|
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. |
![]() |
#281 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,327
|
For anyone actually interested, there's already a thread devoted to that paper:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...38#post6219538 Tubbythin's executive summary:
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#282 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Considering how many ad hoc assertions now prop up current theory, and considering that only 4% of the actual physical universe has been accounted for, it's easy to understand why it appears to be on "shakey ground". ![]() The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#283 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,327
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#284 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,636
|
"Worlds Premier Cyberspace Facility for the Magical Arts" That is hilarious. You would need more than a touch of PT Barnum about you to be involved in that.
|
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#286 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,636
|
You might have to wait for his next reincarnation for an answer.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...24#post6648824 |
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#287 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Not to mention Mike Rotch.
The content of the statement is also particularly amusing. Especially:
Originally Posted by CS
Originally Posted by CS
ETA: Maybe we should have thread on the Humor bit for this. Then we can catalogue all the silly things claimed by the signatories and just link to that the next time (and there will obviously be a next time, these people never seem to learn) someone links to this. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#288 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#289 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
Only someone who really doesn't understand cosmology and physics could possibly say this. Naturally you have to invent some kind of imagined conspiracy among scientists, which is really quite laughable. There's little an average scientist finds more fascinating than a new way to look at old facts or a new, simpler theory that explains everything an old theory did and more.
The simple truth of the matter is that if there was anything to what you advocate, then it would be part of mainstream scientific opinion and research (just like the parts of what Alfven did that were good are part of mainstream science). |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#290 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 15,379
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#291 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,718
|
It's kind of sad he thinks Alfven's wrong take on cosmology was perfect 30-odd years ago and yet somehow is perfect today after we've discovered a number of things we didn't think were going on back then. There are good reasons why our theoretical framework has changed.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#292 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I read my first book on cosmology about 30 years ago. Over that time I've watched the theories change *DRAMATICALLY*. First inflation was introduced, then dark energy. DM morphed from referring mostly to MACHO forms of mass to some form of non-baryonic matter. Only someone who's got that kind of history with "standard" (morphing) theory could possibly say this.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#293 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#294 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#295 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,636
|
And why not do such a thing if the existing paradigm is the best available in terms of explanatory power. Such explanatory power can give us justified confidence that the model is close to reality.
Such a strategy worked for Pauli when he proposed the existence of the neutrino. |
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#296 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#297 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,636
|
|
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#298 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Indeed. There is no conspiracy among all legitimate scientists and all the educators, grad students, and post grad students who study physics intensively every singe day. The ludicrous suggestion that these thousands of people keep their mouths shut because they're scared of losing their precious funding is beyond laughable. A breakthrough in science that virtually overturns electrical, nuclear, or solar physics, or the subject of any other crackpot claim would be the stuff legends are made of. Not only would the Nobel prize provide a tidy little sum, everything like lab time, telescope time, satellite time, access to facilities, equipment, personnel, it would all be free. Grant money would flow like tap water. Also, it's not like the world of real science just hasn't heard about these whacked-out conjectures yet. It's not like a few years (decades... centuries...) of ranting about them on Internet forums will eventually get the attention of the proper scientific minds. Those minds already know. It's not like all the people who actually understand physics and are qualified to objectively assess the crackpot claims just haven't been informed. They have. In most cases the science behind the claims is so totally lacking it doesn't merit a response. In many cases the crackpots are compulsive liars, treat people like crap, and refuse to even listen to reasoned refutations of their bogus conjectures. Genuine scientists know of the claims; they just choose, as I do, to not indulge the fantasies of the nutty scientists wannabes. On a personal fulfillment level, there is nothing a genuine scientist would find more rewarding than to be involved in a revolutionary physics discovery, something that shows virtually everything we think we know about physics is wrong. Real scientists aren't shunning the crackpot stuff out of a simple lack of interest. Many of them live for just this kind of opportunity. But... they look over the claims, make honest objective scientific assessments that show some (or many) glaring errors or contradictions with reality, and they discard the claims. But it does make me wonder if the crackpots' delusional beliefs that they're in on some such amazing discovery is part of what drives their compulsion.
Quote:
True, for many of the reasons I've mentioned above. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#299 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
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!
In any case, I do have an opinion about the genesis of crackpot ideas, because I have entertained them myself. I have been an avid reader of popular cosmology books by people like George Gamow, Brian Greene, Lee Smolin, Stephen Hawking, etc. for many decades. Of course, I often stumble on counter-intuitive stuff and I have participated in a number of discussions here about these ideas. It is easy and (I think quite natural) to prefer intuitive explanations for complex phenomena. In the end, I generally rely on expert opinions (perhaps retaining a bit of skepticism) because I am aware of my own limitations and respect the intelligence and years of dedication of specialists. Why is that? Well, I have a BA and MS in mathematics and I did a minor in physics (47 years ago), so I do have some notion about the rigors of academic specialization. Consequently, I have a sense of my own limitations – which seems to be the lacking ingredient among these crackpots. They do not understand their own limitations and they have a natural preference for intuitive explanations. Their lack of mathematics training and comprehension makes the more intuitive explanations the only ones they can be comfortable with. Those who become dedicated and compulsive crackpots (we have seen some here) must also have some sort of narcissistic need to be constantly seen and heard – I don’t know what else might account for the amazing tenacity shown by some crackpots here. |
__________________
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#300 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Considering the previous paradigm failed to "predict" an accelerating universe, and you're about to *STUFF* it with 75% of metaphysical energy, how exactly are you defining "best available"? It seems to me that you're sort of winging this as you go and doing 'whatever it takes" to keep that otherwise dead "creation" theory alive. Why?
