Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Michael Mozina said:
No, I'm making HONEST comparisons that they should be able to relate to. If they reject an "invisible creator" on empirical grounds, they should understand my rejection of inflation, dark energy and dark matter mythologies.
Click to expand...

These things weren't made up for no reason. They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed. So, no, it isn't the same thing at all.
 
Arthur Mann said:
Yeah, the kind of crackpots that believe in "big bang", "black hole", "dark matter", "dark energy", pulsars that rotate as fast as a dentist's drill, unproven physics like "neutron star", and so on.
Click to expand...
Don't forget gravity. Those gravitists are everywhere, you know.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, I'm making HONEST comparisons that they should be able to relate to. If they reject an "invisible creator" on empirical grounds, they should understand my rejection of inflation, dark energy and dark matter mythologies.
Click to expand...

Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three, at least to a certain degree. I will agree that there are issues with things like dark matter (which I'll focus on), but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues. For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments? They are trying to detect these things (be they WIMPS or whatever) because they know there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now, but it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly. The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected by direct experimentation is, I think, an excellent analogy.

And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies, there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood. On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.
 
Michael Mozina said:
"Tangible Physics" already comes in handy to GET US to planets. Mythical sky being physics will NEVER produce a tangible good, let alone anything useful to move planets around with.
Click to expand...

Again, you could have said the same thing about early nuclear research, electromagnetism, and many, many other things.

Michael Mozina said:
But of course you cannot demonstrate that claim in a lab, or demonstrate than any of the 'dark matter' you describe is composed of mythical forms of matter that are not on the periodic table or come from inside elements on that periodic table.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of matter we know of and have detected that doesn't appear on the periodic table. Do you know nothing of particle physics? Jeebus. We can create some of this is labs and the new supercollider should be able to make more.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It isn't anything except a "made up' thing that has *NO USEFUL PURPOSE* outside of BB mythos. "In the beginning inflation separated the heavens and the Earth".....
Click to expand...

It explains observed phenomenon, that serves a useful purpose. It makes predictions about how the Universe will continue to change, that serves a useful purpose. It might lead to other things that have other useful purposes.
 
Drachasor said:
These things weren't made up for no reason.
Click to expand...

One could make the same argument about God. How do you know the "reason" is anything more than "because it makes us feel good"?

They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed.
Click to expand...

Oh bull. All those "predictions" were "postdictictions" that were made to fit. Dark energy was the latest installment of "Ooops, our actual "predictions' failed, so add a liberal dose of ad hoc acceleration entities.

So, no, it isn't the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same thing. It gives astronomers a good warm fuzzy feeling to believe they understand how we got here. Their BB theory becomes a God like (created from) surrogate, and it requires "faith in the unseen", just like any other ordinary religion.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three, at least to a certain degree. I will agree that there are issues with things like dark matter (which I'll focus on), but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues. For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments? They are trying to detect these things (be they WIMPS or whatever) because they know there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now, but it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly. The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected by direct experimentation is, I think, an excellent analogy.
Click to expand...
Reasonable answers like this will get you nowhere here.
 
Anyhow, OP, I think you can see how crackpot physics involved a tremendous amount of ignorance of actual physics. (And with that, I have to dash).
 
Drachasor said:
Again, you could have said the same thing about early nuclear research, electromagnetism, and many, many other things.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Those things were all EXPECTED to product tangible products here on Earth. Who here expects to see a tangible good come from a dead inflation entity?

There's plenty of matter we know of and have detected that doesn't appear on the periodic table. Do you know nothing of particle physics?
Click to expand...

You must have missed that rider I put in there about 'inside of elements on the periodic table?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's exactly the same thing. It gives astronomers a good warm fuzzy feeling to believe they understand how we got here. Their BB theory becomes a God like (created from) surrogate, and it requires "faith in the unseen", just like any other ordinary religion.
Click to expand...

Do you think atoms are real, or is that more pseudo-religious "faith in the unseen", as you like to say?
 
MattusMaximus said:
Except that there is empirical evidence which supports the existence of the latter three ,at least to a certain degree.
Click to expand...

No. Very *LIMITED* evidence supports the fact that we can't figure out how the universe works. We can "guess" at how it might work by simply making up stuff, or we can admit our ignorance and live with ambiguity. The later option seems to drive theists towards God, and mathematicians toward BB theory. Same basic motive. They want to understand how we got here and they are willing to "make up stuff" if they need to in an effort to have "completion" somehow.

I will agree that there are issues with things like dark matter (which I'll focus on), but the astrophysics community is already well aware of those issues. For example, why is it that you think so many physicists are attempting to directly detect dark matter particles in laboratory experiments? They are trying to detect these things (be they WIMPS or whatever) because they know there are a lot of people, like me, who think the dark matter hypothesis is probably the best thing we have going now, but it cannot be considered truly solid until we detect the stuff directly. The history of how neutrons & neutrinos were proposed theoretically and subsequently detected by direct experimentation is, I think, an excellent analogy.
Click to expand...

I'll be the first to grant you that "dark matter" theory is the least objectionable of the three metaphysical amigos because it *MIGHT* someday enjoy some real physical support.

And, btw, despite your desire to confuse the issue of the science of cosmology with religion/philosophy via making false dichotomies, there are plenty of people who have varying philosophical/religious backgrounds who agree on the big bang cosmology as it is currently understood. On that point, the evidence is clearly against you, for the simple fact that people like me (atheists who accept the BBC) exist.
Click to expand...

It is not a false dichotomy in terms of explaining *WHY* skeptics of mainstream theory tend to reject it. The rejection process is directly related to that "no show in the lab" part, and the "lack of belief" that is related to that "invisible" stuff.
 
Sideroxylon said:
I guess they see themselves as...up against a dogmatic scientific establishment.
Click to expand...

I think you're a little confused, it's the dogmatic establishment where the crackpots find a home, not among its critics. Where else can you suggest "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" or "dark matter" and still get away with calling yourself a "scientist". These people aren't scientists, they're clowns.

"Organized" science is just as fruitless and misguided as "organized religion", once you set up an established structure, that structure will perpetuate itself, even in the absence of conflicting evidence. Look how long the "flat earth" model persisted in the gestalt hive mind, look at ptolemic epicycles, look at spontaneous generation, or any of the uncountable myths that were held as the consensus for ages. Consensus is not the way to do science, that's why there are so many crackpot "physicists" suggesting ridiculous fables like "big bang" or "black hole". They're just going with the flow.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Atoms have "been seen" in the lab now, even things as small as electrons have "been seen" in the lab now.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080222095358.htm
Click to expand...

What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"?

Got an image of "inflation" for me?
Click to expand...

Do you mean an image that can be seen or an "image" that can be "seen"?

ETA: Since you asked... it's called the WMAP data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"?
Click to expand...

To my "knowledge" only the Higgs remains "unseen" as in has not been seen to have a direct effect on real things. In that sense, yes even particle physics is in fact based on "faith in the unseen". It however has some hope of "seeing" a Higgs here on Earth, if not now, some day. When can I expect to see inflation here on Earth?

Do you mean an image that can be seen or an "image" that can be "seen"?
Click to expand...

I'm saying "show me a tangible effect" in a real "experiment' with real "control mechanisms".
 
Michael Mozina said:
To my "knowledge" only the Higgs remains "unseen" as in has not been seen to have a direct effect on real things. In that sense, yes even particle physics is in fact based on "faith in the unseen". It however has some hope of "seeing" a Higgs here on Earth, if not now, some day. When can I expect to see inflation here on Earth?
Click to expand...

Pffftt... so particle physics is just nothing more than religious mumbo-jumbo :rolleyes:
 
MattusMaximus said:
What about quarks? Gluons? More "faith in the unseen"?



Do you mean an image that can be seen or an "image" that can be "seen"?

ETA: Since you asked... it's called the WMAP data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Observational_status
Click to expand...

Er, no. That isn't an image of inflation, it's an image of the physical universe and a handwave: "Inflation did it". Of course you can't demonstrate *ANY* of those "properties' assigned to inflation in a real lab. They are all "made up" properties, like a theist might "make up" attributes of a deity and then handwave at the sky.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom