Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...%20Science.pdf

For anyone actually interested, the link above is pretty much Alfven's take on cosmology. It hasn't really gotten any better since he wrote this, in fact "dark energy" is recent ad hoc add on.

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

Wow. I knew Alfven was by no means a cosmologist and was totally out of his depth when talking about the Big Bang. I hadn't realised he probably knows less about it than me.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by dasmiller

In addition to what Ben M and rwguinn said, the tendency of popular media to report every mildly interesting observation as "Overturning everything we thought we knew about X" or "Challenging the very foundations of X" or "Scientists baffled by X" makes it seem like our scientific knowledge really is on very shakey ground, just waiting for a clever insight from someone who's able to think outside the box.

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.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

....

The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.

That petition and those who have signed it have already provided copious entertainment in other threads. For example...

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Yet another blatant falsehood:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

From the perspective of psychology, the parallels between religion and your beliefs are absolutely fascinating. Like all 'true believers" you have a strong emotional need to ridicule anyone and everyone that doesn't buy your particular dogma. You haven't personally talked to any of these individuals, so you really don't "understand" any of their thinking, their reasoning or their opinions. You don't really know what they do for a living, their families, or anything about them. All you really know is that they all signed a petition that disagrees with *ONE* scientific opinion that you happen to "hold dear to your heart".

In the cases cited, that's just not true. We know that Peter J Carroll identified himself as Chancellor of Arcanorium College, the "Worlds Premier Cyberspace Facility for the Magical Arts". We know Tom Van Flandern believed he had found compelling evidence for the presence of artificial structures on Mars, even human faces. We know Eugene Sittampalam and S.N. Arteha believe special relativity is wrong. We know Berend de Boer believes he is defending the authority of the Bible against the skepticism of science. We know Gene Gordon identifies the Big Bang with intelligent design and creationism; we can only imagine how he found common cause with Berend de Boer. We know David Calder Hardy and Vincent Sauvé and Michael Mozina are arguing from ignorant incredulity, portraying empirical science as religious belief and themselves as innocent victims of religious persecution.

Like this:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The emotional need to villianize the opposition at a personal level is exactly like the religious person's emotional need to villianize others who don't share their faith. The "others" must be "going to hell". Your "religion" doesn't have a hell, so the next best thing you can do is ridicule them personally, without so much as a single conversation with those individuals. You're judge, jury and (public persona) executioner, all in one.

I'm telling you, all religions, including your "faith in the unseen" operate almost identically at the level of politics. It's actually quite fascinating.

I assume the quotation marks and smiley face are intended to tell us you're only kidding, and don't really believe the garbage you spew.

[Sideroxylon]

"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.

[KingMerv00]

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.

So you reject quantum physics too?

Particle wave duality

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

So you reject quantum physics too?

Particle wave duality

You might have to wait for his next reincarnation for an answer.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...24#post6648824

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

That petition and those who have signed it have already provided copious entertainment in other threads. For example...

Not to mention Mike Rotch.

The content of the statement is also particularly amusing. Especially:

Originally Posted by CS

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation.

being shortly followed by:

Originally Posted by CS

These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements... the cosmic background radiation,

which were specific predictions of the Big Bang model. Quite a stunning piece of stupidity on the author's part.


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.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The petition pretty much explains the common bond of skepticism of current theory that tends typify the average PC/EU proponent.

To me it illustrates the common bond of stupidity.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

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).

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Al...%20Science.pdf

For anyone actually interested, the link above is pretty much Alfven's take on cosmology. It hasn't really gotten any better since he wrote this, in fact "dark energy" is recent ad hoc add on.

It seems you discount anything after a certain date.

Is it all 'Ad Hoc' from that point onwards?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

It seems you discount anything after a certain date.

Is it all 'Ad Hoc' from that point onwards?

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Only someone who really doesn't understand cosmology and physics could possibly say this.

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:

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).

IMO that's a naive viewpoint, albeit an understandable one. The mainstream uses Alfven's MHD theories on a daily basic, but they do so in a "pseudoscientific" manner according to the guy that invented the theory.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

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.

Not really. Alfven's circuit orientation to solar flares and interplanetary events is just as valid today as it was when it was first written. What we've learned recently does not change that fact in any way.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

It seems you discount anything after a certain date.

Is it all 'Ad Hoc' from that point onwards?

No, the "ad hoc" part comes in when you fail to let an otherwise falsified theory die a natural death, and instead you *INVENT* a mythical form of energy to "prop it up" again. Where does "dark energy" even come from?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, the "ad hoc" part comes in when you fail to let an otherwise falsified theory die a natural death, and instead you *INVENT* a mythical form of energy to "prop it up" again. Where does "dark energy" even come from?

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.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

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.

Adapting an old, successful theory to explain new data has been a pretty successful strategy in the 20th century, eg:

Newtonian mechanics->Special relativity
Newtonian gravity->General relativity
Classical mechanics->Quantum mechanics

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Adapting an old, successful theory to explain new data has been a pretty successful strategy in the 20th century, eg:

Newtonian mechanics->Special relativity
Newtonian gravity->General relativity
Classical mechanics->Quantum mechanics

The Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction was another success, though with a twist.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

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.

