Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Are photons particles? Many experiments rule this out.

...

Are electrons particles? The bohr model has been almost universally rejected, and again, many experiments refute this.

If you don't understand how the very small can behave like both a particle and a wave, then you really need to study more. Experiments prove the dual nature of particles.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

would any of you, who hold opinions that are not consistent with mainstream physics and cosmology

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

It's rather sad really; just think how many wonderful things could be done if all that passion and energy had been devoted to something practical!

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.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How do you know? Have you *TRIED* or are you just "assuming"?

Scientists rejected it because it doesn't explain Comsic Background Radiation and other facts. The theory is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Sorry but you'll have to explain how that's even relevant considering the fact that 95+% of the universe is "plasma"?

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?

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Of course, computer models are a kind of experiment and back up a lot of this stuff.

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.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

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.

You don't even understand basic physics; you're hardly in a position to say Cosmology is a collection of fables.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by D'rok

Electricity. Is there anything it can't do?

experiments suggest: negative

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

If you don't understand how the very small can behave like both a particle and a wave, then you really need to study more. Experiments prove the dual nature of particles.

This ^^

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

I am quite willing to discuss my educational background and have done so when there has been a specific purpose -- in other threads. If you are not willing to do so -- OK -- I understand.

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?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

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.

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.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

I stand corrected, finally. What I should have said is an electron laser is a laser that uses a stream of electrons as the lasing medium. It's a minor error to call this kind of laser a "maser", and really one of convention in any case.

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.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Plasmas are just affected by gravity as any other form of normal matter.

False.

Demonstrably false by simple experiment that's routinely performed.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

No, I can not. Can you describe the process by which "neutrinos" are detected?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

My personal credential 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 be 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.

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?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

False.

Demonstrably false by simple experiment that's routinely performed.

Ok, name this magical experiment that shows plasmas are immune to the effects of gravity.

[Arthur Mann]

Originally Posted by AlBell

You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot.

I think we can all do without comments like this in the thread, it'd behoove you to just delete it.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Plasmas are just affected by gravity as any other form of normal matter.

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

False.

Demonstrably false by simple experiment that's routinely performed.

Really? Then why does fire (a form of plasma) follow the rules of convection (based upon gravity) just like other heated fluids?

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by mike3

Credentials are not so relevant. What's relevant is EVIDENCE -- and that's what I wan to see you and other "cranks" here address. The point you need to understand is this: if you can't explain the EVIDENCE for conventionally-accepted theory, then why should your theory be accepted? 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. What you need is a theory that can a) consistently explain all this evidence and b) make new predictions that would enable its confirmation or negation. So far, I have not seen such theory.

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).

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Are photons particles? Many experiments rule this out.

Are electrons particles? The bohr model has been almost universally rejected, and again, many experiments refute this.

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)...

[D'rok]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Really? Then why does fire (a form of plasma) follow the rules of convection (based upon gravity) just like other heated fluids?

Because electricity.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

False.

Demonstrably false by simple experiment that's routinely performed.

Utter tripe. What is the SUN made out?

Yeah, that's right: PLASMA.

What is holding it into a ball?

Yeah, that's right: GRAVITY.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by mike3

Utter tripe. What is the SUN made out?

Yeah, that's right: PLASMA.

What is holding it into a ball?

Yeah, that's right: GRAVITY.

He could also confirm this by simply lighting a match and watching what happens to the flame (hint: it goes up )

[mike3]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

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).

Ah, thanks. Michael Mozina & Arthur Mann, what do you make of that?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by mike3

AGAIN, relevant to COSMOLOGY?

How much of the "cosmos" is currently in the form of "plasma" (percentage wise)?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by mike3

Ah, thanks. Michael Mozina & Arthur Mann, what do you make of that?

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.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

You don't understand his mathematics either, so you aren't one to talk about having a "math mommy".

Again, his work regarding Cosmology is BAD. It doesn't predict Cosmic Background Radiation.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

You don't understand his mathematics either, so you aren't one to talk about having a "math mommy".

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:

Again, his work regarding Cosmology is BAD. It doesn't predict Cosmic Background Radiation.

That's not true. It simply suggests that all suns emit lots of radiation, including those wavelengths and the universe is relatively homogeneous. So what?

[Michael Mozina]

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?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That's not true. It simply suggests that all suns emit lots of radiation, including those wavelengths and the universe is relative homogeneous. So what?

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.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That's not true. It simply suggests that all suns emit lots of radiation, including those wavelengths and the universe is relatively homogeneous. So what?

But the background radiation is mostly uniform from all directions, and has a vastly different pattern than the radiation pattern of stars at other wavelengths like visible light. This suggests it does not come from stars. What do you make of that?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by mike3

But the background radiation is mostly uniform from all directions, and has a vastly different pattern than the radiation pattern of stars at other wavelengths like visible light.

"Different" in what specific way?

Quote:

This suggests it does not come from stars. What do you make of that?

Well, I'm quite sure that Thompson scattering happens in space if that's what you mean, but I'd need to know more about how it's 'different" than other lower energy wavelengths of light from stars and plasmas in space.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

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.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Arthur Mann

Originally Posted by AlBell

You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot.

I think we can all do without comments like this in the thread, it'd behoove you to just delete it.

Your inability to to provide all of my comments, to wit:

Originally Posted by AlBell

You, sir, give every indication of being a blithering idiot. Assuming, hopefully, that you are not a blithering idiot, where in the world of fantasy did you get those ideas?

or attempt to answer the part I've bolded above, makes me conclude the first sentence is correct.

<plonk>

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

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.

Try this link:

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/index.htm

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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?

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?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Drachasor's point seemed pretty clear. If the crackpots don't understand the math,

Crackpots that never read the math could *NEVER* understand the math or the theory, like Alfven's circuit theories. That's why they run from them like the plague every time they are asked about it.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

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?

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.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Try this link:

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/index.htm

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.

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

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?"

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

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.

Sure. I envy sols "real time" math skills with GR for instance.

Quote:

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?"

Do you mean PERSONALLY do it for you in real time? Why is that necessary? If I could not adequately answer your mathematical GR question *PERSONALLY ON COMMAND*, would that falsify GR somehow? QM?