View Single Post
Old 23rd November 2011, 11:41 AM   #5297
Tim Thompson
Tim Thompson's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Mozina vs Physics

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
IMO, it's highly disappointing you chose "hate" over science Tim.
Boo. You keep using that emotionally charged word. You are not interested in debate.
IMO I simply became a "target" in Tim's mind the moment I started to publicly support Alfven's work.

I choose physics. I always choose physics. I am actually pretty good at it, though far from flawless. After receiving my BS degree I thought I knew physics pretty well. But as a graduate student and working physicist I discovered this was a delusion and became impressed by how much I did not know. I have been a student of physics ever since, every once in a while I learn something. One of the reasons I take part in discussions like this one is that there are people here who know things I don't know and I have no problem learning from them. I particularly like learning from 5 year-olds who ask naive questions. I give them adequate answers for a 5 year-old and then go home and spend the rest of the day trying to figure out what the real answer might be. Mozina teaches me the way the 5 year-old does, the main difference being that his questions are a bit more complicated, but the 5 year-old is willing to believe that "adults" know more than they do (a wise point of view), while Mozina will not suffer the terrible embarrassment of knowing less than any other living human being. The extreme arrogance does bring out the combative spirit I admit, as it does with other pseudo-science crackpots I have dealt with over the years. Even as a student I had a reputation for dealing with the fringes, and the physics department faculty would always transfer the "Einstein was stupid" folks to me.

I choose physics. I always choose physics. I spend hours, often I spend days preparing my answers to Mozina's claims, trying to make sure that my intuition is not leading me astray. Usually when I make some kind of careless mistake it's because I respond too quickly (I can't do anything quickly & right, which is one reason why I play chess but rarely play speed chess - I am just too slow). Mozina did not simply become a "target", and certainly not because of Alfven; why would anyone with half a brain automatically dismiss anything about physics from a Nobel Prize winner in that field? No, I first encountered Mozina by virtue of his iron-sun claims, which are about as crackpotty and pseudo-scientific as it is possible to get (which may be granting the idea far more intellectual credit than it deserves).

I don't know what Mozina chooses; his own ego perhaps, from all appearances, but I always choose physics, and there are no doubts in my mind at all about the extremely unreliable nature of Mozina's arguments & claims. In this case there can be no question, and there is no question, that his claims about magnetic reconnection are pure crackpot, pure pseudoscience, absolutely and unquestionably wrong. His claims deeply violate the laws of physics, when they don't simply ignore them altogether, and are so obviously wrong that I cannot imagine that he has ever cracked open a book on any topic related to science in his entire life. I suppose it is possible (the laws of physics do not prohibit it), but the empirical evidence is highly limited to say the least.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
In case you're keeping score, without a monopole they are all up a metaphysical creek without a physical paddle in terms of B field *LINE* reconnection. Without a monopole, "FOREGETABOUTIT"! B lines cannot be broken into segments. They have no sources or sinks. They have no beginnings or endings. They do have NULLS sometimes.

Crackpot. Pseudoscience. Nonsense. Stupid. Hopeless. Wrong. It is absolutely not at all true that monopoles are necessary for magnetic field line reconnection. This is not just an idle claim, it is something which can be, and has been, formally & logically proven. Mozina can neither understand nor deal with this proof, so he makes up some cheap argument about "origin", or some cheap argument about "equation 17" and runs and hides from the physics he will never in his life understand. Fear of learning can evidently be a powerful thing. Magnetic field lines can & do terminate at null points. This is something else which is not just an idle claim, something that can be, and has been, formally & logically proven. Mozina's arguments are scientifically & intellectually brain-dead wrong. Physics proves it conclusively. The argument is over except for the death-rattles of Mozina's arguments, that continue to echo through the pages of JREF.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
This whole thing has evidently been a sham from the start. Clinger never produced magnetic reconnection without plasma. He simply added plasma and then blamed me for *HIS* mistake in *HIS* original claim. Wow.

Crackpot. Pseudoscience. Nonsense. Stupid. Hopeless. Wrong. Clinger, and I, have produced magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. If Mozina knew as much as he claims to know about physics, he could do the math, do the physics, make the computer simulation himself. But he can't, and wouldn't even if he could. I already know in advance what his complaint here will be ...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The way a scientific debate is *SUPPOSED* to work, is one side is SUPPOSED to *PRESENT *PUBLISHED* EVIDENCE* to support their claim. ... but again you provided no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support your claim that "magnetic reconnection" could occur without a plasma

No doubt providing published evidence is a legitimate tactic in a scientific debate. However, in a debate between scientists, we can also present original work. That's what Clinger did. The idea that magnetic reconnection in vacuo cannot be accepted unless there is a publication trail for it is weak at best, but pure crackpot when it goes along with ignoring an explicit original proof. So, are there any books or papers that describe magnetic reconnection in vacuo? I doubt it. Why would anyone ever bother to put such a thing in a paper or a book? Aside from being painfully obvious (quite regardless of Mozina's complaints to the contrary), truth be told, it's boring. I mean really boring. Not much happens in a vacuum. Now, start magnetically reconnecting in a plasma, where there are charged particles to push around, and things can get really exciting really fast. Suddenly we have plenty of book & paper fodder enough for everyone! Curiously, perhaps, it is simply not the case that literally everything appears between the covers of a book or in the pages of a journal. That's the big reason why we go to school & learn, so we can deal with all the stuff not found in books & papers.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Rather than admit *ANY* of the *MANY* mistakes that you have made in this thread, including your BLATANT form of bait and switch fraud, you're continuing to attack the individual. How predicable and how sad. Hater behaviors are all alike. The topics change, but the personal attack behaviors are *IDENTICAL*.

Mozina provides us with a powerful self-portrait. There is only one "hater" in this thread, and Mozina is it, pure & simple. Mozina love to trade insults and personal barbs, and will readily engage anyone who provokes him or whom he can provoke, and will favor personal attacks over substantive arguments most of the time. This is not surprising; the more time we spend distracted by irrelevancies, red-herrings or personal attacks, the less time there is to dwell on Mozina's numerous and substantial mistakes.

After all these years I have learned that it is hopeless and I long ago gave up on the notion the Mozina, or those like him, might ever learn something real. I could be wrong, and it would surely be nice if I were, but realistically, it's unlikely that I am wrong. I don't do this for Mozina, I do it for a combination of myself and the legendary "lurker". As I said before, I can learn from the effort of preparing my own responses, or by reading those from others. I am also heavily involved in public education; I do a fair amount of writing and even more public speaking, usually for astronomy clubs, but also for school groups or anyone else willing to listen. I want the "lurker" to see the difference between the content & style of real science, versus the content & style of pseudoscience. Most people, when they see Mozina interact with real science & real scientists, or just interact with normally intelligent people, will quickly recognize that his is the pseudoscience and thereby learn something. If they learn something from me, so much the better, but even if all that happens is to spot the crackpot, that's reason enough to be here doing this, when time allows.

I see no reason to alter the opinions I have expressed in the past, for example ...

From 26 August 2010:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Mozina is completely wrong about dark matter, completely wrong about dark energy, completely wrong about magnetic reconnection, completely wrong about any iron surface on the sun, completely wrong about what constitutes empirical science, just plain completely wrong about everything. And I suspect that the vast majority of all you "lurkers" out there have figured that out for yourself. In any case, I stand by what I have posted, and I note that Mozina has never been able to muster an objective argument against any of it.

From 13 September 2010:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
It is important to realize how deep Mozina's self-deception runs. He has set himself up as a maverick opposed to literally every branch of modern science. His ideas don't just fail the test of standard thermodynamics but also fail the test of plasma physics and electromagnetism, in which areas he falsely claims his ideas are superior to standard physics. The most efficient way to learn from discussions with Mozina is to assume that literally everything he says is not possible and have confidence that the opposite of what he says is the real truth. That might occasionally lead you astray, but not much.
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top