|
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. |
![]() |
#201 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#202 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
Consensus of opinion is not science. What you are characterizing as "physics and cosmology" is nothing more than a collection of fables based on wishful thinking and hero worship, so your challenge is nonsense.
Your challenge is unwarranted, but I feel confident in making the claim that my education in physics is unsurpassed by 98% of the population of this planet, or the population of this thread. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#203 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Oh the irony, considering you worship dark invisible stuff that has *NO TANGIBLE EFFECT* on you and never will in your lifetime. Talk about sad....
Even most of your average theist religions provide more emotional comfort than your sad little dead and dark entity religion. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#204 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
Scientists rejected it because it doesn't explain Comsic Background Radiation and other facts. The theory is simply wrong.
You really don't understand how describing the life cycle of the entire universe using plasma is a lot more difficult and error-prone than just describing the auroras? Seriously? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#205 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
Computer models are not experiments, any more than "thought experiments" (aka meandering speculation) are actually experiments. They are cartoons. Basing a belief system on cartoons is frivolous and profoundly stupid. That said, there are many people who do it.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#206 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#207 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#208 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#209 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
My personal credentials are neither impressive nor relevant as far as I can tell. Alfven's credentials were *FAR* more impressive and *FAR* more relevant. Since he's pretty much the messianic figure of PC theory, and you're calling him a "crackpot", I think it might be useful for you to explain your personal credentials, particularly in the realm of MHD theory. I'd also to curious to know if you're actually read Cosmic Plasma? I'd give you personally a free pass either way since I know you've read at least *ONE* relevant cosmology paper that I recommended, but I have no idea how much of his whole works you've actually read for yourself. How many papers of his have you sat down and read?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#210 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
Incorrect. Modeling events can show that a theory is good when it conforms with observation and makes accurate predictions. It's a handy way to test theories involving a lot of complex variables where it would be too difficult to do so by hand. Computational Science is an extremely useful and fruitful field.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#211 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
|
What? Do you even know what you are saying? A laser uses photons, not electrons. And a maser is a laser which uses microwave photons specifically.
Is it possible this is what you're talking about? If so, you're doing a piss-poor job of communicating it. |
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#212 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#213 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#214 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
AGAIN, relevant to COSMOLOGY?
Show me where he had as much expertise in Cosmology and Astrophysics as he did in Plasma Physics, and then you might be on to something. Hell, EINSTEIN was a goddamned crackpot in some areas, namely he gave some weight to Velikovsky's ******** about Earth catastrophes (I think so, though I'm not sure just how far he went with it) and some crap about Atlantis and "Pole Shift" catastrophism theories. Yet I accept relativity. That doesn't mean I have to accept all that other truffle. And as was mentioned before, Newton was involved with alchemy and other stuff. So if I accept Newtonian mechanics as useful, does that mean that I must also accept his work on alchemy as valid and relevant, too? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#215 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#216 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 404
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#217 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#218 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
|
From what I can tell, your theory seems to be based on doing away with evidence -- ignoring all the evidence for plate tectonics, stellar fusion, Big Bang, and so on... Not trying to explain it, just flat out ignoring it.
Curiously, I think he's sincere when he protests that he doesn't ignore any of it. What I think is happening is that the vast bulk of the evidence is quantitative, and he doesn't do quantitative. That means making up a complicated, highly idiosyncratic explanation that can't be explained to anyone. It must be terribly frustrating, honestly feeling that you've done your best to explain this tangled mess of stuff (as it seems to everyone else), yet no one understands you. Worse, all the while they keep trying to get you to talk about 'numbers' and 'equations' and so on, things which never become clear to you, no matter how hard you try (anger is, perhaps, a quite rational response in these circumstances). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#219 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
|
Yes, to both questions. Rather, both photons and electrons exhibit particle-like properties, and they also exhibit wave-like properties. This is known as wave-particle duality.
As for the rest of your post(s)... ![]() |
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#220 |
Free Barbarian on The Land
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#221 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#222 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,942
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#223 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#224 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#225 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I think that is silly since most of Alfven's work is 'quantitative" and yet most of his critics have never even sat down and read his quantitative presentation in the first place. They tend to be like GM and argue from a place of pure ignorance and expect someone *ELSE* to be their PC math mommy in real time.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#226 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#227 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
The point is that the Alfven *QUANTIFIED* his theories. So did Learner and Peratt and many others. If you don't read it, it's not my fault.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#228 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Here's the problem Drac,
Since day one PC theory has been 'quantified'. Alfven's stuff is quantified. Peratt's stuff is quantified. Learners stuff is quantified. Birkeland's work is quantified. Bruce's work is quantified. Carlqvist's work is quantified. Dungey's work on solar discharge theory is quantified too. All of it is well quantified. The basic problem is that your trying to compare that 'quantification' to "quantification" that are based upon and require MAGICAL invisible energies. What kind of "fair" comparison could there be if you get to use invisible magic stuff in your math formulas? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#229 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
What exactly do you mean by "quantify"? In science that typically just means they had hard numbers that their theory predicts. That doesn't mean those numbers are right.
The Universe is kinda homogeneous. In actual fact there are huge open areas and small areas with lots of matter. The vast, vast, vast majority of radiation is not remotely homogeneous, nor would you expect it to be. Cosmic Background Radiation is extremely odd in this regard as it is homogenous (far, far, far more so than any other radiation), and it composes only a tiny part of the spectrum. Alfven's theory simply doesn't predict this at all. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#230 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#231 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#232 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Drachasor's point seemed pretty clear. If the crackpots don't understand the math, regardless of whether their dead heroes, Einstein, or anyone else quantified anything, the crackpots' agreement with and/or criticism of those "theories" is nothing more than unqualified opinion. In other words, it's guessing. And guessing isn't science. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#233 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,360
|
Originally Posted by Arthur Mann
Originally Posted by AlBell
<plonk> |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#234 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#235 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Michael Mozina:
Have you noticed that the proponents of mainstream physics and cosmology who visit these threads can and do include specific mathematical expressions in support of there positions from time to time. You are invited to correct me with an example, if I am wrong, but I cannot recall a single EU/PC proponent ever including a mathematical expression in support of an opinion. Why is that? |
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#236 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#237 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
If you actually believe that no math to support PC has been provided then you have *NEVER* read a single link I that I provided you with! Am I obligated to duplicate the math for you personally in your mind somehow?
If you believe that *ANY* theory rises and/or falls on my personal math skills you are also sadly mistaken. I'm sure that one of the main reasons that PC proponents don't bother barking math on command in these forums is because: A) typically the opponents of PC theory have never read the maths already provided to them by the likes of Alfven and Peratt and other "professional" plasma physicists... B) Alfven's work is not dependent on anyone other than Alfven. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#238 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
I see a bunch of bad points and no explanation for the uniformity of CBR, nor an explanation for the fact that the distance to far objects seems to be accelerating in a manner consistent with the basic principle of inflation. There are a large number of patently wrong statements there, such as the idea that dwarf stars can account for Dark Matter; this simply isn't the case.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#239 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
The above does not answer my question, which was:
"Have you noticed that the proponents of mainstream physics and cosmology who visit these threads can and do include specific mathematical expressions in support of there positions from time to time. You are invited to correct me with an example, if I am wrong, but I cannot recall a single EU/PC proponent ever including a mathematical expression in support of an opinion. Why is that?" |
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#240 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Sure. I envy sols "real time" math skills with GR for instance.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|