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:

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).

True, for many of the reasons I've mentioned above.

[Perpetual Student]

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

And why not do such a thing if the existing paradigm is the best available in terms of explanatory power.

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:

Such explanatory power can give us justified confidence that the model is close to reality.

But it *WASN'T* close to reality! That's why is was recently (last 15-20 years or so) stuffed with a new form of mythical "ad hoc" energy that now supposedly makes up more than 70% of the universe. Evidently however is a completely impotent on Earth.

Quote:

Such a strategy worked for Pauli when he proposed the existence of the neutrino.

That came from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*. We knew from CONTROLLED experiments that either a law of physics was being violated or their was a small piece of energy/matter not accounted for in some nuclear decay reactions. We knew *EXACTLY* where they came from, how to reproduce them, how we might empirically detect them, etc.

Where does 'dark energy' come from?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

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.

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

Yet none of them can tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to control it. Your sky god entities are just as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so. Who claims to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with inflation or dark energy?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

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.

you like to see but still not sure

Quote:

It is easy and (I think quite natural) to prefer intuitive explanations for complex phenomena.

because to understand a phenomena, it is best comprehended with practical application.

Quote:

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.

but like any previous change in logic, the cracks have to overcome the complacent intellectuals of the period.

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:

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.

most of physics dont do experiments unless just the basics for class work.

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:

– I don’t know what else might account for the amazing tenacity shown by some crackpots here.

most are human beings with more love for reality, than just protecting themselves from the cranks of accepted beliefs.

Science needs more of the seekers than believers.

[KingMerv00]

Michael Moniza,

What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified?

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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?

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:

We now know the "properties" of plasma from *REAL* lab experiment with *REAL* control mechanisms.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not know what a control mechanism is, let alone a "*REAL*" one, whatever that may be.

Quote:

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.

No, we know for a fact that it can't. It won't, for example make the Moon orbit the Earth or the Earth orbit the Sun. And it won't produce 10²⁶ J of energy every second for ~10¹⁰ years.

Quote:

Don't you think that maybe, just maybe it's time to "start over", and begin with a 'NON PROPHETIC' approach?

Pardon?

Quote:

Shouldn't we maybe start by putting together the pieces of how things work INSIDE OUR SOLAR SYSTEM and then work ourselves outward?

We know how things work in the solar system. Fusion of hydrogen to helium powers the Sun while Newtonian gravity gives a pretty good description of how planets orbit the Sun and moons orbit their planets. And if you want to be really precise you can use GR.

Quote:

What's the point of clinging to a creation event story that has consistently failed to correctly *PREDICT* major aspects of our universe?

This is the SMT forum. If you want to discuss the book of Genesis please to the religion and philosophy forum.

Quote:

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 couldn't care less what you believe. But given that you think the Sun has a solid surface I won't even attempt to predict what you would or wouldn't think should be deemed believable. By the way, do you even know what myth is?

Quote:

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.

How would you know? You do not know what empirical means.

Quote:

They seem to have no understanding of what a 'discharge' might be ,or how currents manifest themselves in plasmas.

They have a lot better idea than you!

Quote:

But it *WASN'T* close to reality! That's why is was recently (last 15-20 years or so) stuffed with a new form of mythical "ad hoc" energy that now supposedly makes up more than 70% of the universe.

It was extremely close.

Quote:

Evidently however is a completely impotent on Earth.

Negligible perhaps. Not impotent. Not that this is the slightest problem to any right thinking scientist. We should not have expected the Universe to have been designed for our convenience. Unless of course you believe the Universe was designed for our convenience. In which case I would again suggest heading the way of the religion and philosophy forum.

Quote:

That came from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*. We knew from CONTROLLED experiments that either a law of physics was being violated or their was a small piece of energy/matter not accounted for in some nuclear decay reactions. We knew *EXACTLY* where they came from, how to reproduce them, how we might empirically detect them, etc.

And the supernova observations were from controlled experimentation too (without or without capitalisation).

Quote:

Where does 'dark energy' come from?

Depends on the theory. And how philosophical you want to be.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

]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.

The only one talking about impotent sky gods is you. You alone. And I can only assume this is due to your inability to make a scientific argument.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Yet none of them can tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to control it. Your sky god entities are just as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so. Who claims to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with inflation or dark energy?

Nobody claims them to be sky God entities except you. You are arguing with your own imagination. Until you stop doing this I can't see anybody taking you seriously.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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?

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:

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?

I don't have the knowledge to wade into that debate, but the history of science gives me confidence that if this idea has better utility than our existing narratives it will win out.

Quote:

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.

It logically follows from our best theories, which served us well, that dark matter exists.

Quote:

But it *WASN'T* close to reality! That's why is was recently (last 15-20 years or so) stuffed with a new form of mythical "ad hoc" energy that now supposedly makes up more than 70% of the universe. Evidently however is a completely impotent on Earth.

That our current ideas are not close to reality has yet to be demonstrated.

