ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th December 2010, 02:17 PM   #81
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Interested in buying another invisible sky god mythos by any chance?
You mean like solar physics?!!11!1
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:18 PM   #82
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Sorry if I contributed to that, PS. I just want the lurkers to see how silly the arguments of Michael Mozina really can be.

[/derail]
Speak of the devil and the preacher turns up.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:19 PM   #83
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Btw, I hope you have fun continuing to worship your priestly class of particle physicists and their made up "Quark-gluon gods"
Those specific gods seem to show up in the lab actually.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:20 PM   #84
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
deleted
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:21 PM   #85
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Speak of the devil and the preacher turns up.


At least I'm infamous.

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 11th December 2010 at 02:22 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:22 PM   #86
Arthur Mann
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by Drachasor View Post
You're kidding yourself if you think there's a big difference between the two in terms of science -- I assume you're making some ridiculous jab at astrophysics.
The consensus view of what constitutes "astrophysics" leaves much to be desired. If astrophysicists are physicists, they are scientists, and they don't posit or build theories upon ideas that are unfalsifiable, like "big bang", "black hole", "dark energy", "dark matter" and so on. Falsifiability was established as the gold standard in science, decades ago.
Arthur Mann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:23 PM   #87
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Yeah, like solar physics and most celestial mechanics doesn't take place on the Earth, and neither of those can be shown in the lab; therefore they aren't science, according to Michael Mozina, so they must be religions!
Huh? Photons from the sun show up on Earth every day. When will photons from your "dark" entities show up on Earth?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:26 PM   #88
Arthur Mann
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by Drachasor View Post
They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed.
Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.
Arthur Mann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:27 PM   #89
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post


At least I'm infamous.

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.
Michael, you preach the same rhetoric with out ever offering salvation in the form of a reasonable alternative.

Why do you associate with the evil?

I thought the mainstream was evil?
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:29 PM   #90
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Huh? Photons from the sun show up on Earth every day. When will photons from your "dark" entities show up on Earth?
So someone has recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:31 PM   #91
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
So someone has recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?
Does hydrogen show up in the lab? Does fusion happen on Earth?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:33 PM   #92
Sideroxylon
Gavagai!
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Darwin
Posts: 14,196
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post


At least I'm infamous.

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.
Do people really care about people with fringe narratives of this nature? Unlike religious claims to be doing science like young earth creationism, "crackpots" lack any threat to our education system and seemingly have little effect on society. Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:34 PM   #93
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Michael, you preach the same rhetoric with out ever offering salvation in the form of a reasonable alternative.
Salvation begins by admitting: I don't know how we got here.

The rest comes from the realm of pure empirical physics.

Quote:
Why do you associate with the evil?
I tend to reject non empirical entities as a rule, irrespective of what I might be called as a result of that rejection of mythos and metaphysics.

Quote:
I thought the mainstream was evil?
Nah, just "misguided".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:35 PM   #94
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Does hydrogen show up in the lab? Does fusion happen on Earth?
You didn't answer my question: has someone recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

I'm simply applying the same absurd standard that you are applying to astrophysics & cosmology. You maintain that until someone can "show inflation" (a phenomenon which applied to the entire universe) in the lab, it isn't science merely religion.

I'm applying your standard to something considerably smaller than the universe, merely a star in this case.

So if you cannot tell me that someone has recreated an entire star in the laboratory, then by your own argument solar physics must be religion, not science.

The same argument can be made for plate tectonics, because that involves only the Earth (much smaller than most stars). Has anyone replicated the actual tectonic plates in the lab?

Aren't word games fun?

ETA: And since you brought it up, hydrogen originated during the big bang.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 11th December 2010 at 02:38 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:36 PM   #95
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Do people really care about people with fringe narratives of this nature? Unlike religious claims to be doing science like young earth creationism, "crackpots" lack any threat to our education system and seemingly have little effect on society. Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?
Some seem to have a very strong emotional need to use the term "crackpot" in virtually every post and they typically play the role of antagonist *WITHOUT* actually reading or commenting on any of the relevant scientific materials.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:38 PM   #96
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
You didn't answer my question: has someone recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?
Why would anyone (myself included) expect that? SOME fusion happens here on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith" for me to believe that "fusion happens in and around other objects in the sky".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:39 PM   #97
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,208
Originally Posted by Arthur Mann View Post
Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.
Ptolemy had a model that (within the capabilities of the time) worked very well. We now have better models, but we do not have nor will we ever have anything but "models" -- ultimate reality is not within our grasp. In any case, that has no bearing on this discussion.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:40 PM   #98
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Mattus, you seem to be completely ignoring that "tangible effect here and now" aspect I've mentioned. The sun shines on me every single day. I can "feel" it's effect on my skin. I know that it exists. I may or may not know HOW it's powered, but I can *SEE* it, and FEEL it, and KNOW that it therefore exists in nature. How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:41 PM   #99
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Why would anyone (myself included) expect that? SOME fusion happens here on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith" for me to believe that "fusion happens in and around other objects in the sky".
Moving goalposts...
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:42 PM   #100
Skwinty
Philosopher
 
Skwinty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?
Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.
__________________


What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch.
--Lily Tomlin
Skwinty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:43 PM   #101
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Moving goalposts...
No, you are the one moving the goalposts. I have no aversion to letting you scale any *OBSERVED (here on Earth) force of nature to size. You're confusing scaling issues with *TANGIBILITY/Existence* issues.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:43 PM   #102
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Mattus, you seem to be completely ignoring that "tangible effect here and now" aspect I've mentioned. The sun shines on me every single day. I can "feel" it's effect on my skin. I know that it exists. I may or may not know HOW it's powered, but I can *SEE* it, and FEEL it, and KNOW that it therefore exists in nature. How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?
How might you SEE or FEEL quarks directly? Because you cannot, they must not be real, right? Because you cannot name a tangible "here and now" effect of how quarks directly benefit you or society, they must be part of a religious structure, not science.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:44 PM   #103
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.
No, that's just a great example of "gasoline engines produce acceleration". Got a car that runs on inflation?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:44 PM   #104
Arthur Mann
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three
Empirical evidence supporting the idea of universal inflation of the universe? I can falsify that right now. My keyboard isn't inflating away from my hands at the moment. There you have it, thesis falsified by direct observation. One observation rules out the possibility of universal inflation models.

You think there's empirical evidence of "dark matter" and "dark energy"? Present this evidence, or even a hint of it so I can find it myself.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues.
Which is why the actual astrophysics community (not the pretenders floating these absurd myths) has roundly rejected these ideas as unscientific and false.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments?
The reason physicists perform experiments is to falsify a hypothesis, or show that it is not yet falsified. Science assumes everything is wrong, until shown otherwise. Claims made, not only in the absence of evidence but the absence of the POSSIBILITY of evidence, may be safely rejected as rubbish.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now
Consensus of opinion is not science.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly.
Can't be considered "truly solid", or even truly real, therefore may be abandoned without regard.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected
Cite some sources? Who first proposed the idea of a neutrino, of a neutron, and on what basis?

The idea of a "neutron" is a consequence of the rutherford model, which shared similarities to the bohr model, both of which have been roundly rejected as unscientific and specious. How can any consequences of these models be valid except by accident? Can you demonstrate an atomic model that isn't contradicted by known science and that requires a "neutron"?

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
by direct experimentation is
Can you describe the process by which neutrinos are detected by "direct experimentation"?

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology
I'm trying to illuminate the issue, not muddle it.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies
Those weren't false dichotomies, they were analogies. There is a difference, you know. Go here to satisfy your curiosity on that.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood.
That's true, there are many deluded religionists who also believe quite strongly in "big bang", and will go to great lengths to argue with people who point out it's not science and likely wrong.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.
Yes, it is true that also many atheists believe in "big bang". This suggests to me that some atheism is not driven by reason, but by reflexive rejection of a specific religion for emotional reasons. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why somebody could hold a rational belief and think it's comparable to one of their demonstrably irrational beliefs. A fully sane person boggles at the concept, it's just so alien to us.
Arthur Mann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:45 PM   #105
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Skwinty View Post
Drive a fast car and watch the universe expand in the rear view mirror.
Heretic!!! More religious propaganda from the general relativist cult!!!11!
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:45 PM   #106
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
How might you SEE or FEEL quarks directly?
LHC experiments?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:46 PM   #107
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No, that's just a great example of "gasoline engines produce acceleration". Got a car that runs on inflation?
Got a car that runs on plate tectonics? Or climate change? Or solar physics? Or quark-gluon plasmas?

Didn't think so... those religions cannot produce anything tangible
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:48 PM   #108
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
LHC experiments?
Oh, you mean the machine which is working to replicate the big bang in the lab?!!...

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/lhc-en.html
Quote:
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic scientific instrument near Geneva, where it spans the border between Switzerland and France about 100 m underground. It is a particle accelerator used by physicists to study the smallest known particles the fundamental building blocks of all things. It will revolutionise our understanding, from the minuscule world deep within atoms to the vastness of the Universe.

Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' either protons or lead ions will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC. ...
Pfft... religious fanatics
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:49 PM   #109
Sideroxylon
Gavagai!
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Darwin
Posts: 14,196
Originally Posted by Arthur Mann View Post
Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.
Why should we define science by the need to do experiments? Surely mathematical models that are falsifiable through observation and make novel predictions are of value in creating narratives about the cosmos?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:49 PM   #110
Arthur Mann
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by Drachasor View Post
Again, you could have said the same thing about early nuclear research, electromagnetism, and many, many other things.
Support this with logic, demonstrate how you arrived at this conclusion?

Originally Posted by Drachasor View Post
There's plenty of matter we know of and have detected that doesn't appear on the periodic table.
Examples? Cite sources?

Originally Posted by Drachasor View Post
We can create some of this is labs and the new supercollider should be able to make more.
The "supercolliders" were built to transmute elements. That's why they fire particles at a target made of a matrix of lead blocks packed with sensors. When an atom of lead is transmuted, it gives off a characteristic signature. it's not alchemy, but the end result is the same, lead into gold, lead into plutonium, and other pathways.

On top of that they are great platforms for studying beamed energy weapons. These particle accelerators are basically a charged particle beam in one direction and an electron beam (maser) in the other direction.
Arthur Mann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:52 PM   #111
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,389
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Some seem to have a very strong emotional need to use the term "crackpot" in virtually every post and they typically play the role of antagonist *WITHOUT* actually reading or commenting on any of the relevant scientific materials.
This is a lie. I've been lurking in your threads for years, and I've seen Tim, tusenfem, Ben, Clinger and many others read and systematically analyze the material you present. In fact, tusenfem in particular has gone to extraordinary lengths to engage you on this material including creating a separate thread devoted to his analysis of Birkeland. You have never even made an appearance in that thread despite repeated invitations.

This is merely an example. Your interlocutors have read the motley, cherry-picked mess that you present as your evidence; they simply reject it for reasons they clearly state after having carefully read it.

Please at least try to be honest here.
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor

"Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
D'rok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:54 PM   #112
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Arthur Mann View Post
The "supercolliders" were built to transmute elements. That's why they fire particles at a target made of a matrix of lead blocks packed with sensors. When an atom of lead is transmuted, it gives off a characteristic signature. it's not alchemy, but the end result is the same, lead into gold, lead into plutonium, and other pathways.

On top of that they are great platforms for studying beamed energy weapons. These particle accelerators are basically a charged particle beam in one direction and an electron beam (maser) in the other direction.
Wow... You do realize that there are people on this Forum who are physicists and some who actually work on the Large Hadron Collider who can call you out on this b.s., right?

ETA: For example, a maser is not an electron beam, it is a beam of coherent, amplified & focused microwaves. Link.

So much for your credibility.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 11th December 2010 at 03:05 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 02:57 PM   #113
Captain_Swoop
Philosopher
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Quote:
Can you describe the process by which neutrinos are detected by "direct experimentation"?
Can you?

They were detecting Neutrinos underneath my house. Now they are looking for Dark Matter.

Good solid science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Dark..._Collaboration
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:02 PM   #114
Captain_Swoop
Philosopher
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,438
Arthur and Michael you will notice hang out in places like JREF. If that had anything they would Publish.
They know they have n othing so they just whine in the dark.

D'rok, you mention Tusenfem, a genuine Plasma Physicist. He has done good work in this field against Michael over on BAUT going back years. Michael got himself banned as he was unable to support any of his 'ideas' with any kind of maths or evidence and didn't answer direct and pertinent questions as demanded by the rules. Plus he transgressed the 'decorum and civility' rules one too many times.

Here we are more than 5 years later and he is banging the same drum. ALl these posts in this thread could be lifted from 5 and 6 year old threads on BAUT.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:04 PM   #115
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,208
Originally Posted by Arthur Mann View Post
The "supercolliders" were built to transmute elements. That's why they fire particles at a target made of a matrix of lead blocks packed with sensors. When an atom of lead is transmuted, it gives off a characteristic signature. it's not alchemy, but the end result is the same, lead into gold, lead into plutonium, and other pathways.

On top of that they are great platforms for studying beamed energy weapons. These particle accelerators are basically a charged particle beam in one direction and an electron beam (maser) in the other direction.
That is one of the most inaccurate and naive descriptions of the supercollider I have ever heard or seen! I hope your vision of gravity as an emergent property of electric phenomena (remaining unanswered on another thread) makes more sense.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:05 PM   #116
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
That is one of the most inaccurate and naive descriptions of the supercollider I have ever heard or seen! I hope your vision of gravity as an emergent property of electric phenomena (remaining unanswered on another thread) makes more sense.
Wow... you're kidding me, right?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:06 PM   #117
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,721
If I might get back to the original topic for a moment.....
Physics is difficult; it's a big and complicated field of study and those who've studied it realise how little we, individually and as a whole, know. People who haven't studied physics in depth suffer from Dunning-Krueger type blindness as to their ignorance, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'
There an interesting article over at RationalWiki about engineers and wooish beliefs, something that seems relevant to crackpot physics.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:07 PM   #118
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,389
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Arthur and Michael you will notice hang out in places like JREF. If that had anything they would Publish.
They know they have n othing so they just whine in the dark.

D'rok, you mention Tusenfem, a genuine Plasma Physicist. He has done good work in this field against Michael over on BAUT going back years. Michael got himself banned as he was unable to support any of his 'ideas' with any kind of maths or evidence and didn't answer direct and pertinent questions as demanded by the rules. Plus he transgressed the 'decorum and civility' rules one too many times.

Here we are more than 5 years later and he is banging the same drum. ALl these posts in this thread could be lifted from 5 and 6 year old threads on BAUT.
I know. I've read some of those old threads. It boggles my mind that Michael thinks he somehow has more expertise or insight than a plasma physicist who worked down the hall from Alfven.
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor

"Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
D'rok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:11 PM   #119
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
If I might get back to the original topic for a moment.....
Physics is difficult; it's a big and complicated field of study and those who've studied it realise how little we, individually and as a whole, know. People who haven't studied physics in depth suffer from Dunning-Krueger type blindness as to their ignorance, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'
There an interesting article over at RationalWiki about engineers and wooish beliefs, something that seems relevant to crackpot physics.
Interesting article, thanks. I like how it points out that there is a big difference in doing science versus applying the knowledge acquired through science. It kind of reminds me of how someone who knows how to do plumbing felt that they could criticize the BP scientists & engineers for not plugging the Gulf of Mexico oil leak more quickly & effectively.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 11th December 2010 at 03:13 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 03:16 PM   #120
Arthur Mann
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
Well, so much for that hope.
Yeah, unfortunately the crackpot view is the prevailing consensus view, so of course most people who weigh in on this issue are going to be the crackpots who believe in things like "big bang" and "black hole" and so on.
Arthur Mann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.