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? What's the point of clinging to a creation event story that has consistently failed to correctly *PREDICT* major aspects of our universe? Suddenly from nowhere you want me believe that 75% of the universe is made of mythical energy you can't produce here on Earth? I see no evidence yet that the mainstream is even *INTERESTED* in exploring any other EMPIRICAL options, certainly not *INSIDE* of this solar system, let alone outside of it. They seem to have no understanding of what a 'discharge' might be ,or how currents manifest themselves in plasmas.
Quote:
Quote:
Where does 'dark energy' come from? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#301 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
And therein lies the rub IMO. I have heard many theists claim that they 'trust the experts' in terms of the clergy that taught them their beliefs and they 'trust" them more than they trust (evil/crackpot) old me and/or my beliefs. That's a very *DIFFICULT* thing to overcome. You can logically explain over and over again why creationism has no empirical support over and over and over again, yet the scientific arguments become meaningless to them. Their belief in the 'experts' supersedes anything I might ever say to them, no matter how logically thought out my response might be. I will forever remain an "evil/crackpot" in their mind.
In the end your position comes down to ''faith", faith that a PHYSICAL FAILURE can be overcome with some 'better mathematical understanding" of why the impotent sky god won't show up in a lab. Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense. No amount of mathematical understanding is going to fix that gaping empirical hole in your beliefs. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#302 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#303 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,279
|
you like to see but still not sure
Quote:
Quote:
ie... einstein, waiting 15 yrs beyond the 'miracle year' to be given cudos and darwin was dead almost 100yrs before the WORLD had given his interpretation credibility.
Quote:
The new technological observations often expose strange phenomenon. So in EACH FIELD of science, often diverse tangents are exposed that offer evidence of existing failures within the existing paradigm. To combine a whole bunch of these annomalies within the disciplines, then it is not so tough to realize, by anyone, that much of the items believed within the current models are wrong. what is so unique is the majority of the cranks are just like you and i but capable of putting themselves on the block to be heard, while the conformist will not. the difference is the value to honesty over belief (the same argument that occurred within the religious divides)
Quote:
Science needs more of the seekers than believers. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,458
|
Michael Moniza,
What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#305 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
1) Its not a creation theory.
2) It gives an excellent quantitative explanation of many of the observed cosmological phenomena in the Universe. No other cosmological theory comes close. In that sense it quite clearly is the best available.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#306 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#307 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#308 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,636
|
The previous paradigm (dynamics and general relativity) for a start explains our observations of bodies within our solar system and on earth. I cant see why they might predict an accelerating universe. I was defining best available in terms of explanatory power. i.e. the idea allows us to make sense of a number of observations and give us the ability to make accurate predictions. These narratives are tools and while there is not a better one, why wouldn't we stick with it. The other point that I tried to make was that past success gives us confidence that there may well be some truth in it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#309 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
I guess that depends on how you define "cosmology" and where you wish to begin. The sig line I use from Birkeland is the first successful "prediction" (true lab prediction) of PC/EU theory. The second one was the aurora (produced by the first). The third example are 'discharge loops' in the solar atmosphere, etc.
If we want to expand outward, we should expect this same sort of electrical pattern to play itself out in the form of high speed "current flows" from galaxies (jets). There are actual "predictions" (real lab predictions too) of EU theory. Peratt lists may similarities between his software simulations and the universe around us. I suggest you start there. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#310 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
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".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#311 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
I'm sure we'd all agree that a lack of ability on the part of crackpots to understand legitimate science does not invalidate the science.
Quote:
It is, of course, a lie to suggest that I have any sky god entities when in fact I don't.
Quote:
Nobody as far as I know. I'd venture a guess that only a dyed-in-the-wool idiot crackpot would suggest anyone does. 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#312 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#313 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#314 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
You're probably right that I'm resorting to melodramatic language and shock value commentary to get your attention. 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. 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.
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. PC theory works in the lab and works in nature. Your stuff *NEVER* works in lab *WITHOUT* electricity, and most of it doesn't work at all in the lab. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#315 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#316 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#317 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#318 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
What evidence? You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from let alone how to control it. That alone is all the "evidence" I need to reject your theory and to justify my of "lack belief" in dark stuff.
Quote:
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#319 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#320 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
Well, observationally we can look at the Sun and see that it isn't coated by an iron shell.
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|