Quote:

That came from *CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTATION*. We knew from CONTROLLED experiments that either a law of physics was being violated or their was a small piece of energy/matter not accounted for in some nuclear decay reactions. We knew *EXACTLY* where they came from, how to reproduce them, how we might empirically detect them, etc.

The neutrino was eventually demonstrated to exist by controlled experimentation but prior to that some were even contemplating giving thermodynamics the heave ho. We may well have dark matter demonstrated to exist in a future experiment.

Quote:

Where does 'dark energy' come from?

Don't know - I am the wrong person to speculate. Newton couldn't tell us anything about the nature of gravity at the time but he gave us model with great utility through explanatory and predictive power.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Michael Moniza,

What predictions does plasma cosmology make that are different from Big Bang cosmology? In what way have they been experimentally verified?

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

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.

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:

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.

But now we're actually talking about "postdictions" aren't we?

Quote:

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.

Sure, just as there will be "some truth' to GR theory, even if you personally stuff it full of "dark" thingies that don't actually exist in nature. The same would be true if I stuffed GR formulas full of magic.

Quote:

I don't have the knowledge to wade into that debate, but the history of science gives me confidence that if this idea has better utility than our existing narratives it will win out.

In my experience, empirical physics always "wins out', but usually only after everyone's been kicking and screaming for a century or two. Look at evolutionary theory today. How many people *STILL* reject that concept?

Quote:

It logically follows from our best theories, which served us well, that dark matter exists.

"Missing Matter" probably exists. The term "dark' seems to relate more to our ignorance than anything else.

Quote:

The neutrino was eventually demonstrated to exist by controlled experimentation but prior to that some were even contemplating giving thermodynamics the heave ho. We may well have dark matter demonstrated to exist(?)

IMO "dark matter' theory is the *LEAST* objectionably part of the metaphysical trio. There's at least a *SLIM* hope of finding some empirical support of *SOME KIND* of new form of matter in the LHC experiments. Whether any of those new forms might 'fit the bill" in terms of longevity, "coldness", etc, remains to be seen. Even still, there is hope of physical confirmation here on Earth. That's WAY more than can be said for inflation and DE.

Quote:

Don't know - I am the wrong person to speculate. Newton couldn't tell us anything about the nature of gravity at the time but he gave us model with great utility through explanatory and predictive power.

True but both of us experience gravity here on Earth right now. When was the last time 'dark energy' had any effect on your daily life?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Yet none of them can tell me where dark energy comes from, let alone how to control it.

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:

Your sky god entities are just as impotent on Earth as any religious entity, in fact more so.

It is, of course, a lie to suggest that I have any sky god entities when in fact I don't.

Quote:

Who claims to have an emotionally fulfilling relationship with inflation or dark energy?

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Nobody claims them to be sky God entities except you. You are arguing with your own imagination. Until you stop doing this I can't see anybody taking you seriously.

The only place inflation and DE show up is somewhere 'out there' (in the sky), where humans can never hope to reach. Talk about "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)! Holy cow.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

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.

In other words, you can't answer my question either, so I'm just the "evil/crackpot' because your dark sky emperor has no empirical clothes.

No amount of villianizing me personally is going to change that *EMPIRICAL* fact.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Nobody claims them to be sky God entities except you. You are arguing with your own imagination. Until you stop doing this I can't see anybody taking you seriously.

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.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Nobody as far as I know.

Then clearly your impotent sky entity is more impotent on Earth than your average religious entity.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The only place inflation and DE show up is somewhere 'out there' (in the sky), where humans can never hope to reach.

Evidence for DE and inflation show up in the photons detected by our detectors on Earth and in space.

Quote:

Talk about "faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)!

Nothing to do with "faith". Everything to do with quantitative measurement.

Quote:

Holy cow.

Enough with the religion. This is the science forum.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

In other words, you can't answer my question either, so I'm just the "evil/crackpot' because your dark sky emperor has no empirical clothes.

I wouldn't say "evil". More like stubborn in the face of evidence.

...and you've a "crackpot" because of your iron Sun "theory"...certainly no ones "fault" but your own.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

I wouldn't say "evil". More like stubborn in the face of evidence.

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:

...and you've a "crackpot" because of your iron Sun "theory"...certainly no ones "fault" but your own.

Oh well. I've seen you folks call Penrose a crackpot and Alfven and Birkeland would be the king and prince of all crackpots since they wrote PC theory. I guess I'm in good company at least.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Evidence for DE and inflation show up in the photons detected by our detectors on Earth and in space.

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:

Nothing to do with "faith". Everything to do with quantitative measurement.

You can 'measure" something like "acceleration". You can only "verify' that acceleration is 'caused by' something in the lab. Your stuff is an epic fail in the lab.

Quote:

Enough with the religion. This is the science forum.

That epic fail in the lab is what your theory and many religions share in common.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What evidence?

Well, observationally we can look at the Sun and see that it isn't coated by an iron shell.

Quote:

You can't even tell me where dark energy comes from let alone how to control it.

So what? I'm certainly not going to rely on any information provided by someone who has a questionable, observational "skill set".

Quote:

That alone is all the "evidence" I need to reject your theory and to justify my of "lack belief" in dark stuff.

"My" theory?? Where did I propose a theory??