Why is there so much crackpot physics?

Skwinty said:
Speak of the devil and the preacher turns up.:D
Click to expand...

:)

At least I'm infamous. :)

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.
 
Last edited:
Drachasor said:
You're kidding yourself if you think there's a big difference between the two in terms of science -- I assume you're making some ridiculous jab at astrophysics.
Click to expand...

The consensus view of what constitutes "astrophysics" leaves much to be desired. If astrophysicists are physicists, they are scientists, and they don't posit or build theories upon ideas that are unfalsifiable, like "big bang", "black hole", "dark energy", "dark matter" and so on. Falsifiability was established as the gold standard in science, decades ago.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Yeah, like solar physics and most celestial mechanics doesn't take place on the Earth, and neither of those can be shown in the lab; therefore they aren't science, according to Michael Mozina, so they must be religions!
Click to expand...

Huh? Photons from the sun show up on Earth every day. When will photons from your "dark" entities show up on Earth?
 
Drachasor said:
They explain observed phenomena and make predictions that are confirmed.
Click to expand...

Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.
 
Michael Mozina said:
:)

At least I'm infamous. :)

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.
Click to expand...

Michael, you preach the same rhetoric with out ever offering salvation in the form of a reasonable alternative.

Why do you associate with the evil?

I thought the mainstream was evil?
 
Michael Mozina said:
:)

At least I'm infamous. :)

I think the parallels between the "crackpot" comment and the term "evil" are pretty much synonymous. They are religious driven derogatory terms and certainly serve the same purpose: villianize the 'non believer' for not buying the invisible sky entity dogma.
Click to expand...

Do people really care about people with fringe narratives of this nature? Unlike religious claims to be doing science like young earth creationism, "crackpots" lack any threat to our education system and seemingly have little effect on society. Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?
 
Skwinty said:
Michael, you preach the same rhetoric with out ever offering salvation in the form of a reasonable alternative.
Click to expand...

Salvation begins by admitting: I don't know how we got here.

The rest comes from the realm of pure empirical physics.

Why do you associate with the evil?
Click to expand...

I tend to reject non empirical entities as a rule, irrespective of what I might be called as a result of that rejection of mythos and metaphysics.

I thought the mainstream was evil?
Click to expand...

Nah, just "misguided". :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Does hydrogen show up in the lab? Does fusion happen on Earth?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question: has someone recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?

I'm simply applying the same absurd standard that you are applying to astrophysics & cosmology. You maintain that until someone can "show inflation" (a phenomenon which applied to the entire universe) in the lab, it isn't science merely religion.

I'm applying your standard to something considerably smaller than the universe, merely a star in this case.

So if you cannot tell me that someone has recreated an entire star in the laboratory, then by your own argument solar physics must be religion, not science.

The same argument can be made for plate tectonics, because that involves only the Earth (much smaller than most stars). Has anyone replicated the actual tectonic plates in the lab?

Aren't word games fun? :)

ETA: And since you brought it up, hydrogen originated during the big bang.
 
Last edited:
Sideroxylon said:
Do people really care about people with fringe narratives of this nature? Unlike religious claims to be doing science like young earth creationism, "crackpots" lack any threat to our education system and seemingly have little effect on society. Do any of your opponents here really see you as villains?
Click to expand...

Some seem to have a very strong emotional need to use the term "crackpot" in virtually every post and they typically play the role of antagonist *WITHOUT* actually reading or commenting on any of the relevant scientific materials.
 
MattusMaximus said:
You didn't answer my question: has someone recreated an entire star inside of a laboratory?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone (myself included) expect that? SOME fusion happens here on Earth. It's therefore no great "leap of faith" for me to believe that "fusion happens in and around other objects in the sky".
 
Arthur Mann said:
Ptolemy's epicycle model made predictions that were confirmed by observation. Confirmation of speculation by observation is not science, though. Science requires experiment. Ptolemy performed no experiments to exclude competing ideas, or to falsify his model, he engaged in wanton confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Ptolemy had a model that (within the capabilities of the time) worked very well. We now have better models, but we do not have nor will we ever have anything but "models" -- ultimate reality is not within our grasp. In any case, that has no bearing on this discussion.
 
Mattus, you seem to be completely ignoring that "tangible effect here and now" aspect I've mentioned. The sun shines on me every single day. I can "feel" it's effect on my skin. I know that it exists. I may or may not know HOW it's powered, but I can *SEE* it, and FEEL it, and KNOW that it therefore exists in nature. How might I SEE or FEEL inflation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom