no way dependent upon "inflation" or "dark energy". Let's start there. Secondly, I have no problem with your stuffing a KNOWN FORCE OF NATURE into a GR theory say MHD THEORY FOR INSTANCE to create some sort of "accelerating universe". If however you stuff magic into those GR formulas, I frankly don't care it you can "make it fit". It's still "make believe".

Again, if we have a narrative with great utility and no replacement, why throw it out? We have also seen how proposing observed phenomena when trying to preserve a theory that has served us well has been a successful strategy.

But now we're actually talking about "postdictions" aren't we?

No, I was talking about everyday predictions of moving bodies, say planets for example.

Sure, just as there will be "some truth' to GR theory, even if you personally stuff it full of "dark" thingies that don't actually exist in nature. The same would be true if I stuffed GR formulas full of magic.

How can you be sure they do not exist. They rather seem to be predicted by our best understandings of the cosmos. Of course it is possible that we have got it terribly wrong and Nobels all round for those who demonstrate it.

In my experience, empirical physics always "wins out', but usually only after everyone's been kicking and screaming for a century or two. Look at evolutionary theory today. How many people *STILL* reject that concept?

Evolution is a special case, as is the age of the earth, because the opposition is motivated by alleged divine authority and argued in the face of observational evidence. Can you give me some other examples - not making argument but rather interested in additional interesting examples. Wegner and continental drift is an interesting example I think.

"Missing Matter" probably exists. The term "dark' seems to relate more to our ignorance than anything else.

IMO "dark matter' theory is the *LEAST* objectionably part of the metaphysical trio. There's at least a *SLIM* hope of finding some empirical support of *SOME KIND* of new form of matter in the LHC experiments. Whether any of those new forms might 'fit the bill" in terms of longevity, "coldness", etc, remains to be seen. Even still, there is hope of physical confirmation here on Earth. That's WAY more than can be said for inflation and DE.

I am about of my depth again there and cant comment.

True but both of us experience gravity here on Earth right now. When was the last time 'dark energy' had any effect on your daily life?

Does the scientific understanding of dark energy predict that it should affect daily life?

W.D.Clinger · Dec 13, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
This is pure denial. I've produce Lerner's work. You simply handwaved at it because he has some "agenda". Who doesn't? What you mean is I won't personally bark math for you or anyone else on command in these forums and that bugs you for some reason.

No, your inability to "bark math" doesn't bug us. It does, however, tell us several important things:

You don't understand the mathematics used to express physical theories.
As a consequence, you don't understand the physical theories you attack.
As another consequence, you cannot express the ideas you favor with the precision required to compare them against the mainstream theories you abhor.
As a consequence of 1, 2, and 3 above, your arguments are not taken seriously.

That bugs you, not us. You then take it out on us by derailing threads with rants about sky gods and invisible entities and all sorts of nonsense. That is what bugs us.

Michael Mozina said:
It really doesn't matter if you ever take me seriously. It only matters that you take Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Dungey and many others "seriously'. Their work deserves "serious' consideration, not some handwave that amounts to pure denial.

What you don't understand is that we have indeed given serious consideration to their work. In the process of giving serious consideration to their work, we try to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong. Alfvén, for example, got MHD mostly right, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in recognition of that. Alfvén also got GR and cosmology mostly wrong. We would do his reputation a favor by forgetting about his cosmological rants, but you and your fellow travellers won't let us.

Tubbythin has already summarized his opinion of the work done by Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner. Dungey is more obscure, so few of us had any opinion at all of his work before you began to insist we read one of Dungey's papers. I have already commented upon some aspects of that paper in another thread. Because you have continued to praise Dungey in this thread, however, I'll use a few examples from his paper to show how even minor mistakes in the mathematical presentation help to create a poor impression of a scientist's work. That's certainly fair in this case, because Dungey's paper is essentially mathematical in character, and the footnote attached to his name on the title page tells us he was at the "Department of Mathematics, King's College, Newcastle" when the paper was published.

The last paragraph of Dungey's introduction contains this approximation:

[latex]
\[ c \;\hbox{curl {\bf H}} \approx 4 \pi j \]
[/latex]

The left hand side is a vector. The right hand side is a scalar. (Yes, j is a scalar, as demonstrated by an approximation given earlier in that paragraph.) What do you make of that, Michael Mozina?

Here are two phrases from the last paragraph of section 2:

Dungey said:
...the spatial gradients at N of H and of the velocity u...

...the initial spatial gradient of H.

What do you make of that, Michael Mozina? What do you think Dungey meant when he talked about the gradient of a vector field?

I'm asking you because you`re the chief advocate of Dungey's paper. If you can't tell us what Dungey meant by these trivial mistakes, why should we take your advocacy of the paper seriously? It looks to me as though you've been recommending a mathematics-intensive paper you could not possibly have understood.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I think Michael Mozina's routine advocacy of papers he is not equipped to evaluate is fairly typical of those who promote crackpot physics. As Tubbythin noted, it's a kind of name-dropping. When the papers and their claims are considered seriously and found wanting, Michael Mozina and his fellow travellers tell us that mathematics is irrelevant, deny the successful predictions made by mainstream theories, sidestep all demands for quantitative predictions from their pet theories, and present themselves as victims of quasi-religious persecution by the Big Bad Establishment. After all, content-free ranting is a lot easier than doing physics.

Bishadi · Dec 13, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
No, your inability to "bark math" doesn't bug us. It does, however, tell us several important things:

1. You don't understand the mathematics used to express physical theories.
2. As a consequence, you don't understand the physical theories you attack.
3. As another consequence, you cannot express the ideas you favor with the precision required to compare them against the mainstream theories you abhor.
4. As a consequence of 1, 2, and 3 above, your arguments are not taken seriously.

That bugs you, not us.

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Speak for YOU, not any other.

Rules:

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

RULE II.
Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

That is Newton and principia is nothing anyone could have comprehended to follow your above 1-3.

My point is, that a foundation is required and in principia, the foundations were based on suppositions, without having the knowledge of what gravity (the force) is.

your method of discounting fails.

DeiRenDopa · Dec 13, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
Michael Mozina said:

This is pure denial. I've produce Lerner's work. You simply handwaved at it because he has some "agenda". Who doesn't? What you mean is I won't personally bark math for you or anyone else on command in these forums and that bugs you for some reason.

Click to expand...

No, your inability to "bark math" doesn't bug us. It does, however, tell us several important things:

There's actually another aspect, and that's that MM doesn't remember even the high level summary of the science-based rebuttals, in this case of Lerner's ideas.

For example Tubbythin has commented on how weak Lerner's lithium proposal is (which MM has certainly read before); other (older) responses have included the observed SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB (it's a blackbody, to ~1 part per thousand). Lerner claims to be able to produce a SED, using his model, that sorta matches a blackbody (IIRC it's off by ~20-40%, in his own words), but of course that doesn't cut the mustard.

It's entirely predictable that MM's response would be something like "You simply handwaved at it because he has some "agenda""; why? Because MM simply cannot understand, let alone appreciate, how big a failure (of Lerner's model) this is.

In short, unless and until we can start having a discussion based on what has been a foundation of physics for the last several hundred years, MM will keep repeating this sort of stuff.

Uncayimmy · Dec 13, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
No, your inability to "bark math" doesn't bug us. It does, however, tell us several important things:

You don't understand the mathematics used to express physical theories.

As a consequence, you don't understand the physical theories you attack.

As another consequence, you cannot express the ideas you favor with the precision required to compare them against the mainstream theories you abhor.

As a consequence of 1, 2, and 3 above, your arguments are not taken seriously.

That bugs you, not us. You then take it out on us by derailing threads with rants about sky gods and invisible entities and all sorts of nonsense. That is what bugs us.

What you don't understand is that we have indeed given serious consideration to their work. In the process of giving serious consideration to their work, we try to figure out what they got right and what they got wrong. Alfvén, for example, got MHD mostly right, and was awarded the Nobel Prize in recognition of that. Alfvén also got GR and cosmology mostly wrong. We would do his reputation a favor by forgetting about his cosmological rants, but you and your fellow travellers won't let us.

Tubbythin has already summarized his opinion of the work done by Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, and Lerner. Dungey is more obscure, so few of us had any opinion at all of his work before you began to insist we read one of Dungey's papers. I have already commented upon some aspects of that paper in another thread. Because you have continued to praise Dungey in this thread, however, I'll use a few examples from his paper to show how even minor mistakes in the mathematical presentation help to create a poor impression of a scientist's work. That's certainly fair in this case, because Dungy's paper is essentially mathematical in character, and the footnote attached to his name on the title page tells us he was at the "Department of Mathematics, King's College, Newcastle" when the paper was published.

The last paragraph of Dungey's introduction contains this approximation:

[latex]
\[ c \;\hbox{curl {\bf H}} \approx 4 \pi j \]
[/latex]

The left hand side is a vector. The right hand side is a scalar. (Yes, j is a scalar, as demonstrated by an approximation given earlier in that paragraph.) What do you make of that, Michael Mozina?

Here are two phrases from the last paragraph of section 2:

What do you make of that, Michael Mozina? What do you think Dungey meant when he talked about the gradient of a vector field?

I'm asking you because you`re the chief advocate of Dungey's paper. If you can't tell us what Dungey meant by these trivial mistakes, why should we take your advocacy of the paper seriously? It looks to me as though you've been recommending a mathematics-intensive paper you could not possibly have understood.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I think Michael Mozina's routine advocacy of papers he is not equipped to evaluate is fairly typical of those who promote crackpot physics. As Tubbythin noted, it's a kind of name-dropping. When the papers and their claims are considered seriously and found wanting, Michael Mozina and his fellow travellers tell us that mathematics is irrelevant, deny the successful predictions made by mainstream theories, sidestep all demands for quantitative predictions from their pet theories, and present themselves as victims of quasi-religious persecution by the Big Bad Establishment. After all, content-free ranting is a lot easier than doing physics.

This is a lengthy way (that doesn't make it bad

) of supporting the second half of the statement I made early on in this thread.

[Being right where all the experts are wrong is] a very appealing thing to some people. Combine that with a simple understanding that makes sense to them, and there's your recipe.

Fundamentally, it's not all that different from the likes of VisionFromFeeling, a self-proclaimed "science student and skeptic" who thinks she can detect if a person is missing a kidney (and which side), talk to ghosts, and all sorts of other things. It makes her special. Her understanding of the scientific method is rudimentary at best, and she doesn't make any serious attempt to learn it. Why? Because she knows deep down she would no longer be special.

The same goes for the physics crackpots, Truthers, and believers in all sorts of ideas that are not supported by science. Everybody wants to be an Ignaz Semmelweis. I mean, how cool is it to be right when everybody else is wrong? For every Ignaz there are thousands of Rene Blondlots sitting at their keyboards. I would be curious to see how many would be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.

Bishadi · Dec 13, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
Quote:
In my experience, empirical physics always "wins out', but usually only after everyone's been kicking and screaming for a century or two. Look at evolutionary theory today. How many people *STILL* reject that concept?

Click to expand...

Evolution is a special case, as is the age of the earth, because the opposition is motivated by alleged divine authority and argued in the face of observational evidence. Can you give me some other examples - not making argument but rather interested in additional interesting examples. Wegner and continental drift is an interesting example I think.

he aint talking about the earth with the usage. He was talking about life (i would bet).

ie... the current reductionary model dont work to define what is more important than dark crap and planets. We all know what time it is and perfections of describing life, aint coming from hardon or dark BS.

The woo woo's are crackpots that have forgot what science it for. It sure aint for funding and star gazing as the benefits to mankind. The best usage of science is 'for life',

So the cranks and crackpots should be defined as the idiots who dont know what they are, to the molecular level and are older than 15. ie... i was a crackpot once!

The reason the evolution of living species is not bound to ALL schooling and educations foundations is the math cant describe it, within today's paradigm.

That is a fact for the crackpots to think on.

Perpetual Student · Dec 13, 2010

At the very core of crackpot physics zealotry is the lack of mathematics training and ability of the adherents. How many times have we seen, "I will not bark math" when the real admission should be I do not know how to express myself with mathematics in this instance. Apparently they do not understand that it is totally bogus to reject a mainstream physics concept in favor of an alternate explanation if the mainstream one is not understood -- and without the necessary mathematics the mainstream idea cannot be understood. This is why the crackpots receive so much derision, which they find so offensive. The real physicists know that the crackpot does not understand the theory he is rejecting, so consequently his rejection is meaningless, like a child rejecting medication because it tastes bad.

Andy_Ross · Dec 14, 2010

You know you are all arguing with someone that thinks he has photographs that show the sun is made of Iron so everything else is wrong?

He has been trying to sell this same shtick for more than half a decade!

Andy_Ross · Dec 14, 2010

They seem to have no understanding of what a 'discharge' might be

I would get that looked at if I were you.

Limbo · Dec 14, 2010

Perpetual Student said:
Any opinions?

Read Psychology and Alchemy by Jung.

Bishadi · Dec 14, 2010

Perpetual Student said:
At the very core of crackpot physics zealotry is the lack of mathematics training and ability of the adherents. How many times have we seen, "I will not bark math" when the real admission should be I do not know how to express myself with mathematics in this instance. Apparently they do not understand that it is totally bogus to reject a mainstream physics concept in favor of an alternate explanation if the mainstream one is not understood -- and without the necessary mathematics the mainstream idea cannot be understood. This is why the crackpots receive so much derision, which they find so offensive. The real physicists know that the crackpot does not understand the theory he is rejecting, so consequently his rejection is meaningless, like a child rejecting medication because it tastes bad.

Have you ever read up on the Ptolemaic scheme of how the roaming bodies (the planets before descriptions), criss crossed the nite sky and they had all the math to prove it? Could you imagine how whacked that them 'theories' were in comparison to newtonian.

I would bet the educated group of them days, had even wannabe's who would also rant with a comment just about like one you did.

The problem you have is, anyone can learn the math of today and yesterday, but the theorem and usage, in which appicability is involved is where few actually go. On the other hand mathematicians are far more capable in the use of theorem as applied to usable physics.

And let me assist you in a clear reality, for any student, there is a huge diversity from speculative cosmology and applied physics.

They dont and never have combined so there is a whole world of knowledge to evolve.

Be fair and anyone can experience it.

Perpetual Student · Dec 14, 2010

Limbo said:
Read Psychology and Alchemy by Jung.

Could you provide a little more than that?

KingMerv00 · Dec 14, 2010

Perpetual Student said:
Could you provide a little more than that?

Dude, it's Carl Jung. Do you really expect to get anything of value?

Andy_Ross · Dec 14, 2010

Bishadi said:
Have you ever read up on the Ptolemaic scheme of how the roaming bodies (the planets before descriptions), criss crossed the nite sky and they had all the math to prove it? Could you imagine how whacked that them 'theories' were in comparison to newtonian.

I would bet the educated group of them days, had even wannabe's who would also rant with a comment just about like one you did.

The problem you have is, anyone can learn the math of today and yesterday, but the theorem and usage, in which appicability is involved is where few actually go. On the other hand mathematicians are far more capable in the use of theorem as applied to usable physics.

And let me assist you in a clear reality, for any student, there is a huge diversity from speculative cosmology and applied physics.

They dont and never have combined so there is a whole world of knowledge to evolve.

Be fair and anyone can experience it.

That's nice.

You see the thing is you need what is called evidence to support yout ideas beofre they will be considered.

If you want to overturn the current theories then you need to produce your own theory and support it with evidence. Your theory needs to account for all the things the current theory can account for as well as something new otherwise it's not going to replace anything.

Can any of your 'theories' do that?

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

W.D.Clinger said:
That petition and those who have signed it have already provided copious entertainment in other threads. For example...

Wow

I will re-iterate what I said originally... I think the psychology of the crackpot is probably the most interesting thing about them.

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.

Tubbythin said:
To me it illustrates the common bond of stupidity.

What Tubbythin said - talk about a ship of fools

What I find interesting, again from a psychological standpoint, is that Michael Mozina would somehow think that such a list of signatories would actually impress us. Or maybe he's just trying to prop things up in his own mind? Who knows?

Drachasor · Dec 14, 2010

MattusMaximus said:
I will re-iterate what I said originally... I think the psychology of the crackpot is probably the most interesting thing about them.

I concur. I think it is similar to the psychology of anti-intellectualism in the States. Both accuse scientists of being biased, dismiss the mainstream scientific process, don't know much about actual science, and then like to pretend that their kludgy theory/idea/position (whatever that may be) is somehow scientifically correct.

There's an odd dichotomy of both rejecting science on the one hand and then acknowledging that science is good on the other.

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

Perpetual Student said:
I became very interested in this question (OP), as a result of the many threads started by and populated by crackpot physics and cosmology advocates. I originally discovered the JREF by searching for information concerning one Terence Witt, who was advertising a book about his crackpot cosmology. I’ve been hooked ever since because I do have a strong interest in real physics and cosmology as a layman, but I must admit I continue to follow the crackpot threads – but I’m not sure why!

Perhaps because it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion? You know you shouldn't look but you just can't tear your eyes away...

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

Drachasor said:
I concur. I think it is similar to the psychology of anti-intellectualism in the States. Both accuse scientists of being biased, dismiss the mainstream scientific process, don't know much about actual science, and then like to pretend that their kludgy theory/idea/position (whatever that may be) is somehow scientifically correct.

There's an odd dichotomy of both rejecting science on the one hand and then acknowledging that science is good on the other.

Exactly. It's like a weird love/hate kind of thing... they revere science because of its obvious explanatory & practical power, yet when they cannot meet the standard of science, they claim it (or those in the scientific establishment) as their enemy.

When seeing such behavior, I'm reminded of a kid who trashes the locker room because he didn't make the cut for the football team

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Considering the previous paradigm failed to "predict" an accelerating universe...

Actually, general relativity did predict it, in a haphazard sort of way back in the 1920s. It's called the cosmological constant.

As for what DE or the CC actually is and where it comes from... nobody knows... yet. If we already had all the answers it wouldn't be called science, now would it?

Michael Mozina said:
We now know the "properties" of plasma from *REAL* lab experiment with *REAL* control mechanisms. We KNOW FOR A FACT that electrical current through plasma will in fact do all the "necessary' things we observe in our local solar system. Don't you think that maybe, just maybe it's time to "start over", and begin with a 'NON PROPHETIC' approach? Shouldn't we maybe start by putting together the pieces of how things work INSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM and then work ourselves outward?

Pfft... get back to us when someone has built an entire star inside of their lab. Only then can your religion of solar plasma physics be considered science.

Wow, these word games & goalpost moving really are fun - anyone can play!

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

KingMerv00 said:
Michael Moniza,

What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified?

And when has anyone recreated an entire star in the lab? Until that happens, it can't be science - your criteria, not mine.

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
The only place inflation and DE show up is somewhere 'out there' (in the sky), where humans can never hope to reach. Talk about "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)! Holy cow.

Yup, like your "faith in the unseen" solar physics which cannot replicate an entire star in the lab. Sky gods indeed - you seem to be enamored with Apollo

dafydd · Dec 14, 2010

To answer the OP,not paying attention in school?

MattusMaximus · Dec 14, 2010

dafydd said:
To answer the OP,not paying attention in school?

More like thinking that you're too smart to have to pay attention in school because, due to your natural brilliance, you know way more than the teachers/professors.

dafydd · Dec 14, 2010

MattusMaximus said:
More like thinking that you're too smart to have to pay attention in school because, due to your natural brilliance, you know way more than the teachers/professors.

And then they go and make fools of themselves on the internet.

Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Featherless biped

Philosopher

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Jedi Consular

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Graduate Poster

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Banned

Intellectual Gladiator

Banned