Why is there so much crackpot physics?

[Perpetual Student]

Wow... you're kidding me, right?

No:

Today, 08:50 AM #906
Perpetual Student
Master Poster

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 2,018

Arthur Mann:
I have been making a considerable effort to understand these EU theories of yours. Am I correct in concluding that, in your view, what we experience as gravity is an emergent property of electrical forces? The link you provided in post # 812 includes the following:

Quote:

What is gravity?Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

So, do I understand this correctly? You are not denying the existence of the force we call gravity. However, you do not view it as a fundamental force because, in your view, it is due to the electrical forces described above?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Also, the Big Bang and the universe are not living things.

Big bang is an absurd creation myth, but it's arguable that the universe is alive. I'd say the universe would fit any reasonable definition of "life" that you can come up with.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Do you think atoms are real, or is that more pseudo-religious "faith in the unseen", as you like to say?

It's going to take more than the existence of atoms to verify "big bang" creation myths. They're not even consistent, there really is no coherent "big bang" myth, there are many stories that all suggest a similar (highly implausible) event that violates known, proven physics. There are as many creation stories as there are people who believe them, pretty much. Everybody has their own unique tale about it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

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

Most definitely so.

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

Consensus of Google hits is not science. The WMAP data only "supports" universal inflation if you start with erroneous assumptions, such as that the universe started with "big bang" and thus the entire universe is inflating. When you assume something is a fact, everything seems to support that "fact".

 

[Perpetual Student]

If I might get back to the original topic for a moment.....
Physics is difficult; it's a big and complicated field of study and those who've studied it realise how little we, individually and as a whole, know. People who haven't studied physics in depth suffer from Dunning-Krueger type blindness as to their ignorance, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'
There an interesting article over at RationalWiki about engineers and wooish beliefs, something that seems relevant to crackpot physics.

That is absolutely fascinating. Coincidentally, I have known a few engineers who cling to crackpot ideas. Many decades ago, I taught calculus and linear algebra to freshmen engineering students. I was appalled by the fact that so many seemed to have little interest (and ability) in mathematics -- it was something they had to endure to get their degree. I have never made that connection before!
In fairness, before I am lambasted by engineers, I know there are many who do not fit within this category.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Pffftt... so particle physics is just nothing more than religious mumbo-jumbo

Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?

 

[rwguinn]

If I might get back to the original topic for a moment.....
Physics is difficult; it's a big and complicated field of study and those who've studied it realise how little we, individually and as a whole, know. People who haven't studied physics in depth suffer from Dunning-Krueger type blindness as to their ignorance, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'
There an interesting article over at RationalWiki about engineers and wooish beliefs, something that seems relevant to crackpot physics.

Well, excuse the hell out of me.
There is nothing interesting, or even true about that article, but since YOU find it so, I will refrain from using any of my knowledge and practice here, since I am merely an engineer.
What ******** that entire article is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is a lie. I've been lurking in your threads for years, and I've seen Tim, tusenfem, Ben, Clinger and many others read and systematically analyze the material you present.

I wasn't thinking of any of them actually, mostly GM came to mind.

In fact, tusenfem in particular has gone to extraordinary lengths to engage you on this material including creating a separate thread devoted to his analysis of Birkeland. You have never even made an appearance in that thread despite repeated invitations.

Actually, I'm looking forward to his input in the discharge/reconnection discussion. I know for a fact that he personally has in fact read the relevant materials.

This is merely an example. Your interlocutors have read the motley, cherry-picked mess that you present as your evidence; they simply reject it for reasons they clearly state after having carefully read it.

Let's not intermix threads, but please *PERSONALLY* show me the error in Dungey's work, and how it does *NOT* support "discharge" theory, but please do so in the solar thread, not this one.

Please at least try to be honest here.

Let's also treat everyone as an "individual" here. I have very different opinions about tusenfem and sol than I do for say GM. Some folks are honest "skeptics". Others are not.

 

[John Jones]

Particle "physicists" treat everything as a particle. Is light composed of particles? What about electricity? Is "gravity" a particle?

This should be fun.

Arthur Mann -- just for giggles, have you studied physics at the college level?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I know. I've read some of those old threads. It boggles my mind that Michael thinks he somehow has more expertise or insight than a plasma physicist who worked down the hall from Alfven.

Well, from the standpoint of psychology I find it absolutely fascinating that the guy that worked down the hall from Alfven ultimately rejects Alfven's view, and clings to something Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". I don't know how to explain that, nor do I see any evidence that Alfven was incorrect in his assessment of MR theory.

The other psychologically fascinating aspect is that Alfven himself would necessarily be the 'crackpot Messiah' in terms of PC/EU theory, yet astronomers will forever attempt to use his MHD theories to support their "pseudoscientific" beliefs. Fascinating.

 

[D'rok]

I wasn't thinking of any of them actually, mostly GM came to mind.

And I have seen him systematically dismantle your material when it touches on his expertise. Probably I am the only person who semi-regularly participates in your threads who doesn't do so. But I openly admit that I have no relevant expertise.

 

[D'rok]

Well, from the standpoint of psychology I find it absolutely fascinating that the guy that worked down the hall from Alfven ultimately rejects Alfven's view, and clings to something Alfven himself called "pseudoscience". I don't know how to explain that, nor do I see any evidence that Alfven was incorrect in his assessment of MR theory.

The other psychologically fascinating aspect is that Alfven himself would necessarily be the 'crackpot Messiah' in terms of PC/EU theory, yet astronomers will forever attempt to use his MHD theories to support their "pseudoscientific" beliefs. Fascinating.

Again with the boggling. You know better than he, despite his impeccable credentials and your non-existent credentials. All you have is an argument from incredulity. You base your disbelief on your own incapacity and incompetence.

Sad.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And I have seen him systematically dismantle your material when it touches on his expertise.

What is his "field of expertise"? Personal attack?

Probably I am the only person who semi-regularly participates in your threads who doesn't do so. But I openly admit that I have no relevant expertise.

In that sense you are an "honest skeptic'. Wherever you feel you can add to the discussions you have done so. You haven't spent virtually every day of your life calling me personally a crackpot. You've made your opinions known and you've moved on. I respect that. Others however are *JUST* as lacking the relevant expertise (like Alfven's circuit theories) yet are much more vocal, much more 'personal', and rely on the personal attack in absence of a scientific argument. When asked relevant questions they RUN from them yet vocally and aggressively assert their personal insults into the discussions. It's pointless nonsense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Again with the boggling. You know better than he, despite his impeccable credentials and your non-existent credentials. All you have is an argument from incredulity. You base your disbelief on your own incapacity and incompetence.

Sad.

Not at all. I expect that conversation to continue to unfold for quite some time. We'll see how his beliefs hold up over time. Your fixation on my credentials is irrelevant. If we're going to play that game, Alfven wins by virtue of his Nobel Prize and my opinions are simply congruent with Alfven's opinions. Period.

In terms of my competence, I think I've picked very specific and very relevant works to discuss, starting with Dungey. We'll do that conversation in the APPROPRIATE thread if you don't mind.

 

[KingMerv00]

Is light composed of particles? What about electricity?

Seriously?

Photons?

Electrons?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Everything used to explain the Big Bang is consistent with what we already know about the universe.

False.

None of the fundamental assumptions of typical "big bang" models (singularity, "planck scale" breakdown of physical laws, universal expansion and so on) have never been verified experimentally, and remain to this day in the realm of the hypothetical and the unobservable.

The claim is often made by Big Bang Believers (B³) that big bang relies on the laws of physics being the same on every scale and everywhere in space and time, but then they rely on unverified notions and novel physical principles they imagine, that have no empirical referent. They build a house of sand then they are continually mystified when the universe flatly refuses to obey their elegant models.

Academia doesn't work that way. They aren't a coherent group with an orthodoxy.

Academia isn't a coherent group? Then why should anyone pay attention to them, if they have no objective standards of scientific investigation to which they subscribe? The scientific method isn't "orthodoxy" as you suggest, though your suggestion that most researchers (and all B³) in academia ignore the scientific method is of course valid.

For instance, Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin was no pioneer, he suggested nothing that hadn't already been suggested numerous times by other scientists. He did compile quite a substantial collection of anecdotal evidence supporting evolutionary models, but of course his predecessors (including his own father) also did the same, and his antecedents have done arguably much more work (and actual experiments) to further illustrate that evolutionary models are not falsified by controlled experiment, and therefore should be "believed".

Creation myths are just symbolic stories, narratives designed to explain how things are without any evidence to support them.

The "big bang" story fits your definition precisely.

The Big Bang is not a story.

You're right, there is no one coherent "big bang" story, but instead there is a collection of related stories all suggesting a similar (implausible) event, and a strangely finite universe. Hubble would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was going on in his name. He already got a taste of it while he was alive, and didn't particularly care for it. In this way he was treated much like Galileo, who was tortured until he recanted his very valid ideas, then after his death was installed as the mascot for competing models.

It is a scientific theory with evidence to support it.

False.

Is a murder case also a "myth"?

In the case of a murder, we have a body. A dead body is evidence that there was once a living person. We can look around in the world and see that, yes, living people do in fact exist. We can gather some living people and perform experiments on them to see if they produce a dead body when we kill them by various means. I'm confident in almost every case, a body will remain. The exceptions will be along the lines of explosions or disintegrations in every case. Even in these cases there is going to be a mess laying there that is still a human body, and can be verified as such.

What would this look like if we applied forensic science to "big bang" myths? B³ would have us believe this has already been done, but of course that's a joke. So we start with the "dead body". That dead body is the universe. If "big bang" killed the universe before it, what did it look like when it was alive? Can we look as still-living universes and determine this? Can we experiment with other universes to figure out how to kill them and see if killing them changes them into a universe like ours? Clearly we've hit a dead end here in this "forensic" investigation of "big bang".

B³ rely on many assumptions to protect their houses of cards. I've outlined some of those assumptions. One assumption I didn't mention, but that all B³ assume and set as the preconditions for all their explanations, is that "big bang" actually took place. Every observation is "calibrated" through this filter. Any data that contradicts it is "corrected" by various means until it accords with the favored model. That's not science, it's jerking off. These people can't even see that what they're dong is not science, it's very similar to the way Micro$haaft employees choose to ignore their salary pyramid scam, so when the company is actually bankrupt, carrying billions in wage debt, on paper they all look "rich".

If "big bang" Anyway, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining simple logic and science to Arthur Mann's sock puppet.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure you're capable of explaining science. This isn't a classroom full of second graders, you know, and this is not Sunday school, some of us out here actually know what we're talking about and won't accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.

 

[D'rok]

If we're going to play that game, Alfven wins by virtue of his Nobel Prize and my opinions are simply congruent with Alfven's opinions. Period.

Nope. They are not. You have your own idiosyncratic interpretations of Alfven's later, erroneous, work that are not even consistent with Alfven's speculations. You would know this if you had read any of tusenfem's extensive analysis of Alfven that he has been kind enough to take the time to present on this forum.

 

[Steve001]

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.

However physicists know when they are making stuff up [ proposing ideas that have yet to be shown as factual ]. Such as this
Physicists propose mechanism that explains the origins of both dark matter and 'normal' matter. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-physicists-mechanism-dark.html . Whereas theologians don't acknowledge they pluck non factual explanations out of nothingness. They state God did it all. The End.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. They are not. You have your own idiosyncratic interpretations of Alfven's later,

Define "earlier" vs. "later" please.

erroneous,

How so? Other thread please. In fact please repost the rest to the solar thread if you really want me to respond.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Actually, an analysis of the WMAP data did confirm numerous predictions of Guth's inflationary theory.

You can not, with observations alone, confirm a speculation about the physical nature of the universe. Suggesting "universal expansion" creates the requirement that you demonstrate how such "expansion" can take place. Where are the controlled experiments demonstrating these